A survey of Kansas beef producers and consumers who participate in business-to-consumer marketing of beef
- PMID: 38023422
- PMCID: PMC10656292
- DOI: 10.1093/tas/txad125
A survey of Kansas beef producers and consumers who participate in business-to-consumer marketing of beef
Abstract
Following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, producer and consumer interest in business-to-consumer (B2C) beef sales increased. The objective of the current study was to assess current B2C beef producer and consumer attitudes and understandings of the B2C beef marketing process in order to identify knowledge gaps and strategies to improve producer/consumer interactions. Both producers and customers of local beef were recruited using a large online platform (https://shopkansasfarms.com), and descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. In total, 41 B2C beef producers and 174 consumers who had either previously participated in B2C marketing or intended to participate were surveyed. Most producers (69.8%) only produced beef and produced only a small number (1 to 20 head) of animals per year. Many (43.9%) reported selling 100% of beef directly to consumers, while 29.3% reported selling less than 20% through this channel. Almost all (97.3%) of the producers indicated that increased sales directly to consumers would be desirable, with most (87.1%) considering this marketing channel as the most profitable. Marketing beef in smaller portions, including portioned cuts, was popular, reported by more than 62% of producers, while whole carcass sales were lower. Word-of-mouth (91.3%) and social media (65.8%) were the most popular forms of advertisement used by producers and more than one-third of producers (38.9%) reported having trouble with customers regarding a sale. Over 60% of consumers indicated they had purchased B2C beef less than 5 times, with more than 73% indicating that more than 75% of their beef purchased was local. Low take-home weights, portion sizes, and quality were among consumers' most cited troubles. Lack of freezer space (25%), price (24.9%), and quantity of product (41.7%) were reported as the largest barriers to consumer participation in B2C marketing. Both consumers and producers indicated that consumer testimonials would be the most beneficial in improving producer/consumer interactions, with educational materials from government sources viewed as the least beneficial. These results provide a baseline for B2C beef marketing and provide insight into impactful strategies to use to assist in this process.
Keywords: beef; business-to-consumer; consumers; local; marketing; producers.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest
Similar articles
-
Consumers' satisfaction factors mining and sentiment analysis of B2C online pharmacy reviews.BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Aug 17;20(1):194. doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01214-x. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020. PMID: 32807175 Free PMC article.
-
Consumers' preference and willingness to pay for graded beef in Polokwane municipality, South Africa.Ital J Food Saf. 2019 Mar 28;8(1):7654. doi: 10.4081/ijfs.2019.7654. eCollection 2019 Mar 18. Ital J Food Saf. 2019. PMID: 31008083 Free PMC article.
-
Grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef systems: performance, economic, and environmental trade-offs.J Anim Sci. 2022 Feb 1;100(2):skab374. doi: 10.1093/jas/skab374. J Anim Sci. 2022. PMID: 34936699 Free PMC article.
-
International red meat trade.Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2003 Jul;19(2):493-518. doi: 10.1016/s0749-0720(03)00024-0. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2003. PMID: 12951744 Review.
-
Consumer Perception of Beef Quality and How to Control, Improve and Predict It? Focus on Eating Quality.Foods. 2022 Jun 13;11(12):1732. doi: 10.3390/foods11121732. Foods. 2022. PMID: 35741930 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Alfnes, F., and Sharma A... 2010. Locally produced food in restaurants: are the customers willing to pay a premium and why? Int. J. Revenue Manage. 4:238–258. doi: 10.1504/ijrm.2010.035955 - DOI
-
- Bir, C., Peel D., Holcomb R., Raper K., and Jones J. J... 2021. The impact of COVID-19 on meat processing, and the renewed interest in local processing capabilities. West. Econ. Forum. 19:9–20. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.311303 - DOI
-
- Harr, K. M., Beyer E. S., Farmer K. J., Davis S. G., Chao M. D., Vipham J. L., Zumbaugh M. D., and O’Quinn T. G... 2022. Labeling terms and production claims influence consumers’ palatability perceptions of ground beef. Meat Muscle Biol. 6:1–11. doi: 10.22175/mmb.15518 - DOI
-
- Kansas Farm Bureau. 2023. Shop Kansas Farms. https://shopkansasfarms.com/ Accessed August 4, 2023.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources