Build a Better Burger contest facts

[mrj]

Don't recall who complained of spending $50,000.00 in prize money for the best hamburger, but here are the facts. It is pretty exciting to have a contest focused on creating a high quality hamburger. They are pretty hard to find when eating out.

Sutter Home wine company negotiated a deal to use the promotional material, especially the "Beef It's What's For Dinner" slogan in their Build a Better Burger contest.

This is a prime example of the many times Beef Checkoff leaders have worked out deals to either leverage checkoff dollars with additional money from allied businesses for projects, or as in this case, to focus more attention on beef with ABSOLUTELY NO checkoff dollars required.

The contest will be mentioned briefly as an addition to some ads and press releases funded by the checkoff, but there is no additional cost for doing that.

Sutter Home and other food related businesses seem to clearly understand that the high recognition of our slogan has value and that partnering their product with our beef adds value to their product.

They realize the value and the part the Beef Checkoff has had in increasing demand of beef. They can see the value for their money to partner with us will also add value to their product.

Unfortunately, some people in the cattle business don't admit the Beef Checkoff has created that value. They attribute increased beef demand to the Atkins diet while ignoring the part the checkoff has played.

MRJ

 

[mrj]

Don't recall who complained of spending $50,000.00 in prize money for the best hamburger, but here are the facts. It is pretty exciting to have a contest focused on creating a high quality hamburger. They are pretty hard to find when eating out.

Sutter Home wine company negotiated a deal to use the promotional material, especially the "Beef It's What's For Dinner" slogan in their Build a Better Burger contest.

This is a prime example of the many times Beef Checkoff leaders have worked out deals to either leverage checkoff dollars with additional money from allied businesses for projects, or as in this case, to focus more attention on beef with ABSOLUTELY NO checkoff dollars required.

The contest will be mentioned briefly as an addition to some ads and press releases funded by the checkoff, but there is no additional cost for doing that.

Sutter Home and other food related businesses seem to clearly understand that the high recognition of our slogan has value and that partnering their product with our beef adds value to their product.

They realize the value and the part the Beef Checkoff has had in increasing demand of beef. They can see the value for their money to partner with us will also add value to their product.

Unfortunately, some people in the cattle business don't admit the Beef Checkoff has created that value. They attribute increased beef demand to the Atkins diet while ignoring the part the checkoff has played.

MRJ

Show me proof that people are buying beef because of ads from Checkoff. I don't have an opinion on Checkoff good or bad. It just irks me when someone makes an assertion with no intention of providing proof. I don't eat beef because of ads. In fact ads rarely cause me to buy anything. But certainly not food.

What is "Build a Better Burger"? Is it higher quality meat or simply more toppings or more gourmet toppings?

As I stated above, it is a special burger contest sponsored by Sutter Home wines. No one has any doubt that their major goal is to sell more wine by pairing it with a summertime grilling party atmosphere. The fact remains, it will sell more hamburgers.

BTW, have you EVER seen a post by me claiming that people are buying beef ONLY due to advertising? You surely could have OFTEN seen posts where I stated that, IMO, the more important function of checkoff dollars is funding the research into nutrition and health factors of beef consumption. Without advertising and education to disseminate the results of such education, the consumer would have difficulty in learning about it. All the facets of work done with checkoff funds has to work together to build the increased demand.

I do not have at hand any "proof" of increased sales, but I do know that such things can be and are measured, and that had they not shown increased sales, they would have been discontinued in favor of projects that worked.

Don't you believe the ads that show the difference in nutrients in beef over those in chicken, and other foods? They are a catchy way to show consumers facts that they were probably not aware of since white meat is perceived and promoted to be the "gold standard" for healthful proteins......and it simply isn't true. Again, what is wrong with doing something right and telling the world about it?

MRJ

 

[Faster horses]

My thoughts on advertising beef are this:

Before we used Checkoff money to advertise~in particular women's magazines~beef took a big hit in articles stating beef was bad for you. Why not? It was the fad not to eat beef. All the movie stars stated they didn't eat it and the magazines printed what they said. It didn't hurt them in the pocketbook to bash beef, either since no money was being spent with them.

After we started spending advertising money with these magazines, I noticed the trend started to change. They actually found some celebrities that did eat beef and they printed those stories. So, even if "Beef, It's whats for dinner" didn't make you run right out to eat beef, it did keep favorable press out there for all to read. That favorable press was worth more than it cost us in advertising.

Remember Paul Harvey? When the Beef Board was lining his pockets, he had good things to say about beef. But when they quit sponsoring his show, he sure talked up vegetarianism. I lost a lot of respect for him over that.

 

[mrj]

Never saw an ad that claimed that beef was more nutritious than chicken. And if I did I would ignore it. I can read books on nutrition and many such books. I also know how my body feels. I'm borderline anaemic and a little red meat makes me feel better. But IMHO it's carrying it too far to claim nirvana for beef or make claims about its nutritive value over poultry that are too grandiose. It's a matter of cuts, fat content, quality, how it's cooked, amount consumed, etc. I like a good steak and hamburger like everyone else and I know that all meat is fairly high fat content (chicken included) compared to say TOFU. And personally I would not eat chicken twice a day, nor would I eat beef twice a day. Personally. If I were younger I might. I think large amounts of fatty meat is bad for anyone and especially bad for people who cook it badly and get no exercise. Wendy's chicken sandwich is evidently as fatty as any hamburger. So what? Most fast food is bad for you. The Time Magazine article on how chicken are raised that came out about 5 - 6 years ago should have been enough to sicken anyone.

Lady, you are amazing, and unfortunately, not necessarily in a good way! You claim to be the epitome of honesty and accuracy in your posts here, yet you denigrate the very idea that cattle producers could possibly insist on validated research showing the nutrient content of beef as the basis for our advertising. What gives you that right?

No one in the Beef Checkoff is making "grandiose" claims about the nutrients of beef. They simply are stating the well researched facts. What is wrong with that, and why are you suspicious of it?

Some of the ads are clearly fun ways to draw attention to beef......such as the one showing a mouth watering steak, and the message "Why they don't make chicken knives". Obviously the message is that the steak will taste better than chicken, in the opinions of many people.

Beef Checkoff leaders have been criticized by some people (usually ranchers) because they don't promote eating unlimited amounts of beef......which they cannot do because they must stay within the government guidelines for consumption. For protein that is between five and seven ounces per day. Incidentally, beef is one of few foods usually consumed at or below recommended amounts.

Ranchers have worked hard to breed the fat out of and off of beef without losing all the flavor. Beef is naturally much leaner today than it was only a few years ago. The fact is that most people trim all visible fat off the beef, prepare it with low fat methods, and eat mostly the many leaner cuts. Very little Prime, or even Choice beef is available. The leaner cuts are more commonly used at home, and even when eating out.

No one in the Checkoff has "claimed nirvana for beef"! They simply are doing the research necessary to show it was a bogus bad rap that beef has suffered for years. There are cuts of beef nearly as lean of chicken, which also contain a powerhouse of valuable nutrients, especially zinc, iron, and protein. It takes numerous servings of chicken to equal the nutrients in just three ounces of beef, while the beef has, I believe, one gram more of fat. BTW, how does the taste and texture of Tofu compare with a great lean sirloin steak broiled to perfection? As a breast cancer survivor, I'm warned against consuming much soy product. Sure don't see many inflammatory stories about that, though in comparison to the ones about red meat dangers, do we?

Has it ever entered your mind that books such as the one supposed expose of the chicken industry are written to a. make money, and b. to cause harm to an industry. You might consider the possibility there could be less truth in that one than you think.

MRJ

 

[Brad S]

I just heard a radio ad by Sam Elliott that compared the nutrient density of beef vs chicken and noted that the beef only had a single extra gram of fat. The ad claimed the nutrient density issue favored beef considerably, and I'd wager plenty the science of the claim is accurate.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Hey reader I start to drule for a steak when I even just hear the Beef it's what's for dinner music. :cowboy:

 

[mrj]

MRJ - these are your words:

... the more important function of checkoff dollars is funding the research into nutrition and health factors of beef consumption.

Don't you believe the ads that show the difference in nutrients in beef over those in chicken, and other foods?

***********

All I said was that I agreed that chicken was not more nutritious than beef but that claiming beef was some kind of nutritive nirvana was silly.

When did I or anyone else "speaking for the Beef Checkoff" state that beef was the and "kind of nutritive nirvana"? The fact remains that it is one food on the "pyramid" that has been more under consumed than over consumed and there are people, particularly children whose nutritional needs are not being met and very easily could be with SMALL amounts of beef. Further, educational materials and seminars funded by checkoff dollars state clearly that beef can be an important part of a BALANCED diet.

I told you I had no opinion about Checkoff, but I am curious. I realize some of the dollars come from the producers who are "taxed". Do all of the dollars come from y'all?

The checkoff dollars are collected on every bovine animal that is sold. Cattle producers, hobby farmers, IMPORTERS, and anyone else owning and selling cattle pays it. Remember, any individual of any age able to prove they owned cattle at the time were eligible to vote. A corporation owning cattle had only one vote. As I recall, and I'm open to correction on this point, the turnout was large.

Some projects, notably those with pizza parlors, fast food, and now even a wine company may be funded partially, or entirely by the company participating in the project. This is done to magnify the effects of the checkoff dollars. There are projects with apparent potential value to the cattle industry that have to be shelved due to lack of funds available from the checkoff.

Gotta go. We are off to the city for appointments today.

MRJ

 

[Liberty Belle]

Faster Horses: "My thoughts on advertising beef are this:

Before we used Checkoff money to advertise~in particular women's magazines~beef took a big hit in articles stating beef was bad for you. Why not? It was the fad not to eat beef. All the movie stars stated they didn't eat it and the magazines printed what they said. It didn't hurt them in the pocketbook to bash beef, either since no money was being spent with them.

After we started spending advertising money with these magazines, I noticed the trend started to change. They actually found some celebrities that did eat beef and they printed those stories. So, even if "Beef, It's whats for dinner" didn't make you run right out to eat beef, it did keep favorable press out there for all to read. That favorable press was worth more than it cost us in advertising.

Remember Paul Harvey? When the Beef Board was lining his pockets, he had good things to say about beef. But when they quit sponsoring his show, he sure talked up vegetarianism. I lost a lot of respect for him over that."

Amen to everything you had to say here. As to Paul Harvey, I don't even listen to him anymore. He has become such an "animal rights" nut that I don't trust anything else he says either.

Now as for Sam Elliot - wow! That's another story! I agree with Brad, if Sam endorses anything, you know it's gotta be good. You can't tell me advertising doesn't pay.

 

[mrj]

Now as for Sam Elliot - wow! That's another story! I agree with Brad, if Sam endorses anything, you know it's gotta be good. You can't tell me advertising doesn't pay.

I know some like to be critical of "hearsay" on this site, however cattle producers who have volunteered in the area of the advertising connected committees for the Beef Checkoff say Sam Elliot is a very nice guy who gives this industry a very good deal.

MRJ

 

[CW]

If Sam Elliot says it, I'll do it!!!! Women eat this man up if they have any sense!!

 

[Shelly]

I'LL believe anything that Sam Elliot says!!! That voice...wow!

 

[mrj]

Eat your hearts out, ladies! Umpteen years ago, well I think it was in 1979, my husband, his brother, and our sister-in-law and his mother and I all got to ride in the rear section of a bus with Sam Elliot and his wife and another actor and his wife. Darn, I can't recall the name of the other guy, and he may have been even more popular at least at the time. Both were in several of the Louis Lamour books made into movies.

The occasion was a National Cowboy Hall of Fame Awards event. My father-in-law had been a director of that place at the time of his death. They used to hang a hat of deceased directors during the big awards event, so it was a bittersweet affair for us. Proud that he was so honored, yet sad for the reason. Many actors, writers, song writers, and others were honored.

Our then young teen-age daughter and here friends were SO impressed that we had been able to visit with those people, shake their hands and even get autographs. Asking for autographs is something we were very reluctant to do, seeing it as an imposition on the people, but my husband did wind up his courage and get one........from an old cowboy actor.......not one of the young popular guys. He has never been forgiven!

BTW, for anyone getting anywhere near Oklahoma City, that is a class museum well worth a day or more to go through. We have been there many times over the years and hope to go back again soon.

MRJ

 

[Shelly]

Maxine, you lucky woman! I'm just green! I bet he was charming and considerate, and oh so hunky in his younger days. Not that I don't think he isn't now!