Clarence said:I say leave it like it is. While I do favor the checkoff, there is no sound evidence that it has really helped the producer. Of course the media tells us it has helped, but they favor it as it provides more money for advertising. Beef demand has increased but it is hard to give the checkoff much credit for it. Consumers have found that removing red meat from the diet didn't work, so now that fad has ended. Also earning for consumers have increased have increased in the last few years, people have more money to spend for the things they like best. I think a close hard look at where and how the checkoff dollars are spent might better serve the producer.
Clarence said:I say leave it like it is. While I do favor the checkoff, there is no sound evidence that it has really helped the producer. Of course the media tells us it has helped, but they favor it as it provides more money for advertising. Beef demand has increased but it is hard to give the checkoff much credit for it. Consumers have found that removing red meat from the diet didn't work, so now that fad has ended. Also earning for consumers have increased have increased in the last few years, people have more money to spend for the things they like best. I think a close hard look at where and how the checkoff dollars are spent might better serve the producer.
MRJ said:Guys, while I totally support the Beef Checkoff concept, I'm not certain I want to increase it. Definitely before we see how the new efforts to change it shake out.
In a perfect world, only those who support it would benefit. Personally, we are supporting the NCBA PAC and other efforts as well as paying the Beef Checkoff. We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.
Interestingly, leaders of both R-CALF and LMA must have agreed with the premise that the Beef Checkoff HAS helped raise beef demand and is a good thing to support according to recent news stories in ag media.
Clarence, you CAN get your "close hard look" at checkoff spending! It is as near as www.beefboard.org. Or you can email [email protected] and ask whatever you want to know. Certainly your state beef council would provide you an in-depth look at the subject.
Also, the amount spent on advertising with checkoff dollars has shrunk dramatically since other projects and research are taking many of those dollars formerly spent on advertising.
And, there STILL are many people touting the health need to cut red meat and we need to counter their often less than accurate propaganda with facts about the nutrients in beef. It may well become accepted as the health food many of us have long understood it to be, and we had to find and disseminate the research to prove our point.
Granted, consumer incomes have helped consumption, but anti-beef "news" stories abound to turn them to other protein sources, too.
Sandhusker, I do hope you study the checkoff a bit more and find out ALL the good things it has done/is doing for cattle producers before claiming we may not be getting our moneys' worth from it! Not the least of which is the stellar accomplishments in getting people in related businesses and other segments of the cattle/beef industry to pony up something around $60.00 of THEIR money for every Checkoff $ on many cooperative projects.
MRJ
We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.
Econ101 said:MRJ said:Guys, while I totally support the Beef Checkoff concept, I'm not certain I want to increase it. Definitely before we see how the new efforts to change it shake out.
In a perfect world, only those who support it would benefit. Personally, we are supporting the NCBA PAC and other efforts as well as paying the Beef Checkoff. We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.
Interestingly, leaders of both R-CALF and LMA must have agreed with the premise that the Beef Checkoff HAS helped raise beef demand and is a good thing to support according to recent news stories in ag media.
Clarence, you CAN get your "close hard look" at checkoff spending! It is as near as www.beefboard.org. Or you can email [email protected] and ask whatever you want to know. Certainly your state beef council would provide you an in-depth look at the subject.
Also, the amount spent on advertising with checkoff dollars has shrunk dramatically since other projects and research are taking many of those dollars formerly spent on advertising.
And, there STILL are many people touting the health need to cut red meat and we need to counter their often less than accurate propaganda with facts about the nutrients in beef. It may well become accepted as the health food many of us have long understood it to be, and we had to find and disseminate the research to prove our point.
Granted, consumer incomes have helped consumption, but anti-beef "news" stories abound to turn them to other protein sources, too.
Sandhusker, I do hope you study the checkoff a bit more and find out ALL the good things it has done/is doing for cattle producers before claiming we may not be getting our moneys' worth from it! Not the least of which is the stellar accomplishments in getting people in related businesses and other segments of the cattle/beef industry to pony up something around $60.00 of THEIR money for every Checkoff $ on many cooperative projects.
MRJ
MRJ, that is about the best post I believe I have read from you. Kudos for recognizing that spending more money in more populated states than just your own will benefit you greater than money spent in just your state.
Now you are starting to think.
If you have it, I would still like to look at Dr. Ron Ward's study that is quoted by the NCBA, and other organizations as the definitive study on the beef checkoff return on investement.
Without peer review (actually, real advertisers get better information than this when analyizing their advertising dollar ROI), we can not even tell of Dr. Ron Ward's research of the subject is viable and what part of checkoff dollars gets the most bang for the buck.
His studies should be out on the net for all to see including data sources, methodology, etc.
Brad S said:We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.
Well said MRJ, I call it preaching to the choir. here's an example that torments me. On K State broadcasts, you'll hear plenty of checkoff adds, but on Kansas broadcasts, no adds. Like accessing oakley and Elkhardt and Great Bend is more fruitful than metro KC and Wichita.
Econ101 said:MRJ said:Guys, while I totally support the Beef Checkoff concept, I'm not certain I want to increase it. Definitely before we see how the new efforts to change it shake out.
In a perfect world, only those who support it would benefit. Personally, we are supporting the NCBA PAC and other efforts as well as paying the Beef Checkoff. We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.
Interestingly, leaders of both R-CALF and LMA must have agreed with the premise that the Beef Checkoff HAS helped raise beef demand and is a good thing to support according to recent news stories in ag media.
Clarence, you CAN get your "close hard look" at checkoff spending! It is as near as www.beefboard.org. Or you can email [email protected] and ask whatever you want to know. Certainly your state beef council would provide you an in-depth look at the subject.
Also, the amount spent on advertising with checkoff dollars has shrunk dramatically since other projects and research are taking many of those dollars formerly spent on advertising.
And, there STILL are many people touting the health need to cut red meat and we need to counter their often less than accurate propaganda with facts about the nutrients in beef. It may well become accepted as the health food many of us have long understood it to be, and we had to find and disseminate the research to prove our point.
Granted, consumer incomes have helped consumption, but anti-beef "news" stories abound to turn them to other protein sources, too.
Sandhusker, I do hope you study the checkoff a bit more and find out ALL the good things it has done/is doing for cattle producers before claiming we may not be getting our moneys' worth from it! Not the least of which is the stellar accomplishments in getting people in related businesses and other segments of the cattle/beef industry to pony up something around $60.00 of THEIR money for every Checkoff $ on many cooperative projects.
MRJ
MRJ, that is about the best post I believe I have read from you. Kudos for recognizing that spending more money in more populated states than just your own will benefit you greater than money spent in just your state.
Now you are starting to think.
If you have it, I would still like to look at Dr. Ron Ward's study that is quoted by the NCBA, and other organizations as the definitive study on the beef checkoff return on investement.
Without peer review (actually, real advertisers get better information than this when analyizing their advertising dollar ROI), we can not even tell of Dr. Ron Ward's research of the subject is viable and what part of checkoff dollars gets the most bang for the buck.
His studies should be out on the net for all to see including data sources, methodology, etc.
MRJ:"Re. Dr. Ron Wards' study, have you asked the CBB for it? It was done a long time ago and I don't know if it has been updated, and have probably forgotten most of what I learned from it when it was current. You, if staying true to your usual mode want it only to tear down Beef Checkoff leadership and/or NCBA. Obviously, those cattle producers in leadership positions used the best person they could afford, to do the work they believed was needed in order to best serve their duties for the checkoff."MRJ said:Econ101 said:MRJ said:Guys, while I totally support the Beef Checkoff concept, I'm not certain I want to increase it. Definitely before we see how the new efforts to change it shake out.
In a perfect world, only those who support it would benefit. Personally, we are supporting the NCBA PAC and other efforts as well as paying the Beef Checkoff. We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.
Interestingly, leaders of both R-CALF and LMA must have agreed with the premise that the Beef Checkoff HAS helped raise beef demand and is a good thing to support according to recent news stories in ag media.
Clarence, you CAN get your "close hard look" at checkoff spending! It is as near as www.beefboard.org. Or you can email [email protected] and ask whatever you want to know. Certainly your state beef council would provide you an in-depth look at the subject.
Also, the amount spent on advertising with checkoff dollars has shrunk dramatically since other projects and research are taking many of those dollars formerly spent on advertising.
And, there STILL are many people touting the health need to cut red meat and we need to counter their often less than accurate propaganda with facts about the nutrients in beef. It may well become accepted as the health food many of us have long understood it to be, and we had to find and disseminate the research to prove our point.
Granted, consumer incomes have helped consumption, but anti-beef "news" stories abound to turn them to other protein sources, too.
Sandhusker, I do hope you study the checkoff a bit more and find out ALL the good things it has done/is doing for cattle producers before claiming we may not be getting our moneys' worth from it! Not the least of which is the stellar accomplishments in getting people in related businesses and other segments of the cattle/beef industry to pony up something around $60.00 of THEIR money for every Checkoff $ on many cooperative projects.
MRJ
MRJ, that is about the best post I believe I have read from you. Kudos for recognizing that spending more money in more populated states than just your own will benefit you greater than money spent in just your state.
Now you are starting to think.
If you have it, I would still like to look at Dr. Ron Ward's study that is quoted by the NCBA, and other organizations as the definitive study on the beef checkoff return on investement.
Without peer review (actually, real advertisers get better information than this when analyizing their advertising dollar ROI), we can not even tell of Dr. Ron Ward's research of the subject is viable and what part of checkoff dollars gets the most bang for the buck.
His studies should be out on the net for all to see including data sources, methodology, etc.
Golly gee, Econ, I guess I should be suitably impressed to be praised by the sellf-proclaimed most educated of us all!
Fact is, I've probably been "thinking" since long before you were born! The simple fact that you do not like my line of thought has nothing to do with the quality of my thoughts, contrary to your apparent belief.
Actually, I advocated and supported efforts to spend more money where more consumers live a very long time ago. Beef Checkoff leaders realize it does pay off. The problem is getting some state leaders to 'see the light' rather than spending state share of checkoff dollars 'building castles' at home.
Re. Dr. Ron Wards' study, have you asked the CBB for it? It was done a long time ago and I don't know if it has been updated, and have probably forgotten most of what I learned from it when it was current. You, if staying true to your usual mode want it only to tear down Beef Checkoff leadership and/or NCBA. Obviously, those cattle producers in leadership positions used the best person they could afford, to do the work they believed was needed in order to best serve their duties for the checkoff.
Sandhusker, you would do your rancher customers a better service if you would learn the real competitors for beef producers. It is competing proteins, not other beef! I don't favor changing good procedures to cater to people holding false beliefs, but won't be surprised if that change is made for just that reason, unfounded though it is.
MRJ