• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Good Advertising.....Beef

Help Support Ranchers.net:

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
The next flight of advertising beef will begin in January and go into August, 2006.

Jennifer Houston, Chairman, Joint Advertising Committee says nutrition focused beef ads will appear in magazines targeted at health concious consumers ages 35 to 64 years, and will reach 72% of people in that targeted audience an average of 6.5 times during the campaign.

The magazines are Parents, Good Houskeeping, Bon Appetit, Weight Watchers, Shape, and Mens Health.

Messages of the ads are that 29 cuts of been now qualify as "lean", based on USDA nutrient data. That is up from 19 cuts previously qualifying.

Ads will dispel the notion that skinless chicken has nutritional superiority over beef.
Checkoff funded consumer research shows nutrition, especially the question of "leanness", is the number one barrier to keeping consumers sold on beef.

95% lean humburger is one of the 29 lean cuts, and will help to change the previous negative view of hamburger as "not lean".

Lean beef has three times more iron, six times more zinc, and eight times more vitamin B-12 than skinless chicken breast.

Al Svagr, Cozad, NE, chairman of the CBB says "we want people to know that the beef they love can be ggood for them, too".

Sounds like the ads will have some humor, as that is a successful means of grabbing attention and putting the desired message across.

The new "healthy Beef Cookbook, produced in collaboration between the Beef Checkoff and the American Dietitics Assoc. (ADA), showcases healthy beef in 130 recipes and is sold in bookstores nation-wide. I have had several "city" people complain of the small selection of beef cookbooks available, so this is getting to an undersupplied market, IMO.

MRJ
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Sounds like the ads will have some humor, as that is a successful means of grabbing attention and putting the desired message across.

Could go from humor to a joke if you put on the bottom. "A colaborative effort paid for by the beef producers of America AND the packers who buy their cattle and sell beef to you."
 

jigs

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
8,440
Reaction score
0
Location
KANSAS
I was wondering if anyone ever put a pencil to the numbers??

a fat steer total expense of raising it and sale price vs the total income on one head after the packer runs it through less his expense.

just wondering on one head, who earns more the cattleman or the packer.

I would base my opinion of paying the check off oney on those results.

pound for pound, who clears more PURE PROFIT on one head.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
jigs said:
I was wondering if anyone ever put a pencil to the numbers??

a fat steer total expense of raising it and sale price vs the total income on one head after the packer runs it through less his expense.

just wondering on one head, who earns more the cattleman or the packer.

I would base my opinion of paying the check off oney on those results.

pound for pound, who clears more PURE PROFIT on one head.

Let's do the math here Jigs.

We have to assume a few things to get some numbers. How about $1 a day for cow costs, or $365 / yr.

Let's use a 600 pound weaning wt. and 1200 pound slaughter.

600 pounds of gain at a cost (not custom rates) of $0.40 / lb. $240

Expenses $365 + $240 = $605

Fat steer 1200 pounds at say $0.85 = $1020

Profit $415

Packers profit per hd as per Pickett $26

Let's see for the feeder who buys that calf.

600 pounds paid $1.30 = $780

Cost of gain as above = $240

Total $1020 net result no profit.

Does that help your descision?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
reader (the Second) said:
Why magazines and not the Internet?
Why not try to reach the next generation who are setting up households now?

I'd be interested in whether magazine readership has kept up and what the demographics of magazine readers is today compared to a decade ago.

My bet would be that the Internet is capturing print media eyes and will never give them back.

r2, have I got a deal for you! Go to www.beef.org and check out the various websites, especially www.zip4tweens the one for kids. BTW, I do know that the demographics of media considered for advertisements is closely monitored by checkoff staff.

I would appreciate your critique of any of them, especially those for non-ag people. Cattle industry and professional, outside experts frequently assess projects and programs, however individuals' opinions are welcomed and appreciated. That is how those in the Checkoff leadership learn and improve the program.

Much of what you suggest is being done today, I believe. However, checkoff leaders work from the basis that there is always room for improvement.......maybe not enough money to do all that is needed, which has lead to the very successful efforts to draw businesses into partnerships. Most of those partnerships feature small amounts of checkoff dollars and the expertise of our staff, paired with very large sums from the business for a win win situation in most cases.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rkaiser said:
And your figures are correct Einstein. :roll:

Rather than descending to name calling, why haven't you posted YOUR version of the "figures"?

It would be interesting to see the numbers from several people, given the differences in costs of both nations, and between high and low cost producers in the USA.

MRJ
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
rkaiser said:
And your figures are correct Einstein. :roll:

I posted all my numbers Randy, want to change some?...I'm game.

I even used the numbers for packer profit from Pickett not the $3.88 for the longer period where more losses were incured.

I think the point is ranchers still get a higher profit level than other sectors and I think they need it. The land investment is huge to run cows. It is also impossible for ranchers to run hundreds of thousands of cows, but to feed or slaughter that many is possible.
 

Latest posts

Top