Consumer Segmentation and Purchase Behavior in the Frozen Beef Market: Optimizing Product Attributes for Sustainability-Oriented Marketing Strategies

Authors

  • I Putu Gede Didik Widiarta Department of Animal Science, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia
  • Cori Qamara Department of Animal Science, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia
  • Novemia Fatmarischa Department of Animal Science, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia
  • Dani Nur Arifin Department of Animal Science, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia
  • I Gede Arie Mahendra Putra Department of Food Technology, Udayana University, Badung, Indonesia
  • Made Hardinata Wijakesuma Department of Recreation, Sport Pedagogy and Consumer Sciences, Ohio University, Athens OH, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22225/seas.9.1.11601.63-74

Keywords:

Consumer Segmentation, Purchase Behavior, Frozen Beef Market, Sustainability-Oriented Marketing, Product Attributes Optimization

Abstract

The frozen beef market is experiencing significant growth, driven by urbanization, rising incomes, and increasing consumer demand for convenient, high-quality protein sources. This study investigates consumer segmentation and purchasing behavior in this market, focusing on optimizing product attributes for sustainability-oriented marketing strategies. A cross-sectional quantitative design was employed, utilizing online surveys to gather data from 385 valid respondents. K-means clustering identified three distinct consumer segments: price-oriented consumers (35%), quality-oriented consumers (45%), and sustainability-conscious consumers (20%). Price-oriented consumers, predominantly from low-income groups, prioritize affordability and product availability, showing limited concern for sustainability attributes. Quality-oriented consumers, typically middle-income, emphasize product quality, hygiene, and safety certifications in their purchasing decisions. Sustainability-conscious consumers, predominantly high-income individuals, prioritize eco-friendly packaging and certifications, demonstrating high involvement and willingness to pay a premium for sustainable products. Regression analysis revealed key factors influencing purchase behavior: price sensitivity for low-income consumers, product quality and safety certifications for middle-income consumers, and sustainability attributes for high-income consumers. Younger and more educated consumers were more responsive to sustainability, while older consumers placed more value on traditional attributes. These findings emphasize the need for targeted marketing strategies, including affordability-focused campaigns for price-sensitive consumers, quality-driven branding for mid-level buyers, and sustainability-focused messaging for eco-conscious consumers. The study also highlights the broader implications of promoting sustainable practices in meat production to align with global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the increasing consumer demand for ethical consumption

References

[1]Phuong, N. V., Cuong, T. H., & Mergenthaler, M. (2014). Effects of socio-economic and demographic variables on meat consumption in Vietnam. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 4(1), 7–22.

[2]Garmyn, A. (2020). Consumer preferences and acceptance of meat products. Foods, 9(6), 708. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9060708

[3]Thøgersen, J. (2017). Sustainable food consumption in the nexus between national context and private lifestyle: A multi-level study. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.006

[4]Widiarta, I. P. G. D., Anindyasari, D., & Wahyuningtyas, A. N. (2024). The Role of Social Media Marketing and Electronic Word of Mouth on the Purchase Intention of Frozen Meat Products. Agriwar Journal, 4(2), 25-34.

[5]Sani, L. O. A., Nafiu, L. O., Kurniawan, W., & Yunus, F. A. (2020). Purchasing decisions behavior of beef consumers in Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 465, 012064. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/465/1/012064

[6]Michaelidou, N., & Dibb, S. (2008). Consumer involvement: A new perspective. The Marketing Review, 8(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934708X290403

[7]Castillo, M. J., & Carpio, C. E. (2019). Demand for high-quality beef attributes in developing countries: The case of Ecuador. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 51(4), 568–590. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2019.21

[8]Domingo, N. G. G., Balasubramanian, S., Thakrar, S. K., et al. (2021). Air quality-related health damages of food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20), e2013637118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013637118

[9]Olsen, S. O., Tuu, H. H., & Grunert, K. G. (2017). Attribute importance segmentation of Norwegian seafood consumers: The inclusion of salient packaging attributes. Appetite, 117, 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.06.028

[10]Risius, A., & Hamm, U. (2017). The effect of information on beef husbandry systems on consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay. Meat Science, 124, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.10.008

[11]von Braun, J., Fresco, L. O., Afsana, K., & Hassan, M. H. A. (2023). Food systems: Seven priorities to end hunger and protect the planet. In Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation (pp. 3–9). Springer.

[12]Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S. J., et al. (2017). In quest of reducing the environmental impacts of food production and consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.054

[13]Nuraini, H., Aditia, E. L., & Brahmantiyo, B. (2018). Meat quality of Indonesian local cattle and buffalo. Bovine Science-A Key to Sustainable Development, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79904

[14]Grunert, K. G. (2006). Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science, 74(1), 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.016

[15]Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2004). Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science, 67(1), 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2003.09.017

[16]de Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Boersema, J. J. (2013). Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.09.001

[17]Font-i-Furnols, M., & Guerrero, L. (2014). Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: An overview. Meat Science, 98(3), 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.025

[18]Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Resconi, V. C., & Troy, D. (2014). Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat Science, 98(3), 561-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.007

[19]McCarthy, M., O'Reilly, S., Cotter, L., & de Boer, M. (2004). Factors influencing consumption of pork and poultry in the Irish market. Appetite, 43(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.02.001

[20]Rimal, A. P., Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. (2005). Agro-biotechnology and organic food purchase in the United States. Appetite, 45(3), 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.07.001

[21]Schnettler, B., Ruiz, D., Sepúlveda, O., & Sepúlveda, N. (2008). Importance of the country of origin in food consumption in a developing country. Food Quality and Preference, 19(4), 372-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.005

[22]Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R. M., Meullenet, J. F., & Ricke, S. C. (2011). Consumers' willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: Evidence from choice experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 22(7), 603-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.02.003

[23]Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E. J., Gellynck, X., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite, 62, 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.003

[24]Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer "attitude – behavioral intention" gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3

[25]Worsley, A., Wang, W. C., & Ridley, S. (2015). Consumers' interest in learning about cooking: The influence of age, gender and education. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(4), 334-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12225

[26]Zander, K., & Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 21(5), 495-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.01.006

Downloads

Published

2025-04-30

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 1 (2025)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).