Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Greensgrow3

No description
by

Sachi Sobti

on 26 April 2010

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Greensgrow3

Greensgrow 2. Hypothesis 1. Theory 3. Experiment 4. Results 6. Take-aways 5. Discussion 2. Hypothesis We predict that the lower income segment
will be indifferent towards Greensgrow's
key selling point of "eat well, eat local" Greensgrow 1.Theory Attitudes Favorability
Accessibility
*Strength Why are attitudes formed? Self Expression - this product isn't
relevant to their lives Greensgrow Presentation Jacob Nussbaum
Azjen – Fishbein Multiattribute Model 3. Experiment Snickers vs. Apple Location •Research conducted at Supreme Shop n Bag
•Area demographics similar to North Philadelphia
•50 total surveys (25 control, 25 manipulated)
•Data collected early afternoon, early evening
•Randomized distribution of control, manipulated
•Initial hesitance followed by interest
•Skeptical when told we were not selling anything
•Most eventually glad to talk
4. Results 6. Take-aways Zach Hochster Catherine Lefkowitz Natalie Scherer Tiffany Chin Sachi Sobti Manipulated There is a market within the low-income families that prefers healthy and eats healthy
Conduct similar experiments with real target market
Skim Marketing- advertise to these people at Whole Foods Price ranked as the #1 thing that the consumers cared about when shopping for grocery stores
A lower price would be much more successful- closer to the 18.63 that they currenly pay for groceries
Putting a 'fresh and locally-grown label on the basket can make a difference
They need to know this is different that going to the supermarket Free cooking classes

Word of Mouth Supermarket Attitude towards survey Control 5. Discussion of Results 1.Price
2. Taste
3. Convenience ...But can be manipulated! significantly increases: Explained by the TORA (Theory of Reasoned Action)
9/14 who ranked importance of eating fruits and vegetable as a 10 chose snickers instead of an apple Importance of Attributes
Disconnect between Attitude and Behavior Kind of So...was our hypothesis correct?
Customers are NOT indifferent about 'fresh and locally grown' produce
...however, their attitudes do not perfectly predict their behaviors 'Fresh and Locally Grown' willingness to pay
purchase intent
attitude towards eating fruits and vegetables Market Price Fresh and Locally-Grown When advertising baskets, mention free cooking classes
Couple small gain with big loss 1 free basket for every 3 people that they get to sign up
Would encourage them to act on their positive attitudes towards fresh and locally grown food Aggregate Demographics Age: 38
Gender: 30 women
F/V Daily: 37/50
Fruits: 2.35
Vegetables: 2.22
Money on F/V: 18.63
Pay for Basket: 26/50
Percentage Willing to Pay Importance (scale 1-10) Control Manipulated 6.76 7.08 Pay how much? Control: 11.45
experimental: 14 apple eaters vs. snickers eaters 9/14 people who said eating [fresh and locally grown] fruits and vegetables is important at the scale of 10, took a snickers bar after the experiment Aggregate: Important Factors Testing Significance 1. Price- 152
2. Convenience-131
3. Taste-130 Manipulated Control Sources of Error Demographic error – people on food stamps?
Interview Bias
Avoided students
Barrier of understanding; memory
Fresh vs. locally grown
Anchoring the price; include visual in next survey Questions?
Full transcript