Prepared by
Dr. Tim Rhodus, Janet Schwartz, and James Hoskins
Department of Horticulture
The Ohio State University
Report to the Ohio Rural Rehabilitation Program
Ohio Department of Agriculture
May, 1994
Index
Executive SummaryBackground and Previous Studies
Attitudes and Behaviors of Consumers Who DO Shop at Roadside Markets and Farmers' Markets
Attitudes and Behaviors of Consumers Who DO NOT Shop at Roadside Markets and Farmers' Markets
Likelihood of Non-shoppers Becoming Shoppers of Direct Markets
Attitudes of the General Population
List of Tables
Table 1. Percentage of direct farm market shoppers
Table 2. Breakdown of households by shopping behavior
Table 3. Age distribution of shoppers and non-shoppers
Table 4. Frequency of community size by age and income
Table 5. Frequency of "Lite and Heavy" users
Table 6. Rate of shopping at direct farm markets
Table 7. Most often shopped markets which are open year round
Table 8. Household income and most often shopped markets which are open year round
Table 9. Number of markets which are open year round
Table 10. Three most often purchased items
Table 11. Frequency of roadside markets offering additional items
Table 12. Age of consumer and awareness of local farmers' markets
Table 13. Reasons why consumers have not shopped in the past year
Table 14. Likelihood of non-shoppers becoming shoppers of direct markets
Table 15. Non-shoppers preferences toward days of the week
Table 16. Factors influencing where consumers purchase fresh produce
Table 17. Demographics and factors influencing where consumers purchase fresh produce
Table 18. Comparing roadside markets and supermarkets
Table 19. Comparing farmers' markets and supermarkets
Table 20. Comparing roadside markets, farmers' markets and supermarkets
Table 21. Factors influencing non-shoppers on where they purchase fresh produce
List of Figures
Figure 1. Age distribution of shoppers and overall sample
Figure 2. Income distribution of shoppers and overall sample
Figure 3. Number of different markets shopped in the past year
Figure 4. Time spent driving to the most often shopped market
Figure 5. Size of community and time spent driving to the most often shopped roadside market
Figure 6. Household income and time spent driving to the most often shopped farmers' market
Figure 7. Shopping frequency and time spent driving to the most often shopped farmers' market
Figure 8. Shopping frequency and time spent driving to the most often shopped roadside market
Figure 9. Products purchased most often at roadside markets by customers from different communities
Figure 10. Awareness of local roadside markets by non-shoppers
Figure 11. Awareness of any advertising by local markets
Figure 12. Awareness of advertising by local roadside markets across age groups
Figure 13. Main reasons for not shopping at a roadside market across age groups
Figure 14. Differences in preferred day to shop between men and women
Figure 15. Differences in preferred day to shop across age groups
Figure 16. Preferences for buying produce directly from the farmer
Ohioans are unquestionably interested in buying high quality fresh produce. A survey of the general population in Ohio was designed to gather information regarding purchasing behavior and attitudes in regards to fresh fruits and vegetables. Over 88% of Ohio households believe they receive higher quality produce directly from the farmer and an even greater percentage (90%) of the households said they prefer to buy their fresh fruits and vegetables directly from the farmer, whenever possible.
Over a 12 month period (August, 1992 to August, 1993), 55% of Ohio's households shopped at a roadside market and of these, (64%) indicated they shopped four or more times. Alternatively, only 29% of all respondents had shopped at a farmers' market and of this only 40% had shopped four or more times.
When asked to compare roadside and farmers' markets against supermarkets, consumers felt that produce quality, produce freshness, and produce prices were better at roadside and farmers' markets than supermarkets. However, supermarkets were judged to be doing a better job of offering what the consumer wanted when it came to: convenient location to home, variety of produce, convenient hours, consistent supply, store promotions, and convenient location to work.
For those households which did not shop at a roadside market in the past 12 months, issues of convenience were most often given as the primary reason for not shopping. This included: not convenient/too far away (45%), takes too much time (12%), and not open the hours I want (4%). Other reasons for not shopping included: prefer buying at supermarkets (18%), raise my own vegetables (10%), and too expensive (4%).
Similar reasons were given by those who did not shop at a farmers' market but the issue of convenience was more obvious. Over 60% of the households surveyed (64%) claimed that farmers' markets were not conveniently located, too far away, or took too much time to get to.
Non-shoppers were asked if they would consider shopping at a roadside or farmers' market if one were conveniently located near their home. A majority of the households indicated that they probably would or definitely would (55% regarding roadside markets, and 58% regarding farmers' markets).
These same non-shoppers were then asked to identify the relative importance of various store attributes when deciding where to shop for fresh produce. At least three out of four households in Ohio indicated that produce freshness (98%), produce quality (94%), convenient location (79%), selection of produce (75%), and prices for fresh produce (75%) were VERY IMPORTANT factors when deciding where to shop.
Combining these results, consumers in Ohio desire freshness, quality, convenience, selection, and value when it comes to buying fresh produce. Roadside markets and farmers' markets are perceived as doing the best job of offering what the consumer wants in three of the five categories, freshness, quality, and value. The challenge is to be successful in all five.
In recent years, many of Ohio's farm market operators have questioned their future viability and direction. Unlike the growth these farmers experienced in past decades, current operating profits have been stagnant, in part due to increased costs of operations, uncertainty about consumer behavior, and highly competitive regional supermarkets and specialty markets. While many of the older farmers have retired, those remaining in business are looking for assistance in developing strategies in marketing, distribution, and delivery. Coincidentally, increasing interest in establishing farmers' markets to provide consumers fresh products and expand market opportunities for low income farmers has created a tremendous need for basic information on how to organize such markets.
The research presented in this study will benefit Ohio's low income farmers who market their product through a farm market or a farmers' market. Because many of Ohio's low-income farmers and/or farm market operators lack sufficient resources to invest in consumer behavior research, the availability of this information on a statewide basis will enable hundreds of producers and retailers to develop strategic planning options that successfully exploit various market opportunities. By improving the chances for success and the viability of farm markets though the accumulation of relevant consumer information, this study may provide a critical "jump start" to firms trying to better serve their current and potential customers. Multiplier effects will result in additional revenue to rural businesses and individuals who provide support products and services to farm/farmer markets. Increasing customer satisfaction at farm/farmer markets will also result in increased consumer awareness of the health benefits associated with consuming a greater variety of fresh fruit and vegetables.
Through the cooperation of our partners in this project, Ohio Farm Bureau Farm Markets Division and the Ohio Department of Agriculture Division of Markets, information presented in this report will be disseminated in various ways so as to be best utilized by the industry.
Survey Procedures
The data collection phase of this project involved the use of a random telephone survey to contact and interview Ohio consumers. Five hundred households across Ohio completed the 40 question survey which was administered in approximately 10 minutes. Questions specifically addressed consumer preferences and attitudes regarding the purchase of fresh produce, while capturing consumer opinions regarding the advantages or disadvantages of shopping farmers' markets, roadside farm markets, or supermarkets for fresh fruits and vegetables. Questions also measured the frequency with which consumers shop at Ohio farmers' markets and roadside farm markets, the three most often purchased produce items, and demographic characteristics of shoppers and non-shoppers. Additionally, non-shoppers provided reasons as to why they have not purchased fresh produce at direct farm markets.
The survey interviewers asked to speak with the person who was primarily responsible for purchasing household food items. The questionnaire format provided for branching questions, which allowed the interviewer the most flexibility in identifying subgroups and quickly going to follow-up questions.
The questionnaire was designed by Dr. Tim Rhodus, Associate Professor and Janet Schwartz, M.S., Department of Horticulture, The Ohio State University with the assistance of the Farm Markets of Ohio Advisory Committee. Funding support was provided through a grant by the Ohio Rural Rehabilitation Program. Cooperation among the Ohio Department of Agriculture, Division of Markets, the Ohio Farm Markets Division of Ohio Farm Bureau, and The Ohio State University, Department of Horticulture greatly facilitated the completion of this project.
The Spencer Research Group Columbus, Ohio used a computerized phone format to conduct the survey. Statistical analysis and editorial review was performed by James Hoskins, M.S., Research Assistant, Department of Horticulture.
Background and Previous Studies
Rapid growth of direct-to-consumer roadside farm markets and urban farmers' markets is a phenomenon occurring throughout the country. During the decade from 1980 to 1990 the number of farmers' markets in the United States nearly doubled from 1,200 to over 2,000; in Ohio, from 15 to over 30. Estimates of the number of roadside stands in the United States are less precise. About 15 years ago the number of roadside farm markets was calculated at 15,000 for the country, with 600 in Ohio alone. Taken with more recent statements characterizing roadside market growth as "rapid" and "booming," a conservative guess would establish the number of roadside stands nationwide at well over 25,000. California has over 2,000 roadside stands and the number in Massachusetts is estimated at 600. A 1989 directory for a six county area of northeastern Ohio listed 65 direct market sources of farm products, meaning if this proportion holds true for the rest of the state there would be roughly 950 sites.
Roadside farm markets and farmers' markets exist in no typical form or size. Among roadside markets a basic division is between what are termed "producers" and "marketers." Farm market businesses which define themselves as marketers tend to offer a broader product line, are closer to population centers, produce a smaller percentage of the crops they sell and provide more customer services. Conversely, the producers tend to sell a single identifiable major crop and "their marketing operations and image [are] closely identified with that major crop." Either business type is more likely to be open year-round if located near a major population center (Erwin, Chatfield, and Robertson, 1983). An obvious conclusion for a prospective direct farm marketer is that one cannot locate in a remote area of the state, grow a full range of vegetables, open a roadside stand and then sit-back expecting customers to arrive from distant urban areas to purchase products. However, success stories are out there. One Massachusetts family has a roadside marketing business which has grown to the point of having hundreds of acres of vegetable production area, over 100 employees, and up to 6,000 customers per weekend at just one of their two roadside markets (Boston Globe, 8/29/90). This business located their busiest stand nearer to a more populated city, another indication that strategies for success must be based on awareness of the immediate business environment as well as knowledge of customer behaviors.
Farmers' Markets
The rise in popularity of urban farmers' markets has proven to be a fortunate event for growers located in more sparsely populated areas who wish to direct market fruit and vegetable produce. Farmers' markets are as varied in their characteristics as roadside markets. They range from large year-round and occasionally indoor venues in states' largest cities to seasonal June through October locations in smaller towns and cities. In Ohio presently, participation in a farmers' market should be viewed primarily as an opportunity for income supplementation. Most of the markets are Saturday-only events with the exception of a couple of the larger urban markets. A study of farmers selling at farmers' markets in Wisconsin found only seven percent of the producers had direct marketing as their sole source of income. About 85% of the growers reported income of $5,000 or less (UPI, 10/22/89).
While it is true that growers interested in getting a start in direct marketing are advised to start up with the expectation of income supplementation, trends indicate growth--not reduction--in the number of markets and opportunities for direct market growers. Although direct marketing of agricultural products is a business that should be entered cautiously, a national overview highlights the significance of direct marketing to the economy. "Agricultural experts say the amount of money that Americans pay directly to farmers has doubled [in the past 15 years] and is now close to $2 billion a year, or 2 percent of the total that people spent on produce" (NY Times, 10/3/91).
Farmers' Markets in California: Lessons for Ohio
Farmers' markets have become very popular in California. Over the past 15 years, California has experienced rapid growth in the number of farmers' markets. As of mid-1992 there were 184 certified farmers' markets in the state, up from only 15 in 1978. The city of Los Angeles with its system of neighborhood markets accounts for 25 of these markets. Growth in the number of markets operating within the three year period preceding the study was about 10% to 15% each year. Additionally, the average number of stalls per market has increased from 33 in 1990 to 43 in 1992, indicating a growth in both the number and size of California's markets. Sales per market, an indicator of market size, averaged about $200,000, but varied widely. Several of the markets had gross sales in excess of $1 million, while about a third of the markets had sales of less than $30,000. The situation in California merits study by Ohioans interested in farmers' markets as both an example of growth potential and as a model for the regulatory responses and market structures which accompany growth. An article, "Popularity Has Spawned Diversity--And Rules--At Certified Farmers' Markets," which appeared in California Agriculture, Vol. 47, No. 2, attributes growing farmers' market popularity to "consumers [who] have become increasingly interested in nutrition, food and environmental safety, and the use of agricultural practices that support these concepts." This article provides a summary of a 1992 survey conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, in which the current status and operating procedures of farmers' markets was investigated.
One of the principle findings of the UC, Davis study was that market participation requirements such as vendor-fees and grower certification have expanded. Also expanding have been criteria for qualification to sell at a farmers' market. The average-sized to large California farmers' market is not an unstructured place where, as an idealized portrait might have it, small growers load pick-up trucks of produce for a Saturday morning's display in the hope of bringing in a few dollars of supplemental income. In fact, farmers' markets have become highly organized with the sellers increasingly represented by a larger class of grower:
One-half of the markets, based on this random sample statewide survey, consist of 10% or fewer or small, part-time, hobby growers; another 15% of the markets have 10 to 25% part-time, hobby growers. Only 10% of the markets consist of 90% or more of these growers. Thus, while part-time, hobby farmers are a significant component of many farmers' markets, the majority of participants are small-scale farmers with a greater diversification and volume of produce than the smaller, part-time, hobby farmer. The above finding echoes what one observer of farmers' markets in Florida has noted as occurring in that state and leads to an important implication for the desirability of having a strong system of farmers' markets in Ohio. An article in the September 21, 1992 St. Petersburg Times commented that "farmers' markets also act as incubators for agricultural businesses...The purpose of the state farmers' markets is to help the little guys, when they grow big, they move out...Some of the growers and packers that today are located off the market started on the market." Thus, experiences from both Florida and California suggest that farmers' markets present opportunity for smaller producers to gain a foothold and valuable experience which can lead to larger production. In the long run, by encouraging a vital farmers' market system, the state may be laying the groundwork for developing a larger and more significant agribusiness sector.
All of the farmers' markets in California charge a weekly fee for participation. Calculation of the weekly fee varies from market to market. In about a third of the California markets a flat fee (average $17) is charged, while the remainder of the markets charge a percentage of gross sales (average fee 6%). About half of the markets require sellers to pay an annual membership or participation fee, which averages $20 across the state. Many California counties also require an annual participation fee, averaging $30, which gives farmers' market sellers a certificate--transferable to other counties in the state. Growers are required in certification to specify the location of their farm, its acreage, and the produce crops they raise. Certification of produce sellers is important to provide a measure of accountability in terms of food safety questions.
California has market rules for participation which are described as "continually changing." One of the main reasons for having rules and regulations regarding market participation in California occurs because in many markets the number of available display stalls is exceeded by the number of growers who would like to participate. The overall average occupancy rate at California's farm markets is 77%. The article notes that "the most prevalent criteria are unusual products that will provide variety, short-season products, advance reservations and regular attendance." In general, larger growers are more diversified growers and thus able to offer a greater mix of products. It is this consistent supply of marketable produce that enhances the ability of larger growers to qualify for space in farmers' market on an ongoing basis throughout a vending season. This has led to a tendency toward exclusion of smaller hobby growers in larger urban markets where space tends to be the most restricted.
Many of the California markets, however, make concerted efforts to provide space to "backyard growers," and about a third of the California markets reduce fees for these growers. Nonetheless, as the survey authors write in their article, "An undercurrent of dissatisfaction is expressed by some small and/or seasonal growers who feel excluded from farmers' markets due to a combination of factors: fees, rules and regulations, reservations, and competition from larger more diversified growers." The article goes on to point out that, in extreme cases, this dissatisfaction has led to "excluded growers/vendors [who] have filed lawsuits against farmers' market governing boards, arguing that stall-space priority rules violate the constitutional rights of participants in public functions and constitute illegal restriction of trade."
California has certain natural advantages over Ohio which contribute to the popularity and growth of their farmers' markets. A more temperate climate means selection and variety of locally grown produce is greater than for Ohio while seasons of availability are longer. Also, regulatory actions taken by the state assist both growers and buyers by helping to instill consumer confidence in the produce purchased at markets. The strict certification of farmers' market growers assures customer confidence in farmers' market products. To assist farmers' market sellers, direct sales of fruits, vegetables, and nuts is exempted from standardized size and packaging regulations imposed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture's Bureau of Fruit and Vegetable Quality Control and Standardization. When governmental entities take the opportunity to address, sort-out, and smooth issues related to farmers' markets undoubtedly a contribution to the success of the markets, and in turn the overall state agricultural economy is made.
Farmers' markets in California have strict regulations regarding the sale of out-of-state produce: it's strictly prohibited. Most central to the organizational concept of California's farmers' markets, however, is what is referred to as the "cardinal rule," which requires farmers to sell only what is produced on his or her farm. Often, individual market managers conduct on-farm visits to assure compliance. A market manager in Oakland makes routine farm visits and enforces the rule by imposing a one-year suspension and a $250 fine for violation (SF Chronicle, 6/13/90).
The question arises as to whether Ohio's farmers' markets should adopt and enforce the "sell your own" regulation as rigorously as does California. Ohio consumers are more used to the idea of having extended seasons for fresh produce by shipments from southern states and, increasingly, through importation from southern hemisphere foreign countries during winter months. Also, all popular citrus fruits are shipped in from other regions. The result is that many roadside farm markets--even those who raise their own on-farm produce--may supplement their own produce with items brought in from southern states.
Consumer Preferences for Fresh Produce
As indicated above, successful entry into a business venture begins with an understanding of consumer perceptions and behavior. A large measure of the growth in direct marketing can be attributed to consumer interest in improved nutrition. "From 1970 to 1986, per capita consumption of canned fruits and juices declined by 14 pounds and canned vegetables decreased by 3 pounds, but fresh fruits went up by 15 pounds and fresh vegetables by 17 pounds per capita." (USDA, Food Review, Jan., 1991). This same source points out that FDA and National Institutes of Health surveys in the mid-1980's found that fully 62% of the US population had made "major changes in their diets to try to reduce the risks of heart disease and cancer." Recently, The Packer magazine published results from a nationwide phone survey of 1,000 households entitled "1993 Fresh Trends Consumer Profile Study" in which 37% of the respondents said they were eating more fruits and vegetables than twelve months earlier. The study revealed health and nutrition factors as the number one reason for increased fresh produce consumption by consumers. Results indicated produce quality influences a person's decision on selection, while the motivation for buying is improved health and better nutrition.
Not surprisingly, consumers indicated that convenience makes the initial sale, but it is the produce quality which brings the repeat purchaser back to the store. The article indicates consumers think of "produce quality" as its appearance, taste, freshness, and ripeness. Many vegetable consumers indicated they would buy more often, if they found new ways to prepare vegetables, indicating the need for recipes and cooking information. Information about fruits and vegetables health benefits was important to the respondents reflecting the desire to purchase, if only they were aware of the nutritional value of the produce.
Respondents were asked about five factors considered as motivational influences for buying fresh produce and 60% responded they bought produce for the vitamin and mineral intake, while 57% said calorie control, 52% indicated fiber, 48% felt it was for the cholesterol benefit, and 34% said cancer prevention motivated them to eat fresh fruits and vegetables. It was the over 50 age group who were more likely to buy fresh produce for the health/nutrition benefits than any other age group. According to household size, a two person household was more likely to buy fruits and vegetables for health/nutrition reasons followed by the one person household.
The Fresh Trends study asked respondents about complaints when buying fresh produce and found 37% had "no complaints." These people were most likely to be the youngest and the oldest consumers. Complaints about the "quality" of fresh produce were raised by 34% of the respondents while 23% expressed concern about the prices of produce. Complaints about fruits were greater than vegetables with the consumers saying fruits are sold underripe, not provided with good use or storage information and thus they are disappointed in the taste of fruit once they get it home. Middle-income consumers ($22,500-$34,999) were most likely to complain about prices. Of these consumers, 30% complained about prices, compared to only 23% of consumers earning less money.
According to Fresh Trends, attitudes about fresh produce tend to change a great deal as people age. Although health concerns were important to all ages, the younger age groups were primarily concerned with vitamins and minerals and the older age groups with calorie control, cholesterol, and fiber. Of the 1,002 consumers interviewed, 83% were women and 17% men. Women were more likely to be influenced by other family members in their buying decisions. In purchasing fruit, price was an important consideration for all income groups, however, regarding vegetables, price is a factor for lower-income groups but less important for those in higher income groups. It was reported that higher income groups, $22,500 or more, were more likely than others to prefer fresh produce rather than canned or frozen fruits and vegetables. Larger households (three or more), were more likely to purchase convenience produce and new products.
Geographically, consumers in western states were more aware of the 5 a Day program, in part because the producers industry began their 5 a Day for Better Health campaign in California in the early 1990's. The goal of this campaign is to increase fruit and vegetable consumption 50%, to five servings a day, by the year 2000. The study reported that media exposure was a factor influencing opinions about fresh produce for 20% of the respondents, although 80% said the respondents believed media had not influenced their opinions. Consumers in their 40's and 50's were the most likely group to be influenced by the media regarding opinions on fresh produce. About 30% of those influenced by the media said it makes them more conscious about health, 18% indicated awareness of media assertions that consumers should eat more produce, and 16% said the media provides information about why produce is good for you.
However prominent health concerns may be in explaining increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, many sources and articles make it clear that it is not solely concerns related to nutritional issues which have heightened consumer interest in buying direct from growers. A study by Robert Sommer, Director of the Center for Consumer Research at the University of California at Davis found that people shop at farmers' markets for "high-quality food, lower prices and atmosphere, in that order" (NY Times, 10/3/90). Larger urban farmers' markets in particular have become increasingly important providers of lower cost food to citizens. In many cities equitable access on the part of some residents to reasonably priced supermarkets has been questioned. A price comparison study conducted by researchers at UCLA found that "farmers' markets sell food in 25 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles at prices often as much as 20% to 30% cheaper than local supermarkets" and found that a family of four shopping inner-city stores spends about $300 more annually for food than a comparable suburban family (LA Times, 10/4/93). Reasonable access to retail food stores has been in cases questioned, "for example, the United States Conference of Mayors A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: 1991, issued in December 1991, reported, 'The number of supermarkets in low-income neighborhoods decreased in 32 percent of the survey cities, remained the same in 60 percent of the cities and increased in two cities'" (Grocery Marketing, 4/24/92).
The Federal Farmers' Market Coupon Program, instituted in 10 states, assists low income people with purchases at urban farmers' markets. Vermont has a Farm to Family program, partially funded with federal tax money, which since 1988 has given low-income families coupons that are redeemable for fresh produce at farmers' markets. "Although no direct cause-and-effect relationship can be drawn between the Farm to Family program and the successes of farmers' markets, the markets have proliferated since the coupon program began in 1988. In that year, there were eight farmers' markets in Vermont. That count jumped to 18 the following year, and 25 by 1992" (Vermont Business Magazine, May, 1993).
As indicated above, there is no typical farmers' market or farmers' market patron. While some sources emphasize the usefulness of farmers' markets as providers of nutritious low cost produce, other sources highlight the "snob appeal" of farmers' market shopping among more affluent shoppers. An article in the Chicago Tribune focused on the circumstances in that city where farmers' markets, having grown in number from two in 1980 to 16 in 1991, have spilled out into surrounding suburban communities. "Heading off to market, rummaging through piles of leafy objects, swapping gossip by the coffee urn and the tray of cinnamon twists, has taken on some form of urban-suburban chic in this age of plastic-wrapped produce at the supermarkets. Going to the farmers' market carries more than a little snobbery...a very yuppie sense of 'Aren't I hip?'" (Chicago Tribune, 7/31/91).
Between the extremes of factors which can be cited to account for the across-the-board popularity of farmers' markets probably lies the more universal truth. Farmers' markets appeal to shoppers' desires to obtain high quality food at reasonable prices in a social atmosphere where the food provider can be directly encountered and supported. When an Orlando, Florida consulting firm was hired by the city's Parks and Recreation Department to assess citizens' recreational preferences in connection with a long range plan for improving the city's parks and recreational system, the entirely unexpected finding was that attending the Farmers' Market was among the three most important recreational activities cited by residents, along with walking and swimming (Orlando Sentinel, 4/29/93). The conclusion to be drawn is that the appeal of farmers' markets is broad based, and varied. While not all farmers' markets will offer occasions where rich and poor rub elbows on Saturday mornings, each market will reflect and take on the characteristics of the community in which it is situated.
During the telephone surveys with consumers and the analysis of the survey results, the following definition of a roadside market and a farmers' market were used:
Roadside Market: Single farm producer with free standing building along a roadside, open year-round or 4-6 months out of the year, and selling fresh fruit or vegetables and possibly other items.
Farmers' Market: Many sellers/vendors renting space in one central location, open year-round or seasonally, selling fresh fruit or vegetables and possibly other items.
The opening questions of the telephone interview asked consumers if they had shopped at a roadside market or a farmers' market in the last twelve months (August, 1992 to August, 1993). Of the 500 households surveyed, 275 (55%) had shopped at a roadside market during the last twelve months. According to the 1990 US Census the population of Ohio totaled 10,847,115 and the number of households in the state was estimated at 4,890,312. Extrapolating from the survey results would indicate that approximately 2.7 million Ohio households had a family member who had shopped at a roadside market in the previous twelve months. Of these shoppers 84% were female, while 16% were male.
The number of survey respondents who indicated they had visited a farmers' market in the preceding twelve months was 147, or 29% of those contacted. This translates into an estimated 1.4 million Ohio households have a family member who has shopped at a farmers' market. Of these respondents, 86% were female and 14% were male, Table 1.
Have you shopped a roadside market or farmers market in the past twelve months?
Table 1. Percentage of direct farm market shoppers
Roadside Farm Market
Farmers' Market
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Yes
275
55%
147
29%
No
225
45%
353
71%
Total
500
100%
500
100%
The number of respondents who indicated they had shopped both types of markets in the last twelve months was 20% of the population. This is equivalent to approximately 980,000 households in Ohio, while non-shoppers (those who had not shopped either a roadside farm market or a farmers' market) accounted for 35% of the households interviewed, Table 2.
Table 2. Breakdown of households by shopping behavior
Share of Households Have shopped at a roadside market, but not a farmers' market
35% Have shopped at a farmers' market, but not a roadside market
9.6% Have shopped at both a roadside market and a farmers' market
20% Have not shopped at either a roadside market or a farmers' market
35%
Age of Consumers
Respondents were initially categorized into six main age groups: under 18 (1.2%); 18-29 (16.2%); 30-39 (19.6%); 40-49 (19.4%); 50-59 (20.6%); 60 and over (23.0%) but then recoded into three groups for demographic analysis: Under 40, 40-49, and 50 and over.
Consumers who are 50 and older represented the largest age group of consumers who shopped at a roadside market in the past year, Figure 1. Of those who shopped, 45% were in this category while only 32% were under age 40. This was 5% lower than the share of "Under 40" consumers in the overall survey population. Likewise, consumers who are 50 and older represented the largest age group of consumers who shopped at a farmers' market in the past year. Of those who shopped, 50% were in this category. While the share of consumers under 40 who shopped at a farmers' market was nearly the same as that for the roadside market, the share of consumers age 50-59 was very different. This age group accounted for 23% of the consumers who shopped at a roadside market in the past year but only 17% of those who shopped at a farmers' market. It would appear that this group of consumers are more interested, have greater access to, or have more time to shop at roadside markets than farmers' markets.
Figure 1. Age distribution of shoppers and overall sample **Difference from overall population was statistically significant
Tendency to shop at a roadside market increases with age, Table 3. A majority of consumers (53%) who are under 40 have not shopped at roadside markets, whereas a majority of consumers age 40-49 and over 50 have shopped at a roadside market, 66% and 57%, respectively. No significant differences in the tendency to shop at a farmers' market were observed across the different age groups. Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of all age groups have not shopped at a farmers' market in the past year.
Table 3. Age distribution of shoppers and non-shoppers
Age Group Have Shopped at a Roadside Market
Have Shopped at a Farmers' Market
YES
NO
YES
NO
Less than 40 47%
53% 27%
73%
40 - 49
66% 34% 26%
74%
50 and Over
57% 43% 33%
67%
Overall
55% 45% 29%
71%
Household Income
The income levels of all respondents were initially categorized into five groups as follows: under $12,500 (13.4%); $12,500-$24,999 (20.2%); $25,000-$34,999 (18.2%); $35,000-49,999 (17.0%); $50,000 or more (16%); and "don't know" or "refused to answer" (15.2%). Adjusting the percentages for those who did not report their income resulted in 15.8% of the sample households with reported incomes under $12,500 and 18.9% with incomes over $50,000. Of the roadside market shoppers, 12% indicated income levels under $12,500, while a slightly higher percentage of farmers' market shoppers (16%) were under the $12,500 income level.
Respondents were categorized for data analysis into just three income groups: those earning less than $25,000 annually, those earning between $25,000-$35,000, and those earning more than $35,000. As presented in Figure 2, 40% of all consumers surveyed had annual household incomes less than $25,000 while 39% had incomes over $35,000. For those consumers who had shopped at a roadside market, the percentage of shoppers with incomes over $35,000 increased to 45% and the percentage with incomes less than $25,000 decreased to 31%. Similar results were not observed for consumers who shopped at farmers' markets.
Figure 2. Income distribution of shoppers and overall sample
Size of Community
Possible differences in consumer opinions and behavior based upon the size of community in which they live were examined. Five community sizes were defined as follows: large city (over 250,000); medium size city (100,000-250,000); small city (50,000-100,000); town (25,000-50,000); and, rural area (less than 2,500). Respondents were fairly evenly distributed throughout all size communities, although the largest combined percentage of respondents (45%) were found to be living in small cities and towns, Table 4. A statistically significant difference among age groups was identified after examining community size. Consumers under 40 tended to live in medium and large sized cities; consumers 40-49 years old tended to live in the small and medium sized cities, and consumers 50 and older were more likely to live in towns and small cities and towns. Additionally, 71% of all respondents age 50 or older were living in small cities, towns, or rural areas. No significant differences were identified between level of household income and size of community. Likewise, no significant differences were found between size of community and whether consumers shopped at a roadside market or farmers' market.
Table 4. Frequency of community size by age and income
Community Type
Age Groups**
Income Range
Overall
Under 40
40-49
Over 50
<$25k
$25-$35k
>$35k
Large City
18%
24%
15%
13%
17%
24%
17%
Medium
19%
22%
21%
16%
19%
20%
21%
Small City
20%
15%
25%
22%
20%
12%
23%
Town
25%
25%
19%
28%
28%
17%
24%
Rural Area
18%
14%
20%
21%
16%
27%
15%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% **Difference from overall population was statistically significant.
Attitudes and Behaviors of Consumers Who DO NOT Shop at Roadside Markets or Farmers' Markets
Frequency of Shopping
The 275 roadside market shoppers and the 147 farmers' market shoppers were divided approximately in half and classified as either "lite" or "heavy" users (how frequently they shopped in the past year). The group defined as "lite users" were consumers who shopped at roadside markets 1-5 times in the past year or at farmers' markets 1-3 times. "Heavy users" were those who had shopped more than 5 times in the past year at roadside markets or more than 3 times at farmers' markets, Table 5. Neither group differed significantly from one another in terms of age, household income, sex, nor size of community in which they lived. Thus, differences in demographics alone do not explain reported differences in shopping behavior at roadside or farmers' markets.
Table 5. Frequency of "Lite" and "Heavy" users
Roadside Farm Market 1 - 5 times
Farmers' Market 1 - 3 times
"Lite Users"
157 57%
87 59%
"Heavy Users"
116 43%
60 41%
Frequency of Shopping at Roadside Markets and Farmers' Markets
A cumulative frequency of shopping intensity is presented in Table 6. It appears that Ohio households try out farmers' markets but don't return as often as they do with roadside markets. Of farmers' market shoppers, 27% are only going once a year and 60% are going only one to three times per year. This compares to 9% of the roadside market shoppers only going once and 35% going one to three times.
How many times did you shop at a roadside market or farmers' market in the past year? (n=500)
Table 6. Rate of shopping at direct farm markets
Roadside Farm Market
Farmers' Market
Number of Times Shopped in the past Year
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Percent
CummulativePercent
One
9%
9%
27%
27%
Two-Three
26%
35%
33%
60%
Four-Five
22%
57%
8%
68%
Six -Ten
21%
78%
15%
83%
Eleven-Twenty
11%
89%
7%
90%
Over Twenty One
10%
99%
10%
100%
Don't Know/Remember
1%
100%
-------
------- While approximately 40% of Ohio's households are classified as "heavy" users of direct markets (shaded cells in above table), less than 25% of all households had shopped more than 10 times in the past year at either a roadside or farmers' market. This equates to less than one shopping trip per month for markets that are open year-round. This weakness in "repeat shopping" is a problem that roadside markets and farmers' markets need to address. This study indicates that a majority of consumers are shopping at roadside markets but they are probably coming out once or twice a month during the season and then do the majority of their shopping somewhere else.
Number of Different Markets
An overwhelming majority of farmers' market shoppers (65%) indicated that they shopped at only one market in the past year. An equal number of roadside market shoppers (70%) reported they went to only one or two markets, Figure 3. A very small share of the shopping households indicated that they shopped at four or more roadside markets (12%) or farmers' markets (3%).
Figure 3. Number of different markets shopped in the past year
Year Round Markets
When asked whether the roadside market and farmers' market that they shop at the most often was open year-round, over 80% of all roadside market shoppers indicated "No." But a majority (54%) of farmers' markets customers reported "Yes," Table 7.
Is the roadside market or farmers' market you shop most often open year round?
Table 7. Most often shopped markets which are open year round
Roadside Farm Market
Farmers' Market
Yes
12
12%
59
54%
No
83
82%
43
39%
Don't Know
6
6%
7
7% An interesting correlation between household income and the tendency for their primary farmers' market to be open year was observed, Table 8. As can be seen, the share of consumers who reported that their primary farmers' market was open year-round increased with the level of household income. This would seem to indicate that households with more income seek out farmers' markets that are open more months of the year. A similar relationship was not observed for roadside market shoppers.
Table 8. Household income and most often shopped markets which are open year round
Consumers were asked how many of the markets they shopped at in the past year are open year-round. Approximately one quarter of the shoppers reported only one market being open year round, Table 9. Most households, 63% of those who shop roadside markets and 47% of those who shop farmers' markets said that "None" of the markets they shop at were open year-round. If these markets desire to increase the number of repeat customers they will have to address this important issue.
Household Income
Primary Roadside Market Is Open Year-Round
Primary Farmers' Market Is Open Year-Round
Less than $25,000
9%
37%
$25,000 to $35,000
22%
58%
More than $35,000
15%
60%
How many of the roadside markets or farmers' markets you shop are open year round?
Table 9. Number of markets open year round
Roadside Farm Market
Farmers' Market
# of Markets
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
One
44
25%
9
24%
Two
13
8%
11
29%
Three-Four
3
2%
--
--
None
110
63%
18
47%
Don't Know
4
2%
--
-- Average Driving Time
An overwhelming majority of roadside market shoppers spent 15 minutes or less driving to the roadside market they shop at most often, Figure 4. Alternatively, only 34% of the roadside market shoppers drove more than 15 minutes. This implies that roadside market shoppers are concerned about convenience and only a third of them are willing to drive over 15 minutes to get to their market.
Figure 4. Time spent driving to the most often shopped market
In comparison, two thirds (66%) of the customers who shop at farmers' markets typically drive more than 15 minutes and approximately one quarter (24%) drive over 30 minutes. This supports an earlier observation that Ohio consumers are likely to be more willing to try out farmers' markets (and end up driving further) but will shop at roadside markets more often (greater number of short trips).
Figure 5. Size of community and time spent driving to the most often shopped roadside market
While not statistically significant, there was a trend for consumers who live in rural areas and small towns to drive shorter distances to their primary roadside market than consumers who live in large cities, Figure 5.
As can be seen, over two thirds (69%) of roadside market shoppers living in rural and small town communities drove less than 15 minutes to their primary roadside market. A smaller share of roadside market shoppers (59%) living in medium/large cities spent the same time driving to their primary roadside market. Proximity of markets, degree of traffic congestion, and demand for convenient location are all factors contributing to this result.
Significant differences in the time spent driving to their primary farmers' market were observed across the different categories of household income, Figure 6.
Figure 6. Household income and time spent driving to the most often shopped farmers' market
A majority (60%) of those households reporting annual incomes less than $25,000 spent less than 15 minutes driving to their primary farmers' market. In contrast, 70% of the households earning $25,000 to $35,000 and 53% of the households earning over $35,000 were willing to spend 15 minutes or more driving to their primary farmers' market.
Significant differences in the time spent driving to their primary farmers' market were also observed between farmers' markets shoppers classified as "lite" and "heavy" users, Figure 7. A clear majority (60%) of the farmers' market shoppers considered heavy users, those who shopped more than 3 times in the past year, drove less than 15 minutes to their primary market, compared to only 32% of the lite users. This finding indicates that customers who shop more often are likely to be spending less time driving to the market, i.e., the market is very convenient.
Figure 7. Shopping frequency and time spent driving to the most often shopped farmers' market
Alternatively, 67% of the lite users, those shopping less than three times per year, spent more than 15 minutes driving to their primary market. While they didn't report many shopping trips to farmers' markets, they were willing to spend a little more time driving. This finding is consistent with the notion of a destination market that consumers are motivated to try out but thereafter probably don't frequent a lot.
Figure 8. Shopping frequency and time spent driving to the most often shopped roadside market
There was no significant difference found between lite and heavy categories of roadside market shoppers and the time spent driving to their primary roadside market, Figure 8. While 70% of the heavy users were making short trips (driving less than 15 minutes), an equally large segment (63%) of the lite users were also driving less than 15 minutes. The first result is consistent with the notion that market convenience is associated with increased shopping frequency. However, the second result also indicates that only those markets within a short driving distance will be used, even on an infrequent basis. The current study does not support the notion that consumers are willing to drive great distances to shop at a roadside market, even if they are only doing it occasionally. If anything, these results lend further support to the notion that convenience and a short-driving time for customers are crucial for roadside market operators.
Most Popular Items Being Purchased
Survey respondents were asked to identify the "three items" they buy most often when shopping at a roadside market or farmers' market. Sweet corn and tomatoes were the top two produce items most frequently mentioned by shoppers, followed by apples, melons, beans, peaches, bananas, and cucumbers, Table 10.
What three items do you buy most often from roadside or farmers' markets?
Table 10. Three Most Often Purchased Items
Roadside Market Shoppers (n=275)
Farmers' Market Shoppers (n=147)
Item
Percent
Item
Percent Sweet Corn
70% Sweet Corn
52% Tomatoes
66% Tomatoes
35% Melons
30% Apples
28% Apples
18% Melons
20% Beans
16% Beans
12% Peaches
13% Bananas
11% Cucumbers
12% Peaches
10% Bananas
9% Peppers
9% Strawberries
9% Potatoes
8% Potatoes
8% Onions
8% Peppers
7% Breads
7% Lettuce
4% Cabbage
6%
Cheeses
6%
Cucumbers
5%
Lettuce
5%
Strawberries
5%
Broccoli
4%
Eggs
4%
Flowers/Plants
4%
Carrots
3%
Grapes
3%
Although respondents mentioned many fruits and vegetables, the variety of produce reportedly being purchased was greater at farmers' markets than roadside markets. Specific product differences included: onions, cabbage, broccoli, carrots, grapes, breads, cheeses, eggs, and flowers/plants. While it is reasonable to conclude that consumers were also purchasing many, if not all, of these items at roadside markets, they did not report these products among their top three items most often purchased. This may indicate that roadside markets have been successful in being identified as providers of fresh produce but are not thought of for other commonly purchased food items, e.g., breads, cheeses, and eggs.
In addition, roadside market shoppers were asked whether the market they shop most often currently offers products other than fresh produce. The majority of shoppers (53%) indicated flowers and plants were sold by their market in addition to produce. More than one third of the respondents indicated the market they shop offers jellies and jams, along with juices and beverages. However, less than a third of the markets offer bakery items, cheese products, gift items, meats, arts/crafts, and bulk foods.
In addition to fresh produce, does the roadside market you shop most often currently offer any of the following items?
Table 11. Frequency of roadside markets offering additional items
Item
Percent
Item
Percent Flowers/Plants
53% Gift Items
16% Jellies/Jams
41% Meats
15% Juices/Beverages
36% Arts/Crafts
13% Bakery Items
32% Bulk Foods
10% Cheese Products
28%
While there were some differences in the relative importance of different products desired by roadside market shoppers, the top seven most-often purchased products were still the same, no matter what size of community, Figure 9.
Figure 9. Products purchased most often at roadside markets by customers from different communities
Attitudes and Behaviors of Consumers Who DO NOT Shop at Roadside Markets or Farmers' Markets
Respondents who had not shopped at a roadside farm market or a farmers' market during the previous twelve months numbered 177, or 35% of the households contacted. This group of consumers was asked a series of questions related to awareness of direct farm markets, advertising awareness, likelihood of shopping if a roadside or farmers' market was conveniently located, and preferred shopping days.
Figure 10. Awareness of local roadside markets by non-shoppers ** Difference from overall population was statistically significant
For those consumers who had not shopped a roadside market in the past twelve months, 57% were aware of a market in their area, while 43% were not. A significantly greater percentage (68%) of the respondents living in small towns and rural areas were aware of a market in their area compared to only 43% of those in large and medium -sized cities, Figure 10. Exposure in local newspapers or location of the market may explain the increased awareness of roadside markets by non-shoppers in rural areas and small towns. There were no significant differences in awareness of roadside markets across any other demographic category.
Of the 353 respondents who have not shopped at a farmers' market in the past year, the majority (56%) did not know of any markets in their area. There were significant differences in the degree of awareness of a farmers' market across the three different age groups, Table 12. Of the three age groups, two thirds (68%) of those under age 40 age were not aware of any markets in their area. In contrast, 58% of those consumers between age 40 and 49 were aware of markets in their area. There were no significant differences in awareness of farmers' markets across any other demographic category.
Table 12. Age of consumer and awareness of local farmers' markets
Age Group
Aware of Farmers' Market in Local Area
YES
NO Under 40
32%
68% 40 - 49
58%
42% 50 and Over
48%
52%
Awareness of Advertising
Consumers were asked if they were aware of any advertising in their area by roadside markets or farmers' markets. Of the roadside market non-shoppers, over 72% were not aware of any advertising, Figure 11. Among farmers' market non-shoppers, the majority (58%) were also unaware of any advertising by local markets. Given the tendency for both roadside and farmers' markets to advertise locally, it would appear that much less of the roadside market advertising is having an impact on non-shoppers. Level of awareness of advertising by local roadside markets was significantly different across age groups, Figure 12. Consumers over age 50 were significantly more aware (46%) of advertising by local roadside markets than any other age group. Only about (13%) of consumers under 40 and between 40 and 49 recalled any advertising by local roadside markets. There were no significant differences in awareness of advertising by local farmers' markets across any of the demographic variables.
Figure 12. Awareness of advertising by local roadside markets across age groups
Reasons for Not Shopping
Non-shoppers were given an open-ended question asking them to state their main reason for not shopping at a roadside market or a farmers' market. Although some differences were observed between roadside market non-shoppers and farmers' market non-shoppers, the majority in both cases indicated the markets were "not conveniently located" or "too far away." Over 82% of all reported reasons could be summarized into four descriptive phrases: 1) not convenient/too far away; 2) prefer buying at supermarkets; 3) takes too much time; 4) have a garden-raise my own vegetables.
Of those consumers who had not shopped a roadside market in the last twelve months, 45% said it was because of the lack of a convenient market, while 60% of those who had not shopped at a farmers' markets gave the same response, Table 13.
What would you say is your main reason for not shopping at a roadside farm market or farmers' market?
Figure 11. Awareness of any advertising by local markets
Table 13. Reasons why consumers have not shopped in the past year
Roadside Farm Markets n=129
Farmers Markets n=155
Count
Percent
Count
Percent Location Not Convenient/Too Far Away
58
45%
93
60% Prefer Buying At Supermarkets
23
18%
18
12% Takes Too Much Time
15
12%
6
4% Have A Garden/Raise Own Vegetables
13
10%
10
7% Too Expensive/More Expensive
5
4%
4
3% Not Open the Hours I Want/Limited Hours
5
4%
7
5% Miscellaneous Reasons
10
7%
17
9%
Significant differences in the relative importance of convenient location as a reason for not shopping at a roadside market were observed across different age groups of consumers, Figure 13. A majority (53%) of non-roadside market shoppers under 40 listed
convenient location as their main reason for not shopping. While convenient location was also the number one reason for not shopping by consumers over 40, they were more sensitive to the issues of: "takes too much time" and "have their own garden." Approximately 20% of consumers under 40 and over 49 prefer shopping at the supermarket. This reason was reported by only 7% of the consumers between 40 and 49.
Figure 13. Main reasons for not shopping at a roadside market across age groups
Having a convenient location stands out as the primary explanation why consumers do not shop roadside and farmers' markets. However, this issue is more significant for farmers' markets than roadside markets. In heavily populated areas, it may be important to look at having several smaller centers strategically located throughout the city, rather than one large central downtown location.
Likelihood of Non-shoppers Becoming Shoppers of Direct Markets
When consumers were questioned regarding the likelihood of shopping at direct farm markets, over 55% said they "probably or definitely would" shop, if the markets were conveniently located to their home. Only one-fifth or fewer respondents indicated they "would not" shop a roadside or farmers' market if it was convenient, Table 14.
How likely would you be to shop at a roadside farm market or farmers' market if one was conveniently located to your home?
Table 14. Likelihood of non-shoppers becoming shoppers of direct markets
Roadside Market
Farmers' Market
Number
Percent
Number
Percent Definitely Would
31
14%
57
16% Probably Would
93
41%
149
42% Might
51
23%
86
24% Probably Would Not
39
17%
43
12% Definitely Would Not
10
4%
13
4% Don't Know/Undecided
1
-
5
1%
Assuming that a market was conveniently located, non-shoppers were asked what days of the week would they most likely shop. The three most popular days of the week for those who do not currently shop would be Saturday (43% and 48%), followed by Friday (28% and 28%), and then Wednesday (20% and 20%), Table 15.
If you were to shop at a roadside farm market or farmers' market, what days of the week would you most likely shop?
Table 15. Non-shoppers preferences toward days of the week
Roadside Market n=175
Farmers' Market n=292
Number
Percent
Number
Percent Monday
20
11%
37
13% Tuesday
19
11%
28
10% Wednesday
35
20%
57
20% Thursday
32
18%
50
17% Friday
49
28%
83
28% Saturday
76
43%
140
48% Sunday
28
16%
51
18%
While Saturday is generally the most preferred day to shop, women who currently do not shop at roadside markets would next prefer Friday, Thursday, and Wednesday; while men would prefer Wednesday and Sunday, Figure 14. Additional differences were identified across different age groups of consumers. If a roadside market were conveniently located, Friday would be the most preferred day of the week for current non-shoppers who are over 49 years old, Figure 15. This group of consumers are much more likely to shop on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays than any of the other age groups.
There were no significant differences among age groups, income levels, or community size regarding likelihood of shopping at a farmers' market or preference for day of the week.
Figure 14. Differences in preferred day to shop between men and women
Attitudes of the General Population
The importance of knowing consumer opinions, behavior, and factors which influence where they buy fresh fruits and vegetables is critical knowledge for direct marketers to have when promotional strategies are formulated. A very exciting finding in this study was that almost all households surveyed (88%) indicate they prefer buying fresh produce directly from the farmer, whenever possible, Figure 16. An even greater percentage of the surveyed households (90%) feel that they receive better quality produce when it is purchased directly, Figure 16. From these findings it is obvious that a very favorable environment exists in Ohio for selling fresh produce from roadside markets and farmers' markets.
Figure 16. Preferences for buying produce directly from the farmer
Factors Influencing Where Consumers Purchase Fresh Produce
All of the surveyed households were asked to indicate whether various items associated with a particular market or store influence their decision on where to purchase fresh produce. Of the twelve items presented, 80% or more of all households fell that supporting local farmers, locally grown produce, and lowest prices are influencing factors when deciding where to regularly purchase fresh produce, Table 16. In addition, a majority (53% to 72%) of all households felt that the issues of expert personal service, easy to read product information, evening hours during the week, and coupons or discounts are also influencing factors. Given the overwhelming support that appears to exist for local producers and locally-produced produce, it is critical that roadside and farmers' markets promote themselves to the general population. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting these results. As presented earlier, those consumers who are not shopping at roadside or farmers' markets are doing so because one is not convenient. Until this issue is addressed, merely promoting "Ohio grown" or "support your local farmers" will not be sufficient in overcoming the issue of convenience.
Figure 15. Differences in preferred day to shop across age groups
Table 16. Factors influencing where consumers regularly purchase fresh produce
Influence on Consumer Decision Percent Indicating YES
Supporting Local Farmers
89% Locally Grown Produce
87% Lowest Prices
82% Expert Personal Service
72% Easy To Read Product Information
64% Evening Hours During the Week
55% Coupons or Discounts
53% Farmlike Atmosphere
48% Express Checkout
45% Prepared/Prepackaged Ready to Eat Produce
25% There were significant differences in the relative importance of four of the factors presented in Table 16 between men and women, across different age groups, and across different levels of household incomes, Table 17. Specifically:
More women preferred coupons or discounts than men.
More consumers under age 49 preferred evening hours than those over 49.
More households with incomes $25,000 and above preferred evening hours than those with incomes under $25,000.
More consumers over age 49 preferred a farmlike atmosphere than those under 49.
More consumer under age 40 preferred express checkout than those over 40.
Table 17. Demographics and factors influencing where consumers purchase fresh produce
Influence on Consumer Decision
Percent Indicating YES
Influence on Consumer Decision
Percent Indicating YES
COUPONS**
FARMLIKE ATMOSPHERE**
Male
41%
Under 40
39%
Female
55%
40 - 49
39%
EVENING HOURS**
Over 49
56%
Under 40
72%
EXPRESS CHECKOUT**
40 - 49
68%
Under 40
53%
Over 49
35%
40 - 49
37%
Under $25,000
50%
Over 49
41%
$25,000 - $35,000
59%
Over $35,000
64%
**Differences from overall population were significant.
Comparison of Roadside Markets and Supermarkets
Consumers who shopped at a roadside market (n=176) were asked to compare their regular supermarket to their primary roadside market and evaluate which one was doing the "best job" of offering what they wanted. Consumers indicated that roadside markets are doing the best job when in comes to Produce Freshness, Produce Quality, and Prices For Fresh Produce, Table 18. Supermarkets were reportedly doing a better job in offering store promotions, convenient hours, consistent supply and variety of produce, special events, convenient location to home, selection of produce, and convenient location to work. Once again, these results indicate that a very favorable environment exists in Ohio for roadside markets. Consumers feel they are receiving high quality products at a value.
For each of the following items, who does the best job of offering what your are looking for - your regular supermarket or roadside market?
Table 18. Comparing roadside markets and supermarkets
Attributes
Who does the best job of offering what you want?
Roadside Farm Market
Supermarket
Not Sure Produce Freshness
89%
6%
5% Produce Quality
80%
13%
7% Prices for Fresh Produce
72%
20%
8% Store Promotions
6%
89%
5% Convenient Hours
10%
88%
2% Consistent Supply of Produce
23%
73%
4% Variety of Produce
31%
67%
2% Special Events/Activities
10%
66%
24% Convenient Location to Home
28%
65%
7% Selection of Produce
35%
60%
5% Convenient Location to Work
21%
54%
25% Shopping Atmosphere
38%
45%
17%
Comparison of Supermarkets and Farmers' Markets
Slight differences in relative rankings were observed when consumers who had shopped at a farmers' market (n=48) were asked to compare their primary farmers' market to their regular supermarket and evaluate which one was doing the "best job" of offering what they wanted. Consumers indicated that farmers' markets are doing the best job when in comes to Produce Quality, Prices for Fresh Produce, and Produce Quality, Table 19. Supermarkets were reportedly doing a better job in offering convenient hours, store promotions, variety of produce, convenient location to home and work, selection of produce, shopping atmosphere, and consistent supply of produce. These results also indicate that a very favorable environment exists in Ohio for farmers' markets. Consumers feel these markets are offering high quality products at a value.
For each of the following items, who does the best job of offering what you are looking for - your regular supermarket or your farmers' market?
Table 19. Comparison of farmers' markets and supermarkets
Attributes
Who does the best job of offering what you want?
Farmers' Market
Supermarket
Not Sure Produce Quality
67%
21%
12% Prices for Fresh Produce
67%
23%
10% Produce Freshness
60%
25%
15% Convenient Hours
6%
92%
2% Store Promotions
8%
85%
6% Variety of Produce
21%
69%
10% Convenient Location to Home
25%
67%
8% Convenient Location to Work
20%
65%
15% Selection of Produce
33%
63%
4% Shopping Atmosphere
29%
58%
13% Consistent Supply of Produce
33%
58%
8% Special Events/Activities
21%
44%
35%
Comparison of Supermarkets, Roadside Markets, and Farmers' Markets
Slight differences in relative rankings were also observed when consumers who had shopped at both a roadside market and farmers' market (n=99) were asked to compare both types of direct market to their regular supermarket and evaluate which one was doing the "best job" of offering what they wanted. Once again, consumers indicated that both roadside and farmers' markets are doing the best job when in comes to Produce Freshness, Prices for Fresh Produce, and Produce Quality, Table 20. However, farmers' markets were consistently rated above roadside markets on all aspects except convenience to home. Supermarkets were reportedly doing a better job in offering store promotions, convenient hours, convenient location to home, consistent supply of produce, convenient location to work, and special events.
For each of the following items, who does the best job of offering what you are looking for - your regular supermarket, roadside market, or farmers' market?
Table 20. Comparison of roadside markets, farmers' markets and supermarkets
Attributes
Who does the best job of offering what you want?
Roadside Farm Market
Farmers' Market
Supermarket
Not Sure Produce Freshness
38%
57%
5%
0% Prices for Fresh Produce
25%
57%
14%
4% Produce Quality
27%
56%
16%
1% Store Promotions
0%
2%
87%
11% Convenient Hours
4%
10%
84%
2% Convenient Location to Home
13%
9%
77%
1% Consistent Supply of Produce
8%
28%
62%
2% Convenient Location to Work
10%
15%
59%
16% Special Events/Activities
7%
20%
50%
23% Variety of Produce
9%
43%
48%
0% Selection of Produce
12%
44%
42%
1% Shopping Atmosphere
10%
40%
38%
11% When comparing all three types of markets, there was not a consensus of opinion on who does the best job when it comes to variety and selection of produce. These results further indicate that consumers think highly of direct markets in terms of produce quality, freshness, and prices.
Importance of Store Attributes for Non-Shoppers
The same list of potential influences described in the previous three sections were presented to those consumers who had not shopped at either a roadside market or farmers' markets (n=177) in order to determine the relative importance of these factors when deciding where to purchase fresh produce, Table 21. Over 94% of all non-shoppers rated produce quality and produce freshness as VERY important factors when buying fresh produce. Over three quarters of all non-shoppers also rated convenient location to home (79%), selection of produce (75%), and prices (75%) as VERY important factors that influence where they shop. Roadside market and farmers' market operators in Ohio should find these results very useful, given that three of the top five factors influencing where consumers shop for produce are already the three strongest attributes associated with roadside and farmers' markets. The remaining challenge is to improve on the aspects of convenience and produce selection.
Caution must be exercised, however, as results indicate a majority of non-shopping consumers do not perceive store promotions and special events as factors influencing where they shop. Direct marketers who are attempting to capitalize on a strategy focusing on special events may succeed in identifying themselves as a location to visit but the special event is not likely to succeed in influencing that customer to return on a regular basis.
Please rate the importance of each of the following store aspects to you when deciding where to shop for fresh fruit and/or vegetables.
Table 21. Factors influencing non-shoppers on where they purchase fresh produce
Attribute
Importance Rating
Very
Somewhat
Not #1 Produce Freshness
98%
2%
-- #2 Produce Quality
94%
5%
1% #3 Convenient Location to Home
79%
15%
6% #4 Selection of Produce
75%
23%
2% #5 Prices For Fresh Produce
75%
22%
3% #6 Consistent Supply of Produce
73%
24%
3% #7 Variety of Produce
71%
27%
2% #8 Convenient Hours
62%
24%
14% #9 Convenient Location-Work
51%
19%
30% #10 Shopping Atmosphere
41%
39%
20% #11 Store Promotions
21%
32%
47% #12 Special Events/Activities
17%
21%
62%
Customer Demographics
The survey results provide a profile of the typical direct farm market consumer in Ohio as being female, over 50, and with an annual household income of more than $35,000. About 20% are 60 years of age or older. The majority of consumers shop five times or less per year at roadside or farmers' markets and can be considered "moderately" health conscious. Most shoppers live in towns and rural areas (populations less than 50,000). So as not to focus solely on the "older folks" in terms of promotional strategies, demographic analysis reflected that approximately one third of all direct farm market shoppers are under forty. Satisfying the needs of this younger age group may be as important a strategy as working to meet the needs of the over 50 age group because demographic projections indicate the significance of the middle-age group in the near future.
Roadside Markets: Among those who shop, 66% are travelling less than 15 minutes to their market. Most (70%) roadside market customers are going to only one or two different markets. Although 45% reported annual incomes greater than $35,000, almost one third (31%) had incomes under $25,000. Shoppers said that over half of the roadside markets they had shopped sell flowers and bedding plants and more than one third sell jellies/jams, juices/beverages, and bakery items in addition to fresh produce.
Farmers' Markets: Most of the "heavy" users of farmers' markets (frequenting the market more than 3 times a year) are less than fifteen minutes away. Seventy-six percent of all farmers' market shoppers travel less than 30 minutes to their market, another indication that location is extremely important. Two thirds of the shoppers are going five or less times per year, which is fairly infrequent when considering how often people go to the grocery; and of that two thirds, 60% actually shopped three times or less in the past year. There are as many consumers with incomes under $25,000 shopping at farmers' markets as there are customers with incomes over $35,000 (35-39%). Half of all shoppers are fifty or older, but 30% are under 40 years of age. Forty six percent live in towns or rural areas, while 34% live in medium to large size cities. Two thirds of the farmers' market shoppers are shopping at one market and 54% of the shoppers indicated their market was open year round.
Consumers Value Convenience
Learning that consumers value convenience is not a new finding, as people claim they have less and less time on their hands. However, it is cruicial that the direct marketer be aware of this primary motivating factor influencing whether people are going to shop at direct farm markets or the local supermarket. With the competition providing consumers convenient locations (access and availability), 24-hour service, variety, selection, and consistent supply, the direct market's success will constantly be challenged.
Consumers prefer produce quality and freshness foremost, along with fair pricing and they report that Ohio's direct farm markets provide all three better than the supermarkets. For the 35% of all Ohioans who did not shop farm markets last year, the premier reasons were that markets just were not convenient or they were too far away.
If a market were conveniently located, the majority of non-shoppers said they probably or definitely would shop for their fresh produce at a direct farm market. Saturdays, Fridays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays--in that order--would be the preferred shopping days for these new customers, with once again convenient hours being a very important market attribute.
Selection, variety, and consistent supply were rated very important by the majority of non-shoppers when deciding where to purchase fresh produce. However, convenience to home was more important than convenience to work. Factors considered not important by non-shoppers were store promotions and special events or activities.
Strategies for Enhancing Profitability
Probably no other industry has the luxury of knowing 90% of all consumers prefer to buy their products over and above their competitor's. In addition, the personal health and nutritional benefits fruits and vegetables provide are very positive consumer motivators. As long as farmers are recognized as providing better quality and freshness, consumers will prefer to buy directly from them. To sell more produce, farmers must direct their efforts toward the factors of convenience, availability, and accessibility.
"Getting produce to market" will take on an even greater meaning if Ohio's produce farmers wish to improve profits. Opening direct roadside farm market branch sites in highly visible areas catering to the majority of consumers living in small towns, suburban or semi-suburban areas may be necessary. Joining together to establish smaller secondary farmers' market locations, rather than one large primary site in a downtown business district may offer more people access and convenience. Working closely with local cities, county municipalities, state level agencies, and county extension personnel to develop consumer awareness and in turn identifying opportunities to market their fresh produce in more non-traditional ways will enhance the farmer's visibility. Advertising consistently the market's schedule, days of the week and hours of operation is important. Consumers do not typically want to phone ahead, nor will they take the time to phone if uncertain as to the market's business hours.
Often overlooked factors which consumers indicated did influence their decision of where they regularly purchase fresh fruits and vegetables were supporting local farmers and buying locally grown produce, two highly marketable aspects. Advertising strategies promoting these benefits, along with expert personal service, and better prices should be part of the direct marketer's business plan. Having easy to read product information displayed with the produce items was also rated as having influence on the consumer and the majority did indicate evening hours during the week affect where they buy produce items. Perhaps experimenting with evening hours and monitoring success for one season would be a valuable undertaking for direct markets. Unfortunately, there were no significant differences noted between "lite users" and "heavy users" in any of these factors, which would have given direct market operators added insight into the strength of any one influence over another. Heavy users did say the farmlike atmosphere of farmers' markets was more likely to be an influence for them than the lite users, however it still was not a statistically significant relationship.
Continued visibility, advertising to the general public, and promoting the three most desired consumer preferences: Produce Quality, Produce Freshness, and Prices are likely successful strategies. Efforts which collectively market and support farmers may be highly effective campaigns, especially if sponsored by state or local associations promoting the health and nutritional benefits of fruits and vegetables.
The Need for Increased Visibility and Publicity
Of those consumers who had not shopped at a roadside market, a majority of consumers (57%) were aware of the existence of local markets but 73% of those consumers could not recall any advertising by local markets. Alternatively, of those consumers who had not shopped at a farmers' market, less than half (44%) were aware of the existence of local farmers' markets and a majority (59%) could not recall any of their advertising.
Some states publish free guides or directories of fruit and vegetable direct market locations. Missouri publishes a Consumer's Guide to Fruit and Vegetable and Other Farm Fresh Products and Illinois publishes The Illinois Directory of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Markets. California publishes a Farmer-to-Consumer directory which contains a listing of about 1,000 growers, including information about their specialty and the times consumers can visit the premises. Ohio's Ohio Farmers' Market Directory: A Guide for Purchasing Ohio Products, published by the Ohio Department of Agriculture, Division of Markets, provides useful information on currently identified farmers' markets in the state.
A publication similar to ODA's directory but expanded to include roadside farm markets and other direct market farm locations would enhance visibility and make it easier for people to find places to purchase Ohio agricultural products. In the late 1980's an OSU Extension Associate working in Geauga County received financial assistance in the form of private grant contributions to publish a directory of fresh produce sources in a Northeast Ohio six county area. This effort was associated with an "It's Fresher from Ohio" publicity campaign going on during that time period. The Extension Associate, Marisa Warrix, is quoted in a UPI wireservice release ( July 31, 1989) as stating "Local produce is fresher and tastier, more importantly, $1.00 spent on local farm products generates between $1.94 and $3.28 more for area business. So money spent on local food items strengthens the local community." The publication of the directory encouraged contacts between independent grocers, restaurants and farm producers. In the directory, potential customers not only learned about traditional sweet corn and tomatoes but also other items produced in the region, including stone-ground flour, goat's milk, fresh herbs, grape juice and horseradish.
The Problem of Seasonality
Table 10 of this report provides a listing of popular fruit and vegetable items consumers state they most often buy at farm markets. Sweet corn, tomatoes, apples, melons, and beans were the top five items for both roadside markets and farmers' markets. None of these popular items ordinarily ripens and becomes available before July 1 in Ohio. Ohio consumers are, however, used to having extended seasons for these items through importation from out-of-state. Corn, tomatoes, and melons each appear at roadside stands at dates well before availability of Ohio's produce. It is unclear whether this out-of-state produce marketed at roadside stands is superior in quality to supermarket produce, although the assumption is that most of this produce probably is obtained by roadside or farmers' market sellers through common marketing channels.
The issue of seasonality therefore presents challenges to farmers' markets and roadside markets. The basic policy question for Ohio's farmers' markets is whether the sale of out-of-season and out-of-state produce items will be permitted. Should sale at these markets be limited to in-season Ohio products only? For example, a consumer going to an "Ohio-only" farmers' market in late May might find only asparagus, lettuce and other assorted greens at this early date. Most of the smaller community farmers' markets in Ohio open in mid-June to coincide with the first availability of Ohio produce. But the few large city farmers' markets which open early in the year, or stay open year-round (most do not), presumably do sell popular out-of-state items prior to their availability from in-state sources. The produce mix between in-season Ohio items and out-of-state imports at Ohio's year-round farmer's markets is an issue meriting further study. Steps to encourage farmers' markets to preferentially carry Ohio's produce, as it becomes seasonally available, should be investigated. Steps to encourage prominent labeling of Ohio's produce where it competes alongside out-of-state produce should be encouraged since the research data indicates farmers' market customers prefer to purchase from Ohio sources.
Roadside markets must deal with these same issues. Many roadside markets in Ohio exist solely as resale sites, and those which do sell their own produce generally sell other produce they have purchased from other off-farm sources. While some of these operators may find out-of-state produce sources superior to those of the average supermarket, many roadside markets are best described as outdoor supermarket produce departments. The extent to which these markets sell seasonal Ohio produce once it becomes available has not been researched and is not fully known. The question is an important one. Efforts should be made to enhance the ease with which roadside market operators are able to obtain Ohio fruits and vegetables as they become seasonally available. Information programs should be undertaken to assure roadside market operators become aware of the marketing advantages of catering to expressed consumer preferences for Ohio produce. Ideally, a developed system of channeling produce from Ohio producers to the hundreds of roadside stands would emerge and benefit all segments of the state's agricultural sector, regardless of size.
Organizational Structures
It might be advantageous for Ohio to enact farmers' market participation rules similar to California's, in which growers qualify and are certified to sell only upon confirmation that any and all produce marketed is grown at their individual farm. California's system of on-farm confirmation visits as a requirement of certification strengthens public confidence in the quality and origin of the produce they purchase. Certain Ohio farmers' markets, such as the Pearl Alley Farmer's Market in Columbus, are already structured along these "certified market" lines.
The climate advantages of California which enable greater selection and extended seasonal availability have been discussed previously. To the extent that Ohio consumers shop roadside farm markets and larger urban farmers' markets and are disappointed in their expectation of finding, for example, bananas or citrus fruits, Ohio markets will be failing these consumers in the area of convenience. As noted above, the research data demonstrate consumers wish to support local farmers and believe local produce is fresher, but the issue of convenience also greatly matters. Steps which enhance the association in consumers' minds of farm markets as places of convenience and as places to support Ohio's agricultural producers can positively impact market success.
Responding to People's Desire to Purchase Direct from Farmers.
A roadside market, or selling produce at farmers' markets, can augment family farm income. In certain instances, direct marketing of fruits and vegetables becomes the sole family business with growers reaping gross profits into the millions of dollars. There is expanding recognition among growers that at times a certain unlearning of the sentiment "growers were always taught that they should just grow and leave marketing to other people" (Boston Globe, 8/29/90) needs to occur. Direct marketing to consumers has been the key to success for many growers. For many small producers recognition of the role direct marketing can play in their economic future is an enlightened response to uncertain economic times. Doug Roberts, a marketing specialist with the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture, is quoted as saying, "evolution toward direct marketing is not happening by choice. It's the logical economic move, what farmers need to do to survive" (Boston Globe, 8/29/90).
Estimates are that nearly 2,000 urban farmers' markets and thousands more farm stands have started in about the past 15 years. "Agricultural experts say that the amount of money that Americans pay directly to farmers has doubled [in the past 15 years] and is now close to $2 billion a year, or 2 percent of the total that people spent on produce." "Customers have a natural sympathy for the small farmer," said Robert A. Lewis, the chief marketing representative of New York State's Department of Agriculture. (NY Times, 8/21/91). Customers benefit with average savings running 20% to 30% off of supermarket prices. Direct marketers obtain benefit through the elimination of the middle man. A typical example from the grower's end of things might be the sale of a flat of specialty produce directly to a restaurant for $15. Ordinarily the grower would sell the flat to the wholesaler for $10 and see the flat be turned around to the restaurateur for $20. In this direct market scenario, both parties come out $5 ahead. The purpose of adopting direct marketing strategy is not to radically reconfigure the marketplace and eliminate the need for services provided by wholesalers; rather the intent is to assist smaller producers to realize higher profits while they grow large.
In conclusion, Ohio fruit and vegetable growers are advised to take a careful look at the opportunities presented by direct marketing of their produce. The focus of this report has been on the data generated from a statewide telephone survey of Ohio residents and the benefits which can result from enhanced understanding of consumer opinion. Opportunities suggested by the survey data have been highlighted and include: the growth nationwide and in Ohio of the number of farmers' markets and roadside farm markets, the desire of citizens to support and to buy direct from local farmers, and consumers' belief that products obtained direct are fresher, cheaper and more nutritious. Obstacles to be overcome in direct marketing in Ohio have also been discussed. These include: a competitive environment wherein initial expectations of financial success need to be necessarily limited to the idea of income supplementation and consumers' desire for convenience, which is perceived to be better provided by supermarkets, thus meaning a clear gap exists between consumer belief (preference in buying direct from farmers) and actual behavior (most frequently buying produce from supermarkets). This report has attempted to provide as clear a view as possible of consumer beliefs and behaviors, as well as the direct market environment, with its pitfalls and opportunities, which will be encountered by produce growers. Opportunity is present; as Robert Sommer, former director of the Center for Consumer Research at the University of California, Davis put it, the rise in popularity of farmers' markets is "not a fad. It reflects consumers' new interest and sophistication in food" (USA Today, 8/13/93).
Amos, Denise L. "State Markets an Aging Link in Food Chain." St. Petersburg Times, September 21, 1992, Business section, p. 10.
"An Evaluation and Analysis of Farm Markets of Ohio Survey of all Markets." Consultant study prepared for Farm Markets of Ohio, Ohio Farm Bureau. Not dated.
Associated Press. "Farmers Markets: Good for Growers, Shoppers and Cities." New York Times, October 3, 1990, Section C, Column 1, p. 9.
Clements, Michael. "A Fast Growing Market; Fresh Food Sold over the Counter is Hot." USA Today, August 13, 1993, Money Section, p. 1B. Kistner, W.A.
Cook, Geri. "Consumers Can Realize Considerable Savings at Year-Round Farmer-Direct Markets." Los Angeles Times, November 13, 1992, Valley Life Section, p. 19.
Erwin, J.W., L.H. Chatfield, and J.L Robertson. "Market Structure and Strategies in Direct Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables in the Midwest." Research Circular, number 276, The Ohio State University, Agricultural Research and Development Center, March, 1983.
Gottlieb, Catherine. "Making a Difference; One Markets' Approach; Farm-Fresh Food, Low Price and Fellowship." Los Angeles Times, October 4, 1993, Section B; p. 4.
Hemlick, Ralph. "Agriculture Adapts to Urbanization; Linking Agriculture to the Economy." Food Review, United States Department of Agriculture, January 1991,Vol. 14. No 1, p. 21.
Mahany, Barbara. "Academics Take a Fresh Subject--Farmers' Markets--and Digest It." Chicago Tribune, July 31, 1991.
Mathews, Ryan. "Starving for Food; Tough Questions, Few Answers: Supermarkets and Hunger in America." Grocery Marketing, April 24, 1992.
Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service and the School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture. "Step Manual for Organizing and Establishing a Municipally Sponsored Retail Farmers' Market." 1983.
Ohio Department of Agriculture, Division of Markets. " Ohio Farmers' Markets Directory. A Guide For Purchasing Ohio Products." Columbus, Ohio, 1993.
Ohio Department of Development. "Ohio Data Users Center Population Series. Ohio Metropolitan Areas and County Populations Census Counts and Intercensal Estimates." Columbus, Ohio, January, 1993.
Ohio Department of Development, Ohio Data Users Center. "Ohio Population and Housing Characteristics By Governmental Unit: 1990." Columbus, Ohio, June, 1991.
O'Neill, Molly. "A Nation Hungers for Farm Stands and a Harvest without Cellophane." New York Times, August 21, 1991, Section C, Column 2, p. 1.
Packer Fresh Trends. "A Profile of Fresh Produce Consumers." Vance Publishing Corp. Overland Park, Kansas. Vol. XCIX No. 54. 1993.
Parrish, I.D. "Survey Aids Long-Range Plans: Fields of Play, Fitness, Biking Roll to Needs List." Orlando Sentinel, April 29, 1993, Orange Extra 4, p. I1.
Pearl Alley Farmers' Market. "Pearl Alley Certified Farmers' Market Rules and Regulations 1992." Columbus, Ohio, 1992
Peck, K, R.E. Voss, J.I. Grieship, J. Wright, and M. Stiles. "Popularity Has Spawned Diversity--and Rules--at Certified Farmers' Markets." Fruit Gardener, October, 1993, Vol 25; No. 5, pp. 4-5. Also published in California Agriculture, Vol. 47; No. 2.
Perrin, Gail. "The Farmer Takes a Stand; Growers Gain by Selling Directly to Consumers." Boston Globe, Food Section, August 29, 1990, p 33.
Saekel, Karola. "Bringing Farms to Town." San Francisco Chronicle, June 13, 1990, Food Section, p. 1/ZZ.
United Press International. "Farmer's Market Studied." October 22, 1989.
Witten, Matthew. "Farms and Families: A Government-Funded program has Spawned Farmers Markets in Vermont while Helping Low Income Residents." Vermont Business Magazine. May, 1993, Vol. 21, No. 4, Section 1, p. 16.
Publications