Effects of Species Information and Furniture Price on Consumer Preferences for Selected Woods
Keywords:
Furniture, price, species, label, oak, cherry, alderAbstract
Changing consumer tastes and species availability are influencing the design and manufacture of hardwood products. In addition, the globalization of wood product markets is exposing U.S. consumers to new species. This research evaluates consumer preferences for six domestic wood species—three from the eastern United States and three from the western United States. The survey was designed to evaluate four treatment effects including two price points and the presence vs. absence of species identification labels. Four different pieces of furniture (dresser, entertainment center, hutch, and desk) were considered. Data were collected at Pacific Northwest home shows in late 2004 and early 2005. There were no significant differences in the species preferences expressed by consumers between price points at either level of species information. This indicates that furniture price did not significantly influence species preferences for the selected pieces. However, there were significant differences in consumer species preferences with and without labels at the higher price points. For the entertainment center, preference was greater for cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.) when species information was provided, but oak (Quercus rubra L.) was preferred when no species label was provided. When viewing the hutch, consumers preferred cherry and maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) when species labels were present, whereas oak, birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.), and spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) were preferred when no species labels were present. Lastly, for the desk, spruce was more preferred with no information, and cherry was more preferred when species information was included. No preference differences were detected for the dresser. Overall, consumers expressed the highest preference for cherry; the second most preferred species was oak. With the exception of oak, consumer knowledge of the species investigated was low. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that species information be provided for furniture pieces made from cherry and maple at higher price points, as preferences for these species can be enhanced in such cases.References
Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers, Inc. 2005. Wood furniture maintains numbers at Spring Market. High Point, NC. 5 pp.nBarford, M. 2005. Mark my words. The Standard: Monthly Newsletter of the Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers, Inc. March:2. http://www.appalachianwood.org'>http://www.appalachianwood.orgnBennington, R. R. 1985. Furniture marketing: From product development to distribution. Fairchild Publications, New York, NY. 310 pp.nBloch, P. H. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. J. Marketing.59(3):16-29.nBlomgren, G. W., Jr. 1965. The psychological image of wood. Forest Prod. J.15(4):149-151.nBowe, S. A., and M. S. Bumgardner. 2004. Species selection in secondary wood products: Perspectives from different consumers. Wood Fiber Sci.36(3):319-328.nBowyer, J. L. 2004. State of North American hardwood resources: 2004. A special report commissioned by the National Hardwood Lumber Association, Memphis, TN. 73 pp.nBumgardner, M. S., and S. A. Bowe. 2002. Species selection in secondary wood products: Implications for product design and promotion. Wood Fiber Sci.34(3):408-418.nBumgardner, M. S., R. J. Bush, and C. D. West. 2000. Beyond yield improvement: Selected marketing aspects of charactermarked furniture. Forest Prod. J.50(9):51-58.nBush R. J., P. A. Araman, and J. Muench, Jr. 1992. A comparison of market needs to the species and quality composition of the U.S. hardwood resource. Pages 275-277 in Wood product demand and the environment: Proc., International Conference, November 13-14, 1991, Vancouver, BC. Forest Products Research Society, Madison, WI.nCooper R. J., and S. Kalafatis. 1984. Changes in attitudes to solid timber species: A test of some promotional elements. Can. J. For. Res.14(1):22-26.nDonovan G., and D. L. Nicholls. 2003. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for character-marked cabinets from Alaska birch. Forest Prod. J.53 (11/12):27-32.nDonovan G., D. L. Nicholls., and J. Roos. 2004. Sources of product information used by consumers when purchasing kitchen cabinets. Forest Prod. J.54(12):77-79.nGreen, D., W. Vonsegen, and S. Willits. 1995. Western hardwoods value-added research and demonstration program. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-85. 43 pp.nHardwood Review Weekly. 2005. The perfect storm. Hardwood Rev.5(6):1-3.nKnell, M. J. 2004. In Canada, China now outsells U.S. Furniture/Today.28(44):1,18.nLuppold, W., and M. Bumgardner. 2003. What is lowvalue and/or low-grade hardwood? Forest Prod. J.53(3): 54-59.nLuppold, W., and M. Bumgardner. 2005. Can past price trends tell us anything about the future? Hardwood Market Report. LXXXIII(34):1, 12-15.nNicholls, D. L., G. Donovan, and J. A. Roos. 2004. Consumer preferences for kitchen cabinets made from red alder: A comparison to other hardwoods. Wood Fiber Sci.36(3):432-442.nRoos, J. A., G. Donovan, and D. L. Nicholls. 2005. How does species name affect consumer choice? An analysis and implications for cabinet door marketers. Forest Prod. J.55(5):21-26.nSchuler, A., R. Taylor, and P. A. Araman. 2001. Competitiveness of U.S. wood furniture manufacturers. Forest Prod. J.51(7/8):12-20.nSinclair, S. A. 1992. Forest products marketing. McGraw- Hill, New York, NY. 403 pp.nSmith, R. L., P. W. McDaniel, and D. Fell. 2005. Opportunities for the utilization of alternative species in secondary wood manufacturing. Forest Prod. J.55(4):71-77.nSoderman, M. 2002. Comparing desktop virtual reality with handmade sketches and real products—exploring key aspects for end-users' understanding of proposed products. J. Design Research. 2(1):unnumb. (Online journal). http://jdr.tudelft.nl/index.html'>http://jdr.tudelft.nl/index.htmlnSwearingen, K. A., E. N. Hansen, and J. E. Reeb. 1998. Customer Preferences for Pacific Northwest hardwoods. Forest Prod. J.48(2):29-33.nU.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Lumber production and mill stocks: 2003. MA321T(03)-1. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.nWang, Q., S. Guanming, and C. Chan-Halbrendt. 2004. Market potential for fine furniture manufactured from low-grade hardwood: Evidence form a conjoint analysis in the northeastern United States. Forest Prod. J.54(5):19-25.n
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
