PDO Beef Recognition: How Can We Improve It?

This art icle was downloaded by: [ St at sbibliot eket Tidsskrift afdeling] On: 18 June 2015, At : 03: 46 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ wif a20 PDO Beef Recognition: How Can We Improve It? a Magda Aguiar Font es , Marij a Banovi ć a & Maria Madalena Barreira a , José Pedro Cardoso Lemos a a Technical Universit y of Lisbon (TULisbon) , Lisboa , Port ugal Published online: 25 Sep 2012. To cite this article: Magda Aguiar Font es , Marij a Banovi ć , José Pedro Cardoso Lemos & Maria Madalena Barreira (2012) PDO Beef Recognit ion: How Can We Improve It ?, Journal of Int ernat ional Food & Agribusiness Market ing, 24: 4, 288-305, DOI: 10. 1080/ 08974438. 2012. 716324 To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08974438. 2012. 716324 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 24:288–305, 2012 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0897-4438 print=1528-6983 online DOI: 10.1080/08974438.2012.716324 PDO Beef Recognition: How Can We Improve It? Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 MAGDA AGUIAR FONTES, MARIJA BANOVIĆ, JOSÉ PEDRO CARDOSO LEMOS, and MARIA MADALENA BARREIRA Technical University of Lisbon (TULisbon), Lisboa, Portugal There is agreement that product origin affects its quality evaluations. Though existing legislation makes use of this fact, recognition of such terms and symbols is quite low and taking advantage of origin as a differentiation source is often lost. Using a sample of Portuguese consumers and Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) beef, results confirm low level of PDO label recognition. It is not enough to communicate that a PDO label is linked to a particular region, but other aspects should be highlighted, namely, products’ experience attributes. Efforts should be made to improve communication to the consumer of what a PDO label exactly stands for. KEYWORDS beef market, clusters, PDO, quality attributes INTRODUCTION Quality has become the invariable essence of meat products for both industry and consumers following the constant turbulence in the European meat sector. The repeated scares brought forward a lack of consumer confidence toward beef and intense attention regarding the quality and safety of beef. This is evident across the European Union (EU) where we see an increase This research was supported by Project AGRO 422: A Quality Policy for the Beef Sector in Portugal. Production Systems, Consumers’ Tastes and Preferences. M. Banović is supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through Grant SFRH=BPD=63067=2009. We thank students of Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária (first-, fourth-, and final-year students) and to first year students of Instituto Superior de Agronomia for implementing the questionnaires. We also thank Professors Maria Inês Mansinho and Filomena Duarte for their helpful comments. Address correspondence to Magda Aguiar Fontes, Faculdade de Medicina VeterináriaCIISA, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. da Universidade Técnica, Polo Universitário Alto da Ajuda, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: magdaaguiar@fmv.utl.pt 288 Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 PDO Beef Recognition 289 in consumers’ concerns about beef safety (Krystallis, Chryssochoidis, & Scholderer, 2007; Wezemael, Verbeke, Kügler, de Barcellos, & Grunert, 2010). In consequence of these scares with beef in the main role, consumers started being particularly interested in extrinsic quality cues such as region or country of origin, production method, brand name, and traceability systems certifications (Bredahl, 2003; Grunert, Bredahl, & Brunsø, 2004; Krystallis & Arvanitoyannis, 2006; Scholderer, Brunsø, Bredahl, & Grunert, 2004). This sensitivity to the origin and method of production has been reported across the European Union and is seen as a significant source of differentiation. Grunert (1997) did a cross-cultural study on beef quality perception suggesting that one of the most important product attributes on which consumers base their beef quality evaluation, besides fat content and color, is country of origin. A similar study was undertaken in Portugal by Banović, Grunert, Barreira, and Aguiar Fontes (2009) where it was concluded that extrinsic product information might actually influence consumers’ evaluations of intrinsic product attributes and beef quality perception. Henson and Northen (2000) analyzed how consumers assess the safety of beef at the point of purchase, highlighting the importance of providing information as origin, quality label, and production method to consumers. Furthermore, the authors concluded that the relevant information to be given to consumers differs between countries, confirming the need to accurately know market requirements and consumers’ behavior toward particular products. Krystallis and Arvanitoyannis (2006) studied the concept of meat quality from the Greek consumers’ perspective reporting that there are different consumer types who evaluate meat quality differently based, namely, on labels and brand name, nutritional value, and microbial or chemical safety. Vanhonacker, Verbeke, van Poucke, and Tuyttens (2007) undertook market segmentation in Belgium based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. These authors identified specific market opportunities for high welfare products associated with compatible marketing strategies. The increased consumer interest in products with specific origin and transparent methods of production offered the EU legislators a road for implementation of quality assurance strategies along the beef supply chain. The main aim of these strategies was to reduce the perception of risk related to beef purchase and to remove negative attitudes associated with the production process and the quality of beef (Fearne, Hornibrook, & Dedman, 2001; Guerrero 2001). By marketing products with quality designations such as Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) or Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), a better way of delivering more transparent and superior quality beef to consumers may be achieved. Indeed, in 1992, within the European Union, a specific regulation (Council Regulation (ECC) No 2081=92) was put forward and later on replaced by Regulation (EC) 510=2006. This legislation is a way of valuing food products with a recognizable local identity. The need to respond to European consumer demand for higher quality beef Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 290 M. Aguiar Fontes et al. and the wish to have products from specific geographical origins explain the existence of this regulation (Guerrero, 2001). The European Union has 32 beef products with quality designations, 13 corresponding to PDO and 19 to PGI quality designations (Rosati, 2009). Portugal is the member state with the highest number of beef products with such designations though this is still a niche market accounting for less than 3% of all the beef marketed in Portugal. However, even though quality designations are seen as a good way of improving quality image of a product, many consumers are still not aware of what such designations mean. Previous surveys undertaken in Portugal have reported that around 60% of consumers do not know what PDO=PGI stand for (Fragata, Tibério, & Teixeira, 2007; Marreiros & Ness, 2004). A brief literature review shows that this should be the case across Europe. A report from London Economics (2008) indicates that although consumer awareness of PDO and PGI products is growing, they have a relatively weak spontaneous consumer recognition, and this is even a reality in Southern Member States normally considered to have these types of products more established and widespread (Bonnet & Simioni, 2001; Fotopoulos & Krystallis, 2001). It seems then that within the European Union, recognition of PDO and PGI terms and what they represent is low. We are here facing a challenge: although a significant number of beef quality designations are available, consumer recognition of such products is quite low. However, if such designations are an instrument of delivering superior quality and safety then we need to understand what went wrong and how perception of such products could be improved. The main objective of this study is to assess consumers’ perceptions and recognition of PDO beef, using as a case study the Portuguese market, and shed more light on how to improve PDO beef recognition. We can specify two particular objectives: (a) to identify major dimensions on buying motives, on attributes’ evaluation of beef quality, and on the perception of PDO beef versus beef in general as this may allow delivering consistently over time high-quality products that respond to changing market needs and (b) to characterize consumers of PDO beef and assess if such characterization is translated in particular market segments. This is particularly relevant for market players as indeed a deep knowledge of consumer perceptions, attitudes, and preferences is required to develop strategies that can bring them a sustainable competitive advantage. These objectives are quite relevant when we also consider the successive Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms. The last CAP reform (2003) has been put into force and a major consequence is the need for farmers to be more market oriented. This was achieved mainly through decoupling; the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme; and changes concerning market access, where farmers are forced to make their production decisions more in accordance with market demand than simply answering to support measures. Being market oriented requires a constant monitoring and responsiveness to changes in the market PDO Beef Recognition 291 needs. Thus, this article sheds more light on market behavior for differentiated beef as well as on the attributes and cues that are particularly relevant for consumers’ buying behavior of such products. Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 DATA COLLECTION Data was collected in Portugal through a quantitative survey with the use of a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire included different sections: beef buying and consuming behavior, preferences and attitudes toward beef (in general), and PDO beef and sociodemographic characteristics. The complete list of the scales and scale items used in the questionnaire are given in the Appendix. All the statements included in the questionnaire were based on five focus groups undertaken in Portugal (Project Agro 422) and crosschecked with a literature review (Grunert, 1997; Grunert et al., 2004; Marreiros & Ness, 2004; Resurreccion, 2003). The field research included a sample of 780 respondents. All the respondents were recruited by the interviewer using nonprobability judgment sampling, a method also adapted in similar studies (Krystallis & Arvanitoyannis, 2006; Verbeke & Vackier, 2004). Although the sample was not randomly selected, a diversity of sociodemographic characteristics was achieved, namely, age, household structure, region, level of literacy, and income class. The respondents had to be responsible for the food shopping decisions in their households to ensure that the sample was based on those consumers involved in meat purchases. The interviews were arranged at the convenience of the respondents in order to conduct 45-min personal interviews at their homes. The personal interviews were thought of as the most appropriate data collection technique due to the relatively extended size of the questionnaire. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The final sample is shown in Table 1. The sample includes households mainly from the region of Lisboa and Vale do Tejo. This was expected as consumers from this region are major beef purchasers and, as beef is normally a higher priced good within the meat group, our sample was biased toward medium to higher income and literacy levels. This is in accordance with previous work undertaken in Portugal (Banović et al., 2010). The majority of the respondents are female, mainly ranging from 36 to 55 years old; again this was expected because females still have the major responsibility for household food shopping. Most of them buy unpacked beef at the butcher, normally one to three times a month, and consume beef twice a week or more. Interestingly, these characteristics are quite similar to those in the work by Krystallis and Arvanitoyannis (2006) concerning Greek consumers, who have a ‘‘Mediterranean Diet’’ as in Portugal. A large proportion of the sample 292 M. Aguiar Fontes et al. TABLE 1 Sample Characteristics Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 Sample Characteristics Valid Percentage Region Norte Centro Lisboa and Vale Tejo Alentejo Algarve Madeira and Açores Gender Female Male Age
35 36–55 56 Income (4)
1,110 1,110–1,850 1,851–3,700 >3,700 Literacy Primary Secondary High (bachelor or above) Buying frequency Less than once a month 1–3 times a month At least once a week Butcher Yes No Unpacked beef Never Rarely Very often Always Consumption frequency Less than once a week Once a week Twice a week or more Beef appreciation Dislike Like a little Indifferent Like Like a lot PDO recognition Yes No Note. PDO ¼ Protected Designation of Origin. 5.4 8.5 76.2 4.1 3.3 2.6 76.3 23.7 23.7 54.6 21.7 28.0 27.7 29.0 15.2 32.9 25.4 41.7 17.6 43.5 39.0 58.5 41.5 2.9 18.1 26.1 52.9 11.7 26.2 42.1 2.9 9.4 7.9 53.3 26.4 44.2 55.8 293 PDO Beef Recognition Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 likes beef but has a low level of PDO recognition. This confirms findings from previous studies that Portuguese consumers do not know what quality designations such as PDO=PGI stand for (Fragata et al., 2007; Marreiros & Ness, 2004). The collected data on beef-buying motives, beef-quality attributes, and PDO beef-quality attributes were analyzed using factor analysis followed by cluster analysis. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to obtain data reduction and to investigate the dimensional structure of the data. The sets of variables were each factor -analyzed to explore their dimensionality. Factor Analysis BEEF-QUALITY ATTRIBUTES Factor analysis using PCA and varimax rotation was performed on the major beef-quality attributes. Four factors were identified explaining 46% of total variance and with all the eigenvalues above one (Table 2). Factor 1 was named beef source as it includes statements related to beef origin and animal breed. The items that loaded most heavily on Factor 2 were, in general, highly associated with information available externally; therefore it was TABLE 2 Evaluation of Beef Quality Attributes: Factor Solution Statement Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Beef Extrinsic Intrinsic Price and Source Attributes Attributes Quality I trust domestic beef much more Beef origin is highly important Organic beef is always safer Animal breed highly influences beef quality Certified beef is always better Expiration date is determinant in buying decision Label information is very important I do not mind paying more for animal welfare Appearance is highly important Tenderness is highly important Freshness is fundamental Cut is highly important Beef with intramuscular fat is always tastier I am very sensitive to beef promotions Price is determinant in the decision of buying Higher price is always a sign of higher quality Eigenvalue Variance (%) Cumulative variance (%) 0.704 0.696 0.528 0.450 0.407 0.043 0.194 0.372 0.183 0.073 0.049 0.320 0.193 0.141 0.035 0.385 2.154 13.465 13.465 0.094 0.141 0.189 0.077 0.370 0.694 0.673 0.470 0.464 0.276 0.259 0.075 0.276 0.052 0.027 0.066 1.811 11.319 24.784 0.224 0.177 0.085 0.342 0.160 0.123 0.123 0.024 0.451 0.661 0.555 0.523 0.513 0.048 0.059 0.222 1.802 11.261 36.046 0.037 0.153 0.146 0.084 0.013 0.038 0.037 0.296 0.035 0.015 0.083 0.075 0.030 0.768 0.762 0.494 1.574 9.839 45.884 Note. n ¼ 743. Loadings were derived for each of these factors using a varimax rotation. Bartlett’s test for sphericity: v2120 ¼ 1616.069 (p < .001). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: KMO ¼ 0.778. Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 294 M. Aguiar Fontes et al. named extrinsic attributes. Factor 3 has a strong emphasis on the items associated to beef itself and it was tagged intrinsic attributes. Finally, Factor 4 was labeled price=quality as it groups statements linked to price and its relationship with quality. The obtained factors show that consumers distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic attributes, which is in accordance with previous studies found in the literature (Acebron & Dopico, 2000; Grunert et al., 2004). Furthermore, although Factor 2 and Factor 4 are mainly related to extrinsic attributes, there is a clear separation between them. Factor 4 is characterized by parameters linked with price and Factor 2 includes other extrinsic attributes. Notice that the factor that weighs the most is Factor 1, beef source. This result is highly relevant for this study because one of the pillars of the PDO designation is exactly the region of origin and therefore here might lie a solution to improve PDO recognition. PDO BEEF-QUALITY ATTRIBUTES Another factor analysis was performed on PDO beef-quality attributes and three factors were obtained explaining 66% of total variance (Table 3). The items that loaded most heavily on Factor 1 are highly associated with credence qualities, thus it was named credence. On the other hand, Factor 2 was called experience as it is based on the statements linked with beef-eating quality, such as tenderness and juiciness. Finally, Factor 3, tagged market, is related mainly to market characteristics such as availability or price. TABLE 3 PDO Beef Quality Attributes: Factor Solution Statement: PDO beef is . . . A guarantee of the product genuineness A factor that promotes higher development of region of origin Always safer Offered with more regular quality Always tender Always juicier Of higher quality Much harder to find Always more expensive A source of higher income for producers Eigenvalue Variance (%) Cumulative variance (%) Factor 1 Credence Factor 2 Experience Factor 3 Market 0.812 0.742 0.219 0.038 0.114 0.265 0.742 0.714 0.166 0.244 0.498 –0.146 0.303 0.301 2.810 28.101 28.101 0.335 0.284 0.896 0.861 0.657 0.239 0.171 –0.210 2.349 23.486 58.587 0.087 0.035 0.082 0.108 0.076 0.803 0.596 0.561 1.432 14.318 65.905 Note. n ¼ 753. Loadings were derived for each of these factors using a varimax rotation. Bartlett’s test for sphericity: v245 ¼ 2932.678 (p < .001). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: KMO ¼ 0.836. PDO ¼ Protected Designation of Origin. 295 PDO Beef Recognition Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 The resulting factors from previous analysis and from this analysis are in accordance with the quality dimensions defined in the literature as search, experience, and credence (Bech, Grunert, Bredahl, Juhl, & Poulsen, 2001). Search dimension consists of intrinsic and extrinsic attributes, where intrinsic refers to characteristics of the product itself and extrinsic refers to information around the product. These search dimensions are the ones that the consumer can evaluate, or ascertain, at the point of purchase. Experience dimension is the one that the consumer can ascertain when eating= using the product and by credence dimension is meant that the consumer cannot ascertain upon, even when consuming the product, but has to trust third parties. BUYING MOTIVES Using the factor analysis undertaken by Aguiar Fontes et al. (2008) on the major motives influencing fresh beef purchases, three factors were identified explaining 59% of total variance and all the eigenvalues above one (Table 4). These three factors were named taste and health, convenience, and price. It is interesting to notice that these purchase motives diverge to some degree from those found in previous studies (Grunert, 1997; Grunert et al., 2004). Cluster Analysis and Profiling of the Clusters The factors obtained from previous analysis, together with variables on beef and PDO beef buying and consumption behavior, were used to perform K-means cluster analysis.1 Thus, in this segmentation analysis, four groups TABLE 4 Buying Motives: Factor Solution Motives Taste Appreciated by all at home Healthy Can be prepared a variety of ways It is appropriate for special occasions Habitually consumed Easy to prepare Price Appearance Eigenvalue Variance (%) Cumulative variance (%) Factor 1 Taste and Health Factor 2 Convenience Factor 3 Price 0.804 0.768 0.627 0.076 0.024 0.461 0.327 0.002 0.420 2.131 23.676 23.676 0.084 0.306 0.112 0.791 0.694 0.532 0.521 0.184 0.185 1.844 20.488 44.164 0.190 0.058 0.477 0.070 0.285 0.223 0.166 0.776 0.543 1.328 14.758 58.921 Note. n ¼ 695. Loadings were derived for each of these factors using a varimax rotation. Bartlett’s test for sphericity: v236 ¼ 1177.446 (p < .001). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: KMO ¼ 0.797. Source: Aguiar Fontes et al. (2008). Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 296 M. Aguiar Fontes et al. of variables were used: (a) buying and consumption behavior, beef appreciation, and recognition of PDO beef; (b) factors obtained for buying motives; (c) factors on beef-quality attributes; and (d) factors on PDO beef-quality attributes. The main objective was to identify relatively homogeneous groups of consumers so that those within a group (or cluster) are as similar as possible to each other. For the cluster procedure we have used standardized scores (Z score) for buying and consumption behavior, beef appreciation, and recognition of PDO beef variables. The results show a three-cluster solution (Table 5). Cluster 1, with 39% of the sample, includes respondents who more frequently purchase and consume beef, have the highest level of beef appreciation, and know more frequently what PDO beef means. Their main motives for buying beef are convenience and taste and health. The beef-quality attributes that these respondents appreciate more are beef source and intrinsic attributes. PDO beef is evaluated above average by these respondents for experience and particularly credence attributes. Hence, this cluster gathers respondents who are real connoisseurs of beef. They know what they want and they base their options mainly on sensorial characteristics of beef experienced in previous usage situations. This segment was tagged ‘‘experts.’’ TABLE 5 Cluster Means for Segmentation Variables: One-Way ANOVA Variables Cluster 1 Experts Buying and consumption behavior Buying frequency 0.52a Consumption frequency 0.56a Level of appreciation 0.48a PDO recognition 0.60a Buying motives 0.33a Taste and health 0.33a Convenience 0.34a Price 0.07a Beef-quality attributes Beef source 0.32a Extrinsic attributes 0.09a Intrinsic attributes 0.31a Price=quality 0.23a PDO beef-quality attributes Credence 0.69a Experience 0.20a Market 0.05a Number of respondents 252 Percentage of respondents 39% Cluster 2 Price Conscious Cluster 3 Uninvolved 0.23b 0.67b 0.48b 0.09b 0.68b 0.68b 0.20b 0.29b 0.30c 0.38c 0.23c 0.72c 0.14c 0.14c 0.19b 0.21a 76.627 187.107 78.502 147.137 69.498 69.498 23.356 13.825 (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) 0.20a 0.23b 0.08b 0.33b 0.51b 0.05a 0.15b 0.03c 51.005 6.138 15.259 16.640 (<0.001) (0.002) (<0.001) (<0.001) 0.04b 0.07b 0.28a 178 28% 0.73c 0.24b 0.27b 213 33% F (Sig. Level) 183.515 (<0.001) 11.852 (<0.001) 14.836 (<0.001) Note. Method: K-means cluster. n ¼ 643. a,b,c Scores in the same row with a different superscript are significantly different at p < .05 (post hoc Least Significant Difference and Tamhan multiple comparison tests). Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 PDO Beef Recognition 297 Cluster 2, with 28% of respondents, includes those who buy and consume beef less often. They are also the ones who have a lower level of beef appreciation. For these respondents price is the most important buying motive. Furthermore, the relationship price=quality assumes particular relevance in beef appreciation. Interestingly these respondents consider beef source as an important beef-quality attribute, similar to respondents of Cluster 1. On the other hand, these respondents have a low level of PDO recognition. As they are not familiar with PDO beef they cannot base their evaluations on credence and experience attributes; thus PDO beef quality is mainly perceived through the market factor and they consider that this type of beef is difficult to find. The factor that matters the most to the respondents of this cluster is certainly the cost itself of obtaining beef, and thus this segment was named ‘‘price conscious.’’ Cluster 3, with 33% of respondents, includes those respondents who even though appreciating beef and having a higher frequency of beef buying and consumption, have no knowledge of PDO beef. Interestingly, taste and health is the main buying motive for these respondents pointing to the importance of estimating the beef qualities beforehand and giving them their proper value. Moreover, these respondents assign a special importance to extrinsic beef-quality attributes, whereas other attributes are considered indifferent or evaluated lower. Indeed these consumers assign particular relevance to those meat characteristics that are related to the information around beef, using it to evaluate quality at the point of purchase. The respondents from this segment seem to have an actual interest in beef and one would expect them to have a higher recognition of PDO beef. However, generally they do not know what PDO beef is and they do not take into account any of the PDO beef-quality attributes, evaluating them below average. Hence, they are quite ‘‘uninvolved’’ regarding PDO beef. PROFILING OF THE CLUSTERS Profiling of the clusters was undertaken, using one-way ANOVA with post hoc t tests and cross-tabulation with chi-square statistics. In one-way ANOVA the consumer groups (clusters) were used as the independent variable. The hypotheses to be tested were the following: ‘‘Do cluster groups differ significantly based on buying and consumption behavior, beef appreciation, and knowledge of PDO beef?’’ ‘‘Do cluster groups differ significantly based on the factors obtained on buying motives, on beef-quality attributes, and on PDO beef-quality attributes?’’ Cross-tabulation with chi-square statistics was used to test the relationship between the socioeconomic characteristics, beef buying and consumption behavior, and the three consumer groups. Table 6 shows the cross-tabulation of the obtained clusters with a set of sociodemographic variables. It is interesting to notice that the female and older respondents are mainly present in Cluster 2, the ‘‘price conscious.’’ 298 M. Aguiar Fontes et al. TABLE 6 Cluster Profiling With Socioeconomic Variables: Cross-Tabulation (Values Given in Percent) Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 Sample Characteristics Gender Female Age <35 36–55 >56 Literacy level Primary Secondary High (bachelor or above) Income level (4)
1,110 1,110–1,850 1,851–3,700 >3700 Chi-square Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Price Cluster 3 Significance Experts Conscious Uninvolved Sample Level 70.2 80.9 78.9 76.0 0.019 18.3 60.3 21.5 18.6 55.4 26.0 30.0 49.8 20.2 22.3 55.5 22.3 0.013 27.0 25.0 48.0 41.0 22.5 36.5 36.2 26.8 37.1 33.9 24.9 41.2 0.018 17.7 27.4 32.7 22.2 35.6 27.0 23.6 13.8 31.4 25.6 32.4 10.6 27.2 26.7 30.0 16.1 <0.001 Moreover, and as expected, this segment includes a relatively large share of respondents with low income and literacy levels. On the other hand, respondents with the highest income and literacy levels are more present in the ‘‘experts’’ segment (Cluster 1). The youngest respondents are prevalent in Cluster 3, the ‘‘uninvolved,’’ explaining the lower levels of PDO beef knowledge. Buying and consumption behavior are very different between clusters (Table 7). Approximately 61% of respondents included in the ‘‘experts’’ segment buy beef at least once a week and 74% consume beef more than twice a week. These respondents prefer more frequently unpacked beef, normally buying it at the butcher, and 44% reveal the highest level of beef appreciation. On the other hand, in the ‘‘price conscious’’ segment, only 16% of respondents buy beef at least once a week and only 13% consume beef more than twice a week. These respondents do not appreciate beef so much and only 9% of respondents reveal the highest level of appreciation. Consumer positioning of PDO beef is analyzed in Table 8. Notice that although the statements here included were used in the factor analysis it is interesting to see how respondents within the three clusters evaluate differently, and significantly, PDO beef quality. Statements included in factor credence are all evaluated above average by the ‘‘experts’’ segment and below average by the ‘‘uninvolved’’ segment. ‘‘Experts’’ respondents evaluate above average all the intrinsic attributes as expected because the majority of them know what PDO beef is. Statements included in factor market are all evaluated below average by respondents in ‘‘uninvolved’’ segment. 299 PDO Beef Recognition TABLE 7 Cluster Profiling With Buying and Consumption Behavior: Cross-Tabulation (Values Given in Percent) Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 Sample Characteristics Buying frequency Less than once a month 1–3 times a month At least once a week Butcher Yes No Unpacked beef Never Rarely Very often Always Consumption frequency Less than once a week Once a week Twice a week or more Beef appreciation Dislike Like a little Indifferent Like Like a lot Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Price Cluster 3 Chi-square Experts Conscious Uninvolved Sample Significance Level 1.2 37.7 61.1 24.2 60.1 15.7 4.7 51.2 44.1 8.7 48.4 42.9 <0.001 65.5 34.5 48.9 51.1 58.7 41.3 58.6 41.4 0.003 1.2 14.8 26.1 57.8 6.3 23.5 20.0 50.3 1.9 19.8 28.4 50.0 2.8 18.8 25.2 53.2 0.014 3.2 23.0 73.8 58.5 28.7 12.9 9.4 31.0 59.6 20.5 27.2 52.3 <0.001 0.0 1.2 3.2 52.0 43.7 2.8 21.9 12.9 53.4 9.0 0.9 3.3 5.2 62.0 28.6 1.1 7.6 6.5 55.7 29.1 0.001 TABLE 8 Cluster Means for PDO Beef-Quality Attributes: One-Way ANOVA Quality Attributes Guarantees product genuineness Promotes higher region development Always safer Offered with more regular quality Always tender Always juicier Of higher quality Much harder to find Always more expensive Source of higher income for producers Cluster 1 Experts Cluster 2 Price Conscious Cluster 3 Uninvolved Sample Significance Level 4.4a 4.0b 3.5c 4.0 <0.001 4.3a 4.0b 3.5c 3.9 <0.001 4.2a 4.1a 3.8b 3.6b 3.4c 3.3c 3.8 3.7 <0.001 <0.001 3.5a 3.7a 3.9a 3.4a 3.8a 3.4a 3.3b 3.4b 3.6b 3.5a,b 3.8a 3.4a 3.1c 3.1c 3.2c 3.2a,c 3.3b 3.1b 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.3 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.010 <0.001 <0.001 Note. PDO ¼ Protected Designation of Origin. a,b,c Scores in the same row with a different superscript are significantly different at p < .05 (post hoc Least Significant Difference and Tamhan multiple comparison tests). 300 M. Aguiar Fontes et al. Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 CONCLUSION This article suggests that even though there has been a bulk of research on product origin effects and the researchers have generally agreed that the attribute origin affects product evaluations (see introductory part for a review), consumers often do not know what to make of the PDO label and only after receiving exhausting explanation seem to understand its benefits. These findings are in accordance with other studies across the European Union (Bonnet & Simioni, 2001; Fotopoulos & Krystallis, 2001; Fregata et al., 2007; Marreiros & Ness, 2004). The results of EU quality assurance legislation seem not to have been satisfactory in spite of the recent increase in consumers’ interest in the ‘‘where’’ and ‘‘how’’ products are produced. This ‘‘origin labeling’’ is simply not ‘‘getting through’’ to the consumers. The corresponding labels, for example, Protected Designation of Origin, are often minimal and unrecognizable by the consumers. This is evident from previous studies as well as from the results of our research, where even ‘‘expert’’ consumers recognize PDO beef label only to some degree. What adds to this is the result on the PDO beef perception versus beef in general and the factor market where these consumers claim to have a problem finding PDO beef. Furthermore, though ‘‘beef experts’’ valorize to some degree an intrinsic advantage of PDO beef, the difference from the other consumer segments (e.g., ‘‘price conscious’’ and ‘‘uninvolved’’) is not so evident. Two mechanisms are at work here. First, not only is there a need for a better way to communicate PDO beef quality to consumers but also PDO beef producers must be aware of the need to make the intrinsic quality of their beef produced and marketed more constant and recognizable (see Banović et al., 2010). This could be achieved through adapting the existing quality grading system more in accordance with consumers’ attitudes and preferences, which might be a source of sustainable competitive advantage. From the results of our article the interesting segment to catch here would be ‘‘uninvolved’’ consumers, who have no knowledge of PDO beef, but their buying decisions are mainly motivated by taste and health. This is a segment of young and frequent beef consumers; therefore this might constitute an important segment for marketing strategies as they can be considered potential demand in the future. Further comparison of the ‘‘experts’’ and the ‘‘uninvolved’’ consumers segment highlights another interesting finding: though there are striking differences between these two segments mainly related to their recognition of PDO beef; there are some interesting similarities. Besides valorizing more experience part of consuming beef, both ‘‘expert’’ and the ‘‘uninvolved’’ consumers give similar importance to extrinsic beef attributes. In fact, using an effective communication strategy that links extrinsic attributes, and in this case PDO label, to buying motives related to taste and health, we could expect that ‘‘uninvolved’’ consumers will recognize PDO beef as worth buying. Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 PDO Beef Recognition 301 Finally, another important finding shows that ‘‘expert’’ consumers do not consider the factor beef source as an important beef attribute. This again emphasizes that it is not enough to communicate that PDO beef is linked to a particular region or production method, but other aspects should be highlighted, particularly those related to the experience aspect of eating this type of beef. Notice that consumers clearly identified a distinct dimension for intrinsic attributes, both for beef in general and PDO beef in particular; these intrinsic attributes are the ones more directly linked with the experience dimension of quality and, in turn, are mostly responsible for repeat purchases. From the aforementioned it is clear that the PDO labeling system does not provide consumers with clear information about the beef on sale. As display of this information is not compulsory, it seems that retailers do not bother to communicate and hand out the information describing the system to their customers. This brings misinterpretation of the PDO label and its low recognition among consumers. Thus, it is of outmost importance to ensure that the information around the PDO label is distinguishable within the shop so that the consumers can see that this information applies to a particular product and understand its meaning and message. Specifically, the information related to the origin, production method, and ‘‘experience’’ aspects of the product should be clearly displayed ensuring that the consumers can ‘‘trace’’ it back to its ‘‘source.’’ Of course, from the producer side, and especially in the case of beef, good practices should be nurtured to guarantee high-quality products that convey and reflect their presented characteristics. In that way the advantage that these ‘‘origin-labeled’’ products can offer would not be lost in the bulk of the other products but recognized and appreciated by consumers. NOTE 1. The distances were computed using simple Euclidean distance. REFERENCES Acebron, L. B., & Dopico, D. C. (2000). The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 229–238. Aguiar Fontes, M., Lemos, J. P. C., Banović, M., Monteiro, A. C. G., Lúcio, C., Duarte, M. F., & Barreira, M. M. (2008). Is beef differentiation a real source of competitiveness? A combination of procedures to achieve an answer. In R. Fanfani, E. Ball, L. Gutierrez, & E. Ricci Maccarini (Eds.), Competitiveness in agriculture and food industry: US and EU perspectives (pp. 137–153). Bologna, Italy: BUP. Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 302 M. Aguiar Fontes et al. Banović, M., Grunert, K. G., Barreira, M. M., & Aguiar Fontes, M. (2009). Portuguese beef quality perception at the point of purchase: A study from Portugal. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 335–342. Banović, M., Grunert, K. G., Barreira, M. M., & Aguiar Fontes, M. (2010). Consumers quality perception of national branded, national store branded, and imported store branded beef. Meat Science, 82, 54–65. Bech, A. C., Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., Juhl, H. J., & Poulsen, C. S. (2001). Consumers’ quality perception. In L. J. Frewer, E. Risvik, & H. Schifferstein (Eds.), Food, people and society: A European perspective of consumers’ food choices (pp. 97–113). New York, NY: Springer. Bonnet, C., & Simioni, M. (2001). Assessing consumer response to protected designation of origin labelling: A mixed multinomial logit approach. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4), 433–449. Bredahl, L. (2003). Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food Quality and Preference, 15(1), 65–75. Fearne, A., Hornibrook, S., & Dedman, S. (2001). The management of perceived risk in the food supply chain: A comparative study of retailer-led beef quality assurance schemes in Germany and Italy. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 4, 19–36. Fotopoulos, C., & Krystallis, A. (2001). Are quality labels a real marketing advantage? A conjoint application on Greek PDO protected olive oil. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 12(1), 1–22. Fragata, A., Tibério, M. L., & Teixeira, M. S. (2007). Traditional products with protected designation of origin: Policy and market situation in Portugal. New Medit, 2, 4–12. Grunert, K. G. (1997). What’s in a steak? A cross-cultural study of the quality perception of beef. Food Quality and Preference, 8(3), 157–174. Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Brunsø, K. (2004). Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector: A review. Meat Science, 66, 259–272. Guerrero, L. (2001). Marketing PDO (Products with Denominations of Origin) and PGI (Products with Geographical Identities). In L. J. Frewer, E. Risvik, & H. Schifferstein (Eds.), Food, people and society: A European perspective of consumers’ food choices (pp. 281–297). New York, NY: Springer. Henson, S., & Northen, J. (2000). Consumer assessment of the safety of beef at the point of purchase: A pan-European study. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(1), 90–105. Krystallis, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I. (2006). Investigating the concept of meat quality from the consumers’ perspective: The case of Greece. Meat Science, 72(1), 164–176. Krystallis, A., Chryssochoidis, G., & Scholderer, J. (2007). Consumer-perceived quality in traditional food chains: The case of the Greek meat supply chain. Appetite, 48, 54–68. London Economics. (2008). Evaluation of the CAP policy on Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical indication (PGI) (Final Report). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/pdopgi/ report_en.pdf Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 PDO Beef Recognition 303 Marreiros, C., & Ness, M. (2004). Perception of PDO beef: The Portuguese consumer (Working Paper). University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Peter, J. P., Olson, J. C., & Grunert, K. G. (1999). Consumer behaviour and marketing strategy (European ed.). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill. Resurreccion, A. V. A. (2003). Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and meat products. Meat Science, 66, 11–20. Rosati, M. (2009). Qualigeo: Atlas of European and Non-European PDO, PGI, TSG agri-food products. Retrieved from http://www.eumedia.es/portales/ agronline/files/libros/Qualigeo_Atlas.pdf Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., Bredahl, L., & Grunert, K. G. (2004). Cross-cultural validity of the food-related lifestyles instrument (FRL) within Western Europe. Appetite, 42, 197. Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2007). Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture, 15(3), 84–100. Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2004). Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science, 67(1), 159–168. Wezemael, L. V., Verbeke, W., Kügler, J. O., de Barcellos, M. D., & Grunert, K. C. (2010). European consumers and beef safety: Perceptions, expectations and uncertainty reduction strategies. Food Control, 21, 835–844. CONTRIBUTORS Magda Aguiar Fontes is assistant professor at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Lisbon, Technical University of Lisbon (TULisbon), teaching Economics and Management and other subjects such as Food Quality from the Consumer Perspective. In terms of research activities, she is involved in the supervision of some PhD students and in some research projects, particularly in the area of consumer perception and behaviour and also in agricultural economics. Marija Banović is a postdoctoral student at the Faculty of Economy, New University of Lisbon. Her research field is mainly in consumer behavior. José Pedro Cardoso Lemos is associate professor at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Lisbon, Technical University of Lisbon (TULisbon), teaching Animal Nutrition and Feeding. In terms of research activities, he is involved in the supervision of some PhD students and in some research projects, particularly in the area of meat quality. Maria Madalena Barreira was formerly an assistant professor at Agronomy Superior Institute, Technical University of Lisbon (TULisbon), teaching Farm Management and Econometrics. 304 M. Aguiar Fontes et al. APPENDIX Complete List of the Scales and Scale Items Used in the Questionnaire BUYING MOTIVES 5-point Attitude scale: (1) Not at all important (3) Important (5) Extremely important . Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 . . . . . . . . Taste Appreciated by all at home Healthy Can be prepared a variety of ways Appropriate for special occasions Habitually consumed Easy to prepare Price Appearance BEEF-QUALITY ATTRIBUTES 5-point Likert scale: (1) Totally disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (5) Totally agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I trust domestic beef much more Beef origin is highly important Organic beef is always safer Animal breed highly influences beef quality Certified beef is always better Expiration date is determinant in buying decision Label information is very important I do not mind paying more for animal welfare Appearance is highly important Tenderness is highly important Freshness is fundamental Cut is highly important Beef with intramuscular fat is always tastier I am very sensitive to beef promotions Price is determinant in the decision of buying Higher price is always a sign of higher quality PDO BEEF-QUALITY ATTRIBUTES 5-point Likert scale: (1) Totally disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (5) Totally agree PDO Beef Recognition PDO beef compared with other beef is . . . . . . . . . . . Downloaded by [Statsbiblioteket Tidsskriftafdeling] at 03:46 18 June 2015 . . a guarantee of the product genuineness a factor that promotes higher development of region of origin always safer offered with more regular quality always tender always juicier of higher quality much harder to find always more expensive a source of higher income for producers 305