The Common Market Feasibility Study - Agricultural Marketing Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDY34Instead, as one respondent described, “you have to tug and pull for profit where you can, but itis hard in the produce world.”4. Experience has a prevailing theme in each of the interviews, with respondents acknowledgingthat they price certain products based largely on what they have learned as players in the fooddistribution industry.Dairy Pricing AnalysisPlease see Appendix C for information regarding dairy pricing.Interview Transcripts for Estimated Product Mark-upsPlease see Appendix D for to review the interview transcripts. The transcripts have been madeanonymous at the request of interview participants.
THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYDemand Analysis35Demand AnalysisMethodologyProspective customers for the Common Market were identified and categorized by type. Threegeneral categories were identified: 1) retailers, 2) retail food service, and 3) non-retail food service. Thegeneral categories were sub-divided further into six prospective customer types: food co-ops andgrocery stores in the general retail category; restaurants and coffee shops in the retail food servicesector; and, institutions and caterers in the non-retail food service sector. Once identified, panels of 2to 3 individuals were assembled from each of the six sectors. Each individual panel was interviewed by ateam from the project using a questionnaire consisting of 35 questions. The same questionnaire wasused for each panel. The interview teams were comprised of 2 or 3 interviewers and a scribe.The survey questionnaire was designed to ascertain the following information from the panels:• Descriptions of how their businesses operate, including core values,• Purchasing and replenishment processes, including factors involved in purchasing decisions,choosing suppliers, the mechanics of ordering and product delivery, and billing,• Products (local) they use and those they would be interested in using, including quality andpackaging requirements,• Demographics of their customers,• Barriers to purchasing locally produced foods and the value components (if any) that enter intosourcing decisions.A review of the panel interviews reveals significant opportunity for the Common Market. The dataprovides a fairly clear indication of how the Common Market should prioritize targeting customerprospects. In addition the panel interviews provide insight into the local products and servicesprospective customers have strong interest in. Additional and follow-up interviews were conducted toestimate potential revenues associated with operating the proposed Common Market business modelfor financial planning. Finally, the interview data provides useful instruction regarding ways theCommon Market can enhance its value proposition with prospective customers through its day-to-dayoperations and conduct of customer service.Summary of Survey ResponsesOperationsOperations for four of the respondent groups (grocery stores, food coops, restaurants and coffee shops)follow a fairly regular routine that may vary depending on the day of the week but repeat with weeklyregularity. There is greater day-to-day and seasonal variation for caterers. Since the institutional
Page 3: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYT
Page 9 and 10: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYE
Page 21 and 22: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYI
Page 23 and 24: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYI
Page 25: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYI
Page 28 and 29: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYC
Page 36 and 37: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYD
Page 42 and 43: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYS
Page 52 and 53: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYF
Page 58 and 59: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYB
Page 60 and 61: THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYB
Page 84 and 85:
THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYE
Page 86 and 87:
THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYC
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYA
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDY2
Page 214 and 215:
THE COMMON MARKET FEASIBILTY STUDYS
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240:
show all

The Common Market Feasibility Study - Agricultural Marketing Service

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?