Available online at www.centmapress.org, Describes the type of information regarding food shared on Twitter and what kind of network is established between Twitter users in those cases when the #food in question is associated to a geographical area. Findings highlighted differences between the two networks surveyed, both with regard to the actors involved and to the way in which they share information on Twitter.
Kinsey, Jean (author), Stinson, Thomas F. (author), Degeneffe, Dennis (author), Ghosh, Koel (author), and Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota.
Format:
Research report
Publication Date:
2006-03
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 148 Document Number: C23858
Notes:
24 pages., Findings of a national survey funded by the National Center for Food Protection and Defense, a Department of Homeland Security Academic Center of Excellence. Respondents express keen interest in protecting the food supply chain and protecting against a chemical or biological attack. See summary news release entitled, "U of M survey finds consumers willing to pay more to protect against terrorism."
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 132 Document Number: D11356
Notes:
Radio program transcript online from National Public Radio. 4 pages., "Weekend Edition" program describes the approach taken by a Pulitzer-winning "small town" newspaper in Storm Lake, Iowa, writing editorials challenging corporate agribusiness interests in the state. Transcript also briefly cites experiences of two additional small town Iowa newspapers.
Ronteltap, Amber (author), Reinders, Machiel, J. (author), Van Dijk, Suzanne M. (author), Heijting, Sanne (author), Van der Lans, Ivo A. (author), and Lotz, Lambertus A. P. (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2016-08
Published:
Springer
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 7 Document Number: D10266
30 pages., Via online journal., New agrifood technologies are often difficult to grasp for the public, which may lead to resistance or even rejection. Insight into which technology features determine public acceptability of the technology could offer guidelines for responsible technology development. This paper systematically assesses the relative importance of specific technology features for consumer response in the agrifood domain in two consecutive studies. Prominent technology features were selected from expert judgment and literature. The effects of these features on consumer evaluation were tested in a consumer study (n = 745). Fictitious technologies were used to avoid any uncontrollable contextual influences that existing new technologies may evoke. Results show that technologies that were seen as more natural and newer were perceived less risky, more beneficial, and were evaluated more positively. Technologies applied to food were judged to be more beneficial, but also more risky than those applied to non-food. Technologies used in the production process were perceived to be less risky and evaluated more positively than those used in the product. Technologies owned by the market leader were perceived to be more beneficial, and evaluated more positively than those that were freely available. In a next study (n = 440), effects of the technology features on consumer response were tested for existing new agrifood technologies. This study replicated the results for perceived naturalness, perceived newness, and place in the production process where the technology is applied. However, in contrast to the first study, we did not find an effect of application area (food versus non-food) and technology ownership.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 124 Document Number: D11226
Notes:
Via online Better News. 7 pages., Describes how the Sacramento Bee newspaper experimented with serving specific audiences for food stories in an effort to grow digital subscriptions. "The sprint terminology is borrowed from developers. We liked it because it allowed us to learn and get results quickly. If we failed, that was fine. If we found success, we kept going." Sprint efforts run from six to eight weeks. A drafted plan includes the strategy and tactics used to achieve SMART goals (SMART standing for specific, measurable, aggressive yet achievable, relevant and time-bound.) Team members measure "obsessively," meeting every week to discuss results and build new story plans. In a reported sprint example, digital subscriptions increased by more than 50 percent in 2018.
