National Farmers 

Market Manager 

Survey

2006

USDA 

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Agricultural

Marketing

Service

May 2009
i 

National Farmers 

Market Manager 

Survey

2006

USDA

Edward Ragland, Economist

Debra Tropp, Branch Chief

Marketing Services Division

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service
Preferred Citation

Ragland, Edward, and Debra Tropp. USDA National Farmers Market Manager Survey, 2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, May 2009. Web. <http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/MS037.05-2009>

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, 

color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative 

means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center 

at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Offi ce of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Mention or display of a trademark, proprietary product, or vendor in text or photographs does not constitute an endorsement by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other suitable products or vendors.

The views and opinions expressed in this report or proceedings are those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ect the 

policies and opinions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
iii

Summary 1

Background and Research Methods 3

Profi le of Survey Respondents 7

Farmers Market Industry Overview 8

Trends in Farmers Market Sales 17

Outreach to Customers 39

Vendor Characteristics 41

Operational Issues at Farmers Markets 50

Implications of Analysis for Market Managers 78

Appendix 1: Regional Defi nitions 80

Appendix 2: Rural-Urban Continuum Codes 81

Appendix 3: Survey Questionnaire 82

Appendix 4: Distribution of All Farmers Markets, by Sales Categories and Rural-Urban Continuum 

Codes 92

Appendix 5: Comparison of Markets Less than 5 Years Old, by Characteristics 93

Appendix 6: Market and Vendor Characteristics for Markets: Open Less than 7 Months, Open 7 

Months or More, and Year-Round Markets 96

Glossary 100

Contents
iv

Figure 1. Distribution of farmers markets, population distribution versus survey distribution, by region 8

Figure 2. Percentage of farmers markets, by average years of operation 9

Figure 3. Distribution of farmers markets, by age and region 10

Figure 4. Average and median number of vendors per farmers market, by region 11

Figure 5. Distribution of number of vendors at farmers markets, by region, in percent 12

Figure 6. Distribution of annual vendor sales at farmers markets, by region 13

Figure 7. Percent of seasonal and year-round markets, by region 14

Figure 8. Average months of operation, by region 15

Figure 9. Distribution of seasonal farmers markets, by months of operation and region 16

Figure 10. Average annual sales per market, by region 17

Figure 11. Percentage of market vendors that sold only their own products, by region 18

Figure 12. Average monthly sales at farmers markets, by region (all markets) 19

Figure 13. Distribution of monthly sales at all farmers markets, by region and sales category of market 20

Figure 14. Percentage of retail sales at farmers markets 21

Figure 15. Average monthly sales, by region (seasonal markets) 23

Figure 16. Distribution of monthly sales of seasonal markets, by region, in percent 24

Figure 17. Number of months in operation, seasonal markets 25

Figure 18. Percentage of U.S. farmers markets selling selected products 27

Figure 19. Percentage of U.S. vendors selling selected products at farmers markets 28

Figures
v

Figure 20. Percentage of farmers markets that sell organically labeled products, by region 29

Figure 21. Distribution of organically labeled products sold at U.S. farmers markets 31

Figure 22. Distribution of vendors selling organically labeled products at farmers markets 31

Figure 23. Percentage of farmers markets that sold specially labeled products (other than organic), by 

region 32

Figure 24. Farmers markets that sold specially labeled products (other than organic), by product type 

and region 33

Figure 25. Top ranked attributes of customers who shopped at farmers markets, by region 34

Figure 26. Average weekly customer counts of seasonal farmers markets, by region 35

Figure 27. Weekly customer counts at seasonal farmers markets, by region and size of customer traffi c 36

Figure 28. Percentage of seasonal markets, by rural-urban continuum code and region 37

Figure 29. Distance traveled by customers of farmers markets, by region 38

Figure 30. Types of advertising used by markets, in percent 39

Figure 31. Manager ranking of advertising method importance, in percent 40

Figure 32. Distance traveled by vendors, by region 45

Figure 33. Regional distribution of vendors, by race 47

Figure 34. Regional distribution of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic vendors 48

Figure 35. Market managers’ perception of product supply versus customer demand, in percent 49

Figure 36. Who develops rules at farmers markets, in percent 50

Figure 37. Restrictions at U.S. farmers markets, in percent 51

Figure 38. Percentage of vendors at farmers markets that sold only what they produced 51

Figure 39. Distribution of vendors that sold only their own products, by region 52

Figure 40. Percentage of self-sustaining farmers markets, by age of market 53
vi

Figure 41. Markets’ use of fee types, in percent 54

Figure 42. Percentage of non-sustaining markets, by funding source and age 55

Figure 43. Paid employees versus volunteers at farmers markets, by region 56

Figure 44. Number of paid employees versus volunteers, by region 57

Figure 45. Average annual salary of market managers, by region 58

Figure 46. Farmers market monthly sales at markets with paid managers, unpaid managers, and all 

markets 59

Figure 47. Farmers market monthly sales at markets with paid managers, unpaid managers, and 

year-round markets 60

Figure 48. Distribution of seasonal farmers markets with paid and unpaid managers, by sales 

categories, in percent 61

Figure 49. Distribution of year-round farmers markets with paid and unpaid managers, in percent 61

Figure 50. Top operational concerns of farmers markets, by region 64

Figure 51. Marketing assistance needs of farmers markets, by region 65

Figure 52. Women, Infants, and Children’s Farmers Market Nutrition Program participation, by region, 

in percent 67

Figure 53. Average monthly value of farmers markets’ Women, Infants, and Children’s Farmers Market 

Nutrition Program sales, by region 67

Figure 54. Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program participation, by region, in percent 68

Figure 55. Average monthly value of Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program sales, by region 69

Figure 56. Farmers markets utilizing electronic benefi ts transfer program, by region, in percent 70

Figure 57. Average monthly value of electronic benefi ts transfer sales at farmers markets, by region 70

Figure 58. Farmers market participation in food gleaning, by region 71

Figure 59. Average value of food gleaned from farmers markets per month, by region 72

Figure 60. Distribution of farmers markets, by number of vendors and years of operation, in percent 75
vii

 

Table 1. Comparison of markets less than 5 years old, by selected characteristics 22

Table 2. Market and vendor characteristics for markets: open less than 7 months, open 7 months or 

more, and year-round markets 26

Table 3. Farmers markets that sold organic products compared with markets that did not sell organic 

products 30

Table 4. Average monthly sales per vendor, by region 42

Table 5. Average annual sales per vendor, by region 43

Table 6. Average monthly sales per vendor, by number of vendors 43

Table 7. Monthly sales per vendor, by age of market 44

Table 8. Farmers market monthly sales at markets with paid and unpaid managers 62

Table 9. Monthly sales and distribution of sales at farmers markets, by years of operation and market 

sales level 73

Table 10. Number of vendors, customers, and sales, by years in operation (all markets) 74

Table 11. Comparison of markets less than 5 years old, by monthly sales and degree of urbanicity 76

Table 12. Comparison of markets open less than 7 months versus year-round markets, by degree of 

urbanicity 77

 

Tables
viii
1

Our latest analysis of the U.S. farmers market industry shows the sector continues to experience brisk growth, but 

that many newer farmers markets have not yet been able to generate the sales volume enjoyed by older farmers 

markets, raising questions as to whether current levels of industry growth can be sustained over time. Between 

the year 2000, when AMS conducted its fi rst comprehensive national survey of farmers markets, and the end of 

2005, the number of farmers markets in the United States increased 43 percent, from 2,863 to 4,093, an average 

growth rate of 8.6 percent a year. As a result of the massive expansion in the number of farmers markets since 

2000, nearly 30 percent of all seasonal markets are less than 5 years old and most still appear to be establishing 

themselves economically. Managers of these young markets reported monthly sales only half the national average of 

all markets. They also reported fewer vendors (22 compared with a national average of 31) and fewer customers per 

week (430 compared with a national average of 959). 

The large percentage of young markets explains in part why the growth in the number of farmers markets is not 

mirrored by a corresponding growth in sales. Total farmers market sales in 2005 are estimated to have slightly 

exceeded $1 billion, compared with $888 million in 2000, an average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent. To ensure 

the scope of the study included only markets engaged primarily in direct-to-consumer retail sales, it was restricted to 

farmers markets that relied on direct sales to consumers for 51 percent or more of their revenue, a restriction that 

may have resulted in a conservative overall sales estimate.

Despite some slippage in the volume of sales per market site between 2000 and 2005, the number of farmers 

participating in farmers markets still appears to have increased signifi cantly. The average number of vendors per 

market, weighted for regional differences, increased from 27 in 2000 to 31 in 2005. Market managers reported in 

2005 that 25.1 percent of vendors used their farmers market as the only outlet for their farm products.

It is interesting to note that the percentage of minority vendors at farmers markets was higher than the percentage 

of minority farmers in the general farming population. More than 11 percent of vendors at farmers markets were 

reported to belong to minority groups, compared with 4.8 percent in the general farming population, as reported 

in the 2002 Census of Agriculture.1

 The disparity is particularly striking considering that the Far West region, which 

features more ethnic diversity in the farming population than the rest of the country (Figure 33), was somewhat 

underrepresented in our 2005 survey. Farmers markets appear to represent a particularly important marketing 

channel for minority growers, perhaps because of the low cost of market entry or the volume of product needed to 

participate, or because the specialized merchandise they grow lends itself well to direct sales outlets. 

The average number of customers at farmers markets per week declined slightly from 1,055 customers per week, 

reported in 2000, to 959 customers per week, reported by managers in 2005. Nevertheless, the decline in the 

average number of customers was somewhat offset by the 43 percent growth in the number of farmers markets 

between 2000 and 2005.

1. 2002 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, Chapter 2: State Level Data.

Summary
2

Seasonal farmers markets remain the predominant market type in the United States. Approximately 88 percent 

of respondents reported they operated seasonal markets, open, on average, 4.5 months per year. As might be 

expected, seasonal markets that were open for 6 or fewer months per year attracted fewer vendors and generated 

less revenue than farmers markets open 7 months or more. Markets open 6 months or less reported an average 

of 25 vendors, with sales of $20,770 per month, and serving 565 customers weekly. Markets open 7 months or 

more reported an average of 51 vendors, with $57,290 in monthly market sales and serving 942 customers weekly. 

Year-round markets reported more than three times the sales of markets operating 6 months or less, had more than 

twice the number of vendors, and slightly more than six times the number of weekly customers. On the other hand, 

seasonal farmers markets that operated for 7 or more months performed similarly to markets that were open 12 

months per year. Year-round markets reported an average of 58 vendors, had monthly market sales of $69,497, and 

served 3,578 customers weekly. 

Location appears to be a critical factor in market performance. Most market managers reporting high monthly 

sales were in densely populated urban areas. This observation is based on the rural-urban continuum code2

 for the 

locations of markets that responded to the survey. The most successful farmers markets in terms of sales were 

located on the coasts. The Far West and Mid-Atlantic regions reported average monthly sales of at least twice that 

of other regions—$56,742 and $41,452 respectively. The sales of the remaining regions clustered around $23,000 

a month. The number of customers per week, as reported by region, somewhat mirrored monthly sales per market 

regionally. The Far West and Mid-Atlantic regions were again the top two regions, reporting 1,964 and 974 customers 

per week respectively. The North Central Region was a close third, reporting 856 customers weekly, and the 

remaining regions around 700 customers per week. 

Markets that sold organic products3

 reported larger numbers of weekly customers, larger number of vendors, and 

larger monthly market sales at their markets. Both seasonal and year-round markets that sold organic products 

performed better than markets that did not. Seasonal markets that sold organic products reported average monthly 

market sales of $34,715 and 854 customers per week. Seasonal markets that didn’t sell organic products reported 

$11,812 in monthly market sales and served 394 customers per week. Similar results were reported by year-round 

markets—those that sold organic products reported monthly market sales of $92,349 and 4,344 customers weekly; 

those that did not reported $41,584 and 2,590 customers. Seventy-one percent of markets that sold organic 

products were located in urban areas, compared with only 55 percent of markets that did not.4

 These relationships 

held true for markets that sold organic products regionally, except for the Northeast region that reported markets 

without organic products were more often located in urban areas than markets that sold organic products. However, 

in spite of this one inconsistency, Northeast markets that sold organic products had more customers and vendors, 

and higher monthly market sales than markets in other regions across the Nation.

Government programs had varying degrees of impact on vendor sales at farmers markets. The Women, Infants, 

and Children Farmers Market Nutrition Program (WIC FMNP) had the largest effect, showing average monthly sales 

of $1,744 nationwide and 61 percent participation. Senior Farmers Market Nutrition program (SFMNP) average 

sales were $1,004 per month and 45 percent of markets reported they accepted SFMNP vouchers. The average 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)5

 sales, which utilize electronic benefi ts transfer (EBT), were a 

distant third at $279 a month and only 7 percent of markets reported accepting EBT cards. Clearly the WIC FMNP 

had the greatest impact on vendor sales, both nationwide and regionally.

2. Rural-urban continuum codes are defi ned in Appendix 2: Rural-Urban Continuum Codes.

3. Organic foods at farmers markets means that the products were labeled organic. The survey did not ask whether the organic foods sold were 

USDA “certifi ed organic” products.

4. Urban areas are defi ned as counties with a rural-urban continuum code between 1 and 3. Counties outside of metro areas have rural-urban 

continuum codes between 4 and 9.

5. Formally titled the Food Stamp Program.
3

To achieve the most accurate survey results possible, the Agricultural Marketing Service’s Marketing Services 

Division (MSD) staff attempted to reach each farmers market manager listed in the USDA National Farmers Market 

Directory to verify contact information and update it as necessary prior to embarking on the 2006 National Farmers 

Market Survey. The Directory was used as the initial source of contact information for farmers market managers 

because it was the most comprehensive national listing of farmers markets available. In addition to calling market 

managers, each State’s farmers market representative was contacted by e-mail and asked to provide an updated 

listing for the farmers markets in the State. The resulting updated database, containing contact information for 

3,575 markets, was the primary distribution list for this survey. 

Through a cooperative agreement with Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, MSD staff developed a Webbased survey instrument to capture responses from farmers market managers effi ciently and effectively. Market 

managers were invited by e-mail to complete the survey questionnaire, either on-line or by mail. AMS provided 

market identifi cation numbers and passwords to prevent the possibility of double counting, and respondents were 

allowed access to the survey website only if they furnished a unique identifi cation number and password. The survey 

website also allowed market managers not contacted by letter to register their markets and obtain identifi cation 

numbers and passwords allowing them to participate in the survey. As a result, an additional 168 farmers markets 

not on the original master list were registered on the survey website. A total of 3,743 farmers market managers were 

invited to participate in the national survey, representing 85.4 percent of the 4,385 farmers markets in the U.S. 

during the 2005 season. The effort we made to update the farmers market contact list is illustrated by the highly 

successful survey response rate of 34.5 percent (1,292 usable responses out of a total of 3,743).

Data Cleaning

Sales data reported by market managers were trimmed slightly to enable information reported by these markets 

to be combined with other markets without unduly skewing average sales fi gures. Eighteen farmers markets that 

reported exceptionally low annual sales fi gures were assigned minimum annual sales volumes of $1,000; at the 

upper end, annual sales were capped at $4 million for 6 markets that reported exceptionally high sales fi gures. 

What Is a Farmers Market?

For the purposes of this survey, a farmers market is defi ned as a retail outlet in which two or more vendors sell 

agricultural products directly to customers through a common marketing channel. Markets included in this study 

were in business during the 2005 season and conducted at least 51 percent of their retail sales directly with 

consumers. Including food markets that generate most of their revenue from wholesale sales to intermediaries 

within the scope of our study, even if engaged in some degree of direct-to-consumer selling, would have produced an 

inaccurate gauge of the economic impact of farmers markets.

Background and Research Methods
4

Response Bias

A response bias survey was developed and disseminated to farmers market managers not responding to the survey. 

The results of the non-response survey were intended to identify bias in our sample pool. The non-response survey 

was mailed to 1,000 non-respondents with the expectation that at least 100 questionnaires would be returned, yet 

we received 239. The respondents to the non-response survey were asked: 

■ How many years has your market been open?

■ Is your market manager a paid employee?

■ How many vendors did your market have in 2005?

■ How many customers attended your market weekly?

■ What were the annual sales of your market in 2005?

■ Which of the following statements about your market was most true in 2005?

□ We had more demand than supply – we need more vendors

□ During 2005 our supply exceeded demand – we needed more customers

□ Supply and demand of products were roughly equal in 2005

Respondents to the non-response survey didn’t display many obvious differences from the respondents to the 

original survey. 

However, one group that was underrepresented in the survey were individuals who managed two or more farmers 

markets. The response rate for managers of multiple markets was only 10.3 percent. Our efforts to account for 

the increased paperwork burden faced by managers of multiple markets by redirecting the survey to a secondary 

point of contact proved largely unsuccessful. Out of the 965 managers of multiple markets in the population listed 

on our contact sheet, only 99 responded to the survey—10.3 percent, compared with an average response rate of 

34.5 percent. Many of them—7.7 percent of all managers—were in California, a State that reported 57 percent of its 

markets had managers with two or more markets. The relative unwillingness of this group of managers to participate 

in the survey resulted in an overall underrepresentation of the Far West region.

Development of the National Farmers Market Survey Questionnaire

The farmers market manager survey questionnaire was developed by MSD staff with feedback solicited from MSU 

faculty and nine key stakeholders in the U.S. farmers market industry, representing various fi elds of expertise and 

a variety of perspectives and viewpoints. Reviewers were asked to critique the survey to ensure we included all 

relevant issues. All suggestions from the reviewers were incorporated into the survey. A copy of the survey may be 

found in Appendix 3. 
5

U.S. Offi ce of Management and Budget’s Clearance of Survey Questionnaire

All Federal Government survey questionnaires are required to be reviewed and approved by the U.S. Offi ce of 

Management and Budget (OMB). Survey questionnaires must comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act,6 and staff 

must obtain approval from OMB’s information collection review process. The Paperwork Reduction Act was created 

to ensure that the Federal Government does not place an unnecessary or undue burden on the time and resources 

of the public in responding to information collection. To comply with this requirement, the survey questionnaire was 

reviewed by OMB representatives to ensure that the information being collected was important to the public, that 

the collection of information would not duplicate research that was already being carried out elsewhere, and that 

recognized and accepted survey research methods would be applied. As part of the review process, fi ve market 

managers were asked to fi ll out the draft survey and record the time needed to answer the questionnaire. The 

average completion time was 19 minutes. 

MSD published a notice in the Federal Register, Friday, June 3, 2005, announcing its intent to survey the farmers 

market sector, and invited the public to submit comments during the subsequent 60-day period. Only one 

comment was received. The notice was published in Vol. 70, No. 106 of the Federal Register. OMB approved our 

information collection. 

E-mail Invitation to Farmers Market Managers

Unlike the 2000 national farmers markets survey conducted by MSD, the 2006 survey was administered primarily 

via the Internet. On May 2, 2006, farmers market managers were invited via e-mail to participate in the on-line USDA 

survey of farmers market managers. In the invitation letter, MSD encouraged each manager to complete the survey 

and contact other farmers market managers, encouraging them to participate in the survey. In subsequent weeks, 

managers that had not responded to the survey were sent a reminder e-mail asking them to participate. This phase 

of the information collection process closed July 7, 2006.

Letter Invitation to Farmers Market Managers

Three weeks after the initial e-mail invitation to market managers, a printed questionnaire was mailed to market 

managers who had not yet responded to the web-based survey. Included in the mailing was a cover letter describing 

the survey, its rationale, and why their participation was so important. Managers receiving questionnaires by surface 

mail were encouraged to access USDA’s national farmers market survey electronically using the login identifi cation 

numbers and passwords provided in the invitation letters. Some managers receiving the paper invitation and survey 

by mail completed the questionnaire on-line; others mailed the completed survey in the prepaid self-addressed 

envelope included with the survey questionnaire and invitation letter. Returned hard copies of the survey instrument 

were entered into the survey database by MSU researchers using the survey website as the data input screen. 

6. More information regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act may be found at <http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/paperwork-reduction>.
6

Survey Response Rate

The farmers market community was generally supportive of USDA’s national survey of farmers markets. MSD invited 

3,575 market managers to participate in the survey. To boost the response rate as much as possible, MSD also 

e-mailed invitations to farmers market representatives in each State, asking them to encourage their farmers market 

managers to participate. Infl uential market managers from each region who had participated in the survey were 

also contacted and asked to provide testimonial letters about the survey, which MSD then included in subsequent 

correspondence with market managers and State representatives. As a result, an additional 168 markets not on 

the initial distribution list reported their market data on the survey website after learning about the website from 

colleagues. By the time the information collection process ended, 3,743 farmers market managers had been 

contacted. Of this number, 1,292 managers returned usable surveys, a response rate of 34.5 percent.7 With a 

response rate of this magnitude, we believe the fi ndings of this survey provide a reasonably comprehensive and 

accurate picture of recent developments at U.S. farmers markets.

Preventing Duplication

To avoid analyzing duplicate data from individual markets, whenever a market manager requested an identifi cation 

number and password, a researcher at MSU compared his or her market name and contact information with 

information already entered into the database. If a questionnaire already had been completed from that market, 

an identifi cation number and password were not issued and the person requesting the identifi cation number and 

password was notifi ed that a survey for that market had already been completed. Surveys received by surface 

mail were also screened to remove duplicates; when duplicates were identifi ed, the appropriate individuals were 

contacted to resolve the issue and information removed or merged into an existing entry as needed. 

7. “Usable” refers to respondents that answered more than the preliminary contact information. 
7

Farmers markets continue to be a thriving segment of the U.S. agricultural economy. Between 2000 and 2005, 

the number of farmers markets in the United States increased by 43 percent, from 2,863 to 4,093—representing 

an annual increase of nearly 9 percent.8 This indicates that the growth rate of farmers markets, while still brisk, is 

slowing. As the result of this brisk growth rate, sales at farmers markets increased from $888 million in 2000 to $1 

billion for 2005.9

 Because of the massive expansion in the number of farmers markets created between 2000 and 

2005, a sizable percentage of surveyed markets (nearly 30 percent of all seasonal markets) were less than 5 years 

old and may have still been establishing themselves economically. As younger markets tend to have fewer sales than 

older markets, this may help explain why overall farmers market revenues did not grow as rapidly as the number of 

markets. Our survey data shows that national average revenues per market in 2005 were $31,923 for each month 

of operation compared with $15,078 per month for markets less than 5 years old. 

Furthermore, the farmers markets sector remains heavily predominated by seasonal markets, which also curtails 

overall sales growth. Almost 88 percent of the managers responding to our survey reported their markets operate 

only part of the year, and 90.8 percent of seasonal markets operate 6 months or less. As one might expect, there is 

a sizable difference between sales volumes of markets that operate 6 months or less a year and those that operate 

more than 6 months a year. Markets open more than 6 months a year had average monthly sales of $57,290 in 

2005, while markets that operate fewer than 6 months a year averaged only $20,770 a month. Proximity to densely 

populated urban centers and number of years in operation also are associated with higher sales volumes. This is 

described in more detail in “Infl uence of Population Density on Market Performance” on page 76.

Sales also appear to be enhanced by growing consumer participation in government food assistance programs, 

the Women, Infants, and Children Farmers Market Nutrition Program (WIC FMNP) and the Senior Farmers Market 

Nutrition Program (SFMNP). Both programs are designed to increase the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables 

to households at risk for food insecurity, while boosting sales of fresh fruits and vegetables. Sixty-one percent of 

managers reported their markets accepted WIC FNMP vouchers in 2005. USDA’s national study of farmers markets 

conducted in 2000 reported 58 percent of surveyed farmers markets participated in WIC FMNP. In 2005, farmers 

market managers reported an average monthly sales per market of $1,744, and the 45 percent who said their 

market accepted SFMNP vouchers, reported an average of $1,004. Given that average sales per market amounted 

to $31,923 in 2005, WIC FMNP and SFMNP vouchers clearly contribute to farmers market sales, especially in areas 

where recipients of Federal nutrition benefi ts constitute a sizable proportion of neighborhood residents.

8. The number of farmers markets in 2008 is estimated at 4,685 markets, an increase of 14.5 percent since 2005, at an annual increase of 4.8 

percent a year.

9. Annual sales at farmers markets were weighted by the number of markets in each region.

Profi le of Survey Respondents
8

Markets were grouped into seven regions: the Far West, Rocky Mountain, Southwest, North Central, Southeast, 

Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast (defi nitions of these regions can be found in Appendix 1: Regional Defi nitions). The only 

major divergence between the regional distribution of survey respondents and the regional distribution of farmers 

markets in the United States (based on data found in the AMS National Directory of Farmers Markets) was a 9 

percent overrepresentation of markets in the North Central region and a 7 percent underrepresentation in the Far 

West region. Consequently, we believe our survey sample represents a fairly accurate representation of the national 

farmers market industry as a whole. 

Survey response rates from the Far West region appear to have been hampered by the large number of managers 

in that region who oversee multiple markets. Market managers were asked to complete a separate survey for each 

market managed. Because of the additional time commitment required to prepare surveys, only 99 managers of 

multiple markets—slightly more than one in ten—completed this task, compared with the more typical response 

rate of one in three from managers of single markets. As most managers of multiple markets are in California, we 

surmise that this contributed in part to the relatively low rate of survey responses from market managers in the 

Far West region.

Farmers Market Industry Overview

Figure 1. Distribution of farmers markets, population distribution versus survey distribution, by region

13.9

7.4

5.0

36.0

11.6

12.4

13.8

20.6

6.6

5.1

26.9

12.5

11.9

16.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

Population of farmers markets

Survey sample
9

Age of Markets

The farmers markets included in the survey had been in operation for an average of 15 years. However, the number 

is skewed by the 3.5 percent of markets in operation for 50 years or longer; indeed, 14 respondents reported they 

had been operating for 100 years or more, the oldest for 254 years. Because of these long-running historic markets, 

a more realistic median age of 10 years may be a closer approximation of actual industry trends. Year-round markets 

tended to be considerably older than seasonal markets; 43.3 percent of year-round markets were 20 years or older 

versus 23.7 percent of seasonal markets in the same age category (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Percentage of farmers markets, by average years of operation

27.8

21.7

24.4 26.1

29.2

22.2

24.8 23.7

17.3 18.0

21.3

43.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Less than 5 years 5-9 years 10-19 years 20 years and older

Percent

All markets

Seasonal 

Year-round 
10

In every region of the country, a signifi cant portion of surveyed farmers markets had been established within the 

previous 5 years, ranging from one-fourth to almost 40 percent of regional totals, suggesting that farmers market 

growth is a national phenomenon. Leading the pack is the Rocky Mountain region, where managers reported that 

38 percent of their markets had been created less than 5 years ago (Figure 3). Because the Rocky Mountain region 

contains the second lowest number of farmers markets in the country, the recent aggressive growth in this region 

may refl ect that the region had been underserved by direct marketing outlets compared with other locations.

Figure 3. Distribution of farmers markets, by age and region

27.8

27.3

38.3

30.2

24.6

24.5

30.7

29.8

21.7

21.0

18.1

12.7

22.3

20.3

20.3

28.7

24.4

29.5

23.4

27.0

25.5

27.3

19.0

18.1

26.1

22.2

20.2

30.2

27.5

28.0

30.1

23.4

0 10 20 30 40 50

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

20 years or older 10 to 19 years 5 to 9 years Less than 5 years
11

Vendor Participation

The average number of vendors at individual farmers markets nationwide in 2005 was 31, ranging from a high of 

51 in the Far West region to a low of 18 in the Northeast. The median number of vendors per market ranged from a 

low of 12 vendors in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions to a high of 35 in the Far West region (Figure 4), while 

the North Central, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeastern regions reported similar median and mean numbers. This shows 

a fairly narrow distribution of responses for other regions, such as the Far West, Rocky Mountain and Southwest 

regions, which had mean numbers of vendors much higher than the median. Consequently, the “typical number” 

in the Far West, Rocky Mountain, and Southwest regions may be more accurately described by the median than the 

mean. Figure 4 illustrates the differences in vendor participation of markets by region. Farmers markets in the Far 

West and Rocky Mountain regions typically boasted 25 or more vendors at each market site, while farmers markets 

in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southwest regions had fewer, with no more than 15 vendors per market site. By 

contrast, markets in the North Central and Southeast regions typically featured around 20 vendors per market, the 

middle of the range nationally.

Figure 4. Average and median number of vendors per farmers market, by region

31

51

45

31

28

33

21

18

20

35

25

15

20 20

12 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast Mid-Atlantic Northeast

Number of vendors

Average

Median
12

Figure 5 illustrates that surveyed markets in the Far West and Rocky Mountain regions had a large percentage of 

markets with many vendors. Almost 43 percent of markets in the Far West region had 40 or more vendors and 

almost 36 percent of Far West markets reported markets with 20 to 39 vendors. The Rocky Mountain region also 

reported high concentrations of markets with large numbers of vendors. More than one-third of markets in the 

Rocky Mountain region had 40 or more vendors. In contrast, the Northeast region reported 6 percent of its markets 

had 40 or more vendors, and most in the Northeast region (42 percent) had 10 or fewer vendors per market. 

Vendor Income

Regardless of location, managers reported that most of their farm vendors earned $5,000 or less each from sales 

at their markets in 2005. However, the survey data revealed isolated pockets of signifi cant income generation from 

farmers markets. In the Far West and Mid-Atlantic regions, managers reported that almost 12 percent and slightly 

more than 15 percent of the vendors at their markets earned gross incomes of between $25,000 and $100,000 

in 2005. These two regions reported the largest pockets of vendors with this level of sales. In contrast, the lowest 

average annual vendor sales were reported by managers in the North Central and Rocky Mountain regions 

(Figure 6), both regions reporting more than 80 percent of vendors at their markets had annual sales between 

$1,000 and $5,000.

Figure 5. Distribution of number of vendors at farmers markets, by region, in percent

23.9

9.4

15.9

32.3

17.8

24.1

37.4

42.4

25.3

12.5

19.3

29.0

29.4

22.8

28.4

27.9

29.0

35.6

28.4

17.7

32.3

29.7

22.6

23.6

21.8

42.5

36.4

21.0

20.5

23.4

11.6

6.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

40 or more 20 to 39 10 to 19 Less than 10 
13

Dominance of Seasonal Markets

Seasonal markets remained the dominant type of farmers market in every part of the country in 2005, accounting 

for 88 percent of all farmers market in operation. The highest percentage of seasonal markets was reported by 

managers in the Northeast region (96.5), followed closely by the North Central region (95.9) and the Rocky Mountain 

region, with the lowest percentage (64.6) reported for the Far West region (Figure 7). On the whole, seasonal 

markets tended to be younger than year-round markets; 29.2 percent had been operating for 5 years or fewer, 

compared with only 17.3 percent of year-round markets.

Figure 6. Distribution of annual vendor sales at farmers markets, by region

71.4

56.1

80.4

71.6

81.4

68.1

61.2

70.0

22.1

31.5

18.3

23.0

15.5

25.2 22.8

26.2

5.9

11.8

1.3 5.3 2.9 4.3

15.4

3.8

0.6 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.4 0.7 0.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast Mid-Atlantic Northeast

Percent

Regions

$1-$5,000

$5,001-$25,000

$25,001-$100,000

$100,001+
14

Months of Operation at Seasonal Markets

Seasonal markets nationwide were open an average of 4.5 months a year in 2005, ranging from a low of 3.92 

months in the Rocky Mountain region to a high of 4.9 months in the Far West (Figure 8). As shown in Figure 9, 

although the largest segment of seasonal farmers markets across the Nation was open between 4 and 6 months 

per year, seasonal markets in regions with warmer climates and longer growing seasons (such as the Far West, 

Southwest, and Southeast) tended to be open longer than those in colder regions. Far West regional markets 

accounted for 13.9 percent of surveyed markets, and representing 17 percent of surveyed markets open for 7 

months or more. Southeast markets were 5 percent of surveyed markets and accounted for 7 percent of markets 

open 7 months or more. Markets in the Southeast reported the largest difference, represented 11.6 percent of 

surveyed markets with 28 percent open 7 months or more. 

Figure 7. Percentage of seasonal and year-round markets, by region

87.9

64.6

95.7

82.5

95.9

80.4

86.3

96.5

12.1

35.4

4.3

17.5

4.1

19.6

13.7

3.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast MidAtlanticNortheast

Percent

Seasonal

Year-round
15

Markets in the Mid-Atlantic region also were well represented among markets open 7 months or more. Mid-Atlantic 

markets represented 12.4 percent of surveyed markets and account for 20.0 percent of markets open for 7 months 

or more. It appears that in spite of the region’s colder climate, vendors extended their season to take advantage of 

a marketing opportunity.

Figure 8. Average months of operation, by region

4.5

5.0

3.9

4.8

4.4

5.0 4.9

4.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast MidAtlanticNortheast

Months
16

Figure 9. Distribution of seasonal farmers markets, by months of operation and region

20.0

11.4

39.6

22.2

19.2

16.9

15.5

26.3

59.5

42.9

52.7

47.6

72.0

42.6

57.4

68.0

7.6

8.6

3.3

9.5

4.6

18.2

12.9

2.3

12.9

37.1

4.4

20.6

4.2

22.3

14.2

3.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Months of operation

More than 9

7 to 9

4 to 6

Less than 4
17

Average annual sales at farmers markets across the United States were $242,581 in 2005, and median annual 

sales were $40,000. This disparity refl ects the extreme variability in sales per market across regions. Sales can be 

infl uenced by such variables as size, location, and duration of operation. The disparity refl ects the extreme variability 

in sales per market across regions. Figure 10 illustrates how annual sales varied across regions, with the highest 

annual sales per market of $476,733 in the Far West. In contrast, the lowest level of annual sales occurred in the 

Rocky Mountain region, averaging $90,169 per market.

Trends in Farmers Market Sales

Figure 10. Average annual sales per market, by region

$477

$90

$210

$155

$220

$306

$150

$243

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600

Far West

Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

U.S.

Thousands of dollars
18

Source of Goods Sold

Market managers reported that large percentages of vendors grew the products they sold. Nationally, an average 

of 71.6 percent of vendors at markets sold only what they produced; the median percentage reported was 80.6 

percent. Consequently, most vendors at farmers markets were able to capture the entire value of the consumers’ 

food expenditures. The median number of vendors selling only their own products varied from a high of 78 percent 

in the Southwest region to a low of 60.3 percent in the Rocky Mountain region. Figure 11 illustrates how the 

percentage of producer only sales varied by region. For each region, the median percentage of vendors selling their 

own farm products exceeded the mean, implying the average was lowered by the small number of markets reporting 

an unusually low percentage of vendors selling their own products. Therefore, the median percentage may be a 

more accurate refl ection of the relative dominance of farmers selling their own agricultural goods at farmers 

market establishments.

Vendors’ use of farmers markets as their primary marketing channel appears to have declined slightly since the 

2000 survey of the farmers market sector. In 2000, managers reported that 28.5 percent of their vendors used 

their markets as their sole marketing outlets. In 2005, managers reported that 25.2 percent of vendors used 

their market as their sole marketing outlets. Nevertheless, farmers markets clearly remain an important marketing 

channel for participating vendors. 

Figure 11. Percentage of market vendors that sold only their own products, by region

68.6

60.3

78.0

76.8

69.8

72.3

65.0

73.9

61.1

92.3

86.7

93.7

84.9

69.8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Far West

Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

Median

Mean
19

Monthly Sales

The use of annual sales as a performance indicator can give misleading results because some markets make all 

their sales in just a few summer months, and others are open for 12 months. Therefore, monthly sales per market 

were calculated to account for variation in the length of time a market was open per year. Monthly sales can be 

compared across markets in the same region and across regions without bias. Average monthly sales at farmers 

markets nationwide were $31,923 in 2005, and varied widely by region from a high of $56,742 in the Far West 

to a low of $21,018 in the Southeast (Figure 12). Markets were grouped into four sales categories so the regional 

concentration of farmers markets with similar sales volumes could be observed (Figure 13). The Far West region 

contained the largest concentration of farmers markets with monthly sales of $23,000 or more (45.5 percent). It 

also featured the lowest concentration of farmers markets with fewer than $2,500 in monthly sales (12.5 percent). 

In contrast, farmers market managers from the Southwest, North Central, and Southeastern regions reported that 

more than a third of their markets generated $2,500 or less in monthly revenues.

Figure 12. Average monthly sales at farmers markets, by region (all markets)

$31,923

$56,742

$22,354

$23,354

$23,579

$21,019

$41,452

$24,633

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Dollars
20

Retail and Wholesale Sales at Farmers Markets

Most of the farmers market managers in our survey (60.1 percent) reported that all their sales were directly to fi nal 

consumers. An additional 38.3 percent of managers reported direct-to-consumer transactions constituted 76 to 99 

percent of all sales, and 1.6 percent reported direct sales levels between 51 and 75 percent. As stated previously (in 

“What Is a Farmers Market?” on page 3), farmers markets were excluded from our study if fewer than 51 percent of 

total retail sales derived from direct-to-consumer sales. 

Figure 13. Distribution of monthly sales at all farmers markets, by region and sales category of market

24.9

12.5

13.0

38.1

35.9

38.2

15.4

20.5

21.5

15.2

24.1

26.2

26.0

18.4

16.9

25.6

24.9

26.8

24.1

14.3

19.1

27.6

27.7

33.3

28.7

45.5

38.9

21.4

19.1

15.8

40.0

20.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

> $23,000 $7,000-$22,999 $2,500-$6,999 < $2,500
21

Sales at Seasonal Markets

Nationwide, the average annual sales volume at seasonal markets was $135,500 in 2005, with year-round markets 

generating an average of $833,958 apiece, more than six times as great. Monthly sales fi gures were calculated 

again to remove the bias created by analyzing annual sales data for markets that were in operation over different 

periods of time. Though the gap between sales volumes at seasonal and year-round markets narrowed considerably 

if average monthly sales fi gures were compared, the volume of sales generated at year-round markets still exceeded 

sales at seasonal markets ($70,292 per month against $28,836).

Managers of seasonal markets in the Far West region reported $55,257 per month, the highest average for any 

reason. The lowest average sales were reported by the Southwest region, with an average of $13,119 per month 

(Figure 15). The Far West, Rocky Mountain, and Mid-Atlantic regions had the largest concentration of markets with 

sales of $23,000 or greater, and the Southwest, Southeast, and North Central had the largest concentration of 

markets with monthly sales at or below $2,500 (Figure 16). 

Unlike most regions, where older markets have greater sales volumes, younger seasonal markets in the Rocky 

Mountain and Far West regions are doing unusually well fi nancially, compared with markets of similar age elsewhere 

in the country. Even though seasonal farmers markets in the Rocky Mountain and Far West regions represented only 

10.4 and 13.9 percent of seasonal markets less than 5 years old in 2005, they accounted for 20.0 and 24.0 percent 

of seasonal markets that generated monthly sales of $23,000 or more (Table 1).

Figure 14. Percentage of retail sales at farmers markets

60.1

38.3

1.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All sales retail 99% to 76% of sales 75% to 51% of sales

Percent
22

Monthly Sales

Percent of market, 

by region U.S. Less than$2,500

$2,500

to

$6,999

$7,000

to

$22,999

$23,000

or greater

Far West 13.9 14.3 16.7 26.7 24.0

Rocky Mountain 10.4 6.1 11.1 6.7 20.0

Southwest 5.5 12.2 13.9 2.2 8.0

North Central 31.6 26.5 30.6 13.3 12.0

Southeast 10.1 18.4 2.8 11.1 8.0

Mid-Atlantic 13.6 4.1 13.9 20.0 12.0

Northeast 14.8 18.4 11.1 20.0 16.0

Table 1. Comparison of markets less than 5 years old, by selected characteristics
23

Figure 15. Average monthly sales, by region (seasonal markets)

$24,836

$55,257

$22,644

$13,119

$15,924

$14,788

$34,428

$20,247

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000

U.S.

Far West

Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Dollars
24

Figure 16. Distribution of monthly sales of seasonal markets, by region, in percent

26.3

11.8

13.5

41.2

35.5

43.5

15.8

20.3

22.9

13.2

23.1

26.5

27.4

22.6

19.3

25.7

25.5

29.4

25.0

14.7

20.2

24.2

28.1

35.1

25.3

45.6

38.5

17.6

16.9

9.7

36.8

18.9

0 10 20 30 40 50

U.S.

Far West

Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

>$23,000 $7,000-$22,999 $2,500-$6,999 <$2,500
25

Figure 17. Number of months in operation, seasonal markets

When examining the sales potential of seasonal markets, it is useful to observe the similarities between the sales 

profi les of seasonal markets open for 7 months and those of year-round markets. Monthly sales of markets open 7 

months or more are almost triple those of markets open for 6 months or less (Table 2), and the average number of 

vendors reported by managers of seasonal markets in operation for 7 months or more (51) is similar to the number 

reported by managers of year-round markets (58).

0.5

5.9

16.4

27.1

30.8

10.2

5.8

2.4

0.5 0.3 0.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Percent

Number of months in operation
26

U.S. Markets open less 

than 7 months

Markets open for 

7 months or more

Markets open 

year-round

Average monthly sales

Mean $31,923 $20,770 $57,290 $69,497

Median $8,333 $6,250 $20,000 $20,833

Average monthly sales, grouped (in percent)

Less than $2,500 24.9 26.9 20.8 18.2

$2,500 - $6,999 21.5 24.7 9.4 13.6

$7,000 - $22,999 24.9 25.7 22.6 21.6

More than $23,000 28.7 22.5 47.6 46.6

Table 2. Market and vendor characteristics for markets: open less than 7 months, open 7 months or more, and 

year-round markets
27

Product Characteristics

As one might expect, the most popular category of farm products sold at farmers markets in 2005 was “fresh fruits 

and vegetables.” Nearly 92 percent of managers reported selling fresh fruits and vegetables at their markets, 

and more than 75 percent reported that their markets sold “herbs and fl owers” and “honey, nuts, and preserves” 

(Figure 18). 

The dominance of fresh produce also could be seen in the mix of market vendors. Fresh produce, fruit, and 

vegetable vendors comprised 45 percent of farmers market vendors nationwide in 2005 (Figure 19), followed by 

vendors selling “herbs and fl owers” (15.4 percent), “honey, nuts, or preserves” (8.8 percent), “baked goods” (8.6 

percent), and “crafts or woodworking” (8.3 percent). Even though sizable numbers of market managers reported 

that their markets offered meat and dairy products for sale, the actual number of farmers specializing in these 

commodity categories at farmers markets appears to be quite limited—only about 3 percent of vendors were 

reported to sell meat and poultry, and only 1.5 percent were reported to sell milk and dairy products.

Figure 18. Percentage of U.S. farmers markets selling selected products

38.0

16.0

27.2

28.1

38.0

45.0

50.0

72.9

77.7

81.4

91.8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other products

Fish or seafood

Milk or dairy 

Processed foods

Prepared foods 

Meat or poultry

Crafts or woodworking

Baked goods

Honey, nuts and preserves

Herbs and flowers

Fresh fruits and vegetables

Percent
28

Product Labeling at Farmers Markets

Organically Labeled Products

Organically labeled products were sold at farmers markets across the country, but were considerably more prevalent 

in the Far West and Northeast regions. Market managers reported that 47.0 percent of markets nationwide sold at 

least some types of organically labeled products; their availability varied across regions from a high of 74.5 percent 

in the Far West region to a low of 30.4 percent in the Southwest region (Figure 20). Product availability still appeared 

to be heavily concentrated in the Far West, Northeast, and Rocky Mountain regions; in the rest of the country, fewer 

than 40 percent of markets sold organically labeled items. Year-round markets sold organically labeled products 

more often than seasonal markets—57 percent compared with only 40 percent of seasonal markets. Most likely, the 

reason year-round markets more frequently sold organically labeled product is because they served more customers.

Figure 19. Percentage of U.S. vendors selling selected products at farmers markets

2.6

0.7

1.5

2.0

3.2

3.6

8.3

8.6

8.8

15.4

45.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Other products

Fish or seafood

Milk or dairy 

Processed foods

Meat or poultry

Prepared foods 

Crafts or woodworking

Baked goods

Honey, nuts, or preserves

Herbs and flowers

Fresh fruits and vegetables

Percent
29

Markets that sold organically labeled products reported more customers per week, more vendors, and larger 

monthly sales. However, their superior performance may have been infl uenced as much by their location in densely 

populated urban areas as by their product offerings. Seventy-one percent of farmers markets that sold organic 

products were located in urban areas10 compared with 55.3 percent of markets that didn’t offer organic products. 

Furthermore, a greater percentage of the markets were located in regions of the country, such as the Far West and 

Northeast, that experience higher than average farmers markets sales volumes (Table 3). Each market responding 

to the survey was assigned a rural-urban continuum code based on the county in which the market was located. 

(Rural-urban continuum codes were developed originally by the Offi ce of Management and Budget and were later 

expanded by USDA’s Economic Research Service. Each county in the Nation is assigned a code to describe its 

degree of rurality11 or urbanicity.) 

10. Urban means that the market was located in a location that had a rural-to-urban continuum code of 1, 2 or 3. Rural-to-Urban continuum code is

defi ned in Appendix 2: Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. 

11. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/RuralUrbanContinuumCodes>

Figure 20. Percentage of farmers markets that sell organically labeled products, by region

47.0

74.5

56.8

30.4

39.8

35.5 37.2

67.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast MidAtlanticNortheast

Percent
30

All U.S. 

farmers markets

Markets that sold 

organic products

Markets that did not sell 

organic products

Customers per week 959 1,422 569

Average number of vendors 31 41 23

Monthly market sales $31,923 $45,826 $14,813

The top three product categories sold by farmers markets carrying organically labeled products, illustrated in Figure 

19, are “fresh fruit and vegetables” (91.4 percent), “herbs and fl owers” (46.3 percent), and “meat and poultry” (30.1 

percent). Participation rates of vendors selling organically labeled items followed similar patterns (Figure 20); the 

three highest concentrations of organic vendors at farmers markets were vendors of organically labeled “fresh fruits 

and vegetables” (60.2 percent), “herbs and fl owers” (16.7 percent), and “meat and poultry” (9.3 percent). Unlike the 

prevailing trend at most farmers markets, those offering organically labeled products seem to include more meat, 

poultry, and dairy products as part of their overall merchandise mix, suggesting that farmers market consumers 

may prefer organically produced varieties of these items. The widespread use of organic labels and other labeling 

claims on meat and dairy products at farmers markets, such as “hormone-free,” “antibiotic-free,” “pasture-raised,” 

and “free range,” discussed in the next section, suggests farmers market consumers want to be informed about the 

methods used to produce their meat and dairy purchases.

Table 3. Farmers markets that sold organic products compared with markets that did not sell organic products
31

Figure 21. Distribution of organically labeled products sold at U.S. farmers markets12

12. Only markets that reported sales of organically labeled products were included.

Figure 22. Distribution of vendors selling organically labeled products at farmers markets

91.4

46.3

30.1

25.7

14.2 12.0

6.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fresh fruits 

and 

vegetables

Herbs and 

flowers

Meat and 

poultry

Honey, 

nuts and 

preserves

Milk and 

dairy

Prepared 

foods

Other 

products

Percent

60.2

16.7

9.3

6.8

2.3 2.4 2.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fresh fruits 

and 

vegetables

Herbs and 

flowers

Meat and 

poultry

Honey, nuts 

and 

preserves

Milk and 

dairy

Prepared 

foods

Other 

products

Percent
32

Other Label Claims

In addition to organic label claims, farmers market vendors frequently displayed a variety of such specialty label 

claims as “locally grown” to advertise their merchandise. Sixty-nine percent of surveyed managers reported that 

vendors at their markets used specialty labels, ranging from a low of 51.3 percent in the Southeast region to a high 

of 78.8 percent in the Rocky Mountain region (Figure 23). The most popular specialty label claim across the country 

was “locally grown,” with nearly 90 percent of all managers in every part of the country reporting their vendors used 

the phrase as a labeling claim (Figure 24). Other popular label claims included “pesticide-free” or “chemical-free” 

(at nearly half of surveyed farmers markets) and “natural” (also at nearly half of surveyed farmers markets). Label 

claims related to the absence of pesticides and chemicals were particularly popular in the Far West and Rocky 

Mountain regions, while labels claiming merchandise is “natural” were popular in the North Central region. 

Figure 23. Percentage of farmers markets that sold specially labeled products (other than organic), by region

69.0

77.8 78.8

53.4

66.1

51.7

76.7 76.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast Mid-Atlantic Northeast

Percent
33

Figure 24. Farmers markets that sold specially labeled products (other than organic), by product type and region

87.9

82.1

88.1

80.6

91.2

90.5

84.8

89.3

46.9

50.4

55.2

32.3

50.9

45.9

41.1

39.3

38.4

46.3

34.3

32.3

42.5

21.6

40.2

33.6

47.6

65.0

56.7

41.9

46.9

45.9

39.3

36.9

29.3

36.6

28.4

19.4

34.4

20.3

27.7

20.5

12.3

17.1

16.4

19.4

7.3

12.2

13.4

13.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Other Hormone or antibiotic-free

Chemical-free/pesticide-free Pasture-raised/free range

Natural Locally grown
34

Customer Characteristics

Why Customers Shop at Farmers Markets

Market managers were asked to rank the top three reasons they believe their customers shopped at their farmers 

markets. Freshness, taste, and access to local food were the top three reported by managers, with price ranking 

a distant sixth. Figure 25 depicts the percentage of managers that reported each motivating factor as either 

important, very important, or extremely important.

Figure 25. Top ranked attributes of customers who shopped at farmers markets, by region

41.3

75.0

76.2

71.9

63.4

68.7

74.6

70.1

51.1

44.0

42.5

50.0

52.5

56.5

55.9

50.3

57.5

87.7

82.6

82.5

89.1

82.5

91.2

87.9

59.7

87.7

88.4

81.0

83.8

80.6

85.6

89.3

74.2

93.4

94.2

87.7

93.1

92.8

94.4

91.8

79.9

97.4

95.2

96.5

97.6

97.8

97.1

95.4

98.3

96.1

97.7

100.0

98.3

98.6

98.6

99.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

South West

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

Freshness Taste

Access to local food Support of local agriculture

Variety Price

Knowledge of how food was produced
35

Weekly Number of Customers at Markets

The average number of customers reported at all farmers markets was 959 per week. Year-round markets reported 

an average of 3,622 customers per week, higher than seasonal markets, which caused the average customer counts 

at all markets to be skewed upward. In comparison, managers of seasonal farmers markets reported an average 

601 customer visits per week.

Because most markets across the Nation reported they were seasonal and there were only 87 year-round markets 

that responded to the survey, we limit regional breakdowns to seasonal markets. The region with the largest number 

of customers per week at seasonal markets was 1,379, reported by markets in the Far West region, a number 

much higher than any other region (Figure 26). This result was somewhat surprising, as only 59.5 percent of 

farmers markets in the Far West region were located in urban areas, as measured by rural-urban continuum codes, 

suggesting that location in densely populated areas may not be crucial for market success. Another example, Figure 

28, shows that the Mid-Atlantic region has the largest percentage of markets in urban areas, but Figure 26 shows 

its weekly customer counts fall in the middle range. Population density may not be the sole determinant of farmers 

markets performance.

To gain a better perspective of typical customer traffi c at markets on a region basis, weekly customer visits were 

grouped into four ranges: fewer than 100 customers, 100-199 customers, 200-599 customers, and 600 or more 

customers (Figure 27). The resulting analysis reveals that seasonal farmers markets in the Far West typically 

attract far more customers per week than markets in other regions of the country. More than half the seasonal 

farmers markets in the Far West averaged 600 or more customers per week; at the other end of the spectrum, 

more than half the markets in the Southeast and Southwest regions had fewer than 100 customer visits per week, 

while markets in other regions of the country most frequently served between 100 and 199 customers per week. 

Given the limited average levels of customer turnout in so many parts of the country, it is not surprising to learn that 

“targeting customers” remains a high priority for farmers market managers in terms of desired marketing assistance 

(see Figure 51 on page 65), as customer patronage of seasonal farmers markets remains highly concentrated in a 

few key geographic locations.

Figure 26. Average weekly customer counts of seasonal farmers markets, by region

601

1,379

694

348

608

367

474

352

0

500

1,000

1,500

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast MidAtlanticNortheast

Average customers per week
36

Figure 27. Weekly customer counts at seasonal farmers markets, by region and size of customer traffi c

25.6

8.0

24.0

34.8

28.3

34.7

17.2

28.1

35.3

24.1

28.0

28.3

37.5

33.7

39.4

42.1

19.2

17.2

26.7

26.1

19.0

16.8

20.2

14.9

19.9

50.6

21.3

10.9

15.2

14.7

23.2

14.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

600 and greater 200-599 100-199 Less than 100
37

Figure 28. Percentage of seasonal markets, by rural-urban continuum code and region

5.5

2.6

6.6

3.8

7.7

11.9

0.7

1.2

21.5

10.4

36.3

32.7

26.2

23.7

6.5

16.4

13.5

18.3

14.3

11.6

13.8

11.9

7.3

15.8

59.5

68.7

42.9

51.9

52.4

52.5

85.4

66.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

U.S.

Far West

Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

1, 2, and 3: Metro counties up to 1 million people

5 and 4: Urban population of 20,000 or more

7 and 6: Urban population between 2,500 and 19,9999

9 and 8: Completely rural or less than 2,500 urban population
38

Distance Traveled by Customers

As a general rule, customers were willing to travel only a limited distance to patronize farmers markets, underscoring 

the important link between market location and market performance. Surveyed managers reported that, on average, 

more than half their market’s customers (58 percent) traveled 5 miles or less to reach the market, and that more 

than 80 percent of their market’s customers traveled 10 miles or less (Figure 29). A similar pattern of behavior can 

be seen in most regions of the country, with the majority of market customers traveling 5 miles or less. The only 

exception was in the Southeast region, where a slight majority of market customers traveled more than 5 miles to 

visit farmers markets. 

Figure 29. Distance traveled by customers of farmers markets, by region

58.0

57.4

53.4

55.7

59.7

46.6

60.8

65.9

22.5

20.0

18.9

22.0

22.0

29.8

22.6

21.6

12.4

11.9

18.1

14.2

12.4

15.2

11.4

7.5

4.7

5.8

6.5

5.9

4.4

5.6

3.6

3.6

2.3

4.9

3.1

2.3

1.5

2.9

1.6

1.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

U.S.

Far West

Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

51 miles or more 21 to 50 miles 11 to 20 miles

6 to 10 miles 0 to 5 miles
39

Advertising Methods

Signs/banners and newspaper advertising were the two promotional methods most frequently used by farmers 

market managers nationwide, with more than 80 percent of surveyed managers reporting they use these methods 

to attract customers (Figure 30). On average, farmers markets nationwide spent $3,566 on advertising in 2005. 

It is important to note, however, that this average is probably infl ated by a handful of well-established markets that 

spent upwards of $100,000 on advertising. Perhaps a more typical and realistic estimate of annual advertising 

expenditures is the median fi gure of $500 per year, accounting for approximately one-third of reported annual 

median operating expenses at farmers markets. 

Managers were asked to rank the importance of each type of advertising method on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with 

1 representing “not important” to 5 representing “extremely important.” The two advertising methods rated most 

important by market managers were signs/banners and newspapers, with brochures/fl yers in third place (Figure 31). 

Nearly 25 percent of surveyed managers gave the highest possible ranking, “extremely important,” to signs/banners 

for advertising the market to the public.

Outreach to Customers

Figure 30. Types of advertising used by markets, in percent

80.9 80.2

65.6

41.4

26.5

20.4

16.9

23.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Signs / 

banners

Newspaper Brochures / 

flyers

Radio Newsletter Television Direct mail Other

Percent
40

Figure 31. Manager ranking of advertising method importance, in percent13

Use of Market Research on Customer Preferences

Managers were asked if they conducted periodic consumer surveys to learn the needs and preferences of their 

customers. Only 27.6 percent of surveyed managers conducted surveys, suggesting that market managers may 

need to devote greater effort to obtaining feedback from market patrons (though the nature of direct-to-consumer 

marketing fosters better communication between buyers and seller than other sales channels).

13. The graph summarizes the percentage of managers that ranked the advertising method as either effective, very effective, or extremely 

important.

88.1

76.0

72.8 72.8 72.6

67.3

61.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Signs / 

banners

Brochures / 

flyers

Newspaper Newsletter Radio Direct mail Television

Percent
41

Average Sales per Vendor at Farmers Markets

Nationally, the annual average sales volume per vendor was $7,035, ranging from a low of $2,349 in the Rocky 

Mountain region to a high of $17,017 in the Mid-Atlantic region. The large swing in the magnitude of annual sales 

per vendor between these regions is because a few markets had signifi cantly large value sales and few vendors. The 

median sales per vendor is a more representative view of annual sales per vendor across regions. Annual median 

sales per vendor nationally were $2,222. The median sales per vendor regionally ranged from a high of $5,552 in 

the Mid-Atlantic region to a low of $1,200 in the North Central region (Table 5).

Monthly sales per vendor allow more equitable comparisons among markets within and across regions because 

the length of time a market operates during a year doesn’t infl uence the magnitude of vendor sales. The average 

monthly sales of vendors in 2005 was $1,070 per month, ranging from a low of $607 in the Rocky Mountain region 

to a high of $2,187 in the Mid-Atlantic region14 (Table 4). 

Even with monthly vendor sales factored in, there are still large variations among vendors at markets. Therefore, as 

discussed earlier, the median sales fi gure gives a more representative view of vendors’ monthly sales. Nationally, 

the median monthly sales of vendors was $468, ranging from a high of $875 in the Mid-Atlantic region to a low of 

$245 in the Southwest region. Vendors at smaller markets earned higher revenue than vendors at larger markets, 

presumably because there was less competition for customers (Table 6). However, when the market size reached 40 

or more vendors, the negative impact of competition appeared outweighed by increased sales volume from greater 

customer traffi c. 

14. Vendor average monthly sales fi gures were calculated by dividing average monthly market sales by the average number of vendors reported by 

market managers. The number of vendors reported by market managers was the number of unique vendors that used their market. The number of 

times a particular vendor sold products at a given farmers market is unknown.

Vendor Characteristics
42

U.S. Far 

West

Rocky 

Mountain SW North Central SE MidAtlantic NE

Monthly sales per vendor (all markets)

Mean $1,070 $1,075 $607 $781 $571 $927 $2,187 $1,612

Median $468 $694 $447 $245 $268 $300 $875 $594

Customers per 

week 959 1,964 699 731 856 680 974 655

Monthly sales per vendor (seasonal markets)

Mean $1,021 $1,127 $620 $684 $535 $520 $2,284 $1,671

Median $450 $691 $447 $175 $257 $280 $875 $594

Customers per 

week 601 1,379 694 348 608 367 474 352

Table 4. Average monthly sales per vendor, by region
43

U.S. Far 

West

Rocky 

Mountain SW North Central SE MidAtlantic NE

Annual sales per vendor (all markets)

Mean $7,035 $8,056 $2,349 $5,293 $3,527 $7,794 $17,017 $6,676

Median $2,222 $4,644 $1,787 $2,016 $1,200 $1,842 $5,552 $2,727

Annual sales per vendor (seasonal markets)

Mean $5,452 $5,963 $2,287 $3,203 $2,933 $2,329 $16,662 $6,653

Median $1,878 $3,226 $1,697 $1,000 $1,176 $1,176 $5,500 $2,690

Number of vendors per market

All 2-9 10-19 20-39 40 or more

Monthly sales per vendor (all markets)

Mean $1,070 $1,517 $951 $803 $1,010

Median $468 $500 $391 $325 $750

Customers per week 959 80 371 572 2,818

Monthly sales per vendor (seasonal markets)

Mean $1,021 $1,439 $954 $739 $893

Median $450 $500 $384 $329 $655

Customers per week 601 151 338 483 1,684

Table 5. Average annual sales per vendor, by region

Table 6. Average monthly sales per vendor, by number of vendors
44

Infl uence of Age of Market on Vendor Sales

Average monthly sales per vendor were lowest at the youngest tier of farmers markets, which can be expected of 

start-up businesses (Table 7). However, rather than climbing in a linear fashion over time, monthly sales volume 

per vendor seemed to sag at markets that were between 10 and 19 years old, possibly because of increased 

competition among vendors for customers. At farmers markets 20 years old or older, however, vendor income once 

again seemed to recover, suggesting farmers markets 20 years old and older may offer attributes attractive to 

customers, such as wider product selection and variety, or convenience and accessible locations. 

Years of market operation

All 0-4 5-9 10-19 20 or more

Monthly sales per vendor (all markets)

Average $1,070 $766 $1,227 $920 $1,469

Median $468 $403 $469 $417 $667

Customers per week 959 430 558 985 1,944

Monthly sales per vendor (seasonal markets)

Average $1,021 $826 $1,253 $865 $1,276

Median $450 $487 $487 $368 $575

Customers per week 600 417 466 835 789

Vendor Transportation

Vendors at farmers markets generally stayed close to their farms. On average across the country, farmers market 

managers reported that more than half of vendors at their markets traveled less than 6 miles to sell at their 

markets, and nearly a quarter had to travel between 6 and 10 miles (Figure 32). The Northeast region reported the 

highest percentage of vendors traveling less than 6 miles—65.9 percent. Managers in the Northeast region reported 

that 21.6 percent of vendors traveled between 6 and 10 miles. Managers in the Mid-Atlantic and North Central 

regions reported similar distances: 60.8 percent and 59.7 percent of vendors traveled less than 6 miles and 22.6 

and 22.0 percent traveled between 6–10 miles, respectively. The Far West, Southwest, and Rocky Mountain regions 

reported 57.4 percent, 55.7 percent, and 53.4 percent of vendors traveled less than 6 miles to market their products 

at farmers market and 20.0 percent, 22.0 percent and 18.9 percent of vendors traveled between 6–10 miles, 

respectively. Vendors in the Southeast reported the lowest percentage of vendors that traveled less than 6 miles 

(46.6 percent) and the highest percentage of vendors that traveled between 6–10 miles, (29.8 percent) than any 

other region. Although regionally, managers reported different travel patterns for vendors at their markets, managers 

in each region reported at least three-quarters of their vendors traveled less than 10 miles from their farming 

operations to market their products.

Table 7. Monthly sales per vendor, by age of market
45

Figure 32. Distance traveled by vendors, by region

58.0

57.4

53.4

55.7

59.7

46.6

60.8

65.9

22.5

20.0

18.9

22.0

22.0

29.8

22.6

21.6

12.4

11.9

18.1

14.2

12.4

15.2

11.4

7.5

4.7

5.8

6.5

5.9

4.4

5.6

3.6

3.6

2.3

4.9

3.1

2.3

1.5

2.9

1.6

1.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

South West

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

More than 50 21 to 50 11 to 20 6 to 10 Less than 6
46

Race and Ethnicity of Vendors

The vast majority of farmers market vendors in 2005 were White (89.9 percent) and non-Hispanic (91.2 percent). 

However, a large representation of Hispanic farmers was reported in the Far West region, with 29.7 percent, followed 

by 17.7 percent in the Rocky Mountain region, and 9.5 percent in the Southwest. Managers in other regions reported 

between 3 to 5 percent of their vendors were of Hispanic heritage (Figure 34).

Asian and Black vendors, representing 4.7 and 4.4 percent of all vendors, were located primarily in two regions—the 

Far West and the Mid-Atlantic. While Asian vendors represented 18.4 percent in the Far West region, outside of the 

Far West, the participation of Asian vendors was low, from 1.0 percent in the Northeast region to 4.4 percent in the 

North Central region. Black vendors were most prevalent in the Southeast, where 18.0 percent of vendors were 

reported to be Black; outside of the Southeast, Black participation at farmers markets was limited, from a high of 

4.5 percent in the Mid-Atlantic to a low of 1.1 percent in the North Central region. The racial composition of farmers 

market vendors can be seen in Figure 33. 
47

Figure 33. Regional distribution of vendors, by race

1.4

2.2

5.3

2.8

0.8

1.5

0.2

0.9

4.7

18.4

2.4

3.6

4.4

1.4

1.0

1.0

4.4

2.1

1.6

4.1

1.1

18.0

4.5

4.1

0.6

3.4

0.5

0.0

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

88.9

73.9

90.3

89.6

93.5

78.9

94.1

93.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

White Native Hawaiian Black Asian American Indian
48

Balance of Vendor Supply and Customer Demand at Farmers Markets

Market managers were asked to evaluate the balance between customer demand for products and the supply of 

products available at their market. Nationally, 41 percent of managers reported demand and supply were roughly 

equal; 32.4 percent reported they needed more customers (i.e., supply exceeded demand); and 26.6 percent 

of managers reported that more vendors were needed (i.e., demand exceeded supply). Figure 35 illustrates the 

balance of supply and demand reported by market managers on a regional basis.

Figure 34. Distribution of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic vendors

8.8

29.7

17.7

9.5

3.1

5.1

4.1

4.7

91.2

70.3

82.3

90.5

96.9

94.9

95.9

95.3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic
49

The highest percentage of managers in the Mid-Atlantic, North Central, and Southeast regions reported that supply 

roughly equaled demand, comprising 51.3 percent of managers in the Mid-Atlantic region, 44.4 percent in the North 

Central region, and 43.6 percent in the Southeast region. However, in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain regions, 

the highest percentage of managers reported demand exceeded supply—52.5 percent of managers in the 

Southwest region and 44.8 percent of managers in the Rocky Mountain region. Managers in the Far West and 

Northeast regions reported that supply exceeded demand—41.9 percent in the Far West and 40.5 percent in the 

Northeast region.

Figure 35. Market managers’ perception of product supply versus customer demand, in percent

26.6

21.3

44.8

52.5

24.3

31.4

16.9

22.9

32.4

41.9

25.3

23.7

31.3

25.0

31.8

40.5

41.0

36.8

29.9

23.7

44.4

43.6

51.3

36.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

Supply roughly equals demand Supply exceeds demand

More demand than supply
50

Physical Characteristics of Farmers Markets

Given that farmers markets in the United States are mostly seasonal operations, it is not surprising that more 

than two-thirds of surveyed markets operate in temporary facilities. Of the 32.3 percent of markets that operate 

permanent facilities, the majority own their place of business; 52.9 percent own the facility that houses their market, 

and 47.1 percent rent space. 

The average size of farmers markets nationwide in 2005 was 48,857 square feet, similar to the footprint of a 

medium-sized retail grocery store, ranging from a low of 20 square feet to a high of 3.4 million square feet.

Who Makes the Rules at Farmers Markets?

Although rules governing farmers markets may originate from many sources, more than two-thirds of surveyed 

managers reported that either the market manager or their vendor-operated board of directors was responsible 

for creating market rules and bylaws (Figure 36). The most prevalent rule-making body at markets was the market 

manager (36.6 percent), followed closely by a vendor-operated board of directors (32.0 percent).

Operational Issues at Farmers Markets

Figure 36. Who develops rules at farmers markets, in percent*

17.0

14.2

19.0

20.6

32.0

36.6

0 10 20 30 40

Other

State government

Community association/non-profit 

organization

City, county, or municipal government

Vendor-operated Board of Directors

Market manager

Percent

*Totals do not equal 100 percent; respondents were given the opportunity to supply multiple choices.
51

Restrictions at Farmers Markets

Farmers markets often impose restrictions on their vendors to maintain the integrity of the products sold at their 

markets. The most common restriction is a requirement that vendors may sell only agricultural products they 

produced. Sixty-three percent of surveyed managers reported their markets enforced such producer-only sales 

restrictions (Figure 37). In keeping with this policy, the overwhelming majority—nearly 72 percent—of vendors in 

2005 were reported to be producers selling goods they had grown and/or produced themselves, ranging from a 

peak of 78 percent in the Southwest to a low of 60.3 percent in the Rocky Mountain region (Figure 38). 

Figure 37. Restrictions at U.S. farmers markets, in percent

Figure 38. Percentage of vendors at farmers markets that sold only what they produced

37.3

39.1

46.8

53.1

63.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Vendors are allowed to resell 

products

Range of permitted 

commodities is controlled

Vendors can sell products 

from outside local area

Types of products sold are 

restricted

Vendors can sell only products 

they produced themselves

Percent

71.6

68.6

60.3

78.0 76.8

69.8 72.3

65.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast MidAtlanticNortheast

Percent
52

Other common restrictions at farmers markets included controls on the types of product categories that could be 

sold at markets, restrictions on selling products produced outside the local area, and controls on the number of 

vendors allowed to sell a certain type of product. Markets selling organically labeled products tended to report 

controls more frequently on the number of vendors allowed to sell similar types of products at individual markets. 

Figure 39. Distribution of vendors that sold only their own products, by region

2.3

0.6

0.0

1.7

2.1

4.9

2.6

3.1

21.5

23.1

40.7

15.3

15.0

22.9

18.4

30.9

37.5

50.6

34.9

33.9

41.3

22.9

32.9

34.6

38.7

25.6

24.4

49.2

41.6

49.3

46.1

31.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

U.S.

Far West

Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent of vendors that sold their own products

100% 50 to 99% 1 to 49% 0%
53

Market Self-Suffi ciency

The majority of farmers markets appear to be well on the road to fi nancial self-suffi ciency. Nearly half (46.5 percent) 

of surveyed market managers reported their markets were economically self-suffi cient and depended exclusively on 

vendor fees to pay the market’s operating expenses (Figure 40). As one might expect, farmers markets that have 

been in business longer tend to be more fi nancially secure than younger markets; only 32 percent of markets fewer 

than 5 years old consider themselves to be economically self-suffi cient, compared with 59 percent of markets in 

business 20 years or longer. 

The top three funding sources for farmers markets that were not self-suffi cient were vendor fees, city or county 

governments, and non-profi t organizations. Younger markets reported greater dependence on external sources 

of funding than older markets; non-self-suffi cient markets fewer than 5 years old derived only 40 percent of their 

budgets, on average, from vendor fees, while non-self-suffi cient markets in business for 20 years or more were able 

to fund 57 percent of their budgets, on average, with vendor fees (Figure 40).

Figure 40. Percentage of self-sustaining farmers markets, by age of market

46.5

32.0

39.5

55.1

58.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All ages 0-4 years 5-9 years 10-19 years 20 years and 

older

Percent
54

Given the apparent importance of vendor fees to market fi nances, it’s not surprising the vast majority of markets 

nationwide charge vendors fees for selling privileges. Eighty-six percent of surveyed market managers charged 

participating vendors some type of fee at their markets. The top three fee types imposed by farmers markets were 

a fl at fee (76.4 percent), a membership fee (26.4 percent), and a calculated fee based on a percentage of vendor 

sales (13 percent). The percentage use of types of fees can be seen in Figure 41. 

Figure 41. Markets’ use of fee types, in percent15

15. Some markets use a combination of fee type, so the sum of percentages exceeds 100 percent.

76.4

26.4

13.0 12.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Flat Membership Percentage of 

sales

Other

Percent
55

Figure 42. Percentage of non-sustaining markets, by funding source and age

46.5

39.9

46.0

48.8

57.0

14.6

13.4

15.4

12.7

16.8

11.6

14.5

10.4

14.2

6.4

5.5

5.2

8.2

3.2

5.6

5.4

4.4

4.6

7.8

5.0

4.2

4.7

4.7

3.9

2.5

12.23

18.02

10.67

9.49

6.72

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

All markets

Less than 5 years

5-9 years

10-19 years

20 years and older

Percent

Other Trade or business association

Farmers market association State government agency

Non-profit City/county municipal government

Producer/vendor fees
56

Market Management

One distinguishing feature of the farmers markets industry is a continued heavy reliance on volunteer labor. Only 39 

percent of surveyed market managers reported their markets hired paid managers, and only 22 percent reported 

hiring other paid employees to carry out market functions. The percentage of farmers markets with paid managers 

varied widely across regions, from a low of 27 percent in the Southwest region to a high of 65 percent in the Far 

West region (Figure 43). 

Salaries of paid market managers varied considerably depending on market location. The nationwide average 

annual salary reported for paid market managers was $14,323, ranging from a high of $21,913 in the Mid-Atlantic 

region to a low of $8,864 in the Rocky Mountain region (Figure 44).

Figure 43. Paid employees versus volunteers at farmers markets, by region

39.3

65.3

46.5

27.1

29.8

38.8

52.4

29.2

22.4

45.6

24.7

17.2

15.7

18.8

28.0

16.6

58.5

74.1

64.7

54.2

61.6

44.3

51.0

53.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

Volunteer workers only Paid employees and market manager

Paid market manager only
57

Figure 44. Number of paid employees versus volunteers, by region

3.2

3.5

2.4

5.9

2.5

3.3

3.2

3.3

7.9

8.7

8.2

8.8

7.6

10.1

5.7

7.6

2.0

2.0

1.0

2.5

1.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

5.0

4.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

6.0

4.0

5.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Number of employees

Volunteers (median)

Paid employees (median)

Volunteers (mean)

Paid employees (mean)
58

Differences Between Markets with Paid Managers and Unpaid Managers

Nationally, markets with paid management reported higher monthly market sales. Markets with paid managers 

reported average sales of $56,375 per month and median sales of $22,641 per month. Markets without paid 

managers reported average market sales of $11,059 and median sales of $4,000 per month (Figure 46). Both 

average and median sales of all markets with paid managers were fi ve times that of markets without paid managers. 

However, just looking at average or median sales of markets that did and did not use paid managers can conceal the 

sales levels at which markets hire paid management. To examine the data in more detail, we grouped the markets 

into four categories: markets with monthly sales of less than $2,500 per month (24.9 percent of all markets), 

markets with monthly sales between $2,500 to $6,999 (21.5 percent), markets with monthly sales between $7,000 

and $22,999 (24.9 percent), and markets with monthly sales of $23,000 or higher (28.7 percent). The direct 

relationship between the annual sales levels of markets and the likelihood that a paid manager was retained to 

operate the market can be seen in Figures 48 and 49. 

Figure 45. Average annual salary of market managers, by region

$14,323

$13,676

$8,864

$16,323

$14,276

$15,995

$21,913

$9,732

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Dollars
59

Comparison across these sales groups reveals the highest-tier markets used paid market managers more frequently. 

Seasonal markets with monthly market sales of $23,000 or more reported 48.4 percent had paid managers, 

compared with 11.0 percent of market managers in the sales group without paid management. The next lower sales 

group (markets with $7,000 to $22,999 in monthly sales), reported about the same monthly sales from markets 

with and without paid management. This sales group appears to be the tipping point; the percentage of paid 

managers is roughly the same as the percentage of markets that did not have paid managers. Twenty-six percent 

had paid managers and 23.5 percent did not have paid managers in this sales group. 

Seasonal markets with monthly sales in the bottom two tiers reported fewer paid managers. In the $2,500 to 

$6,999 monthly sales group, 16.8 percent reported having paid market managers and 27.1 percent reported they 

did not. In the less than $2,500 per month sales group, 8.4 percent of managers reported paid managers and 38.6 

percent of markets reported no paid managers. Seasonal and year-round markets displayed a similar pattern as all 

markets; they can be seen in Figures 48 and 49.

Figure 46. Farmers market monthly sales at markets with paid managers, unpaid managers, and all markets

$56,375

$22,641

$31,923

$8,333

$11,059

$4,000

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000

Average market sales per 

month

Median market sales per 

month

Dollars

All markets without paid manager All markets All markets with paid manager
60

Figure 47. Farmers market monthly sales at markets with paid managers, unpaid managers, and year-round markets

$90,262

$37,521

$69,497

$20,833

$19,531

$8,333

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000

Average market sales per 

month

Median market sales per 

month

Dollars

Year-round markets without paid manager All year-round markets Year-round markets with paid manager
61

Figure 48. Distribution of seasonal farmers markets with paid and unpaid managers, by sales categories, in percent

Figure 49. Distribution of year-round farmers markets with paid and unpaid managers, in percent

8.4

16.8

26.5

48.4

26.2

23.0

25.5

25.3

38.6

27.1

23.5

10.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Less than $2,500

$2,500-$6,999

$7,000-$22,999

$23,000 or More

Percent

Monthly sales

Seasonal markets without paid manager All seasonal markets

Seasonal markets with paid manager

13.5

11.5

21.2

53.8

18.2

13.6

21.6

46.6

27.3

18.2

27.3

27.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Less than $2,500

$2,500-$6,999

$7,000-$22,999

$23,000 or More

Percent

Monthly sales

Year-round market without paid manager All year-round markets

Year-round market with paid manager
62

U.S. Paid manager Unpaid manager

Market sales per month (dollars)

Mean $31,923 $56,375 $11,059

Median $8,333 $22,641 $4,000

Monthly sales by categories (percent)

Less than $2,500 24.9 9.7 37.8

$2,500 to $6,999 21.5 15.5 26.4

$7,000 to $22,999 24.9 25.1 23.7

More than $23,000 28.7 49.8 12.0

Assistance Needs

Managers were asked to rank the relative importance of 11 issues that could improve the operation of their market. 

Farmers market managers across the country consistently reported the same top three priorities in terms of needed 

market improvements, regardless of the geographic location of the market. The top three operational issues 

reported in greatest need of improvement are support for market advertising/publicity, strategies for overcoming low 

customer attendance, and strategies for boosting vendor sales (Figure 50).

Market managers in the Far West and Mid-Atlantic regions list the same fourth and fi fth most important operational 

concerns: availability of customer parking and business planning assistance, respectively. Restroom access and 

business planning assistance were the fourth and fi fth operational concerns of managers in the Rocky Mountain 

and Southeast regions, respectively. In the Southwest and Northeast regions, managers had the same concerns as 

Table 8. Farmers market monthly sales at markets with paid and unpaid managers
63

managers in the Rocky Mountain and Southeast regions but ranked them in the opposite order: business planning 

assistance was ranked fourth and restroom access was ranked fi fth. Managers in the North Central region ranked 

availability of customer parking fourth and restroom access as fi fth. All regions ranked business planning assistance 

either their fourth or fi fth issue, except for market managers in the North Central region.

Market managers were also asked to rank their highest priorities for market assistance. As with responses to the 

question about needed operational improvements, managers across the country expressed similar concerns. The 

leading marketing assistance need was support/funding for market advertising and publicity, followed closely by 

support/funding for local food promotion campaigns (Figure 51). Market managers in every region ranked market 

advertising and publicity assistance and local food promotions as either their top or second most important 

marketing assistance need. In the Southwest, North Central, and Southeast regions, market managers ranked 

assistance with market advertising and publicity as their top pick and local food promotion campaigns as their 

second most important marketing assistance need. Managers in the Far West, Rocky Mountain, Mid-Atlantic, and 

Northeast regions ranked local food promotion campaigns and assistance with market advertising and publicity as 

their fi rst and second choices. 

All regions except for the Mid-Atlantic region had targeting customers as their third or fourth priority for marketing 

assistance. In the Far West, Southwest, and Southeast regions market managers ranked merchandising and 

displays, targeting customers, and customer demographics as their third, fourth and fi fth priorities for marketing 

assistance. Managers in the North Central and Northeast ranked their priorities very similarly, switching their third 

and fourth priority, ranking targeting customers, merchandising, and displays and customer demographics as their 

third, fourth, and fi fth priorities. Rocky Mountain region market managers ranked targeting customers, customer 

demographics, and merchandising and displays as their third, fourth, and fi fth priorities. Mid-Atlantic region market 

managers ranked customer demographics, merchandising and displays, and targeting customers as their third, 

fourth, and fi fth priorities.
64

Figure 50. Top operational concerns of farmers markets, by region16

16. Respondents could select multiple issues. These fi gures represent the percentage of respondents who considered these issues important, very 

important, or extremely important.

77.0

74.1

78.8

79.3

76.5

84.8

76.5

72.6

73.0

69.7

74.1

73.2

74.1

79.4

69.9

69.7

61.7

56.9

63.0

63.0

65.1

67.4

58.8

53.8

39.9

54.3

26.5

24.6

41.0

45.7

37.7

33.6

38.6

33.8

37.5

45.5

37.1

48.0

37.0

38.1

37.8

33.3

37.8

38.2

37.7

50.0

34.1

34.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

U.S.

Far West

Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest

North 

Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

Restroom access Business planning

Availability of customer parking Low sales per vendor

Low customer attendance Advertising and publicity
65

Figure 51. Marketing assistance needs of farmers markets, by region17

17. Respondents could select multiple issues. These fi gures represent the percentage of respondents who consider these issues important, very 

important, or extremely important.

81.0

76.3

77.4

89.1

80.5

86.7

72.6

79.5

77.6

81.6

78.3

80.0

75.0

77.4

75.0

81.0

63.9

61.5

67.5

66.0

63.5

67.2

63.4

62.0

61.3

63.0

56.6

73.6

59.9

70.2

58.0

56.2

55.6

54.1

57.5

60.4

48.9

64.8

65.4

54.7

45.6

42.1

39.5

50.0

44.6

51.2

42.7

51.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

U.S.

Far West

Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest

North 

Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Percent

Business plan development Customer demographics

Merchandising and displays Targeting customers

Local food promotion Advertising and publicity
66

Participation in Federal Nutrition Programs

Many farmers markets participated in a variety of federally funded nutrition programs designed to enhance access 

to fresh fruits and vegetables for households at risk of food insecurity. Two of these programs, the Senior Farmers 

Market Nutrition program (SFMNP) and the Women, Infants, and Children Farmers Market Nutrition Program (WIC 

FMNP), provide vouchers—redeemable exclusively at farmers markets—to help subsidize purchases of fresh fruits 

and vegetables by low-income seniors and recipients of WIC benefi ts. Eligible participants in the WIC FMNP are 

women, infants (more than 4 months old), and children certifi ed to receive WIC program benefi ts or who are on 

a waiting list for WIC certifi cation. They may use their WIC FMNP coupons to purchase fresh, unprepared fruits, 

vegetables, and herbs. Because the number of allowable items can be restricted by each State, the range of 

available items varies, and may affect regional redemption levels. To qualify for WIC, applicants’ income must be at 

or below 185 percent of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines.18

Participants in the SFMNP are low-income seniors, generally defi ned as individuals at least 60 years old with 

household incomes not to exceed 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. (Some State agencies accept proof 

of participation or enrollment in another means-tested program, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), for SFMNP eligibility.19 ) 

In addition to these two programs that specifi cally promote purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers 

markets, an increasing number of farmers markets are acquiring EBT capabilities (some used in combination with a 

debit/credit card terminal) that enables SNAP participants to use their benefi ts at farmers markets. To be eligible for 

SNAP benefi ts, households may have no more than $2,000 in countable resources, such as a bank account ($3,000 

if at least one person in the household is age 60 or older or is disabled), and the gross monthly income of most 

households must be 130 percent or less of Federal poverty guidelines. Net monthly income must be 100 percent or 

less of Federal poverty guidelines. SNAP participants can buy food, except for hot foods or foods that can be eaten 

in the store.20

While all these nutrition programs have had some positive infl uence on farmers markets sales, the degree of impact 

varies considerably by program. Managers reported the WIC FMNP program contributed more to vendor sales than 

any other federally funded nutrition program, refl ecting that market participation rates in the WIC FMNP program 

exceed current participation rates in any other nutrition program. The participation rate of surveyed farmers markets 

in WIC FMNP reported in 2005 was 60.7 percent, ranging from a high of 87.9 percent in the Northeast region to 

a low of 35.8 percent in the Rocky Mountain region (Figure 52). Average monthly sales generated by WIC FMNP 

vouchers at each participating market site were $1,744 per month, ranging from a high of $2,528 per month in the 

Northeast region to a low of $1,037 in the North Central region (Figure 53). 

18. <http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/incomeguidelines.htm>

19. <http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SFMNP-Fact-Sheet.pdf>

20. <http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/faqs.htm#10>
67

Figure 52. Women, Infants, and Children’s Farmers Market Nutrition Program participation, by region, in percent

Figure 53. Average monthly value of farmers markets’ Women, Infants, and Children’s 

Farmers Market Nutrition Program sales, by region

60.7

78.1

35.8

54.0 53.4

48.5

65.6

87.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast Mid-Atlantic Northeast

Percent 

$1,744

$1,841

$1,647

$1,802

$1,037

$1,892

$1,813

$2,528

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Dollars
68

The participation of surveyed farmers markets in the SFMNP during 2005 was 45.4 percent nationally, ranging from 

a high of 72.5 percent in the Far West region to a low of 10.7 percent in the Southwest region (Figure 54). Monthly 

sales from redeemed SFMNP vouchers averaged $1,004 per market site, and varied across regions from a high of 

$1,409 per month in the Southeast region to a low of $583 in the Southwest region (Figure 55).

Figure 54. Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program participation, by region, in percent

45.4

72.5

13.6

10.7

38.8

44.4

48.8

69.1

0

20

40

60

80

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast MidAtlanticNortheast

Percent
69

Redemptions of food stamp nutrition benefi ts via EBT terminals in 2005 lagged far behind the level of participation 

in the WIC FMNP and SFMNP. Only 6.8 percent of surveyed market managers reported their market accepted food 

stamps for fresh food purchases, and on a regional basis, the use of EBT terminals to accept food stamps at farmers 

markets ranges from a low of zero in the Southwest region to a high of 15.9 percent in the Far West region (Figure 

56). Consequently, average monthly market sales generated by food stamps averaged only $279 per market site 

nationwide (Figure 57). The limited food stamp benefi ts via EBT terminals at farmers markets may refl ect in part 

the rather steep investment cost required to acquire and install a wireless EBT terminal (in the range of $1,000–

$1,500), the ongoing maintenance costs and transaction fees involved in operating the terminal, and the complex 

certifi cation and training required. (To help farmers markets enhance their ability to redeem food stamp benefi ts, 

Congress recently authorized AMS to set aside 10 percent of Farmers Market Promotion Program funds to help 

markets acquire wireless EBT terminals.)

Figure 55. Average monthly value of Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program sales, by region

$1,004

$804

$773

$583

$901

$1,409

$710

$1,177

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600

U.S.

Far West

Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Dollars
70

Figure 56. Farmers markets utilizing electronic benefi ts transfer program, by region, in percent

Figure 57. Average monthly value of electronic benefi ts transfer sales at farmers markets, by region

6.8

15.9

4.8

0.0

3.1

0.7

8.5

15.6

0

5

10

15

20

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast MidAtlanticNortheast

Percent

$279

$437

$135

$0

$237

$0

$42

$182

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Dollars
71

Gleaning at Farmers Markets

Market participation rates in gleaning or food donation programs averaged 23.9 percent nationally and ranged from 

a high of 42.1 percent in the Far West to a low of 14.0 percent in the Southeast (Figure 58). The average value of 

gleaned products was $825 per month nationally and ranged from a high of $2,239 in the Southeast region to a low 

of $193 per month in the Rocky Mountain region (Figure 59).

Figure 58. Farmers market participation in food gleaning, by region

23.9

42.1

16.9 17.5

21.3

14.0

26.8 27.7

0

20

40

60

U.S. Far West Rocky 

Mountain

Southwest North 

Central

Southeast MidAtlanticNortheast

Percent
72

Infl uence of Market Age on Market Performance

Young markets are just starting to establish themselves; they are becoming known in their communities and 

attempting to build clienteles. Sales of young markets vary greatly. The difference in sales levels of younger markets 

begs the question, how do young markets in these sales groups differ? Comparing the characteristics of young 

markets with monthly sales of less than $2,500 a month to young markets selling “$2,500 to $6,999,” “$7,000 to 

$22,999,” and “$23,000 and greater” may reveal strategies markets can use to enhance success. A comparison of 

young markets by sales categories can be seen in Table 9. By examining newly established markets across monthly 

sales categories, as shown in Appendix 5, we see that younger markets with higher level of sales:

■ Conduct more consumer surveys and make greater efforts to know their customers.

■ Offer more diversity in products, suggesting the importance of ample product assortment.

■ Were more likely to have paid market managers. 

■ Tend to be in more densely populated urban areas. 

Figure 59. Average value of food gleaned from farmers markets per month, by region

$825

$1,427

$193

$1,232

$344

$207

$529

$596

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600

U.S.

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Southwest

North Central

Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Northeast

Dollars
73

All markets Less than 5 

years old 5-9 years 10-19 years 20 years or older

Total monthly market sales

Mean $31,923 $15,078 $26,886 $29,292 $58,269

Median $8,333 $5,280 $6,730 $8,333 $20,167

Average market sales per month (percent)

Less than $2,500 24.9 31.6 22.5 23.0 19.4

$2,500 - $6,999 21.5 23.2 27.9 21.6 13.9

$7,000 - $22,999 24.9 29.0 22.5 29.5 18.8

$23,000 and higher 28.7 16.1 27.0 25.9 47.9

Established Markets versus Younger Markets

Monthly market sales reported by the most well-established markets in the survey population (markets operating for 

20 years or more) were predictably higher than at much younger markets (markets operating for less than 5 years). 

Almost 32 percent of younger markets reported average monthly sales of less than $2,500 a month, the dominant 

category for younger markets. In contrast, the most well established markets operating 20 years or more typically 

had monthly sales of $23,000 or more; 47.9 percent of established markets were in this sales category (Table 

9). As markets age, mean and median monthly market sales seem to increase in a linear fashion (Table 9). The 

number of vendors, average number of weekly customers and percentage of vendors with annual gross revenues of 

$10,000 or more also appear to increase linearly as markets age (Table 10). It is important to keep in mind that at 

every age level the percentage of vendors with sales of more than $10,000 is small. The percentage ranges from a 

low of 8.7 percent for markets that are less than 5 years old to a high of 23.3 percent for markets 20 years or older. 

Conversely, this means that while a few vendors are generating sales of more than $10,000 a year per market, 85 

percent of vendors at markets of all ages generate revenues of less than $10,000 annually per market.

Table 9. Monthly sales and distribution of sales at farmers markets, by years of operation and market sales level
74

All markets Less than 5 

years old 5-9 years 10-19 years 20 years or older

Average number of vendors 31 22 27 32 44

Average number of 

customers per week 959 430 558 985 1,944

Percentage of vendors that 

generate gross revenues of 

$10,000 or more per year

15.0 8.7 13.7 17.0 23.3

Comparison of markets of different vendor size categories across age groupings gives a hint of how markets change 

as they age. It appears that markets tend to have more vendors as markets get older. Comparison of these four size 

groups can be seen in Figure 60. The largest size category of markets in the United States, regardless of market 

age, is the “20–39 vendor” category, but the number of vendors per market varies greatly in different age groups. 

Managers of markets in operation for less than 5 years reported that 36.4 percent of their markets had fewer than 

10 vendors, while managers from markets in business between 5 and 9 years reported the most even distribution 

across all vendor size categories, ranging from “40 or more vendors” (19.4 percent) to “20–39 vendors” (28.6 

percent). Markets in operation between 10 and 19 years generally fell into the “10–19 vendors” and the “20–39 

vendors” categories, with 27.8 and 35.2 percent of markets corresponding to these categories, respectively. Markets 

in operation 20 years or more featured the largest percentage of markets with “20–39 vendors” or “40 vendors or 

more,” accounting for 29.0 and 34.9 percent of all markets in this age group, respectively. 

Table 10. Number of vendors, customers, and sales, by years in operation (all markets)
75

Figure 60. Distribution of farmers markets, by number of vendors and years of operation, in percent

23.9

36.4

26.2

16.9

13.7

25.3

23.8

25.8

27.8

22.5

29.0

26.2

28.6

35.2

29.0

21.8

13.6

19.4

20.1

34.9

0 10 20 30 40

All ages

Less than 5 

years

5-9 years

10-19 years

20 years and 

older

Percent

40 or more vendors 20-39 vendors

10-19 vendors Less than 10 vendors
76

Infl uence of Population Density on Market Performance

Comparison of markets with strong sales to markets with weak sales suggests the population density of a location 

is an important infl uence in market performance. Young markets in densely populated areas consistently had better 

sales than those in less densely populated areas. Seventy-fi ve percent of markets with sales between $7,000 

and $22,999 and 92 percent of markets with sales of $23,000 and greater were located in densely populated 

metropolitan counties, compared with 55 percent of markets with monthly sales of less than $2,500 and 44 percent 

of markets with sales between $2,500 and $6,999 (Table 11). 

 Monthly Sales

Rural-urban 

continuum code U.S. Less than$2,500

$2,500

to

$6,999

$7,000

to

$22,999

$23,000

or greater

1 35.6 28.6 22.2 31.8 68.0

2 14.0 8.2 13.9 11.1 16.0

3 14.3 18.4 8.3 31.8 8.0

4 7.0 10.2 8.3 6.8 0.0

5 5.5 4.1 11.1 9.1 8.0

6 11.1 16.3 16.7 6.8 0.0

7 5.0 0.0 5.6 2.3 0.0

8 3.8 10.2 5.6 0.0 0.0

9 3.8 4.1 8.3 0.0 0.0

Table 11. Comparison of markets less than 5 years old, by monthly sales and degree of urbanicity
77

Densely populated market locations also appeared to infl uence whether vendors choose to extend their marketing 

season. Only 57.4 percent of markets open for less than 7 months were located in urban counties, yet 80 percent 

of markets open 7 months or more and 86.7 percent of year-round markets were in urban counties.21 Location 

appears to have a signifi cant infl uence on the marketing decisions of vendors (Table 12).

Rural-urban 

continuum code U.S.

Markets open 

less than 7 

months

Markets open 

7 months or 

more

Markets open 

year-round

1 32.2 27.9 43.0 51.3

2 16.9 15.9 14.0 24.1

3 13.7 13.5 23.0 11.4

4 8.1 9.2 6.0 2.5

5 4.4 5.0 2.0 3.2

6 10.9 11.7 9.0 5.7

7 8.7 10.9 1.0 0.0

8 2.3 2.7 0.0 1.3

9 2.8 3.1 2.0 0.6

21. Urban counties have a rural-urban continuum code of 1, 2, or 3. See Appendix 2: Rural-Urban Continuum Codes for the defi nition of rural-urban continuum 

codes.

Table 12. Comparison of markets open less than 7 months versus year-round markets, by degree of urbanicity
78

Farmers markets continue to be an important and rapidly growing segment of the agricultural sector. Nevertheless, 

growth in farmers market numbers, although still increasing, is continuing at a slower pace. The reduction in the 

growth rate of farmers markets may indicate that farmers markets are approaching a saturation point. Newly 

established markets have not been able to generate the economic activity of older markets, raising questions about 

whether current levels of growth are sustainable. 

There appear to be regional differences in the revenue potential of farmers markets. Vendors in the Far West, 

Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions had the largest percentage of vendors with sizable annual sales revenues, 

suggesting the most profi table farmers markets were located on the coasts. These regions reported 12.4 percent, 

16.1 percent, and 6.7 percent of their vendors, respectively, had annual sales of $25,000 or more. In comparison, 

the Rocky Mountain and North Central regions reported 1.2 percent and 2.9 percent of vendors had annual sales of 

$25,000 or more. The national mean and median annual sales per vendor per market reported by market managers 

were $7,035 and $2,222, respectively. Market managers reported that 71.4 percent of vendors at their farmers 

markets had annual sales of $5,000 or less per market, indicating only a few vendors at a given market have sizable 

annual sales revenues. 

There may be ways organizers of new farmers markets can compensate for these trends. Market organizers may 

want to be more discriminating in their selection of locations for new markets. Organizers selecting a location for 

a new market should consider densely populated or heavily traffi cked areas that would provide a suffi cient number 

of customers for the new market without drawing customers from existing farmers markets. Our study found that 

markets with higher sales most frequently were located in densely populated, usually urban, areas. In addition, 

market managers reported that more than half of farmers market customers (58 percent) lived within 5 miles of the 

market, and 80 percent within 10 miles. 

Another recommendation to organizers of new markets would be to make an active effort to know their customers. 

Young markets (those that have been in business 5 years or less) that conducted consumer surveys reported higher 

sales than other markets in the same age category, suggesting these markets did a better job of learning the needs 

and preferences of their customers. Young markets with higher sales levels also had more diversifi ed product 

offerings and employed paid market managers more often. As new markets start to compete for customers, market 

managers may have to allocate resources to target and attract customers to their markets successfully.

The presence of organic products at farmers markets seems to operate as a driver of consumer spending, especially 

in urban locations. Customers in urban areas expressed a preference for organic products that boosted market 

sales. Furthermore, markets that sold organic products reported more customers per week, more vendors, and 

larger monthly sales. Seventy-one percent of farmers markets that sold organic products were located in urban 

areas22 compared with 55.3 percent of markets that didn’t offer organic products. 

Market organizers may also consider extending their marketing season to the longest timespan they can support. 

Markets that operated 7 months or more reported almost twice the number of vendors, almost 3 times the amount 

of sales revenue per month, and almost twice the number of customers per week, compared with markets open for 

6 months or less. The higher level of performance of these markets may be due to the availability of fresh products 

22. Urban means that the market was located in a location that had a rural-to-urban continuum code of 1, 2 or 3. Rural-to-urban continuum code is 

defi ned in Appendix 2: Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. 

Implications of Analysis for 

Market Managers
79

early and late in the growing season, which can command higher prices because fresh local products can’t be found 

elsewhere, or by the availability of more value-added shelf-stable products. Markets open for longer portions of the 

year also seem to create stronger bonds with their customers, resulting in more customers incorporating market 

visits into their routine shopping patterns. It is interesting to note that as of December 2008, 747 of the 4,668 

markets listed in the National Directory of Farmers Markets operated during winter months (October 1 through 

March 31). This represents 16 percent of all markets listed. Two hundred forty-one seasonal markets operated 

during winter months—about one-third of all markets operating in winter.

When extending your market season, you may fi nd that incremental changes yield favorable results and cost less to 

operate than a year-round facility. Markets open 7 months or more reported an average of 51 vendors, $57,290 in 

monthly market sales, and served 942 customers weekly. In comparison, year-round markets reported an average 

of 58 vendors, had monthly market sales of $69,497, and served 3,578 customers weekly. Even though year-round 

markets reported 4 times the number of weekly customers than markets open 7 months or more, they reported only 

13.7 percent more vendors and 21.3 percent greater sales revenue. 

Establishing a successful farmers market requires careful planning and coordination between farmers and vendors 

to ensure a dependable supply of a variety of products, knowledge of local customer preferences, coordination 

with town and/or city leaders, advice from local extension agents, and the involvement of local business leaders. 

Markets should be convenient to their potential customers so trips to the market are easily incorporated into routine 

shopping patterns. Market mangers should take advantage of direct contact with customers by actively seeking 

customer feedback and then refl ect those preferences in the length of the market season, the days of operation, 

and the products offered. In addition, managers of markets should remain responsive to the needs and demands of 

customers and the community and be fl exible, creative, and resourceful. 
80

Far West Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington

Rocky Mountain Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming

Southwest Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas

North Central Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin

Southeast Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

and Tennessee

Mid-Atlantic Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 

West Virginia

Northeast Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, 

and Vermont

Appendix 1: Regional Defi nitions
81

 Metro counties

1 Counties in metro areas of 1 million population or more

2 Counties in metro areas of 250,000 to 1 million population

3 Counties in metro areas of fewer than 250,000 population

 Non-metro counties

4 Urban population of 20,000 or more, adjacent to a metro area

5 Urban population of 20,000 or more, not adjacent to a metro area

6 Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, adjacent to a metro area

7 Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, not adjacent to a metro area

8 Completely rural or less than 2,500 urban population, adjacent to a metro area

9 Completely rural or less than 2,500 urban population, not adjacent to a metro area

Appendix 2: Rural-Urban Continuum 

Codes
82

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

FARMERS MARKET QUESTIONNAIRE -- 2006 OMB 0581-0169

NAME OF MARKET ________________________________________________________________

STREET ADDRESS

(including county)

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

MAILING ADDRESS

(if different from above)

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING SURVEY _________________________________________

TITLE _________________________________________

DATE _________________________________________

TELEPHONE NUMBER

(including area code) _________________________________________

FACSIMILE NUMBER

(including area code) _________________________________________

E-MAIL ADDRESS _________________________________________

MARKET WEBSITE ADDRESS _________________________________________

PART 1 -- MARKET OPERATIONS

1. Including 2005, how many years has your market been in operation? _______ Years

___ Yes ___ No

2. Is your market open year-round?

If your answer to question 2 was no, what are your months of operation?

From _____________ To _____________

3. What was the total annual revenue from producer/vendor sales at your market in 

2005? (Please estimate if you do no know the exact fi gure.) $_____________

Appendix 3: Survey Questionnaire
83

4. On average in 2005, what percentage of market sales were generated by 

the following types of market patrons?

Retail sales? (direct to consumers) _____________%

Wholesale sales? (restaurants, businesses, and/or 

institutions) + _____________%

100%

5. How many producers/vendors participated at your market in 2005?

(Do not count return visits) _____________

6. Please indicate if the following products were sold at your market in 2005, and the 

number of producers/vendors who sold these products.

Yes No Number of 

producers/vendors

Fresh fruits and vegetables ___ ___ ___________

Milk and/or dairy products ___ ___ ___________

Meat and/or poultry products ___ ___ ___________

Fish and/or seafood ___ ___ ___________

Herbs, fl owers, and plants ___ ___ ___________

Honey, nuts, jams, jellies, and preserves ___ ___ ___________

Baked goods ___ ___ ___________

Prepared food 

(for immediate consumption) ___ ___ ___________

Other processed foods ___ ___ ___________

Crafts/woodworking ___ ___ ___________

Other (please specify): 

__________________________________ ___ ___ ___________

7. Were there any organically labeled items available at your market during 2005? ___ Yes ___ No
84

8. If your answer to question 7 was yes, please indicate whether the following 

organically labeled items were sold at your market in 2005, and the number of 

producers/vendors who sold these products.

Yes No Number of 

producers/vendors

Organic fresh fruits and vegetables ___ ___ ___________

Organic milk and/or dairy products ___ ___ ___________

Organic meat and/or poultry products ___ ___ ___________

Organic herbs, fl owers, and plants ___ ___ ___________

Organic honey, jams, and jellies ___ ___ ___________

Organic prepared food 

(for immediate consumption) ___ ___ ___________

Other organic processed foods ___ ___ ___________

Other (please specify): 

__________________________________ ___ ___ ___________

9. Do producers/vendors at your market use labels other than organic to sell 

products? ___ Yes ___ No

If yes, which of the following labels do they use?

___ Locally grown

___ Natural

___ Pasture-raised/free range

___ Chemical-free/pesticide-free

___ Hormone-free/antibiotic-free

Other (please specify): 

__________________________________

10. Please rank the top three most important reasons why you believe customers 

shopped at your market in 2005. (Please select three items, and rank them 1 to 3, 

with 1 being the most important.)

___ Price

___ Freshness and condition of product

___ Taste and texture of product

___ Support of local agriculture

___ Variety of products offered

___ Access to locally produced food

___ Ability to know how food products are produced

___ Other (please specify): 

 __________________________________
85

11. The following statements address market restrictions.

Yes No

Agricultural producers are allowed to sell farm products 

they produce themselves at your market. ___ ___

Producers are allowed to resell other producers’ farm 

products. ___ ___

Producers can sell farm products from outside the local 

area. ___ ___

The range of items that can be sold at your market (e.g., 

meat, eggs, fi sh/seafood) is limited. ___ ___

Product mix at your market is controlled by limiting 

producers/vendors of the same community. ___ ___

PART 2 -- MARKET MANAGEMENT

12. Does your market operate in a permanent facility? ___ Yes ___ No

13. How large was the total are of your market in 2005? (Include parking, 

administrative areas, retail sales, etc.)

Please select one of the units of measure below and fi ll 

in the blank.

__________ sq. ft. -or- __________ acres

14. What was your market’s annual operating budget in 2005? $_____________

15. Please check any of the following methods of advertising that your market 

currently uses. For each item that you check, please circle the appropriate number to 

indicate the effectiveness of that method.

Not 

Effective

Very 

Effective

___ Newspaper 1 2 3 4 5

___ Radio 12 3 4 5

___ Television 12 3 4 5

___ Brochures/fl yers 12 3 4 5

___ Direct mail 12 3 4 5

___ Newsletter 12 3 4 5

___ Signs/banners on market day 12 3 4 5

___ Other (please specify): 

______________________________ 12 3 4 5
86

16. How much did your market spend on advertising in 2005? $_____________

17. Does your market conduct periodic customer surveys to assess customer 

preferences? ___ Yes ___ No

18. Was your market economically self-sustaining in 2005? (i.e., was market income 

suffi cient to pay for all costs associated with operating the market) ___ Yes ___ No

19. How did your market fi nance its operations in 2005? (Please indicate the 

percentage provided by each funding source next to the appropriate label; the total 

percentage from all sources should add up to 100%)

_____ Producer/vendor fees

_____ State government agency

_____ City/county municipal government agency

_____ Nonprofi t organization

_____ Farmer market association

_____ Trade or business association (e.g., Chamber of Commerce)

_____ Other (please specify): __________________________________

 100%

20. Are producers/vendors charged a fee to sell at your market? ___ Yes ___ No

If yes, please indicate the types of fees used by your 

market.

___ Flat rate

___ Percentage of sales

___ Farm inspection fee

___ Membership fee

___ Other (please specify): 

 __________________________________

21. Is your market manage or the person who is in charge of your market a paid 

employee? ___ Yes ___ No

If yes, what is the annual salary of your market 

manager? $_____________
87

22. Please indicate the work status of your market manager.

___ Part-time seasonal

___ Part-time year-round

___ Full-time seasonal

___ Full-time year-round

23. Including your market manager:

How many full-time seasonal workers does your market 

employ? ___________

How many full-time year-round workers does your 

market employ? ___________

How many part-time seasonal workers does your market 

employ? ___________

How many part-time year-round workers does your 

market employ? ___________

How many volunteers work at your market? ___________

24. Who develops rules, regulations, and producer/vendor criteria for your market?

___ State government agency

___ City/county or municipal government agency

___ Producer/vendor-operated Board of Directors

___ Community association/non-profi t organization

___ Market manager

___ Other (please specify): _________________________________________________
88

25. Which of the following operational issues do you believe are in the greatest need of improvement as your 

market? (Please select three items and rank them 1-3, with 1 being the most important.)

___ Customer number (low attendance)

___ Low sales per producer/vendor

___ Access to public restrooms

___ Development of business plan for market

___ Liability insurance coverage

___ Parking for customers

___ Tenant agreements/relationships with market tenants

___ Utilities (e.g., electricity, water)

___ Certifi ed processing/kitchen facilities

___ Advertising/publicity

___ Waste management

___ Other (please explain): _________________________________________________

26. What types if market assistance do you believe would help your market’s producers/vendors increase their 

sales to consumers? (Please select three items and rank them 1 to 3, with 1 being the most important.)

___ Research on local customer demographics and preference

___ Improvements in layout of facility

___ Renovation of aging facility

___ Training on how to better target consumers

___ Training on business plan development

___ Support/funding for producer/vendor advertising and publicity

___ Training on merchandising/retail displays

___ Support/funding for local food promotion campaigns

___ Other (please explain): _________________________________________________

PART 3 -- PRODUCER/VENDOR INFORMATION

27. How many producers/vendors at your market in 2005 only sold farm products 

they produced themselves? (Do not count return visits.) ___________

28. How many producers/vendors used your market as their only outlet to sell farm 

products in 2005? (Do not count return visits.) ___________
89

29. Please indicate the number of producers/vendors at your market in 2005, by level of annual sales. 

(The sum of these categories should equal your answer to question 5.)

$1 - 

$1,000

$1,001 - 

$5,000

$5,001 - 

$10,000

$10,001 - 

$25,000

$25,001 - 

$50,000

$50,001 - 

$100,000 $100,001+

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

30. What percentage of producers/vendors using your market traveled the following distances in 2005? 

(Your answers should equal 100%.)

0 - 10 Miles 11 - 20 

Miles

21 - 50 

Miles

51 - 100 

Miles

101+ 

Miles

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____

31. Approximately what percentage of producers/vendors at your market in 2005 belonged to the following 

ethnicity and racial groups?

Ethnicity:

Hispanic or Latino _____

Not Hispanic or Latino _____

100%

Race:

American Indian or Alaska Native _____

Asian _____

Black or African American _____

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacifi c Islander _____

White _____

100%

32. Which of the following statements about your market was MOST true in 2005?

___ We have more demand than supply (we need more producers/vendors)

___ We have more supply than demand (we need more customers)

___ Our supply and demand are roughly equal
90

The following questions pertain to nutrition-related issues:

33. Do producers/vendors at your market participate in the Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC) Farmers Market Nutrition Program? ___ Yes ___ No

If yes, please indicate:

a) How many producers/vendors at your market 

participated in the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition 

Program in 2005? ________

b) What was the value of WIC Farmers Market Nutrition 

Program sales at your market in 2005? $________

34. Do producers/vendors at yoru market participate in the Senior Farmers Market 

Nutrition Program? ___ Yes ___ No

If yes, please indicate:

a) How many producers/vendors at your market 

participated in the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition 

Program in 2005? ________

b) What was the value of Senior Farmers Market 

Nutrition Program sales at your market in 2005? $________

35. Do producers/vendors at your market accept food stamps using electronic 

benefi ts? Transfer (EBT) technology? ___ Yes ___ No

If yes, please indicate:

a) How many producers/vendors at your market 

participated in EBT food stamp sales in 2005? ________

b) What was the value of EBT sales at your market in 

2005? $________

36. Does your market participate in a food “gleaning” or donation program? ___ Yes ___ No

If yes, please indicate:

a) How many pounds of food do you estimate that your 

market donated in 2005? ________

b) What is your estimate of the dollar value of the food 

that your market donated in 2005? $________
91

PART 4 -- CONSUMER INFORMATION

37. On average, how many customers patronized your market each week in 2005? ________

38. How far do customers typically travel to get to your market. (Please indicate the 

appropriate percentage for each distance category.)

0 - 5 Miles ________

6 - 10 Miles ________

11 - 20 Miles ________

21 - 50 Miles ________

51+ Miles ________

100%

39. Please list any additional comments you may have below.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this 

information collection is 0581-0169. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 19 

minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining

the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 
92

Appendix 4: Distribution of All Farmers 

Markets, by Sales Categories and RuralUrban Continuum Codes

0 10 20 30 40 50

U.S.

Less than $2,500

Between $2,500 

and $6,999

Between $7,000 

and $22,999

$23,000 and 

greater

32.2

24.5

22.5

30.7

43.8

16.9

11.5

13.3

13.9

20.6

13.7

13.7

8.3

21.9

20.6

8.1

9.4

7.5

8.8

7.5

4.4

5.0

7.5

5.1

1.9

10.9

17.3

15.8

7.3

3.8

8.7

9.4

13.3

9.5

1.9

2.3

5.8

4.2

2.9

0.0

2.8

3.6

7.5

0.0

0.0

Percent

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1
93

Monthly Sales

U.S. Less than

$2,500

$2,500

to

$6,999

$7,000

to

$22,999

$23,000

or greater

Number of vendors using the market

Mean 22.3 9.5 17.1 21.0 50.6

Median 15.0 5.0 14.0 19.5 42.0

Number of participating vendors, in percent

Less than 10 36.4 69.4 31.4 17.5 8.0

10 to 19 23.8 20.4 31.4 32.5 28.0

20 to 39 26.2 6.1 34.3 45.0 12.0

40 or greater 13.6 4.1 2.9 5.0 52.0

Percentage of vendors that sold only what they produced

Mean 69.7 79.0 70.1 62.4 62.2

Median 76.9 100.0 66.7 69.1 66.4

Percentage of vendors that sold only what they produce, in level of market participation

0% 2.8 2.0 2.9 7.5 0.0

1 to 49% 20.5 12.2 8.6 27.5 25.0

50 to 99% 39.4 30.6 60.0 40.0 58.3

100% 37.3 55.1 28.6 25.0 16.7

Percentage of vendors that used the market as their sole sales outlet for farm products

Mean 20.5 25.3 22.0 19.0 9.0

Median 8.3 13.3 16.7 10.8 2.5

Appendix 5: Comparison of Markets Less 

than 5 Years Old, by Characteristics
94

Monthly Sales

U.S. Less than

$2,500

$2,500

to

$6,999

$7,000

to

$22,999

$23,000

or greater

Distribution of individual vendor sales, by sale level of markets

$1 to $1,000 50.0 71.9 46.4 30.7 15.4

$1,000 to $5,000 31.1 23.1 38.5 36.8 29.3

$5,001 to $10,000 10.2 4.4 9.6 20.5 22.2

$10,001 to $25,000 5.6 0.7 1.9 8.3 21.3

$25,001 to $50,000 1.9 0.0 3.5 0.6 7.5

$50,001 to $100,000 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.6

$100,001 or Greater 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7

Average number of weekly customers

Mean 429.6 119.3 467.3 589.0 1,290.0

Median 200.0 67.5 150.0 300.0 938.5

Distribution of markets, by region

Far West 13.9 14.3 16.7 26.7 24.0

Rocky Mountain 10.4 6.1 11.1 6.7 20.0

Southwest 5.5 12.2 13.9 2.2 8.0

North Central 31.6 26.5 30.6 13.3 12.0

Southeast 10.1 18.4 2.8 11.1 8.0

Mid-Atlantic 13.6 4.1 13.9 20.0 12.0

Northeast 14.8 18.4 11.1 20.0 16.0

Percentage of vendors selling product, by product type

Fruits and vegetables 42.4 52.9 41.6 35.6 41.3

Milk and/or dairy 1.9 1.8 2.3 1.3 2.3

Meat and/or poultry 4.1 3.3 5.2 4.4 5.0

Fish and/or seafood 0.8 0.4 0.28 1.2 1.2

Herbs, fl owers and plants 14.8 13.4 15.0 15.1 12.7

Honey, nuts, jams, jellies and 

preserves

9.1 9.1 7.3 9.3 8.5

Baked goods 9.1 6.7 11.4 10.4 7.0

Prepared foods 4.1 3.9 3.1 7.2 3.8

Processed foods 2.4 0.3 3.2 1.8 8.0

Crafts/woodworking 8.4 7.1 7.2 10.2 7.5

Other products 3.1 1.2 3.5 3.6 2.8
95

Monthly Sales

U.S. Less than

$2,500

$2,500

to

$6,999

$7,000

to

$22,999

$23,000

or greater

Percentage product mix of market, measured by the concentration of fruit and vegetable vendors

0% to 29% 34.2 17.8 31.4 43.6 39.1

30% to 44.99 % 27.6 33.3 34.3 35.9 13.0

45% to 59.99% 18.3 13.3 20.0 12.8 26.1

60% and greater 19.9 35.6 14.3 7.7 21.7

Monthly sales per vendor

Mean $766 $197 $367 $1,115 $1,879

Median $403 $125 $286 $688 $1,531

Percentage of markets with a paid market manager

35.9 15.2 28.6 48.7 63.6

Average salary of market manager

Mean $13,855 $16,700 $12,011 $15,555 $16,266

Median $5,727 $9,500 $5,000 $7,613 $13,231

Percentage of markets that conduct customer surveys

28.9 37.8 37.1 43.6 50.0

Operating budget of market

Mean $10,801 $3,800 $3,860 $21,144 $25,217

Median $2,000 $450 $2,000 $5,676 $10,368

Percentage of year round markets

7.8 16.3 5.6 15.6 4.0

Rural-urban continuum code

1 35.6 28.6 22.2 31.8 68.0

2 14.0 8.2 13.9 11.1 16.0

3 14.3 18.4 8.3 31.8 8.0

4 7.0 10.2 8.3 6.8 0.0

5 5.5 4.1 11.1 9.1 8.0

6 11.1 16.3 16.7 6.8 0.0

7 5.0 0.0 5.6 2.3 0.0

8 3.8 10.2 5.6 0.0 0.0

9 3.8 4.1 8.3 0.0 0.0
96

U.S. Markets open less 

than 7 months

Markets open for 7 

months or more

Markets open 

year-round 

Years in operation

Mean 14.9 12.4 18 29

Median 10.0 9.0 12 15

Years in operation, by age groups (in percent)

0 - 4 years 27.8 29.6 24.5 17.8

5 - 9 years 21.7 22.5 19.4 17.8

10 -19 years 24.4 24.7 24.5 21.7

20 or more years 26.1 23.2 31.6 42.8

Average monthly sales

Mean $31,923 $20,770 $57,290 $69,497

Median $8,333 $6,250 $20,000 $20,833

Average monthly sales, grouped (in percent)

Less than $2,500 24.9 26.9 20.8 18.2

$2,500 - $6,999 21.5 24.7 9.4 13.6

$7,000 - $22,999 24.9 25.7 22.6 21.6

$23,000 28.7 22.5 47.6 46.6

Average number of vendors

Mean 31 25 51 58

Median 20 18 30 35

Average number of vendors, grouped 

Less than 10 23.9 26.6 12.5 11.6

10-19 25.3 26.5 20.8 17.0

20-39 29.0 29.7 24.0 30.6

40 or more 21.8 17.2 42.7 40.8

Appendix 6: Market and Vendor 

Characteristics for Markets: Open Less than 

7 Months, Open 7 Months or More, and 

Year-Round Markets
97

U.S. Markets open less 

than 7 months

Markets open for 7 

months or more

Markets open 

year-round

Vendor sales categories (in percent)

$1-$1,000 44.2 49.2 28.6 26.0

$1,001-$5,000 27.2 29.2 24.7 18.4

$5,001-$10,000 13.6 13.0 19.5 14.0

$10,001-$25,000 8.5 6.1 13.7 19.0

$25,001-$50,000 4.1 2.2 5.7 11.8

$50,001-$100,000 1.8 0.2 6.8 7.3

$100,001 and greater 0.6 0.0 0.9 3.4

Average number of weekly customers

Mean 959 565 942 3,578

Median 200 200 450 1,000

Average number of weekly customers, grouped

Less than 100 22.9 26.4 14.1 3.4

100-299 33.1 37.5 17.9 17.2

300-599 19.5 18.2 25.9 22.4

600 and greater 24.5 17.8 42.6 56.9

Percentage that conducted customer surveys

27.6 26.3 33.3 31.6

Percentage of markets that had paid manager

39.3 34.2 54.7 66.9
98

U.S. Markets open less 

than 7 months

Markets open for 7 

months or more

Markets open 

year-round

Percent of markets by regions

Far West 13.9 9.5 17.0 39.9

Rocky Mountain 7.4 8.4 3.0 2.5

Southwest 5.0 4.4 7.0 7.6

North Central 36.0 41.2 21.0 12.0

Southeast 11.6 8.8 28.0 20.3

Mid-Atlantic 12.4 11.3 20.0 13.9

Northeast 13.8 16.5 4.0 3.8

Average operating budget

Mean $20,864 $8,119 $25,322 $116,259

Median $2,000 $1,500 $9,250 $28,000

Average operating budget, grouped

Zero 10.4 11.2 5.7 6.9

$1-$599 20.3 22.9 8.6 6.9

$600-$2,499 22.2 24.6 18.6 3.9

$2,500-$9,999 22.8 25.1 17.1 12.7

$10,000 and greater 24.2 16.2 50.0 69.6

Average advertising expense

Mean $3,566 $2,291 $3,630 $12,526

Median $500 $500 $1,500 $2,200

Average advertising expense, grouped

Zero 14.2 14.1 13.6 12.7

$1-$349 25.2 28.4 8.6 14.4

$350-$1,199 24.7 25.7 25.9 15.3

$1,200-$5,199 24.7 24.8 29.6 24.6

$5,200 and greater 11.1 7.0 22.2 33.1
99

U.S. Markets open less 

than 7 months

Markets open for 7 

months or more

Markets open 

year-round

Rural-urban continuum code

1 32.2 27.9 43.0 51.3

2 16.9 15.9 14.0 24.1

3 13.7 13.5 23.0 11.4

4 8.1 9.2 6.0 2.5

5 4.4 5.0 2.0 3.2

6 10.9 11.7 9.0 5.7

7 8.7 10.9 1.0 0.0

8 2.3 2.7 0.0 1.3

9 2.8 3.1 2.0 0.6
100

Average In common use, the arithmetic mean. 

Data trimming The practice of ignoring atypical data in order to present a more accurate picture of the 

distribution. In most cases, a few extreme data points are ignored.

Distribution The pattern of data points in an x-y coordinal plan.

Likert scale A device for assigning units of analysis to categories of a variable. It is often used to 

measure the internal states of people’s attitudes, emotions, and orientations.

Mean A value computed by dividing the sum of a set of terms by the number of terms 

Commonly known as the average.

Median The value that represents the point at which there are as many instances above as there 

are below. For example, the average of a group of persons earning 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 

dollars an hour is 6 dollars, whereas the median is 5 dollars. 

Skewed data An uneven distribution of data. When plotted, the data forms an asymmetrical pattern, 

with most of the data to one side of the center of the distribution.

Glossary
101
102