:agree:Brad S said:Let me modify the original question traveler: is illuminating waste, the most cost efficient use of checkoff dollars if the goal is directly increasing beef consumption? Emphatically NO.
So if consumers are educated to waste less, will beef seize a disproportionate share of the savings? I'd like to see the study indicating that - doubt it exists.
What does the triple bankshot approach to marketing express about one's opinion of beef marketing? I'd suggest direct promotion of beef indicates a positive view of beef demand. The idea that the best use of promotion monies is to educate consumers to save resources, hoping to get a static share of that savings, certainly doesn't express a positive view of beef demand.
More realistically, this "plan" doesn't show thoughtful allocation of checkoff money unless the contention is "sufficient direct promotion of beef has been saturated by present promotion levels." I'd suggest the checkoff studies saying we're at a $17/1 return indicate we need lots more direct promotion.
Traveler said::agree:Brad S said:Let me modify the original question traveler: is illuminating waste, the most cost efficient use of checkoff dollars if the goal is directly increasing beef consumption? Emphatically NO.
So if consumers are educated to waste less, will beef seize a disproportionate share of the savings? I'd like to see the study indicating that - doubt it exists.
What does the triple bankshot approach to marketing express about one's opinion of beef marketing? I'd suggest direct promotion of beef indicates a positive view of beef demand. The idea that the best use of promotion monies is to educate consumers to save resources, hoping to get a static share of that savings, certainly doesn't express a positive view of beef demand.
More realistically, this "plan" doesn't show thoughtful allocation of checkoff money unless the contention is "sufficient direct promotion of beef has been saturated by present promotion levels." I'd suggest the checkoff studies saying we're at a $17/1 return indicate we need lots more direct promotion.
I'm not terribly impressed that the Checkoff felt the need to celebrate "Erff Day" for beginners. The grilling season is here and all available resources need to capitalize on that, IMO.
Secondly, even a junkie is smart enough not to waist his hard earned dope. I'm going to venture that the majority of "food waist" (or waste.....whatever) comes from the reloadable EBT cards, and other government funded food programs. If they happen to throw perfectly good beef away, that's okay with me as well. As long as it's been purchased.
leanin' H said:Traveler said::agree:Brad S said:Let me modify the original question traveler: is illuminating waste, the most cost efficient use of checkoff dollars if the goal is directly increasing beef consumption? Emphatically NO.
So if consumers are educated to waste less, will beef seize a disproportionate share of the savings? I'd like to see the study indicating that - doubt it exists.
What does the triple bankshot approach to marketing express about one's opinion of beef marketing? I'd suggest direct promotion of beef indicates a positive view of beef demand. The idea that the best use of promotion monies is to educate consumers to save resources, hoping to get a static share of that savings, certainly doesn't express a positive view of beef demand.
More realistically, this "plan" doesn't show thoughtful allocation of checkoff money unless the contention is "sufficient direct promotion of beef has been saturated by present promotion levels." I'd suggest the checkoff studies saying we're at a $17/1 return indicate we need lots more direct promotion.
I'm not terribly impressed that the Checkoff felt the need to celebrate "Erff Day" for beginners. The grilling season is here and all available resources need to capitalize on that, IMO.
Secondly, even a junkie is smart enough not to waist his hard earned dope. I'm going to venture that the majority of "food waist" (or waste.....whatever) comes from the reloadable EBT cards, and other government funded food programs. If they happen to throw perfectly good beef away, that's okay with me as well. As long as it's been purchased.
Some of ya'll will never be happy with anything the beef checkoff dollars are spent on! Collectively, our dollars return so much value for our product and that benefits us all. Small producers and huge producers! Is the system perfect? Nope! Is Brad's ranch perfect? Is Travelers operation operating at its ultimate efficiency level? I have no idea but would wager a guess that we all can improve. I know I get better with each passing year of experience in this vocation. Instead of running down the checkoff, get involved and help make it better using your ideas and experience. If you didn't intend to take shots at the checkoff and were just bringing up something you happen to think they can do better, then good for you. We all need to think outside the box and send our ideas, good and bad, to the folks who spend our checkoff dollars.
Traveler, the comment on throwing away perfectly good beef as long as somebody paid for it is incredibly short sighted to me. While I have no control with what folks do with the beef I sell them, comments like yours do nothing for our vocation. In fact, it could be used by folks who have no use for us, as another tool to destroy beef production and Producers! We should never advocate waste. Hell, during the depression, they paid my Grandpa for his cattle and then shot them and buried them with a cat! But as long as he got his, it shouldn't bother him huh? He never got over how bad that was and carried that for the rest of his life. I will never forget it either and I wasn't even alive during the depression. I couldn't disagree more with that statement.
Brad S said:Some of ya'll will never be happy with anything the beef checkoff dollars are spent on! Collectively, our dollars return so much value for our product and that benefits us all.
So, because I thought the Sybil promotion was a mistake, I was against the research that developed the flat iron steak? The nature of sound management practice includes scrutinizing every decision. I supported the checkoff since before there was a checkoff, but nothing should be so sacred as to be above scrutiny. I suspect the "waste not, want not" promotion missed the mark by enough we needn't spend the money to test it. I'd guess an ad guru peddled that scheme and he might have divided loyalties. I'd like to see all the body of work offered by the originator of the waste not want not education. Btw, if you're not evaluating ad copy, you hadn't better be in charge of any ad money.
Mike, do you, or anyone else that can give a rational answer, have an opinion on the ongoing transparency issue?Mike said:Chickens don't have a Check-Off and they blew right past beef for the most consumed protein source.
Rumor has it that a super large feed company is going to build several Rabbit abattoirs in the near future. Just what we need. More competition with even more feed efficiency and a better eating experience than chickens.