Consumer Research Final Presentation - EAF Spring 2013

7/28/2019 Consumer Research Final Presentation - EAF Spring 2013

1/24

CONSUMER

PREFERENCES FORGREEN RESTAURANT

PRACTICES


2/24

Environment Agriculture Food (EAF) Group at theUniversity of Chicago

Consumer Research Team Green Restaurant Research Team Program on Global Environment at University of

Chicago

WHO WE ARE


3/24

The most important claims to impact willingness to pay are:

1. Local and Organic2. Fair Trade3. Carbon Reduction

Onozaka, Yuko Et. Al., Defining Sustainable Food Market Segments: Do Motivations and Values Vary byShopping Locale, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, January 2011

OTHER FINDINGS


4/24


5/24

About 85% of Americans are willing to pay something for greenpractices (Our survey confirms this for Chicagoans)

Schubert, Kandampully, Solnet, Kralj Exploring Consumer Perceptions of Green Restaurants in the US, School

of Tourism, University of Queensland, 2010

OTHER FINDINGS


6/24

Survey of 321 patrons from Chicago Area via Surveymonkey General dining characteristics Consumer environmental concerns Willingness to pay for green practices General demographics

OUR SURVEY


7/24

KEY QUESTIONS

In the past MONTH, how many times have you purchased

food from any of the following types of restaurants?

Restaurant Purchases Monthly

Restaurant Type Mean SD

WTP

Corr

Fast Food 5.07 3.99 0.095

Fast Casual 2.21 1.87 0.157

Pizza 2.56 1.46 -0.035

Casual Sit Down 1.83 1.25 -0.030

Fine Sit Down 2.69 1.31 -0.018


8/24

KEY QUESTIONS

On AVERAGE, how much do you

spend when you eat out?

Amount Paid

Meal Amount

Breakfast $7.97

Lunch $10.93

Dinner $21.28


9/24

KEY QUESTIONS

On a scale of 1-10,when choosing to visita restaurant for

DINNER, howimportant are thefollowingcharacteristics aboutthe restaurant?

Restaurant Characteristics

Characteristic Score

Menu 8.4

Value for Money 8.2

Convenient Location 7.5Informed Staff 7.0

Ambiance 6.8

Local Food Choices 5.7

Energy/Water Conservation 3.8

Recycling/Composting 3.8

Organic Food Choices 3.6


10/24

KEY QUESTIONS

What characteristics do

you expect green

restaurants to exhibit?

From most to least common:

Tasty

Modern

Vegetarian Friendly

Independent

New

Artisanal

Expensive


11/24

KEY QUESTIONS

How do you usually find

out that a restaurant is

engaged in

environmentally friendly

practices?

From Most to Least Common

While Dining

Restaurant WebsitePublicity

Friends/Family

Social Media

Another WebsiteCommunity Outreach


12/24

Who are you serving?

We divided patrons into three clusters- different groupingsbased on data analysis

We segmented these clusters even more to determine theirpreferences with regards to certain environmental factors

CONSUMER SEGMENTATION


13/24

CLUSTER DESCRIPTIONS

1: Not Engagednot engaged with environmental issues; thefood factor is ambiguous

2: Highly Engagedpeople who are highly engaged in theenvironment and food issues

3: Eco-Consciouspeople who are engaged in the environmentbut not food


14/24

Clusters Count Average

Income

Average

Age

Percent

Female

Not Engaged 78 $85,576 47 27

Highly

Engaged

173 $97,398 49 42

Eco-

Conscious

45 $64,444 41 58

Full Sample 296 $89,272 47 40

DEMOGRAPHICS


15/24

Clusters Breakfast Lunch Dinner

Not Engaged $8.42 $10.85 $20.85

Highly Engaged $7.86 $10.99 $21.76

Eco-Conscious $7.65 $10.80 $20.05

Average $7.94 $10.93 $21.28

AVERAGE SPENDING EATING OUT


16/24

On a scale of 1-10, how does the fact that a food item isUSDA Certified Organic affect your decision to buy the

item?

On a scale of 1-10, how much do you trust claims fromrestaurants about environmentally friendly practices?

CONSUMER TRUST SURVEYQUESTIONS


17/24

Clusters USDA

Certification

Trusting

Restaurants

Not Engaged 3.58 4.17

Highly Engaged 5.47 5.07

Eco-Conscious 5.00 5.36

Average 4.90 4.87

CONSUMER TRUST


18/24

Conjoint analysis for entrees between $15 - $19

Tested willingness to pay for:

80% of ingredients organic, 50% or no organic.Locally sourced ingredients v.s Not local

CONJOINT INTRODUCTION


19/24

Price Premiums

Feature All Male Female

Not

Engaged Highly Engaged

Eco-

Conscious

50%Organic $1.58 $1.31 $2.14 $0 $2.07 $2.79

80%Organic 2.52 1.94 3.77 0 3.93 4.47

Local 5.24 4.47 7.16 3.31 7.43 3.54

CONJOINT DATA RESULTS


20/24

Price Premiums

Feature

0

25,000

25,000

50,000

50,000

75,000

75,000

100,000

100,000 or

more

50%Organic $1.31 $1.13 $1.87 $1.72 $1.87

80%Organic 1.94 2.19 2.03 3.44 3.21

Local 2.72 1.95 4.46 10.56 7.73

CONJOINT INCOME


21/24

Price Premiums

Feature 18 -29 30 44 45 - 60 >60

50%Organic $2.20 $2.00 $1.30 $1.40

80%Organic 4.19 4.51 1.44 1.75

Local 2.51 7.63 4.64 7.32

CONJOINT AGE


22/24

While Chicago ranks 8 for frequency for carry outlunch, it is not in the top 20 for dine in lunch

Chicagoans tend to describe themselves asFoodies more often then other Americans

In terms of WTP for green practices Chicagoans arenot different with the exception of highly educated

consumers have higher WTP in Chicago then

elsewhere

CHICAGO VS USA

Source: Dining Out, Living Social, Washington, September 15, 2011.


23/24

Chicagoans are willing to pay a premium! Communicate: website draws consumers, during dining repeat

business

Consumers are more likely to believe green claims when theyare specific and what they can relate to

Eco-conscious consumers care more about green practicesthan foodies, but foodies care too

Affluent women age 30-44: highest demand for green practices Consumers care most about local food and recycling

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS


24/24

Green Chicago Restaurant CoalitionGreen SealPublic Policy Department at the University of Chicago

Pam CohenNancy HimmelfarbSabina Shaikh

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	uchicagopge
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Consumer Research Final Presentation - EAF Spring 2013

Documents