Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
A summary of research findings and the experiences of local food retailing projects.
Purpose: This NCGT research brief summarizes the findings of a review of the academic research
literature on consumer attitudes towards local foods and a review of nine local food retailing
projects in mid-to-large scale grocery outlets across the U.S. The findings are presented to inform
retailers in authentically and successfully marketing local foods to their customers.
Author and Methods: The review was conducted by Justine Williams, a doctoral candidate in
anthropology at UNC-Chapel Hill, using key word searches in Google Scholar, the UNC-Chapel
Hill library databases, and through contact with leaders of local food and agriculture projects
across the country.
Contents:
Key findings and recommendations for
retailers…………………………………………………………….......1
Annotated bibliography of academic
research……………………………………………………………….....6
Summary of select local foods grocery retailing projects in the
U.S…………………………………………..21
Key Findings and Recommendations for Retailers
What marketing practices would meet consumer needs and increase local food sales at grocery
retailers?
Previous research and the experience of other initiatives around the country indicate that strong and
transparent in-store promotional materials that communicate a package of characteristics including
value/affordability, freshness/quality, and direct social impacts can increase local food sales.
Specific findings that should inform authentic and successful store marketing initiatives are listed
below.

North Carolinians are interested in purchasing local food that is clearly labeled (Kirby 2007).

Labels and marketing materials should emphasize the convenience of local offerings in stores
and the health benefits of eating fresh food, keeping in mind that “Customers want to purchase
local products – namely the local products that they tend to associate with their own health –
but they don’t want to go out of their way to get them” (Grabowski 2013). For example, retailers
could emphasize that it offers a farmers’ market all day, every day (taking a cue from Good
Natured Family Farms – see below).
NC Growing Together is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture,
grant #2012-68004-20363.

Local labels should always emphasize freshness, information should secondarily focus on the
social benefits of local food (Wolf 1997, Leopold Center 2003, Buy Fresh Buy Local Campaign
experience).

It is not only the availability of local items in stores, but also the “perceived product availability”
(prior to entering a store) that affects whether customers will purchase local items (Campbell
2011). In other words, advertising campaigns that lead people to know to expect local produce
even before they set foot in a store could be effective.

Marketing materials should also create “perceived consumer effectiveness” (Campbell 2011,
Thilmany et al. 2008, Vermeir & Verbecke 2006, Nurse & Thilmany 2010). Grocery store
customers should feel that even their own small purchases contribute to real, tangible social
and/or environmental impacts. Making information about the benefits of buying local available
in stores could be beneficial – particularly if they are authored by third parties, which may be
seen as more trustworthy. Diagrams showing the money spent in a store that goes back to the
local community could also increase customers’ perceived effectiveness.

Similarly, it is important to prove that products “do what they should” (Nurse and Thilmany
2010). In other words, if they are marketed as “fresher” or “better for the community,” it is
important to prove or communicate that they actually are.

Effective in-store displays have been found to be the best way to increase local food
purchases – even more so than promotions (sales) and increased customer service. However,
sales increase most when there is a combination of all three factors (Campbell 2011).

Handing out information on the social and environmental benefits of local food can increase
both intent to purchase and actual purchasing (Hanns and Bohm 2013).

When farmers/vendors visit stores, the goal should not only be for them to interact with
customers, but also to talk with store staff so that they know how to market items to customers
on a daily basis (Personal communication DeLuca 2013). Retailers might benefit by setting up
events for staff to meet local farmers and other producers.

Farmers should always be well prepared for “meet the farmer” events (Personal
communication Pirog 2013, Thilmany 2013). Retail stores can use the handout prepared by
the research team to communicate expectations and opportunities to farmers (see Appendix).

A positive sensory and search experience can increase willingness to pay a premium for
locally grown food. One intervention could include setting up local produce outside the store
“farmers’ market-style,” where consumers can enjoy browsing, smelling, and touching local
produce (Avitia et al. 2012).

In stores in low-income, rural areas, it would be wise to promote freshness, value and benefits
to the local community (playing up community loyalty factors in close-knit, low-income
communities) (Webber and Dollahite 2008).

Creating signage that communicates, “remember to look for local labels” could increase
purchasing, particularly among low-income shoppers. While low-income rural shoppers
included in focus groups associated positive benefits with local food (Webber and Dollahite
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 2
2008), they were not accustomed to actively seeking out local labels in stores (Zepeda and
Leviten-Reid 2004).

To compete with Wal-Mart, grocery retailers should remember that their competitor has been
successful by creating an image of American family values and “humbleness” (Arnold et al.
2001). Instead of pursuing a “superior” or more elite image, grocery retailers could resonate
with some shoppers by emphasizing that their offerings are affordable, local and resonant with
family values.

Offering cheap, local lunch days (food giveaways) in stores can be an effective promotion and
means of establishing ties with the community (experience of Hen House markets – see
below).

Regularly advertising weekly local specials on TV is effective (experience of Hen House
markets – see below).

Being an active part of change helps people to feel more connected/embedded in their
communities (Miller 2012). Engaging customers in a process of bringing local products into a
store could help to increase their attachment to that retailer.

If there are particular well-known farmers in a store’s local area, they should be featured on instore posters. This helps shoppers to know “what kind of farmer” the store supports (DeLuca
personal communication). It helps to feature images of local farmers that match the diversity of
communities.

Having different local flags/logos (e.g., “grown within the county,” “within the state,” or “within
the South”) can help increase perceptions of authenticity and consumers’ trust (perceived
efficacy) (personal communication DeLuca).

As mentioned above, many people are concerned with “private factors” related to food
purchasing choices. A phrase like the following can help market local food to both these
customers and the ones most interested in the social ramifications of purchasing decisions:
“…purchasing from local farmers helps the economy in the communities we serve. Local
produce can be delivered to your store very quickly and faster shipping means even fresher
produce for you. Items can be picked and packed at a more mature stage. This can really bring
out the taste of the product. Eating locally grown food also means less fossil fuel burned in
preparation and transport – and less energy needed to refrigerate during transportation”
(Stanton et al. 2012)

Because people who enjoy cooking at home are most likely to purchase local food (Zepeda &
Li 2006, Traeger & Ness 2005, Cranfield et al. 2008), interventions that encourage knowledge
about and enjoyment in cooking may help boost grocery retailers’ local food sales.

Making stores a place where people can “congregate” and “socialize” will help to boost
community embeddedness (and therefore, perhaps local and overall food sales). Interventions
could include offering regular cooking classes, discussion groups, or even setting up a café
spot for people to gather informally in the store.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 3

Because demonstrations of “social compliance” help to increase embeddedness, intervention
stores could pilot taking part in non-food-related community events, or featuring particular
products at certain times of the year (for instance, Irish food and beer when the community is
celebrating an Irish heritage festival).
What personal values and retailing strategies motivate people to purchase local food?
Will shoppers pay more for local food?
The body of existing literature consistently indicates that “private factors,” which include freshness,
quality, health benefits and food safety, are the primary factors motivating people’s local food
purchases (Bond et al. 2008, Grabowski 2004, Nurse & Thilmany 2010, Ostrom 2008, and Schneider
& Francis 2005). However, “public factors” are of primary significance to a smaller group of local food
shoppers and of secondary (but still significant) importance to the group most concerned with private
factors. “Public factors” include “giving back to the community,” “keeping dollars in the community,”
“supporting small farmers,” “farmers receiving fair returns,” and various other social and
environmental issues (Bond et al. 2008, Nurse & Thilmany 2010, Ostrom 2008, Schneider & Francis
2005). Some studies indicate that environmental factors are a less significant influence on people’s
decisions to purchase local food than social factors. However, many people do associate the “local”
label with being “natural” and “pesticide-free” (Ostrom 2006). One study found that low-income
shoppers are mostly concerned with the health of their families when choosing food or considering
local options, but that they also demonstrate high levels of concern for the well-being of their
immediate communities (Webber and Dollahite 2008).
Research conducted by the Mintel marketing firm found that fresh produces is the item people are
most inclined “buy local.” Following fresh produce are meat, honey/jam/preserves, and cheese and
dairy products (Grabowski 2013).
The literature reflects a great ambivalence in terms of people’s willingness to pay a premium for local
food. While many people have indicated that they believe local products are of greater value and are
worth spending more money on (47% of Grabowski’s 2013 survey respondents), they are,
nonetheless, not always willing to pay these premiums (Avita et al. 2010). Further, a majority of
survey respondents indicated that lower prices would encourage them to purchase more locally
produced foods (61% according to Grabowski). As Traeger and Ness (2005) describe, “pragmatic
expectations” tend to underscore other feelings about local food’s value. However, other research has
found that people are wiling to pay extra for food that they believe supports a package of health,
social, and environmental benefits (Darby et al. 2008, Grabowski 2013, Leopold Center 2013) and
that people are more willing to pay extra for geographic labels than organic labels (Aprile et al. 2012,
Costanigro et al. 2011, Jacob 2012).
Research conducted with South Carolinians found that they were willing to pay an average of 27%
more for local produce and 23% more for locally raised animal products (Carpio and IsengildiniaMassa 2009) than for non-local options.
According to Tsoodle and colleagues (2011), people chose grocery stores based on quality, followed
by cleanliness, price, and concern for supporting local business.
How do people define and perceive “local food”?
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 4
There has been a disagreement over the definition of “local” amongst activist networks, non-profit
organizations and marketing campaigns. Some analysts have feared this lack of consistent definition
will lead to a watering down of the local food movement’s social goals (Hinrichs and Allen 2008).
However, researchers have found reasonable consistency in customers’ perceptions and
expectations of local labels. The majority of people do not think of “local” food as coming from beyond
state boundaries, and many think it should come from within the county or surrounding counties
(Ostrom 2006). People also associate “local” with a variety of social values, such as supporting
family-farmers and keeping money within the community. In other words, value-based characteristics
often overlap with geographic ones in people’s perceptions of local food (Campbell 2011).
Respondents to a Missouri study indicated that they did not define local in terms of “state” but rather
in other, smaller geographic niches that sometimes crossed state lines (Brown 2003).
What are the demographic dimensions of local food purchasing perspectives and
behaviors?
While it is often believed that attitudes and behaviors toward local foods vary widely amongst
demographics, researchers have found it difficult to categorize these attitudes in relation to traditional
demographic categories. Several studies have found that women are slightly more likely to purchase
local food than are men (Grabowski 2003, Jekanowski et al. 2002), with one study indicating that it is
because women are more likely to be impacted by social influence (Gracia et al. 2012). Some
researchers also suggest that connection to agriculture/living in a rural area may increase disposition
to purchase local food (Brown 2003, Cranfield et al. 2008), and Brown suggested that people with
higher education and income levels are more likely to purchase locally produced food. A North
Carolina survey found that white families, lower income families, families in rural areas, families with
children who ate 5 or more servings of veggies a day, and families with children in poor health were
more likely to purchase local food (Racine et al. 2012).
However, a larger number of studies indicate that typical demographic factors are not consistent in
predicting a person’s likelihood of purchasing local food and that “attitudinal factors” (such as “liking to
cook”) are much more relevant (Cranfield et al. 2008, Traeger & Ness 2005, Zepeda & Li 2006).
Indeed, a systematic review of many studies (Verain et al. 2012) confirmed that personality
characteristics, lifestyle, and behavior are the best predictors. For example, one study found that
enjoying cooking was a better predictor of buying local food than even environmental or social values
(Zepeda and Li 2006).
What makes a store “community-embedded,” and can being so, or cultivating an image of
“localness,” increase customer loyalty?
Embeddedness of a food system in its local communities is said to arise when there are strong
relationships between suppliers, producers, workers, processers, brokers, wholesalers and retailers
(Jarosz 2000). Researchers examining low-income urban areas have found that creating a perception
of “community engagement” is important for creating trust between people and supermarkets in
locations where people have previously mistrusted chain stores or corporations. Partnerships
between supermarkets and Community Development Corporations have been identified as ways to
increase engagement (Policy Link undated). One study found that socializing actions, reciprocity and
social compliance (of stores) affects patronage, but that congregation and utilitarian values mediate
these relationships. For example, if people feel a sense of reciprocity between the store and
themselves/their community, they are more likely to feel that the store’s products are of a high
utilitarian value and will be willing to pay for them. By reciprocity, we mean here a sense amongst
customers that the store both relies on them for support and contributes to the local community in turn
(for instance, through donations to local organizations, or by offering locally-important products that
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 5
people cannot find otherwise). Creating social compliance (offering products that are locally relevant
and also appearing knowledgeable about community happenings) and facilitating spaces for social
congregation (bringing people together in stores for reasons aside from shopping) can help to
increase patronage (Landry et al. 2005). In contrast to these encouraging findings, another report
found that even when a store works hard to be community engaged, customers might pass it by for
“perceived deals” at other big-box stores (Tsoodle 2012).
Annotated bibliography of academic and market research
1. Aprile, M.C., Caputo, V., & Nayga Jr, R.M. (2012). Consumers' valuation of food quality labels:
the case of the European geographic indication and organic farming labels. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(2), 158-165.
A survey conducted in Europe found that consumers were more willing to pay premium prices for
geographical indication quality labels on olive oil than for organic labels. Findings indicate that
understanding of the geographic/social/economic context of a product is more important to
consumers than organic certification.
2. Arnold, S. et al.. (2001). “Hometown ideology and retail legitimation: The institutional semiotics
of Wal-Mart flyers.” Journal of Retailing, 77:243-271.
“Wal-Mart has grown in the US market because it connects itself symbolically to the dominant
ideologies of American life. Through the imagery of frugality, family, religion, neighborhood,
community and patriotism, Wal-mart locates itself centrally on Main Street of a nostalgic hometown.
These symbolic connections not only positively dispose shoppers to Wal-mart but also “decouple”
Wal-mart from unfavorable outcomes of success” (e.g. forcing small stores out of business, etc.) (p.
244).
Takeaway: If mid-sized grocery retail chains are concerned about competition from Wal-Mart it is
important to keep in mind that Wal-Mart is working hard to create an image of family-values combined
with affordability. Only conjuring an image of superior, local sourcing may not speak to those drawn to
the price and “humble” persona of Wal-mart. It will be important to communicate that other retailers
are affordable, resonate with “American family values,” AND are a source of community-based local
foods.
3. Avitia, J., Costa-Font, M., Gil, J.M., Lusk, J.L., & Echeverria, G. (2012). The Role of sensory
experience on Spanish consumer’s willingness to pay for sustainable produced food. Paper
presented at the 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil.
These researchers found that Spanish consumers have a positive attitude toward sustainable food
because of environmental implications, health concerns and trust for certification agents. However,
they are not always willing to pay (WTP) a price premium. Researchers found that “search”
(inspection of produce) and “sensory” (taste, smell and texture) experience impacts purchase
behavior. While a positive sensory experience (taste test) of local items can increase WTP, a taste
test of conventional and organic apples that doesn’t result in perceived difference decreases WTP.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 6
Takeaway: Creating opportunities for customers to inspect and sample fresh, local produce could
increase purchases and willingness to pay. However, it is important that these samples are high
quality and will be perceived as better tasting than conventional produce to customers.
4. Biel, Anders et al. (2005). “Habitual and value-guided purchase behavior.” Ambio 34(4-5): 36065.
In a computer-simulated grocery store, customers (research participants) purchased more ecological
products when a visable poster displayed “environmental values.”
Takeaway: The presence of posters that make salient values associated with buying local can have a
direct effect on increasing sales.
5. Bissonnette, M. & Contento, I. (2001). Adolescents’ Perspectives and Food Choice Behaviors
in Terms of Environmental Impacts of Food Production Practices: Application of a
Psychosocial Model. Journal of Nutrition Education 33(2): 72-82.
This study found that high school students did not consistently indicate awareness or concern about
environmental issues in food purchasing (for instance in decisions about organic vs. local vs.
conventional food). Researchers found that behavioral intentions, beliefs and perceived social
influences are relevant in guiding behaviors.
6. Bond, C., Thilmany, D., & Bond, J.K. (2008). Understanding consumer interest in product and
process-based attributes for fresh produce. Agribusiness, 24, 231–252.
This article on direct sales may be most relevant for Meet the Farmer events. Consumers’ choices
about fresh produce (e.g. Where to buy? What to pay?) are informed by a range of both public and
private attributes. Respondents ranked private attributes (superior quality, safety and competitive
prices) somewhat higher than pubic attributes (social and environmental good, etc.). Many customers
were concerned with products being pesticide-free. Although consumers of direct sales range in their
values and decisions, they clustered around several categories: Urban Assurance Seekers (third
group – most likely to live in urban markets – they demonstrate a balance between various personal
and public attributes including organic or pesticide free), Price Conscious Consumers (fourth/smallest
group – they shop according to price and are generally lower income and less concerned with quality),
Quality and Safety Consumers (second largest group – concerned with quality, texture, taste,
absence of pesticides, vitamins, and less concerned with familiarity), and Personal Value Buyers
(largest group – most interested in quality, familiarity and price). For those groups who were willing to
buy local/organic, two major public good benefits were prioritized: supporting rural communities and
support for environmental benefits.
7. Brown, C. (2003). Consumers' Preferences for Locally Produced Food: A Study in Southeast
Missouri. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 18(4), 213-224
A survey carried out in southeast Missouri found that consumers do not define “local” as within state
boundaries, but within a narrower geographic region (that could cross state boundaries). Quality and
freshness were the most important factors to respondents in choosing produce. Members of
environmental groups (with higher education and income levels) were more likely to be willing to pay
a price premium for local, as were people who were raised on a farm or who had parents who were
raised on a farm.
Takeaway: Quality and freshness are the most important factors for respondents. In addition to
environmental values, having a background in farming can encourage people to pay a price premium
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 7
for local food (indicating that rural residents may be particularly interested in local food).
8. Campbell, Jeffrey Michael. (2011). “Locally Produced Food Purchasing Through Retail
Grocery Channels: An evaluation of relevant customer and store environment attributes.”
Dissertation submitted to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
This dissertation investigated the “phenomenon of purchasing locally produced foods in retail grocery
stores.” It found that “store atmospheric responsiveness” (the environment’s ability to influence
consumers’ decisions on how to shop and the outcomes of the shopping experience) is important for
increasing customers’ likelihood of purchasing local foods. It is also found that “perceived product
availability” was important in encouraging intention to purchase (i.e. it is important for customers to
believe there will be local food available before they walk in the store), and that intention to purchase
is correlated with actual extent of purchase. Additionally, the research revealed that “perceived
consumer effectiveness” (perception that purchasing choices could “make a difference”) was
positively correlated with buying local products.
He tested four elements of store atmospheric responsiveness related to shoppers’ dispositions and
purchases of locally-produced food: (1) product assortment (2) displays (3) customer service and (4)
store promotions. Of the three of these, displays seemed to demonstrate the most effectiveness,
although the other three also proved to be significant. This leads to the conclusion that a multidimensional approach was important in order to create impact (rather than focusing on one at the
expense of the other three).
He found that around half of the 600 people surveyed across the country considered local food to be
“foods produced by my neighbors” and “foods that come from community supported agricultural
memberships” – less than half the people, but a significant number also mentioned “foods that are
environmentally safe” and “sustainable produced and distributed foods.” Almost ½ suggested that
“foods that are organically grown” was also part of their conceptualization of locally produced
products – 183/600 identified concepts of “socially responsible” and “local government support.”
As a result of his finding that “perceived consumer effectiveness” influences purchasing behavior, he
suggests that marketers “should consider ways to create an emotional connection between producer
and consumer, supporting the notion that purchasing locally produced foods impacts more than just
the individual but also society in economical and sustainable ways.” The research, by determining
that a direct and positive link exists between store atmospheric responsiveness and extent of
purchase, suggests that store managers who invest in locally produced foods in a meaningful way
and are able to highlight these products in-store will have a competitive advantage in behavioral
outcomes such as increased sales and product demand.
In contrast to other studies, Campbell found that “subjective factors” (i.e. the social influence of family,
friends, and society) was less relevant as an influence on shoppers than their own opinions on what
was best to do.
He notes that there have not been previous empirical tests of relationships between consumers and
locally-produced foods and that retailers have not significantly addressed factors such as promotions,
display, etc. or analyzed how they impact consumer behavior.
Takeaways: Intention to purchase before entering a store has an affect on how much is actually
purchased – and perception of available local food before entering a store affects intention to
purchase. Therefore, it is possible that even if local food sales do not increase on the day of a “Meet
the Farmer” event or other in-store promotion, the activity could still lead to increased sales in the
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 8
future. It is also important that marketing and interventions help to make clear to consumers the
“difference” that they are making when purchasing local. Additionally, in-store interventions may be
successful when used in tandem, and therefore it may be less relevant to measure their successes
separately.
9. Carpio, C. E., & Isengildina-Massa, O. (2009). Consumer Willingness to Pay for Locally Grown
Products: The Case of South Carolina. Agribusiness, 25(3), 412-426.
This study concluded that South Carolinians are willing to pay an average price premium of 27% for
local produce and 23% for local animal products. It suggests that the premium consumers will agree
to varies by age, gender and income, but also by perceived product quality, a desire to support the
local economy, patronage of farmers’ markets, and consumer ties to agriculture.
Takeaway: People are willing to pay price premiums for local food. Convincing them it is of high
quality and that it supports the local economy may be effective in promoting local food purchases, as
will supporting consumer connections with agriculture.
10. Costanigro, M., D. Thilmany, S. Kroll, and G. Nurse. 2011. An In-Store Valuation of Local and
Organic Apples: the Role of Social Desirability. Agribusiness: An International Journal.
27(4):465-477.
As a result of an in-store experiment in Colorado, researchers found that customers were more willing
to buy “local” than “organic” apples. Motivations for valuing “local” correlate with social and public
good consumer values.
11. Cranfield, John, Henson, Spencer & Blandon, Jose. (2008). “The effect of attitudinal and sociodemographic factors on the likelihood of buying locally produced food.” International Food
Economy Research Group, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics,
University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Working Paper No. 8_FSD.
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/wlyagribz/v_3a28_3ay_3a2012_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a205221.htm.
These researchers found that socio-demographics (gender, age, income and education) play only a
limited role in predicting local food purchase intentions amongst Canadians. Attitudinally-based
variables have a greater influence including general views towards local farmers and food quality.
“Consumers with heightened levels of food involvement, either growing food or preparing most meals
from scratch, are more likely to purchase local foods.”
Takeaway: This finding indicates that people in rural areas may have a disposition to purchase
locally due to their connections with agriculture. It also suggests that encouraging more people to
prepare meals from scratch could potentially lead to a higher likelihood that people will purchase local
food, and implementing interventions that improve customers’ attitudes toward farmers may increase
local food sales.
12. Darby, K. et al.. (2008). “Decomposing Local: A conjoint analysis of locally produced foods.”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2):476-486.
These researchers found that Ohio-based respondents place similar values on foods produced “in
state” and “nearby,” and that willingness to pay for local production is independent from values
associated with freshness and farm size.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 9
Takeaway: Although various studies have shown that freshness or “anti corporate” values are
guiding factors for consumers choosing local foods, the “local” label is seen as preferable even apart
from these characteristics (indicating that local is important to people even if other fresh options are
available). Consumers are also willing to pay higher prices for local foods.
13. Dreier, Shonna & Taheri, Minoo. 2009. “Innovative Models: Small Grower and Retailer
Collaborations: Part B – Balls Food Stores’ Perspective.” Wallace Center, Winrock
International. http://www.ngfn.org/resources/research-1/innovativemodels/Balls%20Food%20Stores%20Innovative%20Model.pdf/view
This report on a Kansas city grocery retail chain that offers many local items found that ey
“innovations” that the grocery retailer has made include forming strong relationships with suppliers
(and being willing to expedite payments); working with a third party that labels local food; promoting
locally grown food to increase overall sales; making operational changes to support local foods sales.
In marketing efforts the stores advertise “meet the grower” events in major newspapers and advertise
cheap lunches ($1.01 for all natural hotdog, chips and drink) on the radio – which gives more overall
exposure for the store. Additionally they launched local TV commercials that feature local products
and in which the owner states “Shop Hen House Markets where you will find a farmers’ market 7 days
a week.” It also advertises in a local publication geared toward foodies.
Takeaway: Increasing marketing/advertising efforts helps…. And selling local food can lead to
increases in overall sales.
14. Grabowski, Gretchen. 2013. “Issues in the Marketplace: Living Local.” Mintel.
The Mintel firm conducted this survey to better understand American consumers’ interest in buying
local products. The summary analysis of the research is that although Americans are “drawn to the
selflessness of living local,” their decision whether or not to purchase local items ultimately comes
down to convenience. “Consumers want to purchase local products – namely the local produce
that they tend to most associate with their own health – but they don’t want to go out of their way
to get them.” The analyst concludes that:
“Marketers should be encouraged to find more ways to bring the local products consumers want directly, or at
least in closer proximity, to them. In this way, local involvement can be positioned as being mutually beneficial
to communities as well as the residents on which communities depend. Consumers wanting at least some
personal gain from their local efforts will also feel better accommodated.”
“Consumers’ local behaviors are likely tied to a larger sense of community attachment (more than eight in 10
respondents
agree people should have pride in their local communities).”
Researchers found that women were more likely to say that they “try to buy local whenever [they]
can,” and that, unsurprisingly, fresh produce is the category of food consumers are mostly likely to
say they attempt to purchase locally.
They also found that 75% of respondents cited it being “good for the local economy” as their reason
for buying local. Supporting American-made goods, and giving back to the local community were also
motivation for over half of respondents. Interestingly, 25% of “young people” (18-24) responded that
“it makes me feel unique” was a reason for buying local.
It is worth noting that grocery stores where people already shop was the location most cited by
respondents as a place where they buy local food (89%) – which reinforces the importance of
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 10
focusing on grocery stores. Analysts believe this highlights consumers’ unwillingness to go out of
their way to get to harder-to-reach markets.
In terms of price, the report concluded that “consideration should also be given to the fact that,
even if local goods are more expensive than other items, many consumers may not care. While
some 38% of Mintel respondents agree that local goods and services are too expensive, nearly half
say it is worth it to spend more on these items… some 47% agree that local goods are generally of
higher quality than other products.” Despite this interpretation, the survey did reveal that 61% said
lower prices could attract them to buy more local goods.
Takeaways: market research confirms perceived health benefits and community impact persuades
consumers to purchase locally-produced food. However it also indicates that people must also feel it
is convenient to do so. If a local product is priced higher than a conventional product, some
consumers will not be deterred, but they must believe they are getting a higher value for themselves
and for their communities by making the purchase. Thus, interventions that (1) make it easy for
customers to pick up local products without too much effort (2) encourage them to think about the
benefits to themselves and (3) encourage them to think about benefits for local economy may be
most effective.
15. Gracia, A., de Magistris, T., & Nayga, R. M. (2012). Importance of Social Influence in
Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Local Food: Are There Gender Differences? Agribusiness.
Through an experimental auction, the authors of this study (conducted in Spain) found that
consumers are willing to pay a premium for local products. They also tested the role of social
influence on willingness to pay (WTP) and found that while it positively impacted women (increasing
their WTP) it negatively impacted men. The study considered social influence to be whether they
were motivated to purchase based on perception that a product was local and socially embedded.
Social embeddedness was described as the social relationships between actors in a local food
system and surrounding community based on reciprocity, trust and shared values.
Takeaway: Women are more likely to purchase locally produced food than men. This finding is
reinforced by other authors (Gallons et al. 1997; Jekanowski et al. 2000; Kezis et al. 1998, Weatherall
et al. 2003).
16. Hanss, Daniel & Bohm, Gisela. (2013). “Promoting purchases of sustainable groceries: An
intervention study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33:53-67.
This study – carried out in Norway – found that interventions aimed at educating consumers on how
to mitigate environmental and social problems through purchasing decisions were successful in
strengthening both intention to purchase and actual purchasing of certain
(domestic/seasonal/certified) products. However, the intervention did not lead to customers having
greater feelings of self-efficacy.
The latter could be concerning because previous studies have found that belief in the efficacy of
purchasing decisions is important for prompting consumer behavior change: “If consumers do not
believe that their sustainable behaviors will make a difference, that is, if consumers have low selfefficacy beliefs, they may not be willing to accept the costs of sustainable consumption” (54).
The interventions presented information on how purchasing affects social and environmental issues,
and also how one individual’s purchase can encourage other consumers to do the same.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 11
Takeaways: Grocery retailers may be able to increase local food sales by having information
available on environmental and related topics. Perhaps leaflets produced by an independent party
(such as CEFs) placed in the produce area would be more effective than ones produced by the
grocery company. Interventions should also focus on materials that demonstrate the impact/efficacy
of consumers’ local purchases (i.e., posters with pictures of farmers and quotes about how their
family business has improved by being able to sell to the store). It could also be important for these
posters to stress how each purchase and every individual shopper can make a difference. For
instance, materials demonstrating that “every little bit counts,” or that “shopping in the local section
can encourage other passing customers to do the same.”
17. Hinrichs, C.C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct
agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), 295-303.
Hinrichs explains that while social connections are assumed to be a positive value of direct
purchasing (farmers’ markets, CSAs, etc.) ‘marketness’ and ‘instrumentalism’ complicate social
embeddedness and give more power to educated, middle-class consumers than to farmers and lessadvantaged consumers.
Takeaway: Because selling local food in a mainstream grocery store is inherently still part of modern
commodity relations (even more so than the farmers’ markets Hinrichs discusses), economic relations
that are characteristic of contemporary capitalism may impede social embededness. By increasing
opportunities for the farmers who sell to grocery stores and the customers who shop there to develop
connections and mutual obligations, social embeddedness will increase. (Perhaps there is a way for
customers to play a role in asking grocery retailers to carry products from local farms, or for retailers
to organize trips for customers to visit farms).
18. Hinrichs, Clare, Patricia Allen and Hilary Melcarek. 2011. “When Local is Linchpin: Strategic
Possibilities and Limits in Efforts to Change the Food System.” Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Boise, ID July 28-31, 2011
These authors completed a discursive analysis of textual materials from 18 U.S. Buy Local Food
campaigns and interviewed 44 Buy Local Food initiative leaders “about the work of promoting “local
food” as a way to change the food system.” They found that campaigns stress geographic proximity
but seldom stress direct producer-consumer relationships. In interviews, leaders were much more
likely to mention strengthening the economy, supporting farmers, improving health and the
environment, and “connections.” They concluded that “local” does hold campaigns together – but that
it is limiting in terms of achieving transformational change.
19. Hinrichs, C. & Allen, P. (2008). “Selective Patronage and Social Justice: Local Food Consumer
Campaigns in Historical Context.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21:329-352.
The spread and significance of local food systems across the nation has remained uneven because
even those who profess concern for local farmers and shop at farmers’ markets are likely to buy the
majority of their food at supermarkets. Campaigns like “Buy Fresh, Buy Local” have worked to change
this and to increase retail of local food. The BFBL marketing kit consists of information about “keeping
dollars in the community,” etc., which they seem to find most effective. These authors note that BFBL
campaigns are a reaction to the problems of the contemporary capitalist agrifoods system; however,
they find that they are insufficient in addressing social justice concerns around inequality. They
suggest a movement away from “local” as the operative descriptor for this reason.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 12
Takeaway: Although we aren’t looking to toss out the “local” level, this does highlight the importance
of defining it beyond geographical proximity if we want to fulfill the social and economic values
associated with local food movements.
20. Jacob, J. (2012). Who buys Local and Organic? Comparing Rhode Island Consumers’
Willingness to Pay for Conventional, Local (RI & CT) and USDA-Certified Organic Milk. Honors
Thesis, Brown University.
This study, carried out for an undergraduate honors thesis, found that people surveyed outside
supermarkets are more willing to pay a premium for local than they are for organic. It found that
women and people in high SES (socioeconomic status) categories were more likely to pay a premium
for local milk, and that moving up the age brackets, older customers were less wiling than younger
customers to pay a premium for local milk.
21. Jarosz, L. (2000). “Understanding agri-food network as social relations.” Agriculture and
Human Values 17(279-283).
This article does not speak directly to consumer values and decisions, but indicates that relationships
among suppliers, producers, workers, processors, brokers, wholesalers and retailers are crucial for
building strong regional food networks. Strong social relationships between these actors allow agrisystems to become more “embedded” in communities.
22. Jekanowski, M.D., Williams, D.R., and Schiek,W.A. (2002). Consumers’ willingness to
purchase locally produced agricultural products: An analysis of an Indiana survey. Agricultural
and Resource Economics Review, 29(8), 43-53.
A survey of 320 people in Indiana found that (1) length of residency in state, (2) gender (women more
likely), and (3) quality perceptions are the strongest predictors of likelihood to purchase products
produced within the state.
Takeaway: Quality of local products should be emphasized in promotions.
23. Katchova, Ani L, & Woods, Timothy A. (2012). Marketing Local Foods by Food Cooperatives.
Paper presented at the 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil.
This paper explores the ways that food cooperatives across the U.S. have used business strategies
to promote and market local foods. Through a survey of co-ops, they found that food co-ops feel they
have an advantage on working with local farmers (compared to non-co-op grocers). They use
approaches to promote local products “including farmer photos and stories, food sampling,
newsletters and social media, etc.” (8). Co-ops “also provide staff training on local products,
samplings, annual merchandising features, sponsorship of off-site local food events, on-site festivals,
and deli features to increase consumer awareness of local foods” (9).
Takeaways: Although the efficacy of these promotional activities has not been specifically measured
in co-ops, the consistency of using several marketing approaches indicates that food co-ops have
anecdotally found them valuable in promoting local food sales. These approaches include using
social media, newsletters and websites to disseminate information, providing samples, training staff
on promoting local foods, and hosting off-site events.
24. Kirby, L. (2007). Growing Local: Implications for Western North Carolina. Asheville, NC,
Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 13
82% of Western North Carolina respondents indicated they would buy more locally-produced food if it
was labeled as such.
Takeaway: There is a demand for locally produced food in western North Carolina and a desire that it
be more effectively labeled.
25. Landry, Timothy, Todd J. Arnold & John B. Stark. (2005). “Retailer community embeddedness
and consumer patronage.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(1): 65-72.
This study tested a conceptual framework that demonstrates the link between community
embeddedness of a retailer and consumer patronage. The framework follows that socializing actions
(things that community members do to communicate with other community members what it means to
be a part of the community), reciprocity (when community members or entities give mutual support to
one another), and social compliance (essentially, acting on social norms) affect patronage, but this
relationship is mediated by congregation and utilitarian value (UV: the value derived from buying
something).
The study found that reciprocity positively affected perception of UV, which positively affected
patronage. In other words, if consumers felt some sort of reciprocal relationship with the retailer, then
they saw the products as more valuable and were willing to buy more at higher prices: “...consumers
are more likely to allow for situations of higher price and interaction costs with the retailer because the
retailer’s input to the community is adequate to convey value in the goods.”
It also found that providing for the community’s unique needs through socializing actions boosted the
UV, which affected patronage. This goes beyond marketing things as “local” in general, but becoming
“locally relevant” to consumers so that each consumer can see herself in the products and in the
retailer’s identity. This usually implies providing a unique product mix for each store based on the
consumer base and community events.
Additionally, it determined that congregation, which is affected by socializing actions, reciprocity and
social compliance, increases patronage. Retailers that create a space for community to take place,
such as a grocery store with a cafe area, or an outdoor provision center with rock climbing classes
cause community to take place at that location, which ultimately increases patronage.
Finally, the study found that these patterns are not explained away by the convenient location of the
store, either. “Further, it is important to note that both utilitarian value and congregation explained
more of the variance in patronage than did convenience. Thus, this research implies that retailer
actions taken to facilitate the formation and sustenance of community will have a stronger impact
upon consumption behavior than simply the locale and ease of effort associated with stopping at a
given store. “
Takeaways: If grocery retailers are able to create the perception that they are positively affecting the
community (community embedded), and if customers feel that they are further positively affecting the
community by shopping at/supporting these stores, then they will be more likely to pay a premium
and go out of their way to shop at them. To create the feeling that it is a community-embedded store,
stores should go beyond marketing things as “local,” but should also strive to create a unique,
culturally/geographically appropriate product mix for each store (not just buy “locally relevant”). For
example, if a town were to have an Irish Dance Festival, a grocery store would support this by
featuring locally made Irish-style beers and foods, demonstrating that the store is aware and
supportive of what is going on in and important to the community. In addition to this “socializing
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 14
action,” retailers should also work to become a location of “gathering and participation.” In other
words, it should not only be part of outside community events (like soup kitchens and local festivals)
but it should work to make community events happen on the premises. For instance, through a café
space, regular cooking classes or community discussions.
26. Leopold Center. (2003). “Ecolabel value assessment: consumer and food business
perceptions of local foods.” Iowa State University AND Leopold Center. (2004). Ecolabel value
assessment: Phase II. Iowa State University.
A consumer survey conducted in four areas of the United States measured the effectiveness of
various local food “ecolabels” and found that consumers preferred labels that focus on the freshness
of products and the distance they traveled from farm to consumer. Labels that stress environmental
factors (such as CO2 emissions) were found to be less effective. More than 75% of consumers said
that they would prefer to buy locally grown produce from “family farmers.” 12-18 percent of consumer
respondents were willing to pay 30 percent or more for products that combined locally grown with
attributes of environmental and community stewardship. It was believed that the “local” attribute was
more important than socially and environmentally responsible attributes. A second phase of the study
found that consumers would choose “local-some pesticides used” over “U.S. organic” – thus
underscoring the symbolic importance of “local” in people’s minds. Respondents preferred the tagline
“Freshness-dated, so you know when it left the farm” to other taglines tested.
Takeaways: Marketing of local food should focus first on freshness, quality and price (revealed to be
consumers’ core values) and secondarily on augmented benefits that consumers value including
support for local farms, low environmental impact and supporting the local economy. Consumers are
willing to pay higher prices for local items.
27. Miller, K., & Pedersen, C. (2012). Using Social marketing Initiatives to Address Disconnection
in the Lockyer Valley Region. SILVER SPONSOR.
This study introduces a theoretical analysis in preparation for a case study of community engagement
in Australia (using food and other initiatives). Drawing on other authors from the field, this study
defines community engagement as “a synergistic activity whereby participants exchange information,
experience relationships and the pleasures of human contact which, in turn, rewards participating
people intrinsically through pride in oneself and extrinsically by way of social approval (Abdul-Ghani,
Hyden & Marhsall 2011)” (p.158) These and other authors postulate that increasing engagement
leads to stronger feelings of connectedness, sense of belonging, and, ultimately, positive outcomes
for the place and its residents. As they summarize, community engagement (CE) theorists have also
suggested that results of engagement are most successful if residents have played an active part in
the change.
Takeaways: Interventions that make customers feel a part of increasing local food sales in grocery
retailers may help to build engagement and store loyalty. Community engagement can be seen as an
ongoing and cyclical process that continually boosts both overall community well-being, and sense of
attachment to the store.
28. Nurse, G. and Thilmany, D. (2010). “Local Sourcing for Retail: The role of consumer
motivation.” Presentation at the National Grocers Association (NGA). AND Onozaka, Y., Nurse,
G. & Thilmany McFadden, D. “Local Food Consumers: How Motivations and Perceptions
Translate to Buying Behavior.” Choices Magazine.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 15
A survey with 1052 respondents found that “proven health benefits” was the most important factor for
respondents in choosing fresh produce, followed by “supporting local economy,” “farmers receiving
fair share of economic returns,” and “maintaining local farmland.” Surprisingly, considering responses,
consumers valued “Local” by far over “organic.” Though consumers associated local produce with
freshness, quality, food safety, nutritional values, public health, and support for the local economy,
there was relatively low awareness about carbon footprint and treatment of labor claims among
respondents.
People need to be convinced a product does “what it is supposed to.” In other words, does it truly
taste good? It is also important to boost “perceived consumer effectiveness,” meaning providing
information to show the actual implications of buying locally produced food.
Respondents revealed that supermarkets (as opposed to co-ops, specialty stores, natural food stores,
farmers markets, convenience stores and direct for the producer) are actually least effective in
boosting perceived-consumer effectiveness.
In a test of targeting certain motivators to see if they could increase sales, retailers found that positive
connections with consumers and less shrink (food “lost” to the retailer because it is not sold or goes
bad) were unexpected outcomes for grocers.
Takeaways: By demonstrating product quality and also communicating the implications of
purchasing locally, retailers can boost their “authenticity” and “transparency” and achieve not only
increased local food sales, but also improved overall relationships with consumers and reduced
shrinkage.
29. Onken, Kathryn & Bernard, John. (?) “Catching the ‘local’ bug: a look at state agricultural
marketing programs. Choices Magazine>
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/print.php?article=112
Almost all states now have some sort of marketing program for agricultural products. One question is
whether quality certification is essential to the success of these programs. New Jersey and California
currently have the most rigorous standards (for being able to use the in-state marketing materials)
and are also two of the states to achieve the biggest gain in sales of locally grown products.
Takeaway: assurance of quality matters in marketing local foods
30. Ostrom, M. (2006). "Everyday meanings of ‘local food’ views from home and field.” Community
Development, 37(1): 65-78.
This paper examines the way that consumers and farmers understand the meaning of “local food.”
The researcher initially felt that understandings of “local” among both producers and consumers were
so varied (in geographic and symbolic terms) that no meaningful patterns could be established.
Authors feared this was a limiting factor in local foods initiatives. However, upon further analysis of
survey responses, the researcher found a good bit of agreement amongst both consumers and
farmers in what the “local” label stands for. The majority of both consumers and farmers saw food
produced within their county or nearby counties as “local” – a smaller percentage listed food
produced within the state as local. Only 3% of consumers and 16% of farmers surveyed saw food
produced from a larger geographic boundary than the state (region, country, etc.) as “local.” 18% of
consumers actually thought of “local” as produced within their city or town, and 3% as within their
neighborhood.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 16
When qualitatively describing local food, many used adjectives related to quality such as “fresher,”
“tastier,” “healthier,” and “purer.” Many consumers thought of locally produced food as “pesticide and
antibiotic free” or “natural.” They also associated local food with connections to area farmers that
were described as more trustworthy, small-scale, responsible and humane than other farmers. “Thus,
knowing how the food was grown and who grew it were very important to many people, and they
associated having access to this knowledge as a benefit of ‘locally grown’ food.” (p.73). Many
consumers also made statements about the positive feeling invoked from helping to support farmers
and allowing them to succeed.
In a second part of the survey, consumers indicated that freshness, nutrition and quality were most
important to them as determinants of food purchasing, with convenience coming in second.
The authors conclude that despite some disagreement (particularly among activists and
organizations) over definitions of local – it has become a meaningful term to many consumers. The
trick is to ensure that it does not become appropriated by corporations by living up to consumer
expectations that “local” labels actually support local economies and produce high quality food.
Takeaways: People are most likely to consider “local” food to be food produced within geographic
locations no larger than nearby counties. Thus, some stores’ practice of labeling food from states
within the region as “local” is likely to clash with consumers’ definitions of local, as is labeling food
produced by large corporations (for instance, in North Carolina, Mt. Olive, Krispy Kreme, Smithfield
Pork, etc..) as “local” (due to clashes with qualitative understandings of “local food.”)
31. Pirog, R., & Larson, A. (2007). Consumer perceptions of the safety, health, and environmental
impact of various scales and geographic origin of food supply chains. Unpublished manuscript,
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs-and-papers/2007-09-consumer-perceptions
These authors speculate that environmental concerns are the motivation for buying both local and
organic.
32. Policy Link. (Undated). “Grocery Store Development.” Available at:
http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.7962289/k.8730/Grocery_Store_Development/a
pps/nl/newsletter2.asp
This report on attracting and making successful grocery stores in urban, low-income areas indicates
that creating a perception of “community engagement” is important for creating trust (where people
have previously mistrusted corporations) and learning how to best work within the community.
Partnerships with Community Development Corporations can often help.
Takeaway: although this report focuses on urban areas, many of the lessons regarding under-served
communities may also apply in rural areas.
33. Racine, E.F., Mumford, E.A., Laditka, S.B., & Lowe, A.E. (2012). Understanding
Characteristics of Families Who Buy Local Produce. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 45(1):30-38.
A cross-sectional analysis of North Carolina families with children found that about half of families
report buying local produce an average of once per month. White families, lower income families,
families living in rural areas, families with children who ate five or more servings of fruit and veggies
per day, and families with children in poor health were more likely to purchase local produce. The
project concluded that interventions could focus on promoting local foods purchasing in urban areas
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 17
and among black families.
34. Roininen, K., Arvola, A., & Lahteenmaki, L. (2006). Exploring consumers' perceptions of local
food with two different qualitative techniques: laddering and word association. Food Quality
and Preference, 17(1–2), 20-30.
Using “laddering” (an interview method that, in this case, asked subjects to sort product-types in order
of preference, and then describe why they made the choice and why the choice was important) and
“word association” interview techniques, researchers in Finland found that (1) “quality,” “locality,”
“vitality of rural areas,” “short transportation distances,” “freshness”, and “animal well-being” are all
values associated with local food, and that (2) laddering interview techniques, while time intensive,
are effective for understanding the “relationship between perceived attributes and the reasons for
choices.”
Takeaways: Laddering interview techniques may be effective for future research into specific groups
of people’s perceptions of local food. The values mentioned above highlighted should be in
promotional materials for local food.
35. Schneider, M., & Francis, C. (2005). Marketing locally produced foods: consumer and farmer
opinions in Washington County, Nebraska. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(4),
252–260.
A survey of residents in Washington County, Nebraska found that quality and taste were the most
important factors in people’s food purchasing preferences, and that “environmentally friendly
production and support for local farmers were also important.” Consumers indicated a willingness to
pay a price premium for local foods.
Takeaway: Quality and taste must be emphasized in local foods promotional activities, followed by
environmental benefits and support for local farmers.
36. Stanton, J. L., Wiley, J. B., & Wirth, F. F. (2012). Who are the locavores? Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 29(4), 248-261
This project (focused on Pennsylvania residents) found that there is a segment of the population
willing to pay for a locally produced product, but that it is smaller than segments that are more
interested in taste or price than the environmental/social values associated with locally produced food.
The researchers recommended the following phrase that retailers could use in encouraging
consumers to buy local: “that purchasing from local farmers helps the economy in the communities we serve. Local
produce can be delivered to your store very quickly and faster shipping means even fresher produce for you. Items can be
picked and packed at a more mature stage. This can really bring out the taste of the product. Eating locally grown food
also means less fossil fuel burned in preparation and transport – and less energy needed to refrigerate during
transportation”
Takeaway: Although some consumers will be attracted to local foods if they are marketed as better
for environmental/social reasons, if retailers wants to attract a wider range of customers it will be
important to stress quality/freshness and also be able to boast affordable prices.
37. Thilmany, D., Bond, C., & Bond, J. (2008, December). Going Local: Exploring Consumer
Behavior and Motivations for Direct Food Purchases. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 90(5):1303-1309.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 18
Like other studies discussed in this review, this paper emphasizes the importance of consumers’
belief in the “effectiveness” of an action taken to achieve a particular social good. They grouped
consumers of local food into four segments: urban assurance seekers, price conscious shoppers,
quality and safety consumers, and personal value buyers. It is important to note that none of these
groups are strict local shoppers, and their motivations may lead them to other products at times.
38. Tregear, A., & Ness, M. (2005). Discriminant Analysis of Consumer Interest in Buying Locally
Produced Foods. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(1/2), 19-35
This UK marketing research found that attitudinal factors tend to explain variations in local food
interest better than demographic factors. However, it also noted that the importance of factors such
as price and intrinsic quality did not vary between those with different levels of interest in purchasing
locally. This indicates that certain “pragmatic expectations” of consumers will have to be met for
marketing strategies to work. The researchers also noted that environmental and social welfare
factors were more important to those disposed to buying locally produced foods.
39. Tsoodle, L., Ross, K., and Clark, P. (2011). Burlingame Grocery Sustainability Project
Customer Survey *For Discussion Only*. Kansas State University Center for Community
Engagement and Development.
www.burlingameks.com/documents/pdf/GROCERY%20SURVEY.pdf
This project surveyed people (n=535) in Kansas to ask about their shopping preferences. They
indicated a lack of total store loyalty amongst respondents (most shopped at multiple grocery stores).
Tabulated responses ranked quality of food as most important in grocery store expectations, followed
by cleanliness of store, prices, and supporting local businesses, with convenient business hours,
customer service, availability of food, buying locally grown foods, and travel time to store being
ranked as “very important” by less than half of respondents (see Table below). 50 percent of
responders said that supporting local businesses is important in their shopping experience, and 98.3
percent “agreed that they would purchase locally grown foods if available.”
Owners of local grocery stores in Kansas “expressed frustration” over people going out of town to find
“deals” at bigger stores. “Grocery store owners work hard to supply groceries for the community,
support local clubs, ball teams, church events, and other civic causes. These local owners want local
citizens to return the support to their local business.”
Takeaways: Although people indicate that supporting local business is important, local business
owners feel that even when they act as “community-engaged” businesses, local people pass their
store over in favor for “deals” at larger stores. Thus underscoring the fact that even a “communityengaged” image cannot necessarily overcome a segment of people who desire a “good price.”
However, for those that are more disposed to supporting local businesses, quality of produce and
cleanliness of store can help draw them in.
40. Verain, M. C. D., Bartels, J., Dagevos, H., Sijtsema, S. J., Onwezen, M. C., & Antonides, G.
(2012). Segments of sustainable food consumers: a literature review. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 36(2), 123-132.
This review of studies (published up to 2010) on segments of “sustainable food consumers” found
that typical socio-demographics are insufficient in predicting behavior in relation to sustainable food
consumption. Though some studies find that women do seem more likely to purchase “sustainable
food,” this is not consistent across all studies, nor are findings about age or education level. Rather,
personality characteristics, lifestyle and behavior are more important to take into consideration.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 19
41. Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer
Attitude-Behaviour Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169-194.
This article indicates that ethical food consumption can be stimulated by raising involvement,
perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE), certainty, social norms, and perceived availability. This
research was carried out in Europe, but reflects ideas also confirmed in a U.S. context (Campbell
dissertation). Their emphasis on “social norms,” however, contradicts Campbell’s research, which
suggests that internalized factors rather than social norms are more significant.
42. Webber, C. B., & Dollahite, J. S. (2008). Attitudes and Behaviors of Low- Income Food Heads
of Households Toward Sustainable Food Systems Concepts. Journal of Hunger &
Environmental Nutrition, 3(2–3), 186 - 205.
This study, which was aimed at understanding the attitudes of low-income household shoppers
toward food purchasing, found that household heads were primarily concerned with the health of their
families. In particular they were concerned with whether products were fresh and free from harmful
additives (chemicals, pesticides, etc.). Although these issues were of primary concern, many people
were not familiar with the concept of “organic” agriculture or concerned with “local” over “non-local”
produce as long as it appeared fresh and was affordable. Low-income respondents in rural areas
were more likely than in urban areas to attach importance to supporting local economies through
purchasing from local farmers or food producers and to associate local food with a variety of positive
health and economic indicators.
Takeaway: Freshness and value of local products should be emphasized in grocery stores in lowincome, rural areas. However, stressing benefits to the local community and playing up the idea of
“community loyalty” may also be resonant with some shoppers.
43. Wolf, M.M. (1997). A target consumer profile and positioning for promotion of the direct
marketing of fresh produce: A case study. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 28(3), 11-17.
This study looks at farmers’ markets and thus does not necessarily pertain to supermarket retailing,
but may have insights for Meet the Farmer events held in these stores. The authors note that it is
important to determine what to communicate in marketing materials – quality? environmentalism?
The following characteristics were most frequently ranked as “very to extremely desirable” (in
descending order of frequency) by Californians in San Luis Obispo (interviews conducted at
supermarkets and other locations, not at farmers’ markets to avoid bias): Fresh looking, fresh tasting,
in a high quality product, good value for the money, is reasonably priced, convenient to buy, easily
accessible. Farmers or market managers are advised to create promotional campaigns around these
factors.
44. Zepeda, L., & Leviten-Reid, C. (2004). Consumers’ views on local food. Journal of Food
Distribution Research, 35(3), 1-6.
In this focus group study, it was found that many “alternative “ (organic shoppers) and “conventional”
shoppers associated positive values with locally produced food (in particular, positive community
benefits). However, many of the “conventional shoppers” and African American participants were
unlikely to actively seek out local labels in grocery stores, despite general support for local food. They
were also less likely to describe specific benefits of purchasing local food.
Takeaway: It may be helpful to promote increased knowledge about specific community benefits or
purchasing locally produced products; furthermore, it is helpful to then use reminders to look for local
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 20
labels in stores. For instance, signs or posters saying, “look for ‘local’ labels to support local farmers”
with a big image of the local logo and an image of a farmer could be effective.
45. Zepeda, L. & Li, J. (2006). Who Buys Local Food? Journal of Food Distribution Research
37(3), 1011.
Based on a national survey, the authors found that consumers who buy local food (which they defined
here as buying in supermarkets, direct from farmers, or through CSAs) are not characterized by
typical demographics or income level, “nor do attitudes or behaviors related to the environment and
health significantly affect whether shoppers buy local.” Rather, they found that other attitudes and
behaviors related to food and shopping (like loving to cook) were most likely to increase the
probability of buying local food.
Takeaway: market local food as a means to cooking new dishes.
46. Zepeda, L., & Nie, C. (2012). What are the odds of being an organic or local food shopper?
Multivariate analysis of US food shopper lifestyle segments. Agriculture and Human Values, 114
This study found that although a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic values explain motivations for
purchasing organic and local foods, extrinsic variables increase the “probability of being in a particular
consumer food lifestyle segment.” The extrinsic variables they found most helpful in predicting and
explaining behavior include environmental concerns, health practices, race, the presence of a farmers’
market, and to a lesser degree, family composition and income. When clustering consumers into
lifestyle segments – they found that clusters formed heavily around cooking patterns (frequencies of
cooking at home). It is interesting to note that communities of color were found to be 15% more likely
than White people to be in the “adventurous” lifestyle segmentation (the most likely to buy organic or
local food and enjoy cooking). Effects of income on purchasing were inconsistent… but it seems that
while high incomes do not necessarily correlate with local food purchasing, very low incomes are a
barrier.
Takeaway: Instead of focusing on particular demographics (age, race, gender or income level)
interventions could focus on shifting people into different lifestyle segments. If interventions can
increase interest in cooking, they may also be successful in boosting purchases of local food items.
Case Studies from Key Local Food Retailing Projects
Buy Fresh Buy Local (Part of Food Routes Network), National
BFBL has found that as demand for “local” has increased, farmers have had to compete with
products that are not “truly local” (or in the spirit of the local foods movement). To be competitive in
this market and to prove to consumers that their products are “the real thing” they have instituted a
set of criteria for all farmers/producers wishing to use the label. It requires farmers to:
1. Grow products within a 200 mile radius of the Kansas City Metro Area. Foods not locally available will be sourced
as close to Kansas City as possible.
2. Grow on small family size farms.
3. Grow using environmentally sustainable methods with minimal use of pesticides.
4. Raise animals free-range without the use of growth hormones and sub-therapeutic antibiotics.
5. Use no genetically modified seed varieties or livestock breeds.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 21
6. Process locally using traditional handcrafted artesian methods with no or minimal use of artificial ingredients or
preservatives. The main ingredient must be locally grown or produced.
7. Enhance the environment, reduce pollution, and practice social responsibility.
8. Sell only at locally owned and operated markets.
9. Stimulate and support local and rural economies
10. Use the breeds and varieties best suited to produce the highest quality products for the Kansas City Metro area.
This could be a good set of criteria for grocery stores to consider adapting (farmers’ are asked to sign
a form vowing to fulfill these requirements).
It is also notable that FoodRoutes originally conducted market research in order to name their
campaign and settled on “Buy Fresh, By Local” after finding it was the most compelling to American
consumers across various regions (cited in Hinrichs article discussed above).
Good Natured Family Farms, Kansas City
GNFF is an alliance of 150+ small farmers and businesses around Kansas City that are working to
get local products to more of the public. Their successes include getting products into Ball Grocery
stores and sold under the “Buy Fresh, Buy Local” program (based in Pennsylvania and with chapters
in a variety of states). Through a Kellogg grant they are also working to get food into school lunches,
in good food boxes (distributed to faith-based communities), and in Wellness Corporate CSAs
(getting food to people in the workplace).
Marketing includes the BFBL label, banner and signage in Balls Food around GNFF items and
Farmers’ Table promotions, which bring growers into stores.
Dreier, Shonna & Taheri, Minoo. 2008. “Innovative Models: Small Grower and Retailer
Collaborations: Good Natured Family Farms and Balls Foods Stores.” Wallace Center,
Winrock
International.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5091495
This case study explains the experience of Good Natured Family Farmers and Balls Food Stores.
GNFF is a cooperative of farmers that provides an umbrella brand for a suite of local products and
caters to the two mainstream grocery chains owned by Balls Food stores. By organizing into a
cooperative (that also shares some processing facilities) more local food can be funneled into the
mainstream grocery stores. To assure the brand’s reputation and quality, members of the co-op have
to sign an affidavit that their products meet a certain set of standards (their products also meet the
criteria of the Food Route’s Buy Fresh Buy Local Standards). The project has found success in cobranding products (with GNFF, the local farm, and Buy Fresh Buy Local as well). To increase
consumer awareness, the stores use in-store promotions (and there is a “Good Demonstration
Practices” set of guidelines that prepare demonstrators). GNFF also works with employees so that
they are able to discuss the brand with customers and build awareness.
Takeaways: An umbrella local brand is helpful; co-branding is helpful; discussing local products with
employees is helpful so that they can help build brand awareness; training on how to carry out
successful in-store promotions is also important.
Dreier, Shonna & Taheri, Minoo. 2009. “Innovative Models: Small Grower and Retailer
Collaborations: Part B – Balls Food Stores’ Perspective.” Wallace Center, Winrock
International. http://www.ngfn.org/resources/research-1/innovative
models/Balls%20Food%20Stores%20Innovative%20Model.pdf/view
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 22
Key “innovations” that the grocery retailer has made include forming strong relationships with
suppliers (and being willing to expedite payments); working with a third party that labels local food;
promoting locally grown food to increase overall sales; making operational changes to support local
foods sales.
In marketing efforts the stores advertise “meet the grower” events in major newspapers and advertise
cheap lunches ($1.01 for all natural hotdog, chips and drink) on the radio – which gives more overall
exposure for the store. Additionally they launched local TV commercial that feature local products and
in which the owner states “Shop Hen House Markets where you will find a farmers’ market 7 days a
week.” It also advertises in a local publication geared toward foodies.
Takeaway: Increasing marketing/advertising efforts helps…. And selling local food can lead to
increases in overall sales
New Seasons Market, Portland
This 12-store chain in Portland, Oregon has prioritized local sourcing from its inception (in 2000).
They are also a registered “B-Corporation,” which means that their business success is measured by
adherence to their values and standards rather than capital growth (putting them in a unique place to
support local, etc.) The store uses a “Home Grown” logo to market local products.
Takeaway: A clear in-store logo/brand is important for identifying local products
Red Tomato (North East/Mid-Atlantic)
Red Tomato is a “middle man” non-profit marketing organization with the goal of getting more of
regional farmers’ produce into stores at a fair price. It operates in the northeast and mid Atlantic. The
organization has proven that creating a well known, umbrella brand for local food can increase
positive reaction and purchasing habits. The branding strategy centers around the farmers’ stories.
Red Tomato works exclusively with farms that they consider to be family-scale and ecological.
RT delivers produce to stores within two days of harvest – allowing for fresher produce and skipping
the conventional distributing channels that delay the process. They also provide stores with
promotional materials (e.g. point-of-sale signs and posters) that help stores to “tell the farmer’s story”
and advertise the items. In addition to the general Red Tomato logo and brand, the organization has
two additional branding programs. The Eco Apple program packages apples in paper tote bags that
are customized with information about specific farmers/farms. The “Born and Raised Here” program
includes customized cardboard baskets, master trays, and plastic bags for romaine lettuce hearts that
draw attention to the items’ local status.
Takeaway: An umbrella brand for local produce can help consumers recognize and trust items.
Including informative packaging and point-of-sale signs that tell the story of the farmer and farm from
which items came is successful in marketing produce.
Wegman’s
King, Robert et al.. (?) “Can Local Food Go Mainstream?” Choices Magazine.
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.php?article=111
Wegman’s is a grocery chain with stores in New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Its
“Locally Grown Produce Program” is responsible for increasing local sales to 30% of produce when
products are in season. The stores promote local growers actively and occasionally host in-store
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 23
tastings. The company uses its website to communicate what local products are available at the
current time and to share information about local family farms.
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 24
Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings
Page 25