Heiman, A., and E. Goldschmidt. 2004. "Testing the Potential
Benefits of Brands in Horticultural Products: The Case of Oranges."
Hor Technology 14(1):28-32.
Holbrook, B.M. 1992. "Product Quality, Attributes, and Brand
Name as Determinants of Price: The Case of Consumer Electronics."
Marketing Letters 3(1):71-83.
Kalyanam, K., and D.S. Putler. 1997. "Incorporating
Demographic Variables in Brand Choice Models: An Indivisible Alternative
Framework." Marketing Science 16(2):166-181.
Kaufman, P., C.R. Handy, E.W. McLaughlin, K. Park, and G.M. Green.
2000. "Understanding the Dynamics of Produce Markets: Consumption
and Consolidation Grow." USDA/ERS AIB-758.
Moore, C.M., J. Fernie, and S. Burt. 2000. "Brand without
Boundaries--The Internationalization of the Designer Retailer's
Brand." European Journal of Marketing 34(8):919-937.
Parker, D.D., and D. Zilberman. 1993. "Hedonic Estimation of
Quality Factors Affecting the Farm-Retail Margin." American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 75(2):458-466.
Rosen, S. 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product
Differentiation in Pure Competition." The Journal of Political
Economy 82(1):34-55.
Vranesevic, T., and R. Stancec. 2003. "The Effect of the Brand
on Perceived Quality of Food Products." British Food Journal
105(11):811-825.
Wooldridge, J. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and
Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wu, X.M., and J. Perloff. 2007. "GMM Estimation of Maximum
Entropy Density with Interval Data." Journal of Econometrics
138(2): 532-546.
Zeithaml, A.V. 1988. "Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality,
and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence." Journal of
Marketing 52(3):2-22.
Yanhong H. Jin is assistant professor in the Department of
Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M University. David Zilberman is
professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at
University of California, Berkeley, and a member of the Giannini
Foundation of Agricultural Economics. Amir Heiman is senior lecturer in
the Department of Agricultural Economics and Management at Hebrew
University, Israel.
The authors thank Ellen Yi-Qian Hsu for conducting the survey and
Ximing Wu for review of an earlier draft. The authors are grateful to
the editor and three anonymous referees for helpful comments that
significantly improved the article. Of course, any remaining errors are
the authors'.
Table 1. Sample Representativeness
Census Data
Demographic Variables College Bryan Survey
Station Data
Gender: Female (%) 47.80 53.00 55.30
Age distribution
18 years and over (%) 82.00 72.40 92.05
65 years and over (%) 4.60 7.20 6.62
Race
White (%) 71.50 53.94 64.24
Black or African American (%) 7.41 12.62 5.63
Asian (%) 7.59 2.08 22.85
Hispanic (%) 11.27 24.59 5.30
Others (%) 2.23 6.77 1.99
Household size 2.25 2.49 2.43
Education among population 25
years and over
High school graduate or higher (%) 93.70 72.50 100.00
Bachelor's degree or higher (%) 57.70 32.20 85.38
Income
Median household income ($) 24,218 30,012 53,344
Income per capita ($) 18,770 16,567 21,978
Note: Census data are from the 2005 American Community Survey
Data of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Table 2. Summary Statistics of Brand Preference and WTP for Brands
Electronics Clothing
Attitude toward the brand of the
particular product
% of respondents with strong 65.12 30.46
brand preference
% of respondents with positive WTP 96.69 85.10
Average WTP among all respondents 31.34 28.49
Average WTP among those with strong 34.51 45.58
brand preference
Average WTP among those with 32.41 33.48
positive WTP
Attitude toward brand of all the
four products
% of respondents with strong brand 6.95
preference toward all the products
of respondents with positive WTP to 69.87
brands of all the products
Average WTP among those with strong 36.09 53.57
brand preference to all the products
Average WTP among those with positive 33.94 32.26
WTP toward brands of all the products
Packaged Fresh
Food Produce
Attitude toward the brand of the
particular product
% of respondents with strong 22.85 27.81
brand preference
% of respondents with positive WTP 87.09 78.48
Average WTP among all respondents 22.63 21.64
Average WTP among those with strong 30.79 41.44
brand preference
Average WTP among those with 25.98 27.57
positive WTP
Attitude toward brand of all the
four products
% of respondents with strong brand 6.95
preference toward all the products
of respondents with positive WTP to 69.87
brands of all the products
Average WTP among those with strong 21.72 22.89
brand preference to all the products
Average WTP among those with positive 27.90 28.24
WTP toward brands of all the products
Table 3. WTP for Brand Products Based on the Stated Point
WTP or the Estimated WTP Based on the Stated WTP Ranges
Electronics Clothing
Mean of the stated point WTP 31.34 28.49
[24.27] [38.29]
Mean of the estimated WTP 34.97 31.09
[22.55] [27.03]
Packaged Fresh
Food Produce
Mean of the stated point WTP 22.62 21.64
[23.77] [25.76]
Mean of the estimated WTP 25.53 24.78
[25.49] [27.08]
On the stated point
WTP On the estimated WTP
mean([WTP.sub.e]) >
mean([WTP.sub.c]) 2.85 * 3.87 **
(1.35) (1.91)
mean([WTP.sub.e]) >
mean([WTP.sub.p]) 8.71 *** 9.43 ***
(6.39) (4.82)
mean([WTP.sub.e]) >
mean([WTP.sub.f]) 9.70 *** 10.19 ***
(6.17) (5.02)
mean([WTP.sub.c]) >
mean([WTP.sub.p]) 5.86 *** 5.56 ***
(2.70) (2.60)
mean([WTP.sub.c]) >
mean([WTP.sub.f]) 6.85 *** 6.31 ***
(3.15) (2.87)
mean([WTP.sub.p]) >
mean([WTP.sub.f]) 0.98 0.75
(0.91) (0.35)
Note: Figures in brackets are standard deviations of the average
WTP for brands, and figures in parentheses are t-statistics of the
test for the difference of the average WTP for brands between two
product categories. The single, double, and triple asterisks
(*, **, ***) represent 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels,
respectively.
Table 4. Estimation Results of Six Models on the Stated Point
WTP for Brand Products ([W.sup.*.sub.ik])
Estimated Coefficients
OLS Tobit RE-Tobit OLS
IPREF.. Strong brand / / / 0.17 ***
preference = 8,9,10 -0.02
IP = E: Electronic 0.10 *** 0.13 *** 0.13 *** 0.03 *
(0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02)
IP = C: Clothing 0.07 *** 0.08 *** 0.08 *** 0.06 ***
(0.03) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02)
IP = P: Packaged food 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02
(0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02)
INC: Income per capita 0.002 * 0.002 * 0.002 0.002 *
(0.10) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
INC: Income square -0.00 ** -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 **
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
age: Age -0.01 ** -0.01 ** -0.01 -0.01 ***
(0.00) (0.00) (0.01) (0.00)
[age.sup.2]: Age square 0.00 ** 0.00 ** 0.00 0.00 ***
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
edu1: College and -0.10 *** -0.12 *** -0.11 *** -0.07 ***
above (0.02) (0.03) (0.04) (0.02)
edu2: Current college 0.03 *** 0.04 0.03 0.03 *
COPYRIGHT 2008 American Agricultural Economics
Association Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.