Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Elizabeth Frey
Abel Gachou
Meghana Indurti
Karmen Leung
Community Supported
Fishery
Table of Contents
Secondary Research 3
Stage One Research Objectives & Questions 4
Method: Procedure & Rationale 4
Recruiting & Participant Profiles 5
Data Reduction Process 5
Appendices 13
Stage 1 A-E
Stage 2 F-H
Summary of Findings & Supporting Examples 5 - 7
Survey Questions 7
Stage Two Research Objectives & Questions 8
Method: Procedure & Rationale 8
Recruiting & Participant Profiles 8
First Order Analysis 9 - 11
Second Order Analysis 12
Executive Summary 2
Executive Summary
Would a Community Supported Fishery work in Virginia? Community
Supported Fisheries like Community Supported Agriculture programs guarantee producers
a market for their product while giving customers access to fresh local foods. CSFs have
been successfully launched in Durham, North Carolina and Boston, Massachusetts. In
collaboration with Virginia Sea Grant our research team has set out to determining the ideal
CSF design with which to target the William and Mary faculty and staff in order to
facilitate an assessment of the feasibility of a CSF in the Williamsburg area. An online
survey was deployed, from which we were able to analyze the responses on 88 members of
the William and Mary faculty and staff on eight questions regarding the ideal CSF
marketing mix. We found that participants want variety and prefer common finfish,
scallops, shrimp, and crab over other species. The ideal CSF program would consist of a
half-share (1-3 lbs) of filleted or pan ready fish delivered bi-weekly over a six-month
period with a P.M. pickup time between Monday and Thursday. Share options should be
priced to reflect a 10% premium and should include recommended recipes to go with the
fish. In the event of shortages, participants will accept up to a third of their share as frozen
seafood. Though participants are already likely to join a Williamsburg CSF they would be
even more likely to do so if they had the option of a one-month trial period. In addition, we
found that household size does not affect share size preferences, nor does income affect
likeness to join. Adherence to the above recommendations we believe would provide the
ideal marketing mix to specifically target William and Mary faculty and staff.
2
BACKGROUND RESEARCH OVERVIEW:
Through our secondary research we aimed to
gain a better understanding of the CSF program. We
examined various CSF initiatives along with current
existing programs. With this background research we
were able to design an interview guide that was used
to structure the conversation during our seven in-
depth interviews. Ultimately we hope the qualitative
insights we gained from these interviews will help
inform future decisions made about creating a
sustainable CSF in Williamsburg.
CSF Overview: A community-supported
fishery (CSF) is a shore-side community of people
collaborating with the local fishing industry,
connecting fishermen directly to local markets. CSF
members pay for a share of the fishermens catch,
giving the fishing community financial support in
advance of the season, and in return receive a share
of seafood on a regular basis. CSF is tailored after
the community-supported agriculture (CSA) model,
which provides subscribers with farm-fresh shares of
produce and other local food products. CSFs aim to
support local fishermen, improve sustainability,
connect consumers to a fresh and healthy supply of
local seafood, and foster a rewarding relationship
between the local fishermen and consumers.
Exi st i ng CSF Programs: The f i r st
Community Supported Fishery and Aquaculture
program was launched in Port Clyde, Maine in 2007.
Since then, CSF projects have been a growing trend
throughout the nation. There are now dozens of CSF
programs across the country. To get a better idea of
the possibilities for structuring a CSF program in
Williamsburg, our group looked into various existing
CSFs, including the Walking Fish CSF at Duke
University, the Port Clyde CSF in Maine,
Charlottesville CSF in Virginia, Monterey in Santa
Cruz, and Off The Hook in Atlantic Canada.
(i) Existing options/packages and pricing: In
the Walking Fish program, consumers have two
processing options, headed and gutted, or filleted.
These share options were priced at $10.25/lb for
filleted and $9.25/lb for headed and gutted. Shares
are delivered in 1-2 or 3-5 lb packages. Other CSFs
are much pricier. Local catch in Monterey Bay for
example charges $20 for 1-1.5lbs of fish fillets.
!
! (ii) How fish is prepared and delivered: One of
the main goals of a CSF is to establish a transparent and
efficient chain of custody from boat to fork. In the Port
Clyde CSF, Co-op fishermen take extra steps to improve
their product quality. They have adopted new practices
that greatly reduce bacteria count, which makes a
significant difference in seafood quality, especially when
fishermen are at sea several days at a time. CSFs also
create flexible delivery schedules that give local
members options for when to pick up their share.
! (iii) Existing environmental concerns of
consumers: For many species of commonly eaten fish,
such as haddock, cod, and flounder, the rate of
consumption exceeds the rate at which the fish can
reproduce. Some consumers are also worried about water
pollution in local bays and rivers, which may affect the
quality of the catch.
! (iv) Seafood from safe, trusted sources: The
United States imports 80% of its consumed fish. Of this
the FDA only checks 2%, making the safety of
consuming fish highly questionable. In contrast, local
fishermen in CSF programs provide CSF members with a
safer, more sustainable source of fresh and healthy
seafood. Members who partake in this initiative will
know where the seafood came from, and how and when
it is caught.
Secondary Research
3
Research Objectives & Questions
GOAL: We designed specific questions aimed at gaining detailed
information from our interview participants regarding the feasibility of launching a
local CSF initiative in Williamsburg. Our research questions are structured around
the four marketing mix elements of Product, Price, Place and Promotion. Through
our findings and discoveries, we hope to be able to identify ways to garner interest
and commitment from a target consumer group. Moving forward, we aim at
constructing a sustainable local CSF with the goal of connecting local fishermen to
their market in Williamsburg.
Through these research questions below we hope to gain insightful
information for our objectives of each category. Our primary objectives for
Product questions are to get an understanding of clients expectations for share
packages. For example, what types of fish do they want, and in what quantities? For
Place we aim to identify the location and delivery methods most convenient for
potential CSF customers. In examining Price, our objectives are to identify the
value consumers place on the combination of goods and services that make up a CSF.
Our Promotion objectives are to seek out the perceived benefits of a CSF and to
find the best communication channels to reach our target markets.
Research Questions
Our overarching question is, assuming people were to subscribe to a CSF
program in Williamsburg, how should we design the marketing mix in order to attract
the most interest and commitment from local customers?
The following are preliminary questions and concerns we had about each of
the four elements of the marketing mix:
1.) What product qualities and specifications are most desirable for potential CSF
participants? E.g. Variety, quantity, duration, flexibility, level of processing (cleaned
vs. fillets) and information about food preparations and recipes
2.) When, where, and how a potential customer would desire to receive or obtain
the products they have purchased?
3.) Compared to other methods of purchasing fish, what is an appropriate price for
different products and services that could be provided through the CSF?
4.) What type of information is needed to properly promote the CSF?
Method:
Procedure &
Rationale
Interview method- (in person): Based on our research objectives, we felt that in-depth interviews were the best
method to gain the information that we needed. A few factors account for our choice to opt for one-on-one interviews
in person. For one, we were facing considerable budget and time constraints. With only a two-week window within
which to plan and conduct our interviews, we opted to keep things as simple as possible for ourselves. Furthermore, our
interviewers are relatively inexperienced. From this standpoint, in-depth interviews are much more manageable for
beginning researchers in comparison to say focus group interviews. Additionally in-depth interviews ensured that
participants could respond freely since they were away from social pressures. This became very important as we found
out, since each of our participants had very different lifestyles that impacted their answers. For example, one of our
participants until recently had been a devout vegan. Finally, by conducting the interviews in person, usually in the
participants office or classroom, we were able to connect with them on a more personal level, and incorporate a word
association activity into our interviews. All interviews were video recorded with the participants permission and then
transcribed to word documents.
4
Recruiting & Participant Profiles
In an attempt to identify other potential target
markets for the CSF, William and Mary faculty and
staff members were interviewed. Faculty members
are an ideal category because they are not only
representative of the W&M Community, but are in
addition a representation of the local community of
Williamsburg as well. By choosing to interview
W&M faculty and staff, it allows us easy access to
obtain an outlook on the older demographic
surrounding this area. By finding faculty and staff
from the business school, physical sciences and
athletic department, we were able to gain multiple
perspectives on our CSF initiative and project.
In total we interviewed seven W&M
faculty and staff members. From the seven
interviewees, four were male and three were
female. Their ages ranged from the mid
20s to the early 70s. The majority of our
interviewees live in a suburban area. Four of
those interviewed were Mason School of
Business Faculty, two were coaches from
the athletic department, and the final
participant was a Physical Science
professor.
Summary of Findings & Supporting Examples
From our multiple interviews, our group had a
tremendous amount of data and information to sort
through regarding our respondents opinions on their
ideal CSF marketing mixes. To reduce, categorize,
and consolidate all of our data, we used an
impressionistic approach by dividing a large poster
paper into the categories of product, place, price, and
promotion. At this point we reviewed each interview
transcript, jotting down key insights and factors onto
sticky notes. We then placed each sticky note in its
relevant category.
Afterwards, we combined similar data entries
and further categorized them under larger
themes. This process allowed us to visually
construct our findings into the beginnings of
a functioning conceptual model. In addition,
we kept track of the correlations in our
participants responses. For example, we
found a positive relationship between amount
of participants knowledge of local fish
varieties and magnitude of selectivity of fish
types.
Data Reduction Process
PRODUCT
People liked variety but some were wary: We asked a few
questions in order to get an overall sense of potential
product preferences. We found that our participants want
to have a variety of fish. This includes both shellfish and
fin-fish. They also expressed a desire for both oily fish
and flaky fish, especially those who are conscious of the
health benefits of Omega 3s. When asked how they felt
about having no prior knowledge of the type of fish they
would be receiving, most participants stated that they like
the surprise. Respondents are drawn to the idea of
branching out and trying new foods and new recipes.
However, some of the people we interviewed expressed a
desire for limited variety or a selected variety, whereby
they could be given a list of potential species and choose
the ones they want to receive. One of these participants is
much more knowledgeable of the local seafood selection,
while two others are allergic to certain types of shellfish.
Those who were less choosy seem to have a
relatively limited knowledge of local fish
species, and thus welcomed the idea of
surprise and the idea of someone with more
expertise making the decision for them.
People prefer fillets: Most of our participants
expressed a desire to have their fish filleted.
When asked if they would be willing to fillet
their own fish, if someone showed them how,
people were hesitant. We found that the
primary issue at hand is not a matter of know-
how, but rather that people prefer the
convenience of less prep work and cleanup,
not to mention the odor caused by undesired
fish parts. This finding seems to correspond
with the experiences of several existing CSFs.
Both Off the Hook and Walking Fish
incorporate fillets into their options.
5
Household size determines portion size, but flexibility is a plus!: We found that household size was the number
one determinant for preferred share size. Those with larger families tended to want more fish, such as 3-5 lbs of
whole fish. Single participants or couples without kids were wary of committing to share sizes above 2 pounds.
Respondents also want the ability to occasionally buy extra fish, especially for when they have company. In our
primary research, we found that other CSFs such as Off the Hook were able to incorporate this service. We
recommend that any CSF established in Williamsburg offer the same flexibility.
Alternative lifestyles might be an attractive target for a CSF: Lifestyles of the participants also correlate with
the amount of fish they lean towards. Those who have had minimal experience with fish are hesitant to commit
to larger portions. However one of our participants was a vegan who recently turned vegetarian, and admitted
that fish has become an important source of protein in her diet. This individual wants a disproportionately larger
share of fish and is especially enthusiastic about the prospect of a more ethical source of meat. From this, we
infer that vegetarians may make a small but enthusiastic core group to target.
PLACE
Pickup should combine grocery store accessibility with drive-through efficiency: We found that our
participants expect their pickup experience to be comparable with their grocery store experience. Many are not
willing to drive further than 5-10 miles from their house. Respondents emphasized that the location should be a
familiar public place that is convenient to get to, and should be a quick-in and quick-out.
Most people want to pick up their share on a weekday afternoon after work. Several want their pick-up
early in the week, either on a Monday or Tuesday. These participants want to consume their share throughout the
week as their weekends are usually unpredictable. These respondents fit into the younger and unmarried
demographic. However, one of our older interviewees said he would prefer to have his share over the weekend.
To our amusement, this person also took his garbage collection day into consideration.
Tendencies toward a bi-weekly schedule: In terms of pickup schedules, we found that four of our participants
want a biweekly schedule. Some lean towards this schedule as a way to mitigate the risks involved with long-
term commitments. However one participant did predict that it would be more convenient for his share delivery
to correspond with his bi-weekly pay schedule, stating that it would also align with his familys grocery
shopping habits. On this note it is interesting to observe that the two participants who are interested in a weekly
delivery are both young and without families.
PROMOTION
Make it credible and authentic: The most popular means to getting the interviewees to subscribe to the CSF
programs appears to be Word of Mouth. Many indicated that there is more credibility attached when the message
flows from a friend, family member or acquaintance. Many participants also liked what social media, such as
Facebook and Twitter, as well more conventional methods like email, would bring. If the CSF were to partner
with other local organizations whose primary objective was sustainability, this would give them a sense of
credibility as well as an established audience to promote to. Developing a presence at farmers markets, Trader
Joes, CSA pick-ups and other similar eco-friendly sites would help reach a receptive market. Finally, direct
mail would be a more targeted form of promoting to those less connected with the Internet.
Let em try it out: Many respondents also indicated an interest in a trial period before committing to a schedule.
Generally people view a subscription as a very large commitment, especially one that they are uncertain about
due to a lack of familiarity and perceived risk.
A trial period might be an effective way before deciding on what share they prefer. By first doing a trial period,
the concerns regarding serving size and quality of fish may be addressed.
6
Feel good benefits and a more ethical form of
meat: Participants mentioned a number of
perceived benefits that we believe should be
stressed in the promotion of a Williamsburg CSF.
The first of these are the healthy advantages one
would receive from fresh seafood. Participants
talked about the benefits of Omega 3s, lean protein,
and mercury-free fish. Additionally, there are a
whole host of feel-good benefits attached to this
subscription, such as the feeling of strengthening
local community ties, reducing the carbon
footprint, and building a long-term and rewarding
relationship between local consumers and their
fishermen.
PRICE
Six out of our seven interview participants said they would
be willing to pay a premium (usually 5%-10%) over grocery store
prices for the seafood they receive through a CSF. None of our
respondents expect to pay a price lower than store prices for CSF
products. However no one was willing to pay a premium above
25%. It is clear that this price tag reflect perceptions of higher
quality and the extra feel good benefits associated with the
product. Admittedly, some of our respondents value these extra
benefits more so than others. This translated into a higher
willingness to be inconvenienced. Our vegetarian participant was
willing to drive much farther (25 min) and spend more time (15
min) at the pickup location than our non-vegetarian participants.
1. What type of schedule would you prefer?
a.) Weekly (receive a share once a week)
b.) Bi-weekly (receive a share once every 2
weeks)
2. On a scale of 1-10, how easy is it to incorporate
shellfish into a family meal in terms of how convenient
it is to cook? On a scale of 1-10, how easy is it to
incorporate finfish into a family meal in terms of how
convenient it is to cook?
3. When would you like to have your share delivered?
a.) On a Monday or Tuesday so that you could
have your fish throughout the week
b.) Later in the week, such as on a Thursday or
Friday so you can have your share on the weekend
4. Would you be interested in purchasing a two-week
trial period before committing to a full season?
Survey
Questions
5. If you were interested in a trial period, and not
taking into consideration the schedule, how many
shipment orders would make you feel comfortable
to committing to a CSF program?
a.) 1 c.) 3 e.) not interested
b.) 2 d.) 4
6. How much more of a premium will you pay for
fish from a CSF program?
a.) 5-10% c.) 25-30%
b.) 15-20% d.) 35-40%
7. Do you think that you would be more likely to
join a CSF if you had a trial period?
8. Are you a vegetarian or vegan?
9. Would you consider turning to a CSF to fill your
regular diet needs? (e.g.: vitamins, protein, etc.)
7
Research Objectives
Method & Rationale
Participant Recruiting
Our second stage of research involved a joint online survey created in
Qualtrics that was distributed to the William & Mary and VIMS community via
the VIMS website. Participants from the William & Mary Faculty and Staff
community were mainly recruited via email. This approach enabled us to ensure
that we collectively addressed all research questions while simplifying
recruitment, guaranteeing that we had enough participants to run a reliable
statistical analysis.
We sought to determine the ideal CSF marketing mix based on the
preferences of the William & Mary Faculty and Staff. Our survey contained
eight total questions in which participants were given the opportunity to construct
their ideal CSF by selecting their prefered product options, indicating their
price expectations, choosing their most convenient time of pickup and also
providing feedback on potential promotional programs.
Participants were recruited from the William & Mary faculty and staff.
Everyone within this group had some level of college education, with the majority
having obtained a 4-year or Masters degree. The largest income group was the
75,001-100,000 bracket and the majority of those surveyed lived in a Williamsburg
zip code. A 67% majority of those surveyed were female (Exhibits 1- 4).
8
1.
2.
3.
First Order Analysis
Participants were asked to indicate what seafood species they would like included in a
Williamsburg CSF. The options given were common finfish, less common finfish, scallops, clams,
oysters, shrimp, and crab (Exhibit 5). Participants were allowed to select as many options as they
wished. With this question, we gained a better understanding of what types of seafood our 88
respondents would like to see in their CSF share. Results from our frequency distribution test
showed that of the 7 seafood options we provided, common finfish, scallops, and shrimp were the
top three choices while clams and oysters appeared to be the least popular options. 95.5% of our
respondents chose common finfish, 86.4% chose scallops, 85.2% chose shrimp, 73.9% chose crab,
56.8% chose less common finfish, 50% chose clams, and 50% chose oysters (Exhibit 6 & 7).
Additionally, we ran a nonparametric related-samples test to look for statistical significance in the
data results, with the null hypothesis that participants are indifferent towards the seafood options.
Our results suggest that there is statistical significance, p<.00l, in the options our respondents
chose (Exhibit 8).
Respondents were asked to indicate the variation in species they wished to receive on a week
to week basis (Exhibit 9). In this research question, we used a univariate t-test to analyze
peoples attitude towards desired variety in their CSF seafood share from one delivery to the
next. Responses generated a mean value of 4.82/7.00 which is higher than the neutral midpoint
of 4.0 and is statistically significant, p<.001, suggesting that overall participants do lean
towards a larger variety of seafood species from one delivery to the next (Exhibit 10).
This question aimed to assess the respondents desired level of processing, assuming that more
processing would cost more. Respondents were asked to select one of three options: minimally
processed, pan ready, or filleted (Exhibit 11). Our frequency distribution test shows that of our 88
respondents, 45 preferred moderate processing, 25 preferred highest-degree processing, and 18
preferred minimally-processed seafood (Exhibit 12). These results demonstrate that a vast majority
(79.5%) of our participants prefer a pan-dressed or fully filleted fish, suggesting that they desire a
moderate to high amount of processing in their CSF share. Furthermore, we ran a univariate chi
square and determined there was statistically significance in the difference in count of selection
with a p<0.05 (Exhibit 13).
9
We sought to determine the amount of frozen seafood customers would be willing to accept to
supplement a lack of fresh seafood in the event of shortages. Participants were asked to indicate their
preference on a scale of 0% to 50% with options given at 10% increments (Exhibit 14). We ran a
univariate t-test on the data obtained. We expected respondents to have high expectations on CSF
shares, and would lean towards 0% frozen seafood in their delivery. Surprisingly, test results
suggested otherwise. A vast majority of participants, 89.7%, chose 20% or above (Exhibit 15). The
mean rating of 4.09/6, p<.001 (where 10%, 6 50%) is statistically significant, suggesting that
overall participants are willing to accept an average of 34% of frozen seafood as part of their delivery
(Exhibit 16 & 17).
There was a comprised set of questions used to gain input on preferred pickup frequency, seafood
amount, day of the week, and time of day, as well as the ideal duration for the subscription period
(Exhibit 18). By running a related samples test on the groups of answers, we were able to
determine the preferences of our participants are statistically significant with a p<0.05. Out of the
88 participants, over twice as many would prefer to pick up their seafood bi-weekly rather than
weekly (Exhibits 19). In addition, 84% of our participants believe a half share (1-3 lbs) is the ideal
amount per seafood pick-up compared to 18% for a full share (4-5 lbs) (Exhibit 20). For pickup-
time of week, 61% of our participants would prefer to pick up their seafood between Monday and
Thursday compared to picking up their product on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday (Exhibit 21). Our
question regarding pickup time-of-day yielded more varied results; 48% prefered an evening
pickup, 47% preferred an afternoon pickup, and 25% preferred a morning pickup (Exhibit 22).
The final part inquiring about subscription duration revealed that 50% would prefer a 6-month
subscription period, 34% of participants would prefer a 3-month subscription period, 20% would
prefer a 12-month subscription period, and 11% would prefer a 9-month subscription period
(Exhibit 23).
We set out to determine the ideal price position for a Williamsburg CSF by asking participants to
indicate how much they would be willing to pay for the CSF program compared to prices they
would pay at the grocery store. (Exhibit 24) The mean percentage when sought through a
univariate t-test is 108.89, which is higher than the neutral testing value we used of 100 (Exhibit
25) . At p<.001, this mean is significant (Exhibit 26). 100 was used as the neutral testing value
because the CSF would equal the grocery store price of fish.We believe that this question caused
some confusion as seven of our participants answered the question with a 1 which in the survey
is taken to mean a price set at 1% of grocery store prices. In order to account for this error, we
deleted the outliers. From our data, we can presume that customers would be willing to pay nearly
9% more for the seafood from a CSF.
4.
5.
6.
10
We wanted to gauge the appeal that additional aspects of a CSF (such as weekly recipes and
cooking demonstrations) might have within the Williamsburg community. Participants were
asked to select as many of these programs as they wished from a list of 9 options. A tenth
option allowed participants to add their own recommendation (Exhibit 27). To examine our
responses we ran a related-samples t-test and set the null hypothesis as participants are
indifferent towards any additional aspects to the CSF. The results were significant (p<.001)
suggesting that people do indeed prefer certain additional incentives (Exhibit 28). These
incentives can be a critical addition to promotional factors of the CSF. The top three choices
were at least 50% of our participants who desired options such as: recommended recipes to
accompany specific seafood at each pick up, seafood preparation and handling during pickup,
and seafood cooking demonstrations during pick up. The most desired of which was recipes
with 77% of respondents selecting that option.
7.
8.
Participants were first asked to gauge their likeliness of joining a CSF designed to
accommodate their preferences indicated in question one through seven. Participants
were then asked to gauge their likeliness of joining this same CSF if they had the
option of a one month trial period (Exhibit 30). From these two inquiries we were
able to determine the potential effect of a trial period on influencing peoples
likeliness to join. We subjected the responses to part one to a one-sample t-test to
obtain a mean value of 5.48/7.00 that was significantly higher than the neutral
midpoint of 4.00, p<.01, revealing that participants on average fall somewhere
between somewhat likely and likely to participate in a Williamsburg CSF
(Exhibit 31). Using a one-sample t-test for the second part we obtained a mean value
of 6.39/7.00 which was significantly higher than the neutral midpoint of 4.00, p<.01,
suggesting that participants are likely to very likely to participate in a one month
CSF trial with the option of cancelling after the subscription ended (Exhibit 32). We
tested the statistical significance of the impact of a trial period has on our participant
joining the CSF, without the trial period with a paired sample t-test, and found that the
difference in means between 6.39 and 5.48 is statistically significant. From that we
can draw the conclusion that respondents are more likely to join the CSF if they have
a trial period (Exhibit 33).
11
Second Order Analysis
We decided to run an analysis with total household size, which we arrived at by adding the
total number of people in each respondents household, and the ideal amount per weekly pickup. We ran
a correlation in order to see whether a household with a larger size would want to pick up a larger
amount per week. We had to retain our null hypothesis in this case because it turned out that the
relationship between them was not significant. With p > 0.1, in this case 0.394, there is no relationship
between the household size and the amount of share a respondent would prefer in a week (Exhibit 34
and 35). A possible explanation could be that seafood consumption is treated as a special event in the
house and the size of household has no impact on how much of it they buy. Children 4-12 and infants
and toddlers are also not likely to make a difference when considering household size. We ran another
correlation analysis using only the Adults 20 and over with the ideal amount preferred per weekly
pick-up and calculated that it is marginally significant with p = 0.07 (Exhibit 36). Further, we ran a
regression analysis to see if the relationship could be predicted, but with an R-squared of 0.041, the
relationship is quite weak (Exhibit 37). This shows that while there is some relationship between the
number of adults over 20 and the amount of shares a household prefers, its not entirely predictive. The
relationship is probably weak because the number of Adults over 20 is going to change depending on
how much a household purchases, but at the same time, the excess amount purchased for each adult is
based more primarily on other varying factors, such as current consumption of seafood, interest in
seafood and portion size the household consumes.
Another analysis we decided to conduct was to see if income affected a persons decision to join the
CSF. This analysis is critical because it is important to know whether someones financial situation is a
significant factor in his or her participation. Through our analysis with a one-way ANOVA we have come to
the conclusion that income for the William & Mary Faculty and Staff members is not a significant factor in
whether or not they will join the CSF program, with a p>.1 (Exhibit 38 and 39). One thing to keep in mind is
that the William & Mary Faculty and Staff have incomes that could allow them to be more flexible with their
spending. From those surveyed, the majority of Faculty and Staff had income in the fourth bracket, which is an
income level of $75,001-100,000.
Since income was not a significant factor in determining a faculty and staff members decision to
join the CSF we decided to run a correlation analysis to see what might be a factor to join the CSF. Instead
of income, we analysed if the amount of seafood typically consumed could be influential in their decision
to join. We found that there was a correlation (p<.05) between the amount of seafood typically consumed
and a faculty and staff members willingness to join (Exhibit 40). The more seafood that a faculty and staff
member consumed the more likely he or she would join the CSF program (Exhibit 41). We ran a
regression analysis and found that although this correlation is significant, it cannot be said that it is a
predicting factor for their willingness to join. With an R square of 0.092, there is no relationship (Exhibit
42). Therefore, solely the amount of seafood typically consumed, is not significant enough to say a faculty
and staff member will join the CSF, and other factors can influence ones desire to join.
12
Appendix A: Word Association
Question Answer0Choices Tally
How!many!servings!are!you!willing!to!
commit!to?!
152!lbs 4 How!many!servings!are!you!willing!to!
commit!to?!
355!lbs 3
What!obstacles!are!preventing!you!
from!committing!to!a!share!plan?
None 3 What!obstacles!are!preventing!you!
from!committing!to!a!share!plan?
I!dont!each!much!Cish 1
What!obstacles!are!preventing!you!
from!committing!to!a!share!plan?
Dont!want!too!much!variety 1
What!obstacles!are!preventing!you!
from!committing!to!a!share!plan?
Flexibility!of!program 1
What!obstacles!are!preventing!you!
from!committing!to!a!share!plan?
Lack!of!funds!to!afford!program 1
Would you prefer a share that delivered
finfish to you whole, headed and gutted,
or filleted?
Whole 0 Would you prefer a share that delivered
finfish to you whole, headed and gutted,
or filleted?
Headed!and!Gutted 1
Would you prefer a share that delivered
finfish to you whole, headed and gutted,
or filleted?
Filleted 6
How much are you willing to pay for
CSF fish compared to fish you would
purchase at a grocery store?
No!more 1 How much are you willing to pay for
CSF fish compared to fish you would
purchase at a grocery store?
5510%!more 1
How much are you willing to pay for
CSF fish compared to fish you would
purchase at a grocery store?
105!20%!more! 2
How much are you willing to pay for
CSF fish compared to fish you would
purchase at a grocery store?
More!(unspeciCied!amount) 3
How far would you be willing to drive
to pick up your share from CSF?
Biking!distance 1 How far would you be willing to drive
to pick up your share from CSF?
10!!15!minutes 2
How far would you be willing to drive
to pick up your share from CSF?
No!more!than!20!minutes 1
How far would you be willing to drive
to pick up your share from CSF?
5!!10!miles 3
What day is best for you during the
week to pick up your seafood?
Monday 2 What day is best for you during the
week to pick up your seafood?
Wednesday 1
What day is best for you during the
week to pick up your seafood?
Friday 2
What day is best for you during the
week to pick up your seafood?
Any!day!works 2
Where is the most convenient place for
you to pick up your seafood: your
workplace, home, or near a local
grocery store?
Workplace 2 Where is the most convenient place for
you to pick up your seafood: your
workplace, home, or near a local
grocery store?
Home 1
Where is the most convenient place for
you to pick up your seafood: your
workplace, home, or near a local
grocery store?
Near!a!Local!Grocery!Store 4
What characteristics of a CSF appeal to
you?
Local 3 What characteristics of a CSF appeal to
you?
Important!to!Community 1
What characteristics of a CSF appeal to
you?
Sustainable! 1
What characteristics of a CSF appeal to
you?
Healthier 2
What would draw your attention to a
program like this, in terms of different
promoting channels? (Multiple, single
answers allowed)
Word!of!Mouth 5 What would draw your attention to a
program like this, in terms of different
promoting channels? (Multiple, single
answers allowed)
Direct!Mail 1
What would draw your attention to a
program like this, in terms of different
promoting channels? (Multiple, single
answers allowed)
Social!Media 4
What would draw your attention to a
program like this, in terms of different
promoting channels? (Multiple, single
answers allowed)
Free!Trial 2
What would draw your attention to a
program like this, in terms of different
promoting channels? (Multiple, single
answers allowed)
Local!Initiatives 1
What would draw your attention to a
program like this, in terms of different
promoting channels? (Multiple, single
answers allowed)
E5mail 1
What about CSF discourages you from
subscribing to this program?
Lack!of!Funds 1 What about CSF discourages you from
subscribing to this program?
Not!fully!comfortable!with!idea!yet 1
What about CSF discourages you from
subscribing to this program?
Convenience 1
What about CSF discourages you from
subscribing to this program?
Quality/Health!Safety!of!Seafood 1
What about CSF discourages you from
subscribing to this program?
It!is!a!serious!commitment 1
What about CSF discourages you from
subscribing to this program?
Nothing 2
Appendix B: Consumer Preferences
Question Answer Choices Tally
Gender? Male 4 Gender?
Female 3
How would you describe the area
where you currently live?
A!city 0 How would you describe the area
where you currently live?
A!suburban!area 7
How would you describe the area
where you currently live?
A!small!town 0
How would you describe the area
where you currently live?
A!rural!area 0
How would you describe the area
where you currently live?
Dont!know/not!sure 0
Which part of W&M are you
affiliated with?
W&M!Arts!&!Sciences 1 Which part of W&M are you
affiliated with?
W&M!School!of!Education 0
Which part of W&M are you
affiliated with?
W&M!Mason!School!of!
Business
4
Which part of W&M are you
affiliated with?
W&M!School!of!Law 0
Which part of W&M are you
affiliated with?
W&M!Athletics 2
Which part of W&M are you
affiliated with?
VIMS 0
What is your position? Faculty 5 What is your position?
Staff 2
What is your position?
Undergraduate!Student 0
What is your position?
Graduate!Student 0
Appendix C: Consumer Profile
2
Appendix D: Interview Guide
BUAD 452: Marketing Research- Marketing Mix/Faculty&StaII
Team 2-7: Corwin, Frey, Gachou, Indurti, Leung
1.) Would you be willing to commit to a share option that delivered Iresh Iish to you on a weekly
basis?
Or would you be interested in a share option that delivered less Irequently? II so, what
schedule would you preIer?
2.) Are there any obstacles that prevent you Irom committing to a share option?
3.) Are you interested in a share that delivers
a)IinIish
b)shellIish
c)IinIish and shellIish
d)other options; iI so, elaborate.
4) a.) Would you be willing to commit to a share option that delivered shares consisting
oI IinIish?
1 to 2 lbs (1 to 2 servings)
3 to 5 lbs (3 to 5 servings)
*(Whole Iish: one pound per person; Iillets: pound per person)
b.) What considerations account Ior your choice?
5.) a.) Would you preIer a share that delivered IinIish to you whole, headed and gutted, or
Iilleted?
b.) What Iactors account Ior your preIerence?
6. Would you be willing to clean and Iillet your own Iish iI someone showed you how?
7. How do you Ieel about committing to purchasing a Iish every week beIore you know what
type oI Iish it`ll be?
1.) How much are you willing to pay Ior CSF Iish compared to Iish you would purchase at a
grocery store?
2.) Would you be willing to pay more or less, knowing that the objective is community outreach
and inIo sessions about the CSF?
3.) Would you be willing to pay more or less to be educated in how to handle and prepare the
Iish? For example: recipes, e-mail notiIications and contacts Ior extra help.
4.) * (iI interviewee showed interest Ior Iish services) Earlier you said you are interested in
having additional services perIormed on your Iish. Would paying extra deter you Irom having
your Iish gutted, Iilleted etc.?
1.) How Iar would you be willing to drive to pick up your share Irom CSF?
2.) How much time do you consider reasonable at the pickup location to collect your purchase?
3.) What day is best Ior you during the week to pick up your seaIood?
4.) What time oI day would be most convenient Ior you to pick up your seaIood?
5.) Would you rather pick up your seaIood at your workplace or at home, or would it be most
convenient Ior the pickup location to be near a local grocery store?
6.) How do you think subscribing to the CSF program would aIIect your routine and or liIestyle?