15 pages, The current study applied a “mixture-amount modeling” statistical approach—used most often in biology, agriculture, and food science—to measure the impact of advertising effort and allocation across different media. The authors of the current paper believe advertisers can use the mixture-amount model to detect optimal advertising-mix allocation changes as a function of their total advertising effort. The researchers demonstrated the use of the model by analyzing Belgian magazine and television data on 34 advertising campaigns for beauty-care brands. The goal is to help advertisers maximize desirable outcomes for campaign recognition and brand interest.
Ghura, Dhaneshwar (author), Schrimper, Ronald A. (author), and Department of Economics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
1992
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 90 Document Number: C06446
Notes:
James F. Evans Collection; Paper presented at the 1989 Commodity Advertising and Promotion Conference, In: Kinnucan, Henry W.; Thompson, Stanley R.; and Chang, Hui-Shung, eds. Commodity advertising and promotion. Ames, IA : Iowa State University Press, 1992. p. 3-23
Chang, Hui-Shung (author), Kinnucan, Henry W. (author), and Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
1992
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 90 Document Number: C06455
Notes:
James F. Evans Collections; Paper presented at the 1989 Commodity Advertising and Promotion Conference, In: Kinnucan, Henry W.; Thompson, Stanley R.; and Chang, Hui-Shung, eds. Commodity advertising and promotion. Ames, IA : Iowa State University Press, 1992. p. 165-180
9 pages., Via online journal., Certain pesticides are coming under scrutiny because of their impact on pollinator insects. Although most consumers express willingness to aid pollinators, the reasons for consumers’ preferences or barriers to purchasing pollinator-friendly plants and the types of pollinators’ that consumers are trying to protect are less understood. Using an online survey of 1200 Connecticut (CT) consumers, of which 841 had home landscapes, we find that 46% of consumers with home landscapes purchased pollinator-friendly plants to attract pollinators to their landscape. Consistent with past research that focused on consumers’ preferences for pollinator-friendly plants, the data also reveal that some consumers are willing to pay premiums for plants that contribute to pollinator’s health. However, only 17% stated that attracting pollinators was their primary motivation; a finding that suggests labeling alone will likely not motivate consumers to purchase plants. The major barriers to purchasing pollinator-friendly plants included lack of labeling (cited by 28%), followed by high price (28%). Consumers purchasing pollinator-friendly plants were trying to attract butterflies (Lepidoptera) (78%), bees (Apidae) (59%), hummingbirds (Trochilidae) (59%), and other birds (41%). We also find that demographics and purchasing behavior affect barriers and types of pollinators desired. Simply labeling plants has the potential to increase purchasing, but increasing price could be detrimental as many consumers feel pollinator-friendly plants are highly priced. Implications for ornamental horticulture stakeholders are discussed.