87% Checkoff Funded Programs Went to NCBA

[S.S.A.P.]

Econ101:.... Are any of these campaigns directed against pork and chicken ....

US or Canada, I don't think we need to start a pithing match between the beef, pork or chicken industries !! The vegan groups would be jumping with joy.

What good is checkoff money if you can't use it to advertise against your competition?

"Directed against" or "compared to" ... perhaps I misread the tone in your words. Can you give me an example of an advertisement you would make supporting "directed against"?

 

[Econ101]

US or Canada, I don't think we need to start a pithing match between the beef, pork or chicken industries !! The vegan groups would be jumping with joy.

What good is checkoff money if you can't use it to advertise against your competition?

"Directed against" or "compared to" ... perhaps I misread the tone in your words. Can you give me an example of an advertisement you would make supporting "directed against"?

Some people have made the assertion additional beef demand must come at the expense of chicken and pork and its other substitutes. I was just asking if checkoff dollars were spent advertising directly against chicken and pork to get that consumption back. I think it would be real funny if it could happen because checkoff dollars would be used to decrease the demand of chicken--Tyson's main line of business before IBP. I don't think Tyson would want that to happen nor would Swift. I just want to know, why not--the dollars come from beef producers?

 

[Anonymous]

Using checkoff dollars to advertise against pork and chicken.

GOSH, WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT????

Pork and Poultry could help promote R-CULT's message:

HEADLINES: "U.S. BEEF CONTAMINATED - BSE FOUND IN NATIVE HERD"

Any more stupid ideas Kindergarten?



~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

Some people have made the assertion additional beef demand must come at the expense of chicken and pork and its other substitutes. I was just asking if checkoff dollars were spent advertising directly against chicken and pork to get that consumption back. I think it would be real funny if it could happen because checkoff dollars would be used to decrease the demand of chicken--Tyson's main line of business before IBP. I don't think Tyson would want that to happen nor would Swift. I just want to know, why not--the dollars come from beef producers?

I think you have identified why the checkoff has been ineffective and why it never will be effective!!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

RM: "I think you have identified why the checkoff has been ineffective and why it never will be effective!!!!!!"

Only to a conspiracy theorist.



~SH~

 

[ocm]

If only you were as interested in the percent of funding for R-Calf that has beef wasted on fallacious law suits. Talk about misuse of funds and being taken for a ride-donate to R-Calf.

At least the "idiots" who donated to the lawsuits did it voluntarily. R-CALF doesn't collect any "taxes."

 

[S.S.A.P.]

Econ101: Some people have made the assertion additional beef demand must come at the expense of chicken and pork and its other substitutes. I was just asking if checkoff dollars were spent advertising directly against chicken and pork to get that consumption back. I think it would be real funny if it could happen because checkoff dollars would be used to decrease the demand of chicken--Tyson's main line of business before IBP. I don't think Tyson would want that to happen nor would Swift. I just want to know, why not--the dollars come from beef producers?

To advertise directly against would become a pithing match - a waste of $'s. (just like political elections) .... and you, yourself, have stated your opinion on "politics" in our industry. You don't think the pork and poultry industries would take the defensive position and come back with their own advertisements directly against beef?

Econ101: That kind of stuff has been researched to death. Those figures are just sales gimmicks. Eat a well balanced diet. That is just "pork" for some "researcher".

Econ101: I think it would be real funny if it could happen because checkoff dollars would be used to decrease the demand of chicken--Tyson's main line of business before IBP. I don't think Tyson would want that to happen nor would Swift.

Your comments make me wonder if you want to boost beef sales or is it more with your vendetta against Tyson / Cargill.

 

[Sandhusker]

I have an observation; If chicken and pork are indeed our biggest competition, and if the checkoff has been so sucessful, why has beef lost ground to chicken and pork?

 

[RobertMac]

To advertise directly against would become a pithing match - a waste of $'s. You don't think the pork and poultry industries would take the defensive position and come back with their own advertisements directly against beef?

Almost every business competing for the consumer's dollars advertises against their competition. I have confidence we can win that battle! If you are scared...say you're scared!!!

 

[Econ101]

Econ101: Some people have made the assertion additional beef demand must come at the expense of chicken and pork and its other substitutes. I was just asking if checkoff dollars were spent advertising directly against chicken and pork to get that consumption back. I think it would be real funny if it could happen because checkoff dollars would be used to decrease the demand of chicken--Tyson's main line of business before IBP. I don't think Tyson would want that to happen nor would Swift. I just want to know, why not--the dollars come from beef producers?

To advertise directly against would become a pithing match - a waste of $'s. (just like political elections) .... and you, yourself, have stated your opinion on "politics" in our industry. You don't think the pork and poultry industries would take the defensive position and come back with their own advertisements directly against beef?

Econ101: That kind of stuff has been researched to death. Those figures are just sales gimmicks. Eat a well balanced diet. That is just "pork" for some "researcher".

Econ101: I think it would be real funny if it could happen because checkoff dollars would be used to decrease the demand of chicken--Tyson's main line of business before IBP. I don't think Tyson would want that to happen nor would Swift.

Your comments make me wonder if you want to boost beef sales or is it more with your vendetta against Tyson / Cargill.

Hey, someone else suggested that beef consumption lost ground to poultry and pork. Here are the options:

If you want to be successful, you have to confront that reality. I am just saying that the way the USDA is being run today--for the interests of the packers, not the public, you will never get beef check off dollars used to compete against chicken and pork--Tyson and Swift would never allow it. Therefore the checkoff dollars are held hostage, not to the interests of those who paid into it, the beef people, but to the packers.

Why don't we just put a tax on the boxed beef instead of producers if this is the case? The reason that will not happen is that the packers don't want to pool their money for beef advertising because the benefit goes to the producer if margins are the same with just a small gain in total revenue from increased volume.

This advertisement sets up a delima. In case 1) Advertising benefit goes to producers and is paid by producers if they can advertise against pork and chicken. Case 2) Advertising dollars is paid by packers and goes to benefit producers and increase their own profitability by increasing the amount a margin is made on.

Scenario 1) will never be allowed to happen because the packers have undue influence in the USDA and that scenario would decrease total profits due to some of the big packers having a big stake in the substitutes.

Scenario 2) will never happen because the packers can get scenario 1) without paying a dime and through their control of the advertising, not allow the advertising to be against pork and chicken. They can also get higher profits on increased volume while not allowing that increased volume come at the expense of their substitutes.

Think a minute, who won on that one? Was it the people who pay the checkoff dollars?

I am sure there are other scenarios, so what are they? Try to state who pays the "tax" for advertising and who benefits.

 

[S.S.A.P.]

Econ101 and RobertMac give me an example of your advertising campaign directly against pork and poultry.

 

[Econ101]

Econ101 and RobertMac give me an example of your advertising campaign directly against pork and poultry.

I will try to not get too far away from my area of expertise. I am sure the quality type producers who are proud of their product can come up with those campaigns.

The question is, does advertising generic beef benefit producers to the extent of their checkoff dollar? Tam may have been on to something on the research into easier ways to eat beef but that may be beneficial to those producing that product. Why should cattlemen subsidize advertising for that type of product? They probably will not get the return on investment necessary.

The packers probably would not get the return on investment if they collectively advertised beef instead of the producer under scenario 2 even on increased volume. SH correctly pointed out that Tyson advertises its products but they also get a higher margin on that product. With higher margins, the benefits of advertisement increases.

If beef is to always be a low margin product, advertisement may not be the answer. Robert Mac believes he can create a higher margin product through his traceback system and quality controls. He may be right. SH says Mike C. can not. Lets hear from the experts.

 

[mrj]

OT, It would be nice if there were some USA beef proposals in there to round out the pot (I still do not discount the value of good Canadian beef). Are any of these campaigns directed against pork and chicken as these are the substitutes that some on this board have said checkoff dollars are needed to compete against?

Just asking.

Checkoff money cannot be used "against pork and chicken" directly. What has been done is to research the nutritional values and compare them in ads. One that I recall pointed out how to get the nutrients in three ounces of beef, a person would have to eat something like 11 chicken breasts! And the fat values were quite comparable, while people have been lead to believe the beef has far more calories from fat that does poultry. That information has been given to media, health care professionals and consumers via checkoff projects as well as through advertising.

MRJ

That kind of stuff has been researched to death. Those figures are just sales gimmicks. Eat a well balanced diet. That is just "pork" for some "researcher".

Who has ever put the information into an ad that is easy for any consumer to understand previous to the beef checkoff doing so? Did you even know that it has been done by the Checkoff?

Surely you understand that for years government and health professionals have been telling people that white meat of poultry was a more healthful protein than beef was. You and I may instinctively know that is not true. Some other consumers realize it doesn't make sense, yet there just isn't enough common sense to counter health "experts" telling their patients not to eat beef. We had to do the research to PROVE beef is a nutritional valuable food, far above poultry before we could give that information to those health professionals and consumers.

You seem to find it real easy to criticize the work done by the checkoff. Have you ever made any constructive suggestions or checked to see what actually is being done besides advertising? It is as easy as sending a message to [email protected].

MRJ

 

[mrj]

Econ101: Some people have made the assertion additional beef demand must come at the expense of chicken and pork and its other substitutes. I was just asking if checkoff dollars were spent advertising directly against chicken and pork to get that consumption back. I think it would be real funny if it could happen because checkoff dollars would be used to decrease the demand of chicken--Tyson's main line of business before IBP. I don't think Tyson would want that to happen nor would Swift. I just want to know, why not--the dollars come from beef producers?

To advertise directly against would become a pithing match - a waste of $'s. (just like political elections) .... and you, yourself, have stated your opinion on "politics" in our industry. You don't think the pork and poultry industries would take the defensive position and come back with their own advertisements directly against beef?

Econ101: That kind of stuff has been researched to death. Those figures are just sales gimmicks. Eat a well balanced diet. That is just "pork" for some "researcher".

Econ101: I think it would be real funny if it could happen because checkoff dollars would be used to decrease the demand of chicken--Tyson's main line of business before IBP. I don't think Tyson would want that to happen nor would Swift.

Your comments make me wonder if you want to boost beef sales or is it more with your vendetta against Tyson / Cargill.

Hey, someone else suggested that beef consumption lost ground to poultry and pork. Here are the options:

If you want to be successful, you have to confront that reality. I am just saying that the way the USDA is being run today--for the interests of the packers, not the public, you will never get beef check off dollars used to compete against chicken and pork--Tyson and Swift would never allow it. Therefore the checkoff dollars are held hostage, not to the interests of those who paid into it, the beef people, but to the packers.

Why don't we just put a tax on the boxed beef instead of producers if this is the case? The reason that will not happen is that the packers don't want to pool their money for beef advertising because the benefit goes to the producer if margins are the same with just a small gain in total revenue from increased volume.

This advertisement sets up a delima. In case 1) Advertising benefit goes to producers and is paid by producers if they can advertise against pork and chicken. Case 2) Advertising dollars is paid by packers and goes to benefit producers and increase their own profitability by increasing the amount a margin is made on.

Scenario 1) will never be allowed to happen because the packers have undue influence in the USDA and that scenario would decrease total profits due to some of the big packers having a big stake in the substitutes.

Scenario 2) will never happen because the packers can get scenario 1) without paying a dime and through their control of the advertising, not allow the advertising to be against pork and chicken. They can also get higher profits on increased volume while not allowing that increased volume come at the expense of their substitutes.

Think a minute, who won on that one? Was it the people who pay the checkoff dollars?

I am sure there are other scenarios, so what are they? Try to state who pays the "tax" for advertising and who benefits.

Econ 101, I do realize it is probably futile to attempt reasoning with one like yourself who is obviously into the conspiracy theories re. "evil packers" and "corporate giants" wanting to put ranchers out of business, but will give it my best shot, anyway.

Your premise that "you will never get the checkoff dollars to compete against chicken and pork....Tyson and Swift would never allow it.....checkoff dollars are held hostage...." is all shot down! It is absolute fact that the research was done, the ads were used showing that it would require eating something like 11 chicken breasts to get the nutritients in only one serving of beef, and at only a miniscule amount more fat than the chicken has. Continuing research will probably show that the trace nutrients in that beef fat are valuable enough to the diet to make even the additional fat better for ones' health than the chicken. Not only were those facts advertised with checkoff dollars, the information was also taught to health professionals and consumers. If Tyson and friends even noticed, they certainly could do nothing to stop it!

However, I really do not believe the nutrient angle is the most important factor in the market share differences between beef and competing proteins. It simply gives people reason to feel good about eating the beef they love. We worry so much about our health these days, it seems many need such "permission" to enjoy eating good food like beef.

Simply put, poultry and pork can sell for far less than beef. Therein lies the major reason for the difference.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "I am just saying that the way the USDA is being run today--for the interests of the packers, not the public, you will never get beef check off dollars used to compete against chicken and pork--Tyson and Swift would never allow it. Therefore the checkoff dollars are held hostage, not to the interests of those who paid into it, the beef people, but to the packers."

That is absolutely untrue from two standpoints.

1. USDA is held hostage to the consumer because they outvote the large packers and the producer by a huge margin. If your assinine conspiracy theory about USDA being controlled by the packers was true, the AMI would not have filed suit against USDDA to allow the importation of OTM cattle. Consider yourself proven wrong with that fact alone.

2. Tyson and Swift have no control over how checkoff dollars are spent.

Once again, you show your ignorance to the world.


As far as negative adds against pork and poultry, that's risky considering how those meats could use R-CULT's BSE fear mongering against us. That could easily turn into a war that would be won by the vegetarians. It's far better to promote the benefits of beef than to degrade poultry and pork. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.




~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Typical response from someone who doesn't like disagreement.

MRJ

Econ 101, I do realize it is probably futile to attempt reasoning with one like yourself who is obviously into the conspiracy theories re. "evil packers" and "corporate giants" wanting to put ranchers out of business, but will give it my best shot, anyway.

Was is not SH who suggested that those who oppose the checkoff be banned from the benefits. (I'm sure he'll deny that one).

Support advertising all you want MRJ, but just like I cannot prove it doesn't help the producer, you can't prove it does either. And you know darn well that I am talking about checkoff funded advertising.

If the industry was integrated, advertising by producers would likely help, but the industry is divided. There are price takers, and those that offer. It is as simple as that. The two are not working together. The two are working for their own best interests. Call that blaming as you and your gang of turtles always do, but it is reality.

 

[agman]

Some people have made the assertion additional beef demand must come at the expense of chicken and pork and its other substitutes. I was just asking if checkoff dollars were spent advertising directly against chicken and pork to get that consumption back. I think it would be real funny if it could happen because checkoff dollars would be used to decrease the demand of chicken--Tyson's main line of business before IBP. I don't think Tyson would want that to happen nor would Swift. I just want to know, why not--the dollars come from beef producers?

I think you have identified why the checkoff has been ineffective and why it never will be effective!!!!!!

You know better than to make that statement RM.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "Was is not SH who suggested that those who oppose the checkoff be banned from the benefits. (I'm sure he'll deny that one)."

YOU CAN'T GET ANYTHING RIGHT CAN YOU??????

That's not what I said.

What I said was it would be nice if producers who opposed the checkoff were not forced to benefit against their will. It would be great to create a situation where chronic bitchers didn't have to pay and only those who paid would benefit.

How is that even remotely close to what you accused me of saying.

You can't even comprehend what I just wrote can you?



~SH~

 

[agman]

If only you were as interested in the percent of funding for R-Calf that has beef wasted on fallacious law suits. Talk about misuse of funds and being taken for a ride-donate to R-Calf.

At least the "idiots" who donated to the lawsuits did it voluntarily. R-CALF doesn't collect any "taxes."

I am glad to see you finally defined and classified those people who voluntarily donated to support the R-Calf lawsuits-the ones they always lose. Remember, that you made the aforementioned definition, not me. Try and wiggle you way of this one OCM.

 

[mrj]

Typical response from someone who doesn't like disagreement.

MRJ

Econ 101, I do realize it is probably futile to attempt reasoning with one like yourself who is obviously into the conspiracy theories re. "evil packers" and "corporate giants" wanting to put ranchers out of business, but will give it my best shot, anyway.

Was is not SH who suggested that those who oppose the checkoff be banned from the benefits. (I'm sure he'll deny that one).

Support advertising all you want MRJ, but just like I cannot prove it doesn't help the producer, you can't prove it does either. And you know darn well that I am talking about checkoff funded advertising.

If the industry was integrated, advertising by producers would likely help, but the industry is divided. There are price takers, and those that offer. It is as simple as that. The two are not working together. The two are working for their own best interests. Call that blaming as you and your gang of turtles always do, but it is reality.

randy, you are incorrect in what SH suggested re. checkoff and producers. I know this may not be verbatim, but is close to what he, and many others believe: It would be great if a system similar to the checkoff could be designed wherin only those who participate may benefit. What you imply is that he does not want those who pay in, but philosophically oppose, the checkoff to benefit from it. That is NOT what he has said.

BTW, I'm not promoting ONLY advertising, and think it probably should have a smaller share of the checkoff money due to the serious need for more targeted education of health professionals and of media leaders who need more information about the actual nutritional values of beef and the safety and even the need of beef in the diet of most people.

MRJ