Abstract
In the current global market, the development of novel products is important for staying competitive. The development of horticultural products often manifests as new cultivars. Gauging consumer interest is an important step in cultivar development because it is a resource-intensive process. The present study used an experimental auction to measure consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for novel fruit referred to as kiwiberry (Actinidia arguta and Actinidia kolomikta) and explore consumer segmentation for their preferences. The mean WTP for 6-ounce packages of kiwiberries ranged from $1.63 to $2.19, depending on species and cultivar. Four groups of consumers were identified in relation to their WTP for kiwiberries. Using survey data, socio-demographic variables such as age, education, and neophobic attitudes were significantly different between the mixed kiwiberry price premium and kiwiberry discounting groups. These findings suggest that consumers with variety-seeking tendencies have a WTP for kiwiberries that is comparable to that for other berries. Marketing strategies for these groups are proposed.
Global production and new cultivar introductions have resulted in the increased availability of diverse fruits and berries on the market. Ultimately, consumers drive the demand for food innovation because they have different preferences for food products (Drescher et al. 2008; Lee and Brown 1989), with certain consumer segments showing greater interests in health (Asioli et al. 2017) or product innovation (Nazzaro et al. 2019). Regarding the horticultural market, the demand for innovation results in the development of new cultivars with improved fruit quality (Iezzoni et al. 2015; Jaeger et al. 2003; Weil 1998). Every year, new fruit cultivars are introduced, offering improved production, better pest resistance, or superior taste. Cultivar success has been shown to depend on the grower, processor, and consumer acceptance, and breeding efforts to meet these innovation demands often take years, with considerable resource requirements. An example of one successful product innovation and diversification with years of development in the horticulture market is the kiwifruit (Actinidia chinensis).
The fuzzy kiwifruits familiar in the US marketplace are typically the green-flesh Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa ‘Hayward’. Green kiwifruit was introduced into the United States in the late 1970s, making these fruits relatively recent introductions. ‘Hayward’ was developed in the 1930s, and it remains the predominant cultivar of kiwifruit produced globally (Ferguson 2016). However, the demand for innovation spurred exploration into the more than 60 identified species in the genus Actinidia for opportunities for the improvement and development of novel kiwifruit cultivars. One instance of such successful innovation is the golden-flesh ‘Gold3’ kiwifruit of Actinidia chinensis var. chinensis. Golden kiwifruit was introduced in the 1990s, and it has grown to compete with green kiwifruit (Ferguson 2016; Patterson et al. 2003). To further meet the demand for new fruit varieties, further Actinidia species are being cultivated for production.
Actinidia arguta and Actinidia kolomikta are two Actinidia species on the market receiving growing interest (Cossio et al. 2015; Latocha et al. 2018). These species are often referred to as kiwiberry and present novel fruit qualities, such as smooth, edible green skin and smaller size compared with kiwifruit. In addition to providing a novel eating experience, nutritional qualities of A. arguta have been reported (Latocha et al. 2015; Pinto et al. 2020; Wojdyło and Nowicka 2019; Wojdyło et al. 2017). Studies that examined the chemical composition of kiwiberry fruits reported high levels of vitamin C (Leontowicz et al. 2016; Nishiyama et al. 2004), high levels of polyphenols related to antioxidant activity (Wojdyło and Nowicka 2019; Wojdyło et al. 2017), and the presence of various minerals beneficial for human health (Jin et al. 2014; Latocha 2017). Nutritional substances such as vitamins, minerals, and phenolic compounds like those found in A. arguta are associated with health benefits obtained from consuming fruit (Beattie et al. 2005; Paredes-López et al. 2010; Pinto et al. 2020). Diets diverse in fruits and vegetables have been linked to the increased intake of nutrients and improved health (Herforth et al. 2019; Lachat et al. 2018). The novel eating experience and nutritional profile of kiwiberries indicate that this crop necessitates further consideration for crop development to bring diverse, nutritious food opportunities to the market.
Currently, A. arguta Ananasnaya is one of the most widely planted kiwiberry cultivars in the United States (Fisk et al. 2006), and it is widely planted throughout global production regions, along with Weiki and Geneva (Latocha et al. 2018). A. arguta has been favored for production because it typically produces larger fruit (∼10–12 g) with a range of flavors. However, production of A. arguta in cold climates results in challenges because extreme winter and low spring temperatures often result in yield loss. Hence, despite its smaller fruit size (∼3–5 g), A. kolomikta is another species that should be investigated for its production value because of its improved cold-hardiness. However, the kiwiberry is relatively uncommon throughout the United States, and consumer acceptability is currently unknown.
From the perspective of a new product, understanding the WTP of the consumer is a critical step in marketing kiwiberry. Consumer studies have examined A. arguta fruit qualities, such as sweetness and flavor, and their impact on consumer preferences in New Zealand (Hunter et al. 2020) and Belgium (Vanhonacker and Debersaques 2017). Hunter et al. (2020) indicated a favorable increase in kiwiberry-liking ratings as the soluble solids content (SSC), which is a proxy for sweetness, increased. Similarly, Vanhonacker and Debersaques (2017) found that after tasting fruit, 85% of participants rated the flavor of kiwiberry as favorable. Although fruit quality attributes such as flavor are important influences on repeat purchasing (Gilbert et al. 1996), studies have suggested that the cost of a product, rather than sensory qualities influencing taste, impacts first-time consumer purchasing habits (Jaeger and Harker 2006; Steptoe et al. 1995). Pricing was indicated as a possible concern by Vanhonacker and Debersaques (2017) in Belgium because only 18% of participants were willing to pay €2.50 (US$2.64) for kiwiberry. This is why consumer WTP should be investigated to improve the marketing of new and novel fruit.
One method of estimating WTP is the use of experimental auctions, which obtain realistic estimations of WTP by implementing nonhypothetical consequences such as an exchange of real goods for real money (Lusk 2003). During experimental auctions, participants with the highest bid win but pay an nth-price (second, third, etc.). Vickrey (1961) showed that during such an auction, this is a weakly dominant strategy for participants to bid their true WTP. An experimental sealed-bid auction aims to reduce the probability of overbidding and underbidding because other participants’ bids are unknown, which incentivizes truthful bidding (Lusk and Hudson 2004; Yue et al. 2010). If participants bid lower than their true WTP, they are at risk for missing a profitable transaction. Conversely, if participants bid higher than their true WTP, then they risk paying more than their real WTP. The advantages of experimental auctions include utility in group settings, placing participants in an active market, and eliciting WTP estimations for each participant. However, the following are limitations to the use of experimental auctions: they require participants to estimate product values without external inputs like posted prices; they may be impacted by participant preferences at the time of evaluation; and they are more costly than hypothetical approaches such as a conjoint analysis (Lusk et al. 2004; Yue et al. 2010). Experimental auctions have been used to estimate the consumers’ value of many agricultural products (Alfnes and Rickertsen 2003; Fan et al. 2019; Froehlich et al. 2009; Gallardo et al. 2018; Hayes et al. 1996; Jaeger and Harker 2006; Lund et al. 2006; McAdams et al. 2013; Short et al. 2018; Tegene et al. 2003; Umberger and Feuz 2004; Yue et al. 2009, 2011, 2016).
Previous studies have explored the importance of the relationship between kiwifruit fruit quality and consumer preference (Ball et al. 1998; Crisosto and Crisosto 2001; Gilbert et al. 1996; Harker et al. 2006, 2009, 2019; Hunter et al. 2020; Jaeger and Harker 2006; Jaeger et al. 2003, 2011; Latocha and Janjowski 2011; Marsh et al. 2006). A few studies have investigated the WTP for kiwifruit (Jaeger and Harker 2006) and kiwiberry (Vanhonacker and Debersaques 2017). Currently, the WTP for kiwiberry has been estimated using survey methods (Vanhonacker and Debersaques 2017). The primary objective of this research was to determine consumers’ WTP and explore consumer segmentation in terms of preferences for novel kiwiberries and other berries. This research provides important marketing implications for the target market(s) and insights regarding pricing strategies for kiwiberries.
Materials and Methods
Products.
The products in this experiment were four types of kiwiberries: ‘Geneva3’, ‘Passion Popper’, ‘Krupnopladnaya’, and Nahodka Seedling 6. Geneva3 and Passion Popper are both cultivars of A. arguta, whereas Krupnopladnaya and Nahodka Seedling 6 are a cultivar and seedling, respectively, of A. kolomikta. To compare consumer preferences for kiwiberries and their close substitutes on the market, we also included four other types of berries: strawberry (Fragaria ×ananassa), raspberry (Rubus idaeus), blackberry (Rubus frutiosus), and blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). Strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, and blueberries all met the requirements for US Department of Agriculture grade 1 because they were uniform, well-colored, well-developed, not overripe, and free from damage or disease. A random sampling of 25 berries at the point of consumption were juiced to examine the SSC and titratable acidity (TA). The mean SSCs were 6.72°Brix (strawberry), 8.34°Brix (raspberry), 10.56°Brix (blueberry), and 6.48°Brix (blackberry). The mean TA values were 0.7 g/100 mL (strawberry), 1.47 g/100 mL (raspberry), 0.66 g/100 mL (blueberry), and 0.76 g/100 mL (blackberry). The kiwiberries were grown by the researcher’s laboratory, and the market substitute berries were provided by a third-party vendor, with each fruit type consisting of a single cultivar. Fruit samples for tasting were prepared for auction by washing fruit and then placing a single berry in a 1-ounce clear plastic cup with a lid. Each fruit type was given a randomized three-digit numeric code that corresponded to a clamshell package of the fruit on a display table for participants. Fruit samples were arranged in a randomized order at participant stations along with an attribute rating booklet, bidding sheet, and survey. Fruit packages for auction bidding were displayed in 6-ounce clear plastic clamshells with the exception of strawberry, which was packaged in a 1-pound clear plastic clamshell to reflect common market packaging for each fruit type.
The timing for the experiment was chosen as a midpoint between the kiwiberry species A. Kolomikta and A. arguta, which ripen in August and September, respectively, in Minnesota. Ripeness was determined by observing seed coloration (with black indicating near ripeness), estimated percent softening of fruit on the vine, and °Brix, which serves as a proxy for the percent of sugar in the fruit juice. Firm fruit from the A. kolomikta genotypes ‘Krupnopladnaya’ and Nahodka Seedling 6 were harvested on 20 Aug, with a sampling of five berries averaging 7.8°Brix and 6.9°Brix at harvest, respectively. Fruits were stored in low-flow plastic clam shells in an ethylene-free 4 °C cooler. Fruits from A. arguta ‘Geneva3’ and ‘Passion Popper’ were selectively harvested for early softening fruits on 5 Sep, averaging 7.5°Brix and 8.3°Brix at harvest, respectively. SSC and TA were additionally sampled at the point of consumption using a random sample of five fruit. The mean SSCs for kiwiberry samples were 13.2°Brix (Krupnopladnaya), 10.4°Brix (Nahodka Seedling), 13.8°Brix (Passion Popper), and 15.1°Brix (Geneva3). The mean TA values for kiwiberry samples were 1.57 g/100 mL (Krupnopladnaya), 1.57 g/100 mL (Nahodka Seedling), 1.24 g/100 mL (Passion Popper), and 1.26 g/100 mL (Geneva).
Experimental procedure.
Previously, experimental auctions have been used to value a wide variety of food quality attributes (Alfnes and Rickertsen 2003; Brown et al. 2005; Hobbs et al. 2005; Jaeger and Harker 2006). A second-price sealed-bid auction is an auction during which bidders submit sealed bids, the price is set to the second highest bid, and the winner is the participant with the highest bid. The second-price auction is a popular mechanism because it is theoretically demand-revealing, it is easy to explain, and its market-clearing price is endogenous. The experimental auction methods of Yue et al. (2016) and Short et al. (2018) were used as a framework for this study.
The experiment was conducted at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul, with a total of 96 participants. Participants were recruited by placing advertisements in local newspapers and on social media. To be eligible for the experiment, participants had to be at least 18 years of age and purchase groceries. Of the 105 individuals who registered, 98 attended; of those, 96 provided complete information to be included in the study. Participants were scheduled for one of five sessions that occurred over 2 d, with ∼20 participants scheduled per session. Experiment sessions were conducted in a conference room. Auction booklets were provided to participants to follow the experimental procedure, and randomized fruit cups were provided for each participant to taste the fruits. Fruits in packages were displayed on a table for participants to examine.
The experiment began by leading participants through a detailed explanation and practice examples of second-price auctions to ensure their understanding. This included how the identification of a product winner would occur. Then, participants were instructed to taste the eight fruits and fill out an attribute rating sheet for each fruit as they tasted. The presentation order of fruits for participants was randomly arranged between sessions to prevent the potential ordering effect on tasting results. After tasting and rating all the fruits, participants were asked to silently examine corresponding labeled packages of each fruit on display at the back of the room. Then, they were asked to complete a prepared bid sheet that listed each fruit sampled. Participants were not allowed to communicate with each other during the bidding process.
After all participants’ bid sheets were collected, researchers sorted the bids from highest to lowest for each fruit and identified the winner(s) for each. The binding product for each participant was drawn. Only when participants won their binding product were they required to purchase the product. After submitting bid sheets, participants completed a survey asking questions about their demographics, shopping behaviors, and likelihood of trying new foods. Demographics included, but were not limited to, questions about age, sex, income, relationship status, and education level. Questions about shopping behavior focused on the frequented shopping location. Finally, participants were provided with statements such as “I purchase new, different, or innovative food” or “I seldom taste or experiment with new, different, or innovative foods” and asked to indicate their agreement with the statement (1 being strongly disagree; 7 being strongly agree). Table 1 shows the summary statistics for demographic questions. Table 3 shows the summary statistics of the shopping location and habit questions. After completing these questions, participants who did not win were paid $30 to compensate for their time, and winners received their respective fruit package and $30 minus the market price of the fruit they won.
Summary statistics [mean, standard deviation (SD), sample %] of the 96 participants in the kiwiberry experimental auctions (N = 96).
Data of the participants were compiled and analyzed. All bids were adjusted to reflect 6-ounce package prices for comparison between all berries. To investigate participants’ heterogeneous preferences for kiwiberries, we compared their bids for the two species of kiwiberries to their bids for other berries henceforth, referring to strawberry, raspberry, blueberry, and blackberry. Specifically, we compared the bids for each kiwiberry to the mean bids for other berries. Participants were grouped into different groups based on whether they bid higher for one of the two kiwiberry species (A. arguta price premium or A. kolomikta price premium), a combination of both species (mixed kiwiberry price premium), or neither (kiwiberry discounting) compared with the average bid of the other berries. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to determine significant differences in fruit attribute ratings, demographics, and shopping habits across the groups.
Results
Table 1 shows the summary statistics of sociodemographic backgrounds for the 96 auction participants. The average age of participants ranged from 51 to 60 years. Approximately 71% of participants identified as female. Thirty-six percent of participants reported education of some college or less; 36.46% reported a college diploma or some graduate school; 27.08% reported having a graduate degree or higher. The average annual income was between $50,000 and $65,000. Fifty percent of participants had either a part-time or full-time job, whereas the remaining participants were students, retired, or unemployed. Forty-six percent of participants were either in a relationship or married. The average household size was two people, with most participants reporting having no children younger than 12 years in the household (89.52%). Most participants (81.25%) reported not being members of environmental groups.
Eight percent of participants reported consuming berries once per month or less. Thirteen percent (13.54%) of participants consumed berries multiple times per month, and 18.75% reported eating berries once per week. Approximately 58% of participants reported eating berries multiple times per week (45.83%) or daily (13.54%).
Figure 1 uses histograms to display the distribution of bids for 6-ounce package of berries. The berries in the top row (other berries instead of kiwiberries) of Fig. 1 display normal distributions of bids from approximately $0.00 to $5.99, with a mean bid of approximately $1.12 to $2.48, depending on the berry. The bids for kiwiberries have a broader spread, with both Actinidia species having two slight peaks based on the observed density line. A. kolomikta is skewed toward the lower bid values. Bids for A. arguta ranged from $0.00 to $5.99, with mean bids of $2.00 and $2.19 for ‘Geneva3’ and ‘Passion Popper’, respectively (Table 2). The bids for A. kolomikta ranged from $0.00 to $4.99, with a mean bid of $1.63 and $1.65 for ‘Krupnopladnaya’ and Nahodka Seedling, respectively.
Histograms of bids for 6-ounce berry samples (N = 96 for each sample) with distribution curves overlaid. Strawberry bids have been adjusted to reflect bid amounts per 6-ounce package rather than the 1-pound package presented at the auction. Bids for other berries (blackberry, blueberry, raspberry, and strawberry) are shown in the top row. Bids for Actinidia arguta (‘Geneva3’ and ‘Passion Popper’) and A. kolomikta (‘Krupnopladnaya’ and Nahodka Seedling) are shown in the bottom row.
Citation: HortScience 58, 7; 10.21273/HORTSCI17133-23
Mean willingness-to-pay (US$; WTP) and standard deviation (SD) for all berries for each kiwiberry groups determined by the difference between WTP for kiwiberries and other berries are presented.
Figure 2 further shows the observed distribution of kiwiberry bids by graphing the difference between participants’ bids for kiwiberry species and the average bid for other berries. The horizontal axis of Fig. 2 is the bid difference between A. arguta and other berries, and the vertical axis is the bid difference between A. kolomikta and other berries. Participants were grouped into one of four groups: A. arguta price premium; A. kolomikta price premium; mixed kiwiberry price premium; or kiwiberry discounting. The upper right quadrant of Fig. 2 shows that some participants placed higher bids for both kiwiberry species compared with other berries (mixed kiwiberry price premium group). The lower right quadrant of Fig. 2 shows participants with higher bids for one or both of the A. arguta, but not A. kolomikta (A. arguta price premium group). The lower left quadrant shows participants who placed lower bids for kiwiberries compared with other berries (kiwiberry discounting group). Interestingly, the group for those who bid high for one or both of the A. kolomikta was somewhat obscured because participants tended to favor only one, not both, resulting in low A. kolomikta average bids (A. kolomikta price premium group).
Scatter plot of the distribution of the differences between willingness-to-pay (WTP) for kiwiberry species and WTP for other berries for each participant. The difference between the WTP for A. arguta and other berries is graphed along the x-axis, and the difference between the WTP for Actinidia kolomikta and other berries is graphed along the y-axis. Participants are labeled based on their WTP for kiwiberry cultivars and categorized into the Actinidia arguta price premium, A. kolomikta price premium, mixed kiwiberry price premium, and kiwiberry discounting groups.
Citation: HortScience 58, 7; 10.21273/HORTSCI17133-23
The differences between groups for kiwiberry bids are more apparent in Fig. 3, which shows boxplots according to the kiwiberry cultivar and kiwiberry price premium group. The bids of the kiwiberry discounting group were lower than those of all other groups for all kiwiberries, whereas the mixed kiwiberry price premium group placed bids comparable or higher than those of the other kiwiberry price premium groups. Figure 3 further confirms that the A. arguta price premium group bid higher for A. arguta than for A. kolomikta, and vice versa for the A. kolomikta price premium group. Table 2 further displays each group’s mean bid, standard deviation (SD), and a pairwise comparison of all fruit bids between groups. The pairwise comparisons indicated that these groups’ WTP significantly differed for kiwiberries, raspberry, and strawberry. Blackberry and blueberry showed no difference between groups. Raspberry and strawberry bids were significantly different (P < 0.10) between the A. arguta price premium and kiwiberry discounting groups (Table 2), but not for the mixed kiwiberry price premium and A. kolomikta price premium groups. Bid differences between groups for the kiwiberry cultivars had mixed results; however, for all kiwiberries, the means between the mixed kiwiberry price premium and kiwiberry discounting groups remained significantly different at P < 0.10 (Table 2). For ‘Geneva3’ and ‘Passion Popper’, the A. arguta price premium groups’ bids significantly differed from that of the kiwiberry discounting group at P < 0.01. The highest mean bid for kiwiberry was $2.88 for ‘Passion Popper’ by the A arguta price premium group.
Standard boxplot of bids for 6-ounce kiwiberry samples separated into groups (Actinidia arguta price premium, Actinidia kolomikta price premium, mixed kiwiberry price premium, and kiwiberry discounting groups) based on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for kiwiberry cultivars (‘Geneva3’, ‘Passion Popper’, ‘Krupnopladnaya’, Nahodka Seedling). Within each group, boxes represent the interquartile range of bids for each kiwiberry cultivar, with the black line denoting the median bid.
Citation: HortScience 58, 7; 10.21273/HORTSCI17133-23
To identify profiles for these groups, participants’ sociodemographic and purchasing habit variables were compared among groups. Table 3 shows the mean, SD of these variables, and ANOVA results. Age and education were the only two sociodemographic variables that demonstrated statistically significant differences among groups. Although age was not significant across all groups (P = 0.109), a pairwise comparison between groups indicated that the mixed kiwiberry price premium group (mean age range, 41–50 years) was significantly different from the kiwiberry discounting group (mean age range, 51–60 years). Education was highly significantly different between the A. arguta price premium and both A. kolomikta price premium and kiwiberry discounting groups. The mean education level for the A. arguta price premium group was college diploma, whereas the mean education levels for the A. kolomikta price premium and kiwiberry discounting groups were high school diploma and some college.
Mean and standard deviation (SD) of sociodemographic, purchasing store, and attitude variables of the kiwiberry groups. Groups were determined by the difference between the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for kiwiberries and other berries.
Purchasing habits differed among groups in terms of participants’ grocery purchasing stores and their attitude toward new products. For stores, cooperatives were visited by the mixed kiwiberry price premium group more frequently than by the kiwiberry discounting group. Other stores such as convenience stores, high-end retailers, supermarkets, and roadside markets were not significantly different between any of the groups. In terms of attitudes, the kiwiberry discounting group had a higher rating for negative purchasing attitudes (i.e., seldom taste and experiment with new foods; afraid of eating foods not tasted before; reluctant to try foreign or new foods) than all other groups, with a significantly higher rating than the A. arguta price premium and mixed kiwiberry price premium groups. A. arguta price premium and mixed kiwiberry price premium groups showed positive attitudes toward interest in new foods or variety-seeking attitudes.
Further differences between groups were observed when examining participant ratings of fruit quality attributes (Table 4). The first panel of Table 4 reports the means and SDs of attribute ratings for all kiwiberry cultivars for each group. For 7 of the 12 attributes, the mixed kiwiberry price premium group differed significantly from the kiwiberry discounting group, with the former having a higher rating for all attributes. The A. arguta and A. kolomikta price premium ratings were between those of the mixed and discounting groups. The second panel of Table 4 shows the mean attribute ratings for other berries for each group. There were no significant differences noted between groups for any of the attribute ratings of other berries. However, other berries’ attributes were rated higher than kiwiberries’ attributes.
Mean and standard deviation (SD) for 12 attribute ratings (N = 96 for each attribute) of kiwiberry and other fruits by the kiwiberry groups. The between-group and within-group significance are shown.
In addition to between-group differences, within-group differences of attribute ratings of kiwiberries and other berries were examined. For the kiwiberry discounting group, all mean ratings were significantly different between kiwiberries and other berries. For the three kiwiberry price premium groups, sweetness and tartness were not significantly different at P = 0.10. Additionally, for the mixed kiwiberry price premium group, the overall flavor was not significantly different at 10% between kiwiberry and other berries. Overall flavor was significant at P < 0.10 for the A. arguta price premium and A. kolomikta price premium groups. Texture was significantly different at P < 0.01 for all groups, with all groups giving higher ratings to the textures of other berries than to kiwiberry.
Conclusions and Discussion
Early steps of developing a product for the market include estimating consumer WTP and identifying interested consumer groups. Understanding consumer preferences and WTP for the new product can inform producers, suppliers, and marketers regarding how to price the product and select the target markets for the new product. The results from our experimental auction suggest that the mean WTP for kiwiberry ranged from $0.76 to $2.88 for a 6-ounce package. However, WTP varied across groups, with the majority of participants willing to pay similar amounts for kiwiberry and other berries. Furthermore, differences in consumer sociodemographics may influence WTP.
Our results indicate that WTP for kiwiberry might be lower for older individuals, those with less education, and those with food neophobia. Participants in the kiwiberry discounting group were significantly different in terms of older age and less education compared to certain kiwiberry price premium groups. Additionally, the kiwiberry discounting group had significant neophobic responses to questions regarding new or unfamiliar foods. Marketing strategies for this group should address potential underlying causes of neophobic attitudes associated with food safety concerns regarding unfamiliar foods such as health and safety (Onwezen and Bartels 2011; Raudenbush and Frank 1999). Product information for intangible features such as labeling for production location, product safety, and promoting product health benefits could help market novel fruit products to concerned consumers by reducing perceived risks (Nazzaro et al. 2019).
Marketing strategies for the variety-seeking groups, which included the A. arguta price premium, A. kolomikta price premium, and mixed kiwiberry price premium groups, should consider the promotion of the novelty of kiwiberries in terms of convenience and flavor. Promoting novel characteristics might be effective for consumers interested in kiwiberry because this promotes the uniqueness of the eating experience for groups that value new experiences. When considering where to market kiwiberries to the kiwiberry price premium groups, most shopping locations are ubiquitous among the groups. However, supermarkets, discount stores, and cooperatives are locations for marketers to consider because these were the most frequently reported shopping locations for the mixed kiwiberry price premium group.
The attribute ratings of the studied berries can be used by breeders and producers to inform breeding goals or production methods to improve fruit quality. Visual fruit quality attributes were the highest-rated kiwiberry attributes within kiwiberry price premium groups, indicating that participants liked the appearance of the fruit. Eating experience attributes (texture and firmness) for kiwiberries more frequently received low scores across groups. Texture and firmness deterioration could have occurred because A. kolomikta berries were harvested before the auction to ensure adequate fruit availability. Texture can be impacted by harvest timing, storage conditions, or differences in cultivar, and each component could be targets for improvement (Fisk et al. 2006). Although texture and firmness were low-rated attributes, all kiwiberry attributes were consistently rated lower than the other berries. This could have been caused, in part, by participants’ biased familiarity with the other berries, which might have increased their ratings. Additionally, the fruit provided for the other berries was of exceptionally high quality, with larger, uniform fruit that might have been superior to that of berries typically available for purchase. Despite these possible factors impacting attribute ratings, fruit qualities related to the eating experience and taste remain targets for breeders.
Although kiwiberry is a novel product with relatively low production in the United States, most participants in this study indicated a WTP for kiwiberry that was comparable with that for other berries. However, the results show differences in WTP between A. arguta and A. kolomikta cultivars, with A. arguta Passion Popper having a higher average WTP for participants in the kiwiberry price premium groups. The underlying neophobic attitudes of participants disliking kiwiberries warrants further investigation to determine why the unfavorable attitudes arose and if those unfavorable attitudes stemmed from unfamiliarity with the product or other concerns. Overall, there are opportunities for the future development and improvement of kiwiberries for consumers ready to buy.
References Cited
Alfnes F, Rickertsen K. 2003. European consumers’ willingness to pay for US beef in experimental auction markets. Am J Agric Econ. 85(2):396–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.t01-1-00128.
Asioli D, Aschemann-Witzel J, Caputo V, Vecchio R, Annunziata A, Næs T, Varela P. 2017. Making sense of the “clean label” trends: A review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications. Food Res Int. 99:58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.022.
Ball RD, Murray SH, Young H, Gilbert JM. 1998. Statistical analysis relating analytical and consumer panel assessments of kiwifruit flavour compounds in a model juice base. Food Qual Prefer. 9:255–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00005-6.
Beattie J, Crozier A, Duthie GG. 2005. Potential health benefits of berries. Curr Nutr Food Sci. 1(1):71–86. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573401052953294.
Brown J, Cranfield JA, Henson S. 2005. Relating consumer willingness‐to‐pay for food safety to risk tolerance: An experimental approach. Can J Agric Econ. 53(2):249–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.00356.x.
Crisosto CH, Crisosto GM. 2001. Understanding consumer acceptance of early harvested ‘Hayward’ kiwifruit. Postharvest Biol Technol. 22(3):205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5214(01)00097-7.
Cossio F, Debersaques F, Latocha P. 2015. Kiwiberry (Actinidia arguta): New perspectives for a great future. Acta Hortic. 1096:423–434. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2015.1096.51.
Drescher L, Thiele S, Weiss CR. 2008. The taste for variety: A hedonic analysis. Econ Lett. 101(1):66–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2008.04.005.
Fan X, Gómez MI, Coles PS. 2019. Willingness to pay, quality perception, and local foods: The case of broccoli. Agric Resour Econ Rev. 48(3):414–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2019.21.
Ferguson AR. 2016. World economic importance, p 37–42. In: Testolin R, Huang HW, Ferguson AR (eds). The kiwifruit genome. compendium of plant genomes. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32274-2_3.
Fisk CL, McDaniel MR, Strik BC, Zhao Y. 2006. Physicochemical, sensory, and nutritive qualities of hardy kiwifruit (Actinidia arguta ‘Ananasnaya’) as affected by harvest maturity and storage. J Food Sci. 71(3):204–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.tb15642.x.
Froehlich EJ, Carlberg JG, Ward CE. 2009. Willingness‐to‐pay for fresh brand name beef. Can J Agric Econ. 57(1):119–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.01141.x.
Gallardo RK, Hanrahan I, Yue C, McCracken VA, Luby J, McFerson JR, Ross C, Carrillo‐Rodriguez L. 2018. Combining sensory evaluations and experimental auctions to assess consumers’ preferences for fresh fruit quality characteristics. Agribusiness. 34(2):407–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21534.
Gilbert JM, Young H, Ball RD, Murray SH. 1996. Volatile flavor compounds affecting consumer acceptability of kiwifruit. J Sens Stud. 11(3):247–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1996.tb00044.x.
Harker FR, Carr BT, Lenjo M, MacRae EA, Wismer WV, Marsh KB, Williams M, White A, Lund CM, Walker SB, Gunson FA, Pereira RB. 2009. Consumer liking for kiwifruit flavour: A meta-analysis of five studies on fruit quality. Food Qual Prefer. 20(1):30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.07.001.
Harker FR, Hunter D, White A, Richards K, Hall M, Fullerton C. 2019. Measuring changes in consumer satisfaction associated with kiwifruit ripening: A new approach to understand human-product interactions with fruit. Postharvest Biol Technol. 153:118–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.07.001.
Harker FR, Jaeger SR, Lau K, Rossiter K. 2006. Consumer perceptions and preferences for kiwifruit: A review. Acta Hortic. 753:81–88. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.753.7.
Hayes DJ, Shogren JF, Fox JA, Kliebenstein JB. 1996. Test marketing new food products using a multitrial nonhypothetical experimental auction. Psychol Mark. 13(4):365–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199607)13:4%3C363:AID-MAR3%3E3.0.CO;2-8.
Herforth A, Arimond M, Álvarez-Sánchez C, Coates J, Christianson K, Muehlhoff E. 2019. A global review of food-based dietary guidelines. Adv Nutr. 10(4):590–605. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmy130.
Hobbs JE, Bailey D, Dickinson DL, Haghiri M. 2005. Traceability in the Canadian red meat sector: Do consumers care? Can J Agric Econ. 53(1):47–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.00412.x.
Hunter DC, Pidakala PP, Baylis EM, Wohlers MW, Barnett AM, White A, Cho JJ, Fullerton CG, Thorp G, Phelps T, Harker R. 2020. Physico-chemical attributes influence consumer preferences for kiwiberries (Actinidia arguta ‘Hortgem Tahi’). N Z J Crop Hortic Sci. 48(3):143–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2020.1759111.
Iezzoni A, Peace C, Main D, Bassil N, Coe M, Finn C, Gasic K, Luby J, Hokanson S, McFerson J, Norelli J, Olmstead M, Whitaker V, Yue C. 2015. RosBREED2: Progress and future plans to enable DNA-informed breeding in the Rosaceae. Acta Hortic. 1172:115–118. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1172.20.
Jaeger SR, Harker FR. 2006. Consumer evaluation of novel kiwifruit: Willingness-to-pay. J Sci Food Agr. 85(15):2519–2526. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2330.
Jaeger SR, Harker FR, Triggs CM, Gunson A, Campbell RL, Jackman R, Requejo‐Jackman C. 2011. Determining consumer purchase intentions: The importance of dry matter, size, and price of kiwifruit. J Food Sci. 76(3):177–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02084.x.
Jaeger SR, Rossiter KL, Wismer WV, Harker FR. 2003. Consumer-driven product development in the kiwifruit industry. Food Qual Prefer. 14(3):187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00053-8.
Jin DE, Park SK, Park CH, Seung TW, Heo HJ. 2014. Nutritional compositions of three traditional Actinidia (Actinidia arguta) cultivars improved in Korea. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 43(12):1942–1947. https://doi.org/10.3746/jkfn.2014.43.12.1942.
Lachat C, Raneri JE, Smith KW, Kolsteren P, Van Damme P, Verzelen K, Penafiel D, Vanhove W, Kennedy G, Hunter D, Odhiambo FO, Ntandou-Bouzitou G, De Baets B, Ratnasekera D, Ky HT, Remans R, Termote C. 2018. Dietary species richness as a measure of food biodiversity and nutritional quality of diets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 115(1):127–132. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1709194115.
Latocha P. 2017. The nutritional and health benefits of kiwiberry (Actinidia arguta) – A review. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 72:325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-017-0637-y.
Latocha P, Janjowski P. 2011. Genotypic difference in postharvest characteristic of hardy kiwifruit (Actinidia arguta and its hybrids), a new commercial crop Part II. Consumer acceptability and its main drivers. Food Res Int. 44(7):1946–1955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.01.033.
Latocha P, Łata B, Stasiak A. 2015. Phenolics, ascorbate, and the antioxidant potential of kiwiberry vs. common kiwifruit: The effect of cultivar and tissue type. J Funct Foods. 19:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2015.09.024.
Latocha P, Vereecke D, Debersaques F. 2018. Kiwiberry commercial production-what stage are we at? Acta Hortic. 1218:559–564. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1218.76.
Lee JY, Brown MG. 1989. Consumer demand for food diversity. J Agric Appl Econ. 21(2):47–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0081305200001163.
Leontowicz H, Leontowicz M, Latocha P, Jesion I, Park YS, Katrich E, Barasch D, Nemiroski A, Gorinstein S. 2016. Bioactivity and nutritional properties of hardy kiwi fruit Actinidia arguta in comparison with Actinidia deliciosa ‘Hayward’ and Actinidia eriantha ‘Bidan’. Food Chem. 196:281–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.08.127.
Lund CM, Jaeger SR, Amos RL, Brookfield P, Harker FR. 2006. Tradeoffs between emotional and sensory perceptions of freshness influence the price consumers will pay for apples: Results from an experimental market. Postharvest Biol Technol. 41(2):172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.03.011.
Lusk JL. 2003. Using experimental auctions for marketing applications: A discussion. J Agric Appl Econ. 35:349–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800021313.
Lusk JL, Feldkamp T, Schroeder TC. 2004. Experimental auction procedure: Impact on valuation of quality differentiated goods. Am J Agric Econ. 86(2):389–405.
Lusk JL, Hudson D. 2004. Willingness‐to‐pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 26:152–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2004.00168.x.
Marsh KB, Friel EN, Gunson A, Lund C, MacRae E. 2006. Perception of flavour in standardized fruit pulps with additions of acids or sugars. Food Qual Prefer. 17(5):376–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.04.011.
McAdams CP, Palma MA, Hall CR, Ishdorj A. 2013. A nonhypothetical ranking and auction mechanism for novel products. J Agric Appl Econ. 45(1):35–52. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.143658.
Nazzaro C, Lerro M, Stanco M, Marotta G. 2019. Do consumers like food product innovation? An analysis of willingness to pay for innovative food attributes. Br Food J. 121(6):1413–1427. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2018-0389.
Nishiyama I, Yamashita Y, Yamanaka M, Shimohashi A, Fukuda T, Oota T. 2004. Varietal difference in vitamin C content in the fruit of kiwifruit and other Actinidia species. J Agr Food Chem. 52(17):5472–5475. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf049398z.
Patterson K, Burdon J, Lallu N. 2003. ‘Hort16A’ kiwifruit: Progress and issues with commercialization. Acta Hortic. 610:267–273. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2003.610.35.
Paredes-López O, Cervantes-Ceja ML, Vigna-Pérez M, Hernández-Pérez T. 2010. Berries: Improving human health and healthy aging, and promoting quality life - A review. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 65:299–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-010-0177-1.
Pinto D, Delerue-Matos C, Rodrigues F. 2020. Bioactivity, phytochemical profile, and pro-healthy properties of Actinidia arguta: A review. Food Res Int. 136:109449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109449.
Onwezen MC, Bartels J. 2011. Which perceived characteristics make product innovations appealing to the consumer? A study on the acceptance of fruit innovations using cross-cultural consumer segmentation. Appetite. 57(1):50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.03.011.
Raudenbush B, Frank RA. 1999. Assessing food neophobia: The role of stimulus familiarity. Appetite. 32(2):261–271. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0229.
Short G, Yue C, Abbey M, Anderson N, Phelps N, Venturelli P, Vickers Z. 2018. Consumer preferences for aquaponic produce: Implications from an experimental auction. Agribusiness. 34(4):742–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21562.
Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. 1995. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The food choice questionnaire. Appetite. 25(3):267–284.
Tegene A, Huffman WE, Rousu MC, Shogren JF. 2003. The effects of information on consumer demand for biotech foods: Evidence from experimental auctions. USDA ERS No. 1488-2016-123874. http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.33577.
Umberger WJ, Feuz DM. 2004. The usefulness of experimental auctions in determining consumers’ willingness‐to‐pay for quality‐differentiated products. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 26(2):170–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2004.00169.x.
Vanhonacker F, Debersaques F. 2017. How to position kiwiberry in the Flemish market based upon consumer research. Acta Hortic. 1218:67–72. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1218.8.
Vickrey W. 1961. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J Finance. 16(1):8–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/2977633.
Weil D. 1998. The needs of the fruit industry in the US for the important testing and release of new cultivars: An industry perspective. Fruit Var J. 52(4):212–214.
Wojdyło A, Nowicka P. 2019. Anticholinergic effects of Actinidia arguta fruits and their polyphenol content determined by liquid chromatography-photodiode array detector-quadrupole/time of flight-mass spectrometry (LC-MS-PDA-Q/TOF). Food Chem. 271:216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.07.084.
Wojdyło A, Nowicka P, Oszmiański J, Golis T. 2017. Phytochemical compounds and biological effects of Actinidia fruits. J Funct Foods. 30:194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2017.01.018.
Yue C, Alfnes F, Jensen HH. 2009. Discounting spotted apples: Investigating consumers’ willingness to accept cosmetic damage in an organic product. J Agric Appl Econ. 41(1):29–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800002534.
Yue C, Campbell B, Hall C, Behe B, Dennis J, Khachatryan H. 2016. Consumer preference for sustainable attributes in plants: Evidence from experimental auctions. Agribusiness. 32(2):222–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21435.
Yue C, Hall CR, Behe BK, Campbell BL, Dennis JH, Lopez RG. 2010. Are consumers willing to pay more for biodegradable containers than for plastic ones? Evidence from hypothetical conjoint analysis and nonhypothetical experimental auctions. J Agric Appl Econ. 42(4):757–772. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800003941.
Yue C, Hurley TM, Anderson N. 2011. Do native and invasive labels affect consumer willingness to pay for plants? Evidence from experimental auctions. Agric Econ. 42(2):195–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00510.x.