Floral Marketing and Consumer Research Bridget K. Behe1 Department of Horticulture and Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, 101 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849-5408

Global floral consumption is more than cut flowers and greens. Flowering plants may and wire service capabilities (Kress, 1987; $25 billion/year (de Boon, 1990), and the include annual and perennial bedding plants Vance Publishing Corp., 1989), thus position- United States ranked 12th of 15 countries in and traditional florist crops in various pot ing themselves to compete with traditional per capita floral consumption (Eurofloratech, sizes. Difficulty in defining product catego- florists directly. 1991). The market is expanding and lucrative. ries, infrequent data collection, and inadequate Regional differences in merchandising Marketing terminology and concepts are ap- funding of statistical collection and dissemi- strategies among traditional florists in the nine pearing more often in horticultural literature nation of research results have produced lim- U.S. Dept. of Agriculture regions were identi- as researchers attempt to understand the floral ited production information. fied (Behe et al., 1987). Pacific region florists industry and business managers face greater Wholesale value of domestic floral crop (Washington, Oregon, California) spent less competition. Some consumer and market re- production for 28 states was $2.77 billion in on advertising than florists in other regions yet search in floriculture has been published, but 1990 (U.S. Dept. Agriculture, 1991), up 10% had higher cash-and-carry sales. East north- much more is needed (Armitage, 1986). The from 1989. Somewhat enhanced information central florists (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, objective of this article is to summarize pub- is published less frequently in the Census of Indiana, Kentucky) spent more on advertising lished floricultural market and consumer re- Horticultural Specialties (U.S. Dept. Com- and had higher telephone sales than other search. merce, 1989a, 1989b), which lists production regional florists. Differences between single- Kotler (1984) defined marketing as the of specific plant genera, and in the Statistical and multiple-location florists were character- tasks engaged in by an organization to deter- Review (Johnson and Napper, 1989). The flo- ized (Behe and Prince, 1985). Multiple-shop mine and meet the needs of targeted groups ral industry, once dominated by domestic pro- firms generated lower revenues per store, had while balancing the organization’s profits and duction, is now a global one, with a significant fewer full-time employees and walk-in cus- the groups’ interests. He described the history proportion of fresh flowers produced in Co- tomers, and spent less per store for Yellow of marketing from its foundation in 17th cen- lombia and the Netherlands for export to the Pages advertising than single-shop firms. Flo- tury Japan, when a member of the Mitsui United States and other markets (Staby and ral franchise outlets have been successful on a family opened the first department store in Robertson, 1982). The wholesale value of regional basis, while others have expanded Tokyo (Kotler, 1984). He further described imported fresh-cut floral products and greens nationally (Sulecki, 1991). that, in the United States, marketing was for- was $305 million in 1988 (Johnson and Napper, Holness (1985) identified three segments mally initiated in the business sector when The 1989), while wholesale domestic production of retail florists’ advertising and promotional Curtis Publishing Co. established a commer- that year was $571 million. Difficulty in track- strategies using cluster analysis. Nineteen per- cial research department. After World War II, ing production growth increases when data cent of the florists (291 of 1520) were classi- modem marketing techniques were adopted collection changes, thus prohibiting long-term fied as Type I, which were relatively large, on a larger scale by many companies. Smith trend analysis. established, urban, multiple-location firms that (1956) first defined the important yet practical Floral products were traditionally marketed relied heavily on cash-and-carry sales. In con- concepts of market segmentation and product through many small, vertically integrated re- trast, 26% were identified as Type II florists targeting that are still considered fundamental tail florist firms (Sullivan et al., 1980). In the that were younger, smaller, less urban, single- to management strategies today. 1950s grocery stores began selling annual location firms that relied more on customer- Floricultural market research could be bedding plants to alleviate seasonal surpluses initiated telephone sales. The majority, 55%, characterized as either market or consumer experienced by local growers (Goodrich, were Type III florists-relatively new, single- research. Market research describes industry 1980). Sales of floral products through mass location firms that relied heavily on telephone characteristics and trends, while consumer merchandisers, especially supermarkets, have sales. Type I florists used all forms of advertis- research focuses on consumer characteristics steadily increased since that time, and now ing media extensively, spent more on advertis- and behavior. Floral market research has been mass merchandisers are perceived by many in ing and promotion, and used direct mail adver- limited to production statistics, while some the floral industry as the strongest competitors tising more than Type II or III florists. Type II investigation of retail marketers has been of retail florists (Buckley, 1982). florists used electronic media more, including conducted. Early floral consumer behavior The supermarket floral retailer has been radio and television, and spent more on adver- studies examined the demographic character- studied extensively (Baker and Goodrich, 1968; tising than Type III florists, who relied heavily istics of individuals who purchased the flow- Goodrich, 1980; Kiplinger and Sherman, 1962; on traditional print media, which included ers. More recent floral consumer research has Kress, 1973, 1983, 1986, 1987; Robertson and Yellow Pages and newspaper advertising. used multivariate computer analytic techniques Hahn, 1978; Russell Marketing Research, Customers perceive marketers differently to describe multiple attributes of floral prod- 1990; Sherman and Baker, 1960; Vance Pub- by the level, quality, and types of services ucts and the reasons for product purchase and/ lishing Corp., 1989). Early studies focused on offered (Zeithaml et al., 1990), and floral or use. the types of products sold and seasonal sales marketers experienced a similar reaction. trends (Baker and Goodrich, 1968; Kiplinger Prince et al. (1990a) identified product quality MARKET RESEARCH and Sherman, 1962; Sherman and Baker, 1960). maintenance, order/delivery reliability, and Floral products are a product category that Recent research showed that nearly all super- product availability as the three most impor- contains flowering and foliage plants and fresh- markets sell floral products on a regular or tant services a floral supplier can provide for a seasonal basis, with many mass merchandis- floral retailer. They showed a difference in Received for publication 18 Feb. 1992. Accepted for ers targeting self- or low-service products by service perceptions between traditional flo- publication 1 July 1992. Alabama Agricultural Ex- merchandising prepackaged bouquets and rists and floral mass merchandisers in terms of periment Station no. 11-923240. The cost of pub- blooming and foliage plants (Kress, 1987; product quality maintenance, product avail- lishing this paper was defrayed in part by the pay- Vance Publishing Corp., 1989). Some super- ability, and communications/order informa- ment of page charges. Under postal regulations, this paper therefore must be hereby marked advertisement markets have begun to upgrade the level of tion (Prince et al., 1990b). I found no research solely to indicate this fact. customer service provided to consumers by on consumer perceptions of and satisfaction 1Assistant Professor. offering design, delivery, wedding packages, with floral retailing services.

HORTSCIENCE, VOL. 28(1), JANUARY 1993 11 CONSUMER RESEARCH participants’ ambivalence may have been due tween consumers who purchased primarily partly to the flower giver’s lack of sentiment potted plants and consumers who purchased In consumer research, single-variable de- for the recipient. primarily fresh-cut flowers. It appeared that mographic characteristics are often correlated Supermarket floral customers have been consumers purchased products depending on with purchase patterns, partly due to the ease surveyed and profiled more often than other the situation, not on the individual’s charac- of measuring demographic characteristics such floral consumer groups (Behe, 1985; teristics. This conclusion was consistent with as age and income. Floral purchases increase Goldsberry et al., 1985; Kelly, 1961; Kiplinger Levitt’s hypothesis that consumers may be- as income increases (de Boon, 1990; Prince and Sherman, 1962; Miller, 1977; Perry, 1990; long to more than one segment (1988). and Prince, 1991; R.T. Kelley, Inc., 1983; Prince and Prince, 1992a, 1992b; Rhodus, Volume segmentation divides a consumer Sherman et al., 1956; Soc. Amer. Florists, 1989; Zawadzki et al., 1960). Rhodus (1989) market by purchase frequency, a procedure 1989; Zawadzki et al., 1960). Age is also showed that supermarket floral bouquet pur- that has been used successfully in other mar- positively correlated with floral purchasing, chases were price-elastic. Miller (1977) deter- kets (Kotler, 1984). The conceptual basis for but it peaks at about age 45 and then declines mined attitudes of supermarket floral custom- volume segmentation is that consumers who (Behe and Wolnick, 1991a; Crispell, 1991; de ers about past purchases and future intentions. purchase a product more frequently differ in Boon, 1990; Prince and Prince, 1991). Em- Accordingly, consumers did not patronize one additional aspects from consumers who pur- ployment outside the home, related to house- type of store exclusively; rather, 53% of the chase the product less frequently. Rather than hold income, was also positively related to the consumers purchased from more than one increasing the total number of consumers in number of floral purchases (Behe and Wolnick, retailer. He suggested that supermarketsand the market, managers who use a volume seg- 1991a). Demby (1973) analyzed men and traditional florists may be serving the same mentation seek to expand the market by in- women separately without determining be- consumer population. Levitt (1988) suggested creasing the total number of purchases per havioral differences, yet some evidence shows that consumers may belong to more than one consumer. Marketing theory states that it is that floral purchase behavior varies by gender consumer segment, depending on their situa- easier to have a current consumer make an (Behe and Wolnick, 1991b; Prince and Prince, tion. additional purchase than to solicit a new con- 1992b; Soc. Amer. Florists, 1989). Matsuo While analyses that correlate individual sumer (Kotler, 1984). (1990) showed that there are differences by variables provide useful information, multiva- Consumers who purchase more of a prod- nationality. riate analyses enable more sophisticated in- uct have been considered to be more involved Some research describes consumer prefer- vestigation. Prince and Prince (1992a, 1992b) with that product than consumers who pur- ences for floral products and product attributes. have labeled a multivariate analytic technique chase less of it. Product involvement has been One of the first published floral consumer as “Product/Value Analysis” and showed that discussed extensively in marketing literature, behavior studies was conducted in 1956 at supermarket consumers value chrysanthemum and several authors have captured the essence Ohio State Univ. (Sherman et al., 1956). Most price and color over flower form and care of the arguments (Bloch and Richins, 1983; consumers on the panel preferred roses over instructions. Additional research on the floral Gutman, 1982; Sujan, 1985; Zaichkowsky, carnations or chrysanthemums and preferred purchase process and level of satisfaction with 1986). Product involvement can be defined as red over yellow or white flowers. Hutchison the purchase can be investigated with multiva- the degree of personal relevance an object has and Robertson (1979) determined that men riate techniques. for an individual. Means-end chains can be preferred red roses over other colors, women In two studies, market segments were de- used to diagram conceptually the degree of preferred colors other than red, and both groups veloped using cluster analysis (Behe et al., personal relevance (Gutman, 1982). A tech- preferred pink least. Robertson and Chatfield 1992b; Soc. Amer. Florists, 1989). Smith nique in which a consumer is led to chain ideas (1982) found that nonred roses enhanced flo- (1956) developed the concepts of market seg- together would begin with a concrete product ral arrangement marketability. They (1981) mentation and product targeting. Marketing attribute (flower color) chained to more ab- also determined that nonhomogeneous colors theory suggests that a segmentation strategy stract constructs such as functional outcomes in flower bunches were more appealing than enables management to allocate scarce re- (flower color becoming part of an interior homogeneous colors. Wolnick (1983) found sources more efficiently while achieving a decor), then to psychological outcomes (which that consumers preferred red geraniums over profit (Kotler, 1984). Behe et al. (1992b) di- creates a pleasant atmosphere), and perhaps to other colors. He did not determine whether vided supermarket customers into five seg- personal values (creating personal satisfac- this preference for red flowers created a de- ments based on factors that affect floral pur- tion). As the chain becomes more highly de- mand for them or whether it reflected the chase decisions (1992a). “Friendly buyers” veloped, the consumer becomes more involved dominance of red geraniums in commercial were young consumers with relatively low with the product. Smaller or less developed production schedules. Herrmann and Voigt annual household incomes who purchased chains would indicate little personal relevance (1988) showed that 46% (257 of 558) of flowers as gifts for theircoworkers and moth- andlittle product involvement. Longer chains, consumer households in a Philadelphia and ers but made few purchases for themselves. with more abstract constructs, indicate a higher Washington, D.C., sample had purchased a “Married men” were somewhat older males degree of personal relevance and more prod- poinsettia for Christmas in 1985 and that 79% who purchased flowers as gifts for their wives. uct involvement. Light users likely have shorter of those were red. “Selfers,” the largest segment, frequently pur- means-end chains than heavy users. Robertson and Chatfield studied factors chased flowers for personal use, and price was The focus of the consumer’s involvement other than flower color (1981). They found very important to them. “Annuals” purchased is also important. Product involvement is of- that consumers selected fresh flower arrange- flowers only once each year, usually from the ten discussed in general, unfocused terms. The ments primarily by price and secondarily by supermarket, for home decoration. The “edu- consumer can be involved in finding and buy- composition. The container was relatively cated mothers” segment was comprised of ing the product (search and selection), and/or unimportant in their selection. When they ex- older, upper-income women who bought flo- involved in its use, or the consumer can show amined preferences in arrangement style, ral products mainly during holidays associ- an enduring or intrinsic involvement with the Robertson and Chatfield found that roses ar- ated with meals: Thanksgiving, Easter, and product, as a hobbyist would. Product selec- ranged informally had the greatest appeal Christmas, These consumer segments were tion, purchase, and use can influence intrinsic (1981). Consumers selected loose bunches of similar to those identified in Market Facts, involvement with the product. Heavy con- fresh flowers not by price but by composition. Inc.’s study (Soc. Amer. Florists, 1985) of sumers would likely be more involved with According to Prince et al. (1980), roses mer- floral consumers. They used a panel of men product search, selection, and purchase than chandised in units of five and nine had greater and women and identified five segments: plant light consumers. If products are frequently marketability than the traditional dozen. people, flower people, givers, selfers, and spe- given as gifts, the consumer may not be heavily Thompson (1983) showed that while fresh cial occasion only. involved with product use. Intrinsic involve- flowers in the workplace did not affect em- Another market segment study (Behe and ment should be higher for a heavy consumer ployee attitude positively or negatively, the Wolnick, 1991a) found few differences be- than a light consumer.

12 HORTSCIENCE, VOL. 28(1), JANUARY 1993 In highly developed markets, 85% of people (1991) defined the role of flowers in the be- Baker, M. and DC. Goodrich. 1968. Flower re- buy flowers at least once per year, while in a reavement process. More than 60% of the tailing by mass outlets. N.J. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. poorly developed market, only 42% buy flow- participants had received flowers as a sympa- 817, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. ers (de Boon, 1990). Purchase frequency varies thy gesture when someone close had died. Behe, B.K. and T.L. Prince. 1985. Marketing mix from fewer than 15 times per year in an un- Funeral directors believe that flowers serve an characteristics of single and multiple locations florists. HortScience 19:560. derdeveloped market to 15 to 20 times per year integral role in the funeral ritual by comforting Behe, B.K., T.A. Prince, and H.K. Tayama. 1992a. in a highly developed market (de Boon, 1990). those affected by a death. In a related study, Analysis of consumer purchases of floral prod- Behe and Wolnick (1991b) concluded that 83% of surveyed grief therapists indicated that ucts in supermarkets. HortScience 27:455-459. the heaviest consumers of floral products were flowers aid in the grieving process. Behe, B.K., T.A. Prince, and H.K. Tayama. 1992b. likely to be relatively affluent and purchase The floral industry is demanding intensi- Market segmentation of supermarket floral cus- floral products for their own use and as tradi- fied consumer and market research as other tomers. HortScience 27:459-462. tional gifts. In contrast, light floral consumers industries actively pursue consumer prefer- Behe, B.K., T.L. Prince, W.T. Rhodus, and J.L. were less affluent and more likely to purchase ences and product/service needs to remain Robertson. 1987. Regional differences in retail floral products for traditional gift reasons or profitably competitive. As floral profession- floral merchandising strategies. Acta Hort. 203:157-163. obligatory purchases, such as funeral flowers, als realize an increasing need to understand Behe, B.K. and D.J. Wolnick. 1991a. Type of floral with few personal-use purchases. Segmenting the floral purchaser, more research-based in- product purchased and demographic character- the market for floral consumers by flower formation should be commissioned. There is a istics and floral knowledge of consumers. Hort- purchase frequency was a feasible alternative significant body of literature, funded by pri- Science 26:414-416. to segmenting the market by demographics. vate interests, beyond publicly accessible in- Behe, B.K. and D.J. Wolnick. 1991b. Market seg- Market Facts, Inc. (Soc. Amer. Florists, formation. Crop production information, while mentation of Pennsylvania floral consumers by 1989) reported a trend in floral consumption necessary to track market growth and devel- purchase volume and primary retail outlet. Hort- for personal use. Although data were collected opment, is insufficient in determining how Science 26:1328-1331. in a cross-sectional panel study, some implica- best to meet consumer desires. Consistent Belk, R.W. 1976. It’s the thought that counts: A signed digraph analysis of gift-giving. J. Con- tions were made related to a longitudinal trend. measurement of crop production and importa- sumer Res. 3:155-161. This study indicated that an individual passes tion needs to be funded to follow the most Belk, R.W. 1979. Gift-giving behavior. Res. in through four levels or phases as floral con- fundamental growth of the industry. Mktg. 2:95-126. sumption frequency increases. At the first level, Mass-market retailing of floral products Belk, R.W. 1982. Effects of gift-giving involvement no floral products are purchased. At level two, revolutionized the industry by exposing more on gift selection strategies. Adv. Consumer Res. flowers are purchased as gifts on special oc- consumers to floral products on an everyday 9:408-411. casions and events with few personal plant basis. Franchising, successful in some mar- Bloch, P.H. and M.L. Richins. 1983. A theoretical purchases. At level three, a consumer purchases kets, could also change how and where people model for the study of product importance per- more plants for personal use while maintain- buy flowers. Nontraditional outlets, such as ceptions. J. Mktg. 47:69-81. ing or increasing floral gift purchases. In the greeting-card stores, toll-free phone numbers, Buckley, E. 1982. Supermarkets reach out for 6- billion dollar floral market. Produce & Floral final level, a high proportion of floral gift and mail-order catalogs, may further increase Retailing 1:6. purchases are made along with regular plant consumer exposure to floral products. Crispell, D. 1991. Targeting the American floral and some flower purchases for personal use. More research is needed to understand consumer. GrowerTalks 54:21-27. Of increasing interest is the use of flowers many facets of the floral consumer: Who pur- de Boon, I.H. 1990. A world perspective on more after purchase, categorized as either gifts or chases flowers; who receives them; who en- flowers for more people. Professional Plant personal use. The percentage of floral prod- joys them; how flowers are selected, pur- Growers Assn. News 21:7, 10-11. ucts used as gifts is relatively high on most chased, and delivered; and why flowers are Demby, E. 1973. A psychographic study of the holidays and special occasions (Behe and purchased over other products and services. A market for flowers. Amer. Floral Mktg. Council, Wolnick, 1991b; Gallup Organization, 1990). better understanding of the purchase process Alexandria, Va. Belk’s (1976, 1979, 1982) theoretical concep- and satisfaction with the purchase and prod- Eurofloratech. 1991. Norway consumption best in uct/service mix is important to developing the world. Eurofloratech March:6. tualization of gift-giving applies to floral Gallup Organization. 1990. A Gallup study of purchasing and giving. His work outlined floral marketing industry. Gift-giving theory American’s gift-giving attitudes and behavior, giver-gift-recipient interactions. Gift-giving can be used to understand when flowers are revised. Gallup Org., Princeton, N.J. performs symbolic communication in that the appropriate gifts or self-indulgences. Plant Garbarino, A.J. 1963. Consumers’ preferences for gift acts as both the channel of a message and breeders and commercial producers would floral products in the Memphis market. Univ. of the message itself. Situational and geographic/ benefit from understanding the importance of Tennessee Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 355, Knoxville. cultural influences and the degree of intimacy flower attributes (i.e., flower and plant fra- Goldsberry, K.L., N. Baker, and M. Michaels. 1985. between giver and recipient affect the gift grance, color, and form) relative to price. Determining the desires of supermarket cut selection process. Although some industry Investigating personal use-flowers bought flower customers: A six year evaluation. Colo. members believe that the market for gift flow- for the buyer rather than as a gift-and com- Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Bul. 421, Fort Collins. ers has matured, the role of flowers as a versa- mercial use of flowers may help develop the Goodrich, D.C., Jr. 1980. Floral marketing. Chain nongift floral market. Store Publ., New York. tile yet unique gift needs further study. Gutman, J. 1982. A means-end chain model based Garbarino (1963) studied floral consump- Market and consumer research involving on consumer categorization processes. J. Mktg. tion in the early 1960s. He found that consum- floral products has been published since 1956. 46:60-72. ers most frequently purchased floral products Advanced computer technology and sophisti- Herrmann, R.O. and A.O. Voigt. 1988. Marketing as gifts for others, rather than for their own cated statistical analyses, although underused, opportunities for Pennsylvania-grown poinset- enjoyment. Scammon et al. (1982) applied have increased the amount of floral consumer tias. Pa. Flower Growers Bul. 388:1-2. gift-giving theory to understand situational and market research tremendously. Much of Holness, P.A. 1985. A descriptive profile of the influences on floral purchases, particularly this research pertains to describing the floral retail florist industry’s advertising and promo- when flowers were given away. The Gallup consumer and the floral retailer at a surface tional strategies. MS Thesis, Ohio State Univ., Organization (1990) showed that many con- level. Interactions of consumer characteristics Columbus. sidered flowers an ideal gift to give when and prediction of consumer purchase behavior Hutchison, N.R. and J.L. Robertson. 1979. Con- and satisfaction remain to be studied. sumer demand analysis for roses. J. Amer. Soc. feeling guilty or to receive from an admirer. Hort. Sci. 104:303-308. Not considered in the same manner as other Literature Cited Johnson, D.C. and W.P. Napper. 1989. Production “gifts,” flowers for the bereaved have been an and marketing of floriculture and environmental integral part of floral sales. A traditional role Armitage, A.M. 1986. Evaluation of new floricul- horticultureproducts: A statisticalreview, 1960- of floral products in our society has been in tural crops: A systems approach. HortScience 88. Commodity Econ. Div., Econ. Res. Serv., comforting the bereaved. Shoemaker and Relf 21:9-11. U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.

HORTSCIENCE, VOL. 28(1), JANUARY 1993 13 Kelly, R.A. 1961. Floricultural sales in mass market Columbus, Ohio, 1955-1960. Ohio Agr. Expt. Thompson, J.L. 1983. The effectiveness of flowers outlets. Univ. of Illinois Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. Sta. Bul. A.E. 315, Wooster. as a change element in the office environment on 675. Sherman, R.W., D.C. Kiplinger, and H.C. Williams. the attitudes of employees. MS Thesis, Ohio Kiplinger, D.C. and R.W. Sherman. 1962. Florist 1956. Consumer preferences for cut roses, car- State Univ., Columbus. crops for mass market outlets. Ohio Agr. Expt. nations, chrysanthemums. Ohio Agr. Expt. Sta. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991. Floriculture Sta. Res. Bul. 928, Wooster. Res. Circ. 31, Wooster. crops 1990 summary. Natl. Agr. Stat. Serv., Kotler, P. 1984. Marketing management: Analysis, Shoemaker, C.A. and P.D. Relf. 1991. Flowers for Agr. Stat. Brd., Sp Cr 6-1(91), Washington, planning and control. 5th ed. Prentice-Hall, funerals—They are important. Res. Rpt. Amer. D.C. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Floral Endowment, Edwardsville, Ill. 2:1-4. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1989a. 1987 Cen- Kress, J.G. 1973. Mass marketing—A reassess- Smith, W.R. 1956. Product differentiation and mar- sus of agriculture. vol. 1. Geographic Area Ser., ment. Florists Rev. 152:19, 20, 56. ket segmentation as alternative marketing strat- AC87-A-51. Bur. Census, Washington, D.C. Kress, J.G. 1983. The floral movement. GrowerTalks egies. J. Mktg. 21:3-8. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1989b. 1987 Cen- 46:34-42. Soc. Amer. Florists. 1985. Society of American sus of agriculture. vol. 4. Census Hort. Special- Kress, J.G. 1986. Floral products in supermarkets. Florists floral marketing report. Market Facts, ties (1988), AC87-HOR-1. Bur. Census, Wash- ington, D.C. The Packer, Vance Publ. Corp., Shawnee Mis- Soc. Amer. Florists, Washington, D.C. sion, Kan. Vance Publishing Corp. 1989. Fresh trends, shop- Kress, J.G. 1987. Super survey. Soc. Amer. Florists Soc. Amer. Florists. 1989. Society of American ping for flowers and plant products: Profiling 4:24-30. Florists floral marketing report. Market Facts, the supermarket floral consumer. The Packer, Levitt, T. 1988. The pluralization of consumption. Soc. Amer. Florists, Washington, D.C. Vance Publishing Corp., Lincolnshire, Ill. Harvard Business Rev. 88:7-8. Staby, G.L. and J.L. Robertson. 1982. International Wolnick, D.J. 1983. Consumer preference studies Matsuo, E. 1990. Analysis of flower appreciation movement of cut flowers. HortScience 17:729- with zonal geraniums. Flor. Rev. 162:31-33. and its international comparison contribute to 733. Zaichkowsky, J.L. 1986. Conceptualizing involve- progress of flower production and international Sujan, M. 1985. Consumer knowledge: Effects on ment. J. Advertising 15:4-14. flower trade. HortScience 25:1468-1471. evaluation strategies mediating consumer Zawadzki, M.I., W.E. Larmie, and A.L. Owens. Miller, M.N. 1977. Consumer preferences for and judgements [sic]. J. Consumer Res. 12:31-46. 1960. Selling flowers in supermarkets. Rhode attitudes toward cut flower items in supermar- Sulecki, J.C. 1991. Hallmark test yielding mixed Island Agr. Expt. Sta Res. Bul. 355, Kingston. kets. MS Thesis, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, results. Greenhouse Grower 9:80-84. Zeithaml, V.A., A. Parasuraman, and L.L. Berry. Ind. Sullivan, G.H., J.L. Robertson, and G.L. Staby. 1990. Delivering quality service: Balancing Perry, L.P. 1990. Vermont surveys track shifts in 1980. Management for retail florists. W.T. Free- customerperceptions and expectations. The Free plant buyers’ preferences. Greenhouse Manager man, San Francisco. Press, Macmillan, New York. 9:128. Prince, T.A. and T.L. Prince. 1991. State demo- graphic trends shape consumer floral buying. Flower News 45:28. Prince, T.A. and T.L. Prince. 1992a. Consumers’ mum-purchasing behavior revealed in tests. Floral Mass Mktg. 8(1):1, 5, 16. Prince, T.A. and T.L. Prince. 1992b. Value of mum longevity and care information revealed in Yoder tests. Floral Mass Mktg. 8(2):1, 5, 11. Prince, T.L., J.L. Robertson, and L.H. Chatfield. 1980. Factors affecting the marketability of roses. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 105:388-393. Prince, T.L., H.K. Tayama, and J.R. Grabner, Jr. 1990a. Supplier services and their importance to floral retailers in the midwestem United States. HortScience 25:356-358. Prince, T.L., H.K. Tayama, and J.R. Grabner, Jr. 1990b. Floral supplier service levels to retail florist and mass market customers. HortScience 25:689-692. Rhodus, W.T. 1989. Estimating price elasticity for fresh flower bouquets sold in supermarkets. HortScience 24:386-387. Robertson, J.L. and L.H. Chatfield. 1981. Analysis of fresh flower merchandising. Ohio Agr. Res. and Development Ctr., Res. Bul. 1136, Ohio Agr. Expt. Sta., Wooster. Robertson, J.L. and L.H. Chatfield. 1982. Fresh flower merchandising in loose bunches. Hort- Science 17:593-595. Robertson, J.L. and D.E. Hahn. 1978. Analysis of demand for potted chrysanthemums in super- markets. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103:203-206. R.T. Kelley, Inc. 1983. Flowers Canada Ontario. Consumer research: Final results. R.T. Kelley, Inc., Ontario, Canada. Russell Marketing Research. 1990. Survey of super- market floral retailing. 2nd Annu. Produce Mktg. Assn./Food Mktg. Inst. Survey Supermarket Produce Performance. Produce Mktg. Assn., Newark, Del. Scammon, D.L., R.T. Shaw, and G. Bamossy. 1982. Is a gift always a gift? An investigation of flower purchasing behavior across situations. Adv. Consumer Res. 9:531-536. Sherman, R.W. and M. Baker. 1960. Sale of potted plants and cut flowers through supermarkets,

14 HORTSCIENCE, VOL. 28(1), JANUARY 1993