S.S.A.P. said:
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.