T. Farina and S. Almeida / International Food and Agribusiness Management Review Vol 5 Iss 2 2003
into its main attributes. Hence, instead of analyzing the utility gained by the product as
a whole, one analyzes the utility of each attribute. Thus, it is possible to verify which
attribute the consumer values most. (Baker, 1998).
This method is applied in two stages. The first is the choice of attributes and their
respective levels that are afterwards combined in various cards. Each card represents a
product that the consumer could be choosing in the market. These cards are presented to
the consumer who puts them in order, according to his or her preferences. It is necessary
to emphasize that the higher the number of attributes, the greater the number of cards,
which makes it difficult to operate the survey. Thus the definition of the attributes is an
essential part of the process.
Four attributes were defined to make up the cards: price, type of chicken, brand name,
and authenticity seal.
The first variable chosen was the type of chicken: conventional, natural, and free-range.
Price was chosen as one of the variables, first, because it is an important attribute in any
transaction and because we assume the hypothesis that the alternative chicken consumer
is less sensitive to price. This hypothesis is based on the fact that there are substantial
price differences between the alternative chickens and the conventional. Three price
levels were defined, R$ 1,65, R$ 2,85 and R$ 3,90. These values were chosen from the
averages of prices of conventional, natural and free-range chicken respectively, gathered
in different supermarkets from different areas.2 Therefore, levels chosen should cover the
internal of chicken prices normally found in the market.
The last two attributes - brand name and authenticity seals - were included in order to
identify the relative importance the consumer assigns to these instruments. In relation
to the attribute brand name, we defined two choices, product with or without a brand
name. In relation to the attribute authenticity seal, we defined three alternatives:
without seal, with a company seal3 or with an independent certifier seal.
The target public of this survey is the alternative chicken consumer. Before conducting
the interview, the person was asked whether he or she was a consumer of alternative
chicken, and the interview was only carried out if the answer was affirmative. The
sample analyzed has 100 observations; all of them were collected at the AAO (Organic
Agriculture Association) organic products market at a park in Sao Paulo. This is a small
sample and apparently biased by the fact that it was collected in one specific location.
The fact is that it is the largest organic products market in the city of Sao Paulo. The
other two organic products markets in Sao Paulo are much smaller, also belong to AAO,
and are located in middle- or high-class neighborhoods, which would lead us to the same
group of consumers. The organic products market was chosen because, in general,
consumers of organic products are the same consumers of differentiated chicken.
2 These prices were gathered in April 2001. At the time the exchange rate was 2,19 R$/US$.
3 Company seal is the seal of the company that is selling the product.