




































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Agricultural Marketing ISSN 2375-1061 Vol. 4 (9), pp. 001-008, September, 2016. Available online 
at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s)                                           Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 

 

Full Length Research Paper 

 

Why is understanding customer attitude toward 4Ps 
marketing mix important? The case of the livestock 

input industry in Indonesia 

 
Sutrisno Hadi Purnomo,1,2* Yi-Hsuan Lee3  and Soekartawi4 

 
1
Department of Business Administration, National Central University, Taiwan.  

2
Faculty of Agriculture, Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia.  

3
Department of Business Administration National Central University, Taiwan.  

4
Department of Agricultural Economics, Brawijaya University, Indonesia. 

 
Accepted 25 February, 2016 

 

One of the main issues of agricultural development in Indonesia was marketing of agricultural products. It was not 
only due to the weakness of agricultural marketing policy, but also lack of research, particularly research related to 
the costumer’s attitude of marketing mix. Understanding of costumer’s attitude of marketing mix was really important. 
Many literatures indicated that one of the advantages of this was to design the marketing mix strategy. The main 
purposes of this study were, first, to evaluate the customer’s attitude toward marketing mix among distinct market 
segments of livestock input industry, and second, to examine the influence of demographic variables on customer 
attitude toward marketing mix. The methodology used in this study was survey method through distribute of 
questionnaire to respondents. Respondent of this study was poultry livestock farmer who have used company feed 
product and kept livestock in Java Island, Indonesia. The findings of this study revealed that, first, the three market 
segments were perceived differently and second, there was no significance difference among various demographic 
variables. This finding showed the importance of market segmentation to determine the appropriate strategy. 
Eventually, this research provided guidance for agribusiness managers to investigate deeply the customers 
understanding, preferences and perception. 

 

Key words: Customer’s attitude, marketing mix, livestock input industry. 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 
Many authors argue that understanding the customer 
attitude toward 4Ps (product, price, place and promotion) 
marketing mix is important. In case of Indonesia as a big 
developing country in Asia, the issues of customer 
attitude toward 4Ps of agribusiness particularly in 
livestock input industry is crucial. The question is why un-
derstanding the customer attitude toward 4Ps marketing 
mix is important in livestock input industry?  

Constantinides (2006) emphasizes that marketing mix 
is a framework of the dominant marketing management  
 
 
 
*Corresponding author. E-mail: sutrisno_hadi@hotmail.com. 
Tel: +886-3-422-7151 ext 66100. Fax: +886-3-422-2891. 

 
 
 

 
paradigm to identify market development, environmental 
changes and trends. Several studies confirm that the 4Ps 
is indeed the trusted conceptual platform of practitioners 
dealing with operational marketing issues (Romano and 
Ratnatunga, 1995; Coviello et al., 2000). The wide 
acceptance of the 4Ps among field marketers is the result 
of their profound exposure to this concept during college 
years, since identifying the 4Ps as the controllable 
parameters is likely to influence the consumer buying 
process and decisions (Brassington and Pettitt, 2003; 
Soekartawi, 2005a).  

The marketing practitioners in livestock industries, 
particularly on the input suppliers to farmer producers 
consider the 4Ps as the powerful toolkit of marketing 
strategy. The input suppliers play an important role in the 

file:///C:\Users\user\Documents\REPUBLICATION\AGRICULTURAL%20SCIENCES\AppData\Local\Temp\www.internationalscholarsjournals.org


 
 
 

 

agribusiness system which provides farmers and 
ranchers with the feed, seed, credit, equipment, etc. 
(Bierlien and Woolverton, 1991).  

In reality, the farmer producers are not homogeneous. 
They differ on dimensions such as sizes, management 
styles, location, production practices, and so forth. In 
efforts to segment the farm market, farms are often 
grouped by criteria such as crops grown, type of 
technology employed, and region of production 
(Rosenberg and Turvey, 2001). Segmentation is an 
important element of market planning. It is, in fact, at the 
very crucial of developing a thorough, well-reasoned, 
competitive advantage achieving strategic plan for a 
product and a business unit (Sudharsan and Winter, 
1998; Soekartawi, 2005a). Successful serving targeted 
customers involves first, segmenting the market into 
smaller more homogeneous customer groups, profiling 
these groups, then deciding which customer’s segments 
to pursue, and then developing the 4Ps marketing mix to 
best serve the chosen target customers (Alexander et al., 
2005).  

This study is to evaluate different segments of 
customers’ attitude toward 4Ps. Using sales classes as a 
measurement of farm size, this study classifies customers 
into three segments: small, middle and large. In fact, the 
study related to customer attitude in the farmer producer 
has not been sufficiently conducted. Therefore, two 
research questions guide this study: (1) Do customer’s 
attitude toward marketing mix among market segments is 
perceived differently? and (2) Do demographic variables 
influence the customer attitude toward marketing mix? 

 

It is expected that this research would provide 
recommendation for livestock input suppliers to develop 
greater understanding of how to serve existing and 
potential customer based on 4Ps concept for a basis to 
meet profitability of their business. 
 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

 

Several studies measuring customer attitude towards 
marketing mix have been carried out in industries and 
emerging nations (Gaski and Etzel, 1986; Wee and Chan, 
1989; Chan et al., 1990; Bhuian and Kim, 1999; Lysonski 
et al., 2003; Chan and Cui, 2004). A significant study in 
measuring consumer sentiments towards marketing 
practices was carried out by Gaski and Etzel (1986, 
2005). Other researchers Wee and Chan (1989) found 
that the pricing strategies and advertising appeals must 
also be adapted to suit the consumer’s needs and tastes. 
The influence of demographic variables on attitudes 
towards marketing was found that the less educated, the 
lower income group, and those with no jobs or less 
privileged jobs were most hostile towards marketing. 
Bhuian and Kim (1999) examined the influence of country 
origin toward marketing mix element 

 
 
 
 

 

and found that consumers prefer most the marketing mix 
element related to the product of Japan and USA. 
 

 

Marketing strategy for industrial market 

 

Harbor et al. (2006) pointed out that the market 
interaction between agricultural input industry and farmer 
producers is similar to that observed in a B2B 
environment. In this interaction, farmer producer is the 
buyer and agricultural input industry in this case livestock 
input industry is the industrial market. Thus, 
understanding the drivers and determinants of this 
transformation process is critical to a successful 
marketing strategy to serve the farmer producers of the 
future (Boehlje, 1992). The ability of agricultural input 
suppliers to serve farmer producers depends on the 
effective exchange of information between firms and 
consumers. Insufficient information may leave farmer 
producers exposed to inappropriate products and can 
limit firms' ability to respond to farm producers' needs 
(Tripp and Pal, 2000).  

Many marketing researchers have broadly argued 
marketing strategy to be a concept built on robust 
platform of segmentation, targeting and positioning 
(Ferrell et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2001). Marketing 
strategy requires decisions about the specific target of 
customers. Besides, marketing mix may be developed to 
target market by positioning it suitably in a superior way. 
In this context, the study of the effectiveness of the 
marketing tools is essential for an appropriate marketing 
strategy. Appropriateness of marketing strategies may be 
viewed as the congruence of market offerings of a set of 
products and its corresponding consumer perception 
among its target segment. More the target segment is 
able to understand and believe the cues (Richardson et 
al., 1994) communicated by the firms through marketing 
mix, more is the effectiveness of the marketing strategies. 
Recently, Constantinides (2006) reviewed the criticisms 
on the 4Ps marketing mix emanating from industrial 
market area. He mentioned most researchers agree that 
industrial market is indeed different from consumer 
marketing in a number of aspects like the formalized 
decision making procedures, the buying practices and 
rationality of choices and the special character of the 
industrial customer. Long term relationships, based on 
empathy, mutual benefits and co-operation (Flint et al., 
1997), understanding of customer’s needs and service 
(Shaw, 1995) are other important success factors. 
 
 
Market segmentation in the agricultural industry 

 

In industrial marketing, adoption of strategic planning as 
central to business operations today leads to a key di-
rection for segmenting industrial markets (Constantinides, 
2006). The formal grouping of cus-tomers/potential 
customers based on similarities in their strategies 



 
 
 

 

(Sudharsan and Winter, 1998). Griffith and Pol (1994) 
reported a successful use of firm demographic data for 
segmenting industrial markets. Laughlin and Taylor 
(1991) proposed that industries can be classified based 
on their respective concentration ratios and product 
customization requirements. They suggest that the 
classification be used as the basis for segment selection 
decisions.  

In the agribusiness market as an industrial market, 
customer segmentation is also a way for better 
understanding customer preferences for products, 
services, and information which are important to their 
industries. The customer segmentation is based on a 
two-dimensional characterization of the producer market. 
The characterization is defined in terms of: 1) size 
measured by gross sales, and 2) purchasing behavior 
(Boehlje, 1992). Furthermore, he argued that market 
segmentation frequently consists of grouping buyers into 
segments according to sales classes and then developing 
marketing strategies to serve the different segments. 
Each of the segments is different; for instance in terms of 
size, type of technology, farm management and so on 
(Gloy and Akridge, 1999).  

The process of segmentation is different from targeting 
(choosing which segments to address) and positioning 
(designing an appropriate marketing mix for each 
segment). The overall intent is to identify groups of similar 
customers and potential customers; to prioritize the 
groups to address; to understand their behavior, and to 
respond with appropriate marketing strategies that satisfy 
the different preferences of each chosen segment 
(Sengupta and Chattopadhyay, 2006). 
 

 

Characteristic of farmer producers 

 

This study used customer segmentation based on sales 
classes range divided into three classes: small, medium 
and large. These three classes have different character-
istics in terms of buying behavior, farm management, 
type of technology and so forth. Harbor et al. (2006) 
observed that in many instances, smaller farms behave 
like retail consumers. Relatively speaking, they wield little 
individual market power. On the other hand, larger farms 
have the ability to interact with input and output markets 
in a more business-like manner, taking advantage of 
powers of negotiation, economies of scale, and increased 
market access. As a result, the relationship between 
agribusinesses and their commercial farm customers is 
much different from that between agricultural firms and 
those operations that fit the historical farm profile.  

Most investigations of small farm characteristics 
combine two or more of these classifications to arrive at a 
more limited and conclusive definition. However, small 
farms have been generally described as farms with 
limited resources, farms with a small volume of farm 
product sales, family farms, retirement farms, and part-
time farms (Lewis, 1978). 

 
 

 
 

 
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

 
The data of this study was collected from customer of PT Charoen 
Pokphand Indonesia (CPI). CPI is one of Multinational Companies 
(MNCs) in agribusiness whose core business is feed mill 
manufacturing. The headquarter of CPI is in Thailand, and its 
subsidiaries are located in several countries, such as Indonesia, 
Malaysia, China, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Myanmar, 
Turkey and Portugal. The sample of this study was the farmers who 
have used CPI’s products and kept livestock in Java Island, 
Indonesia. 
 

 
Sample 

 
The sampling frame was provided by CPI’s customer database of 
livestock in Java Island, Indonesia. Using random sampling method 
this research selected 600 customers. There were three sizes of 
customers: small (less than 500 ton per year sales), medium (500 
up to 1000 ton per year sales) and large (more than 1000 ton per 
year sales). Classified into this category, there were 227 
respondents of large size, 182 respondents of medium size and 191 
respondents of small size. Totally, 600 questionnaires were 
distributed to respondents. The response rates were 50% for small 
size, 47% for medium size, and 53% for large size. Total usable 
questionnaires were 297, consisting of 95 small size customers, 85 
medium size customers, and 120 large size customers. The 
samples were selected using the following formula (Djarwanto and 
Pangestu, 1996): 

 
   P (1  −   P )    1 , 96 

2
 

 

E   1 , 96  
 

 →   N    P (1 −   P )  
 

 

   

   N     E  
  

 
Where: 
 
N = Total sample  
p = Percentage of sample proportion (in between 0 - 1) 
P = Total population 
E = Error (<10 %). 
 

 
Measurement 

 
The questionnaire was developed through two steps. In the first 
step, the questionnaire was adopted from two studies which 
included a measurement of consumer attitudes toward marketing 
mix. The first study was developed by Gaski and Etzel (1986), 
about the measurement of customer sentiment toward marketing 
mix variables. The second study was by Bhuian and Kim (1999) 
about measuring customer attitude toward marketing mix element 
pertaining to foreign products in an emerging international market. 
This study adopted 17 item questions from Gaski and Etzel (1986) 
and 5 items from Bhuian and Kim (1999). We made the other 10 
questions to reflect the characteristics of agriculture product. Thus, 
totally 32 items were used in this questionnaire for the study. In the 
second step, several in depth interviews were conducted with 
General Managers and the Marketing Managers of CPI to explore 
the research area and clarify terminology. After the in depth review, 
several items were revised to reflect the thinking characteristic of 
product and local people.  

The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part 
contained demographic characteristics of the respondents such as 
province, gender, age and education. The second part contained 
attitude of customer toward marketing mix. A total of 32-items were 
used on a five-point Likert-point scaled with the end points rating 
from very disagree (1) to very agree (5). 



       
 

  Table 1. Respondent’s profiles.     
 

     
 

  
Customer sizes 

Number of respondents by province 
Total  

  

West Central East 
 

    
 

  Small (sales: less than 500 ton/year) 19 38 38 95 
 

  Medium (sales between 500 - 1000 ton/year) 15 32 35 82 
 

  Large (sales more than 1000 ton/year) 54 24 42 120 
 

  Total 88 94 115 297 
 

 
Note: Exchange rate 1 ton = 400 USD. 

 

 
Table 2. Reliability for component after purification.  

 
 Attribute Items after purification Chronbach α 

 Product 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 0.779 

 Price 1,2,3,4,5 0.726 

 Place 1,3,4,6,7 0.707 

 Promotion 1,2,5,6,7,9,10 0.651 
 

 
Data analyses 
 
Respondent’s demographic profile 
 
To provide a better insight into the participants, respondent’s 
demographic profile including province, gender, age, and education 
were analyzed. The province area was found West Java 29.6%, 
Central Java 31.6% and East Java 38.7%. The gender composition 
was male respondents (75.8%) and female respondents (24.2%). 
The age composition of respondent was 20.5% for age range less 
than 35 years old; 63.6% for age range 35 - 50 years old and 15.8% 
for age range more than 50 year old. As for the level of education, 
the highest level was senior high school (64.3%), the second was 
bachelor degree (16.2%), then followed by junior high school 
(11.8%) and last was master’s degree (7.7%).  

In addition, the respondent’s profile about customer size shows 
us the information dispersion of customer on each province and 
size. The data shows that West Java has highest number in the 
large farmer (54) more than small (19) and medium (15). Central 
Java has highest number in the small farmer (38). Meanwhile, East 
Java has a number customer with no striking differences among 
customer size (Table 1). 

 

Data accuracy analysis 
 
Reliability and validity were tested for data accuracy analysis 
purpose. Reliability test criteria included item-to-total correlation 
value of 0.3, Cronbach α value of 0.6. As can be seen in Table 2, all 
the values were above the required threshold values. Thus, the 
results provided evidence of reliability. The detailed results of the 
items retained for further analysis after purification using 
Cronbach’s α value (items retained after purification are shown in 
the Appendix). After purification of the items, acceptable reliability 
was demonstrated for each of the marketing mix variables: 0.779 
for product, 0.726 for price, 0.707 for place/distribution, and 0.651 
for promotion. For details, it is presented in Table 2.  

Besides reliability, discriminant validity was also tested for the 
scales.. Discriminability refers to the ability empirically to 
differentiate one construct from other constructs that may be 
similar, and to point out what is unrelated to the construct. This 
study did not use different methods of measurement, only 

 

 
discriminant validity could be tested. Discriminant validity can be 
indicated by predictably low correlations between the measure of 
interest and other measures that are supposedly not measuring the 
same variable or concept. To verify discriminant validity, 
correlations among the four scales were obtained for the combined 
sample.  

According to Gaski and Etzel (1986), if α coefficient considerably 
higher than its correlations with other scales, discriminant validity is 
upheld. Table 3 shows the correlation between the scale 
categories. The values, which range from 0.092 - 0.459, clearly 
indicate that each scale has α coefficient adequately higher than its 
correlations with other scales. This shows that discriminant validity 
of the scale is upheld. 

 

RESULT AND DISCUSSION 

 

One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted 
to compare mean consumer attitude towards marketing 
mix variables across various demographic variables. The 
result revealed that there is not significant difference 
among various demographic variables such as provincial 
area, gender, age as well as educational level. These 
results indicated that demographic profile does not 
influence the customer attitude toward 4Ps.  

Meanwhile, One-way ANOVA was conducted to 
examine differences in attitude among groups customer 
size. Mean score of attitude was used to examine the 
differences. As shown in the Table 4, customer attitude 
toward overall attributes marketing mix was perceived 
differently among customer sizes (F = 61.279, p < 0.01). 
Furthermore, customer attitude toward each attribute 
marketing mix was varied among customer sizes, in the 
product attribute (F = 28.545, p < 0.01); Price (F = 
23.109, p < 0.01); place (F = 21.144, p < 0.01) and 
promotion (F = 19.131, p < 0.01).  

Those findings revealed that there were differences in 
customer attitude among three distinct segments. The 



 
 
 

 
Table 3. Correlation between scale categories.  

 
 Scale categories Product Price Place Promotion 

 Product 1 0.171 0.269 0.459 

 Price  1 0.092 0.247 

 Place   1 0.355 

 Promotion    1 

 

Table 4. One-way ANOVA of customer attitude.  
 

Attributes Customer size Mean SD F value
a
 Post Hoc test

b
 

 

Product 
Small 3.50 0.386 28.545** S<M<L 

 

Medium 3.66 0.392 
  

 

   
 

 Large 3.86 0.322   
 

Price 
Small 3.20 0.376 23.109** S<M<L 

 

Medium 3.50 0.326 
  

 

   
 

 Large 3.69 0.344   
 

Place 
Small 3.22 0.343 21.144** S<M<L 

 

Medium 3.44 0.417 
  

 

   
 

 Large 3.66 0.366   
 

Promotion 
Small 3.49 0.440 19.131** S<M<L 

 

Medium 3.64 0.418 
  

 

   
 

 Large 3.74 0.379   
 

Overall 4P 
Small 3.39 0.251 61.279** S<M<L 

 

Medium 3.57 0.222 
  

 

   
 

 Large 3.73 0.202   
  

a
*P < .05  and  **P < .01. 

b
Post hoc test Scheffe’s multiple comparisons differences at p < .05. 

 

 

post hoc test indicated that there were differences (p < 
0.01) between each size, with small size as the lowest, 
followed by medium and larger size as the highest score. 
These differences probably were due to the character-
istics of farm producers such as case buying behavior, 
farm management, type of technology and so forth 
among different sizes. Harbor et al. (2006) notes that 
smaller farms behave like retail consumer, they wield little 
individual market power. On the other hand, larger farms 
have ability to interact with input and output markets in a 
more business-like manner, taking advantage of powers 
of negotiation, economies of scale, and increased market 
access. Those characteristic influence the attitude of 
small customer much more negative than larger farm.  

Another study with Indonesia as a research setting, 
Martana (2002) concludes that livestock farmers in 
Jogjakarta, Indonesia, have different attitudes among 
customers size segment. Another earlier study by 
Suwarsono (1997) investigates the attitude of fishpond 
farmers in East Java, Indonesia towards marketing mix of 
firm. It was found different attitudes among customer 
segments. Those findings indicated that the firm must pay 
more attention to clarify each distinct market 

 
 

 

segment in order to determine strategy appropriate with 
the customer perception.  

To provide a better insight into customer attitude toward 
each of 4Ps element, Table 5 provides mean score and 
post hoc analysis for each item. On the product strategy, 
there are five items with significant differences among 
three segments. There are “Product weight is the same 
as mentioned in the label”, “The grain is not easily 
broken”, “The feed quality is stable”, “The livestock likes 
the smell of the grains” and “Best feed performance for 
livestock production”. In this case, usually the larger farm 
receives the product faster than the small farmer. This 
condition affects the quantity and quality of the product. 
The quantity and quality will decrease if the product is 
delivered long time before used. The larger farmer 
receives product faster than the smaller because they 
order in the big amount. Hence, manufacturer can deliver 
the product directly to their farms. Besides, larger farmers 
usually have better management to keep their product. 
They have better skills and techniques to manage their 
farms. Normally, larger farmers adopt new technology 
and better cultural practices generated from agricultural 
research and 



 
 
 

 
Table 5. A comparison of marketing mix items among customer sizes.  

 

 
Marketing mix strategy perception 

Customer size
a
 

Differences
b
 

 

 
Small Medium Large 

 

    
 

 Perceived of product strategy 3.50 3.66 3.86 S<M<L 
 

 1. Product is well recognized by its packaging 4.02 3.94 4.11  
 

 2. Product weight is same as mentioned by label 3.56 3.88 4.11 S<M<L 
 

 3. The packaging is a long life 3.56 3.65 3.70  
 

 4. The Feed is not easily damaged 3.51 3.61 3.71  
 

 5. The grain is not easily broke 3.29 3.50 3.61 S<L 
 

 6. The grain size is as needed 3.59 3.67 3.73  
 

 7. The feed quality is stable 3.45 3.57 3.93 S<L 
 

 8. The livestock likes the color of the grains 3.49 3.56 3.81  
 

 9. The livestock likes the smell of the grains 3.34 3.66 3.97 S<M<L 
 

 10. Best feed performance for livestock production 3.16 3.56 3.95 S<M<L 
 

 Perceived of price strategy 3.20 3.50 3.69 S<M<L 
 

 1. The feed price is competitive than others 3.16 3.59 3.95 S<M<L 
 

 2. feed price is commensurate with its quality 3.31 3.66 3.67  
 

 3. The feed price is stable 3.03 3.26 3.31  
 

 4. Discount program is very useful for farmers 3.36 3.50 3.51  
 

 5. Feed price is suitable for our purchasing power 3.14 3.48 3.99 S<M<L 
 

 Perceived of place strategy 3.22 3.44 3.56 S<M<L 
 

 1. The retailers are widespread 3.02 3.26 3.46 S<L 
 

 2. Manufacturer needs to do direct selling to us 3.39 3.60 3.66 S<L 
 

 3. The Quick services satisfy the buyers 3.67 3.83 3.88  
 

 4. The continuation of the product availability 3.16 3.41 3.53 S<M, S<L 
 

 5. The expedition is delivery on time 3.45 3.54 3.65  
 

 6. The distributors give friendly service 3.94 3.21 3.37 S<L 
 

 7. The purchasing procedures are not complicated 3.94 3.21 3.37 S<L 
 

 Perceived of promotion strategy 3.49 3.64 3.74 S<M<L 
 

 1.The product image is good 3.51 3.72 3.83 S<L 
 

 2. The first memorable thing of livestock feed is CPI’s products 3.43 3.57 3.66  
 

 3. Manufacturer is aggressive in its promotion than competitors 3.72 3.85 3.85  
 

 4. Manufacturer has been recognized as a livestock suppler for a long period of time 3.77 3.87 3.93  
 

 5. CPI has a good ability to inform the use of feed 3.85 3.01 3.11  
 

 6. Retailers are responsible for the customer's complaints 3.35 3.48 3.62 S<L, M<L 
 

 7. Manufacturer gives good response to our complaints 3.46 3.66 3.74 S<L 
 

 8. Manufacturer  promotion is so far interesting 3.24 3.41 3.58 S<L 
 

 9. Manufacturer gives info. to us transparently  and honestly 3.32 3.40 3.63 S<L 
 

 10. CPI cares to the consumers' need 3.29 3.44 3.49  
 

 
Note: 

a
Mean values for marketing mix items, based on a 5 Likert-type scale with strongly disagree =1 to strongly agree = 5. 

b
Scheffe’s multiple 

comparisons differences at p < 0.05. 



 
 
 

 

development. Therefore technology development has 
increased the output and accrued the benefit (Singh and 
Williamson, 1985).  

On the price strategy, there are two items with 
significant different among three segments. They are 
“The feed price is competitive than others” and “feed 
price is suitable for our purchasing power”. Larger farm 
with a big volume of farm product may take advantage 
power of negotiation with suppliers or manufacturers 
(Harbor et al., 2006). Besides, small farmers may have a 
long distribution channel that influences the product price. 
Therefore, the larger farmer will get the lower price. On 
the place strategy, there are five items with significant 
differences among three segments. They are “The 
retailers are widespread”, “Manufacturer needs to do 
direct selling to us”, “The continuation of the product 
availability”, “The distributors give friendly service” and 
“The purchasing procedures are not complicated”. In 
reality, larger farmers have ability to interact with 
manufacturer or retailer in a more business like manner. 
This situation cause the manufacturer or retailer give 
serve better to the larger than small farmer.  

On the promotion strategy, there are five items with 
significant differences among three segments. They are 
“The product image is good”, “Retailers are responsible 
for the customer's complaints”, “Manufacturer gives good 
response to our complaints”, “Manufacturer promotion is 
so far interesting” and “Manufacturer gives information to 
us transparently and honestly”. Small farmers find 
difficulties to access market information. They need to 
know advantages and disadvantages of each market 
outlet, but in reality they do not have opportunity to 
retrieve such information. 
 

 

CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND FURTHER 
RESEARCH 
 
Based on the above discussion it is concluded that, first, 
the three market segments are perceived differently. This 
is because an accuracy of market segmentation will 
produce effectiveness of marketing strategies. This may 
be viewed as the congruence of market offer of a set of 
products and services and its corresponding consumer 
perception among the target segment. More the target 
segment is able to understand and believe the cues 
communicated by the firms through 4Ps marketing mix 
(Richardson et al., 1994). Similarly, understanding 
consumer’s need, value, and behavior associated with 
the product can help the marketers to develop segments 
around brand loyalty, price-sensitive, or feature-sensitive 
respondents (Feldman, 2006). The second conclusion is 
there is no significance difference among various demo-
graphic variables. This findings show the importance of 
market segmentation to determine the appropriate 
strategy.  

The suggestion that may be taken from this research is 
the need for having guidance for agribusiness managers 

 
 
 
 

 

to investigate deeply the customers understanding, 
preferences and perception. It is understandable because 
marketing strategies can determine appropriate strate-
gies among three distinct segments based on particular 
characteristics.  

Consequently, this kind of research shall be done in 
many places considering only few studies on customer 
attitudes to farm producers are available. The research 
setting should also be extended to include more than one 
company and more than one kind of agricultural input. 
Further, follow-up research on the same issues of this 
study after a period of time is needed to observe the 
pattern of changes in the perception of customers. 
 

 
REFERENCES 

 
Alexander CE, Wilson CA, Foley DH (2005). Agricultural Input Market 

Segments: Who Is Buying What? J. Agribusiness 23: 114.  
Beierlein JG, Woolverton MW (1991). Agribusiness Marketing. Prentice 

hall, Englewood cliffs. New Jersey pp. 3-10.  
Boehlje M (1992). Alternative Models of Structural Change in 

Agriculture and Related Industries. Agribusiness 8: 219-233.  
Bhuian SN, Kim D (1999). Customer attitude toward marketing mix 

element pertaining to foreign products in an emerging international 
market, Int. J. Commerce Manag. 9: 116-137.  

Brassington F, Pettitt S (2003). Principles of Marketing, Third Edition, 
Prentice Hall/Financial Times. New Jersey.  

Chan E, Yau OHM, Chan R (1990). Consumer sentiment in Australia: A 
replication and cross-national comparison. Euro. J. Mark 24(10): 44-
58.  

Chan T, Cui G (2004). Consumer attitudes towards marketing in a 
transitional economy: a replication and extension. J. Consumer Mark. 
21: 10-26.  

Constantinides  E  (2006).  The  Marketing  Mix  Revisited:  Towards  the  
21st Century Marketing. J. Mark Manag, 22: 407-438.  

Coviello NE, Brodie RJ, Munro HJ (2000). An investigation of marketing 
practice by firm size. J. Bus Venturing, 15: 523-545.  

Djarwanto, Pangestu S (1996). Survey Research Methodology. LP3ES. 
Jakarta. Indonesia.  

Feldman D (2006). Segmentation building blocks. Mark Res. Vol. 18/2. 
p. 23-29.  

Ferrel OC, Hartline, MD, Lucas GH Jr (2002). Marketing Strategy, 2
nd

 
ed, Thomson southwestern, Bangalore, p.74.  

Flint D, Woodruff R, Gardial SF (1997). Customer Value Change in 
Industrial Marketing Relationships. A Call for New Strategies and 
Research. Ind Mark Manag, 26: 163 –175.  

Gaski RM, Etzel MJ (1986). The Index of Consumer Sentiment toward 
Marketing, J. Mark, 50: 71-81.  

Gaski JF, Etzel MJ (2005), National aggregate consumer sentiment 
toward marketing: a thirty-year retrospective and analysis. J. 
Consumer Res, 31: 859-68.  

Gloy BA, Akridge JT (1999). Segmenting the commercial producer 
marketplace for agricultural inputs. Int. Food Agribusiness Manag. 
Rev. 2: 145-163.  

Griffith RL, Pol LA (1994). Segmenting Industrial Market. Ind. Mark 
Manag. 23: 39-46.  

Harbor AL, Martin MA, Akridge JT (2006). Assessing Agricultural Input 
Brand Loyalty Among U.S. Mid-Size and Commercial Producers. 
Annual Meeting, Purdue University, USA.  

Laughlin JL, Taylor CR (1991). An approach to industrial market 
segmentation. Industrial Mark Manag. 20: 127-136.  

Lewis JA (1978) Implications of Alternative Definitions of Small Farm: In 
Toward a Federal Small Farms Policy. NRC Rep. No. 9, National 
Rural Center, Washington DC.  

Lysonski S, Durvasula S, Watson J (2003). “Should marketing 
managers be concerned about attitudes towards marketing and 
consumerism in New Zealand? A longitudinal view”, European J. 



 
 
 

 
Mark. 37: 385-406.  
Martana HB (2002). Customers attitude and perception toward product 

of feedmill manufacturing. Magister Manag Agribusiness. Gadjah 
Mada University. Yogyakarta, Indonesia.  

Richardson SP, Dick SA and Jain AK (1994), Extrinsic and intrinsic cue 
effects on perceptions of store brand quality. J. Mark, 58: 28-36.  

Romano C, Ratnatunga J (1996). The Role of Marketing, Eur J. Mark, 
29: 9-30.  

Rosenburg A, Turvey CG (1991). Identifying management profiles of 
Ontario swine producers through cluster analysis. Rev. Agric. Econ. 
13: 201-213.  

Sengupta K, Chattopadhyay (2006). Importance of appropriate 
marketing strategies for sustainability of small business in a 
developing country. Asia Pacific J. Mark Logistics 18: 328-341.  

Shaw V (1995). Successful Marketing Strategies, A Study of British and 
German Companies in the Machine Tool Industry. Ind. Mark Manag. 
21: 329-339.  

Singh SP, Williamson H Jr. (1985). Perspectives on the Small Farm 
(Small, Low-Income Farms in Tennessee). Cooperative Research 
Program, School Agr, Home Econ., Tennessee State University, 
Nashville. 

 
 
 
 

 
Soekartawi (2005a). Marketing Management for Agricultural Products: 

Theory and Its Application)". RajaGrafindo Persada Press, 3rd 
Edition, Jakarta, (ISBN: 979-421-207-5).  

Sudharsan D, Winter F (1998). Strategic segmentation of industrial 
market. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. Santa 
Barbara. Vol 13. p 8. 

Suwarsono (1997). Customer attitude of fishpond farmers toward 
marketing mix of firm. Magister Agribusiness Manag. Gadjah Mada 
University. Yogyakarta. Indonesia. 

Tripp L and Pal S (2000). Information and Agricultural Input Market : 
Pearl Millet Seed in Rajashtan. J. Int Dev. 12: 133-144.  

Walker OC Jr., Boyd HW Jr., Larreche JC (2001). Marketing Strategy. 
Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi pp. 12-13.  

Wee CH, Chan M (1989), Consumer Sentiment towards Marketing in 
Hong Kong. European J. Mark. pp. 28-39. 


