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

Market Based Trading

MRJ,

I do appreciate that you discuss issues without resorting to name calling. I have always enjoyed discussing issues with you for that rason. I tend to stay on the other side of the forum because of the lack of civility that tends to occur here. Sometimes you and I agree and other times we don't, but I do appreciate your points of view.....

Ok, here's where we differ on this one. I am saying if consumer or trading partner is saying we approve of Beef raised, handled or tested in this way, then I will just do it if it makes economic sense. I am NOT the one that initiates the value in this case. I have complied with what the customer has asked for.

The Japanese consumer knows all Japanese Beef is tested. Do they know it doesn't neccessarily mean it is BSE Free??? I really don't have the sources to know that, but I also really don't view that as my end goal. I have found in sales, you waste time arguing with someone that wants something. It is simple to provide that beef from the US. And put it on the backs of those that want to be in this market. Meanwhile, we try to force what we percieve as good and right onto thier culture. All the while others are stepping up and claiming what was our market share of exports. I was at a conference showing the shift of trade in Beef. we are opening the door for other counties to figure out how to provide a similar product.

The additional benefits are as follows. We could actually start selling beef from cows 30 months and older to the Japanese. It would be paid for by market participants. It would also increase the survellience without increasing cost. Also, we would be viewed as a trading partner that works with that countries values vs one that tries to impose those values on them,

PPRM
 
One other thing,

I really believe this will be done on a smaller scale. More like a Niche market. It would naturally gravitate to smaller plants. i don't believe we would see the big plants slowing the line down,

PPRM
 
reader (the Second) said:
The statement that current tests don't reveal BSE in UTMs is several years out of date. Tests have been able to detect it in 24 month old animals for at least a year and the tests are getting more sensitive all the time.
Click to expand...

Ok, so U24Ms :) All I'm saying is the person doing the testing on the U24Ms, and selling the beef to the consumer had also better come clean and tell the consumer that the test is meaningless. In effect, they've just wasted 20 bucks that could have went to BSE research.

Rod
 
BSE research Rod? What BSE research would that be? The only reseach money being spent on BSE is that allotted for testing. That's where the money is. Everyone is looking for that magic test that exposes the misfolded prion in cattle of any age.

There is no research (or virtually no research) concerning anything else. The scientific community has embraced the feed transmission theory and scoffs anything else.

Testing will come to Canada and the USA when Cargill and Tyson are ready for it and not before. BUT it will come.
 
rkaiser said:
There is no research (or virtually no research) concerning anything else. The scientific community has embraced the feed transmission theory and scoffs anything else.
Click to expand...

:( I find this disturbing. I guess from a producer standpoint, I'd prefer to see any extra money go to finding out about the disease and getting definite answers on cause and transmission. Then I can take the necessary steps to prevent it.

Rod
 
PPRM said:
MRJ,

I do appreciate that you discuss issues without resorting to name calling. I have always enjoyed discussing issues with you for that rason. I tend to stay on the other side of the forum because of the lack of civility that tends to occur here. Sometimes you and I agree and other times we don't, but I do appreciate your points of view.....

Ok, here's where we differ on this one. I am saying if consumer or trading partner is saying we approve of Beef raised, handled or tested in this way, then I will just do it if it makes economic sense. I am NOT the one that initiates the value in this case. I have complied with what the customer has asked for.

The Japanese consumer knows all Japanese Beef is tested. Do they know it doesn't neccessarily mean it is BSE Free??? I really don't have the sources to know that, but I also really don't view that as my end goal. I have found in sales, you waste time arguing with someone that wants something. It is simple to provide that beef from the US. And put it on the backs of those that want to be in this market. Meanwhile, we try to force what we percieve as good and right onto thier culture. All the while others are stepping up and claiming what was our market share of exports. I was at a conference showing the shift of trade in Beef. we are opening the door for other counties to figure out how to provide a similar product.

The additional benefits are as follows. We could actually start selling beef from cows 30 months and older to the Japanese. It would be paid for by market participants. It would also increase the survellience without increasing cost. Also, we would be viewed as a trading partner that works with that countries values vs one that tries to impose those values on them,

PPRM
Click to expand...

PPRM, we probably are closer on this issue that it looks. My main bias is that I feel it will come back to bite us ANY time we give in to emotion based, rather than science based medical type inputs into our end product, beef.

Whether it is BSE testing that means little to nothing in finding or stopping BSE, or whether it is claims that naturally or organically grown cattle produce additional health benefits in the BEEF.

Yes, I realize we could, heck many already are, do the process, hype it up to the consumer and sell them the beef at obscene prices above what beef that actually is comparable is bringing.....and everybody will be happy....unless those consumers catch on and, typically of we humans, decide someone else is to blame.....and the backlash harms our industry.

It is something else entirely, and fine with me, if natural and organic programs simply tell consumers what they are doing and that if they want the beef they consume raised in that manner, it is going to cost more. No inflated health claims.......no put-down of conventionally raised beef, not even increased tenderness or flavor claims without independent testing to support those claims. Everyone understands one another and is honest about what they are doing.

MRJ
 
MRJ said:
PPRM said:
MRJ,

I do appreciate that you discuss issues without resorting to name calling. I have always enjoyed discussing issues with you for that rason. I tend to stay on the other side of the forum because of the lack of civility that tends to occur here. Sometimes you and I agree and other times we don't, but I do appreciate your points of view.....

Ok, here's where we differ on this one. I am saying if consumer or trading partner is saying we approve of Beef raised, handled or tested in this way, then I will just do it if it makes economic sense. I am NOT the one that initiates the value in this case. I have complied with what the customer has asked for.

The Japanese consumer knows all Japanese Beef is tested. Do they know it doesn't neccessarily mean it is BSE Free??? I really don't have the sources to know that, but I also really don't view that as my end goal. I have found in sales, you waste time arguing with someone that wants something. It is simple to provide that beef from the US. And put it on the backs of those that want to be in this market. Meanwhile, we try to force what we percieve as good and right onto thier culture. All the while others are stepping up and claiming what was our market share of exports. I was at a conference showing the shift of trade in Beef. we are opening the door for other counties to figure out how to provide a similar product.

The additional benefits are as follows. We could actually start selling beef from cows 30 months and older to the Japanese. It would be paid for by market participants. It would also increase the survellience without increasing cost. Also, we would be viewed as a trading partner that works with that countries values vs one that tries to impose those values on them,

PPRM
Click to expand...

PPRM, we probably are closer on this issue that it looks. My main bias is that I feel it will come back to bite us ANY time we give in to emotion based, rather than science based medical type inputs into our end product, beef.

Whether it is BSE testing that means little to nothing in finding or stopping BSE, or whether it is claims that naturally or organically grown cattle produce additional health benefits in the BEEF.

Yes, I realize we could, heck many already are, do the process, hype it up to the consumer and sell them the beef at obscene prices above what beef that actually is comparable is bringing.....and everybody will be happy....unless those consumers catch on and, typically of we humans, decide someone else is to blame.....and the backlash harms our industry.

It is something else entirely, and fine with me, if natural and organic programs simply tell consumers what they are doing and that if they want the beef they consume raised in that manner, it is going to cost more. No inflated health claims.......no put-down of conventionally raised beef, not even increased tenderness or flavor claims without independent testing to support those claims. Everyone understands one another and is honest about what they are doing.

MRJ
Click to expand...

MRJ, the consumers should decide these issues, not you. Isn't that where all new money comes from in this industry? If some people want their beef raised in a certain way and are willing to pay more for it to be raised that way, why are you trying to stop anyone from selling to that market? Can't little packing plants cater to those desires? It only brings more money into the producer's pockets. That is a good thing, isn't it?

Let the consumer decide what health claims they want to believe. You can advertise to those same consumers if you believe your way is better. You should not dictate to the consumer what they want. It is the other way around. That is the beauty of free markets. It gives people what they want to buy, whether it be a coke with real sugar in it or beef raised a certain way. Who made you queen of their decisions?
 
Econ101 said:
Let the consumer decide what health claims they want to believe.
Click to expand...

I think we'd be treading some dangerous ground.

Lets just say you have a beef retailer whose selling 'BSE Tested' beef thats under 24 months of age. He doesn't tell his consumers that currently its a meaningless test. Now, the retailer next door knows its meaningless, and so informs the consumer, however the consumer chooses to disbelieve retailer #2 and buy the 'safer' beef.

Now that consumer is watching TV, reading a newspaper or whatever, and notices that new advances in BSE testing now make the tests accurate on animals who are 18 months old. It dawns on him that he's now been "lied to" (lie of omission of course) by retailer #1, and that retailer #2 was indeed telling him the truth. I think that consumer's faith in the beef market is going to be just a little shaken. Perhaps maybe when the BSE tests finally work on ALL animals, he'll still wonder if they really are working or not. Maybe, just to be safe, he'll take chicken home instead.

I know, its a pessimistic way of looking at things, but most consumers are completely blind in this 'my meat comes from Safeway' age. So, while I would certainly never want to prevent someone from marketing their beef anyway they chose to, I do think they need to be completely honest and open about it. From reading PPRMs and Randy's posts, if they chose to BSE test, I think they would be totally open with their customers. Unfortunately, I also believe that totally honest people like PPRM and Randy are few and far between these days.

Rod
 
I just have to laugh when I read some of these posts about "not wanting to let the consumer assume something" or "passing off something that is not exactly as it is labeled", or "giving the wrong impression to unknowing and unsuspecting consumers" etc.....

Many of these same persons fighting this (includes MRJ, & SH) are the same ones tho that believe it is perfectly fine for the packer/retailer to take beef from any of the 40 countries we import meat from, remove the labeling and replace it with a USDA inspected stamp, and pass it off to these same unsuspecting consumers as a US product :???: ....

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Oldtimer said:
I just have to laugh when I read some of these posts about "not wanting to let the consumer assume something" or "passing off something that is not exactly as it is labeled", or "giving the wrong impression to unknowing and unsuspecting consumers" etc.....

Many of these same persons fighting this (includes MRJ, & SH) are the same ones tho that believe it is perfectly fine for the packer/retailer to take beef from any of the 40 countries we import meat from, remove the labeling and replace it with a USDA inspected stamp, and pass it off to these same unsuspecting consumers as a US product :???: ....

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

And they're the same bunch that thought it was fine for retailers to pump CO2 into packages of beef so they can pass it off as fresh.... :roll:
 
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
PPRM said:
MRJ,

I do appreciate that you discuss issues without resorting to name calling. I have always enjoyed discussing issues with you for that rason. I tend to stay on the other side of the forum because of the lack of civility that tends to occur here. Sometimes you and I agree and other times we don't, but I do appreciate your points of view.....

Ok, here's where we differ on this one. I am saying if consumer or trading partner is saying we approve of Beef raised, handled or tested in this way, then I will just do it if it makes economic sense. I am NOT the one that initiates the value in this case. I have complied with what the customer has asked for.

The Japanese consumer knows all Japanese Beef is tested. Do they know it doesn't neccessarily mean it is BSE Free??? I really don't have the sources to know that, but I also really don't view that as my end goal. I have found in sales, you waste time arguing with someone that wants something. It is simple to provide that beef from the US. And put it on the backs of those that want to be in this market. Meanwhile, we try to force what we percieve as good and right onto thier culture. All the while others are stepping up and claiming what was our market share of exports. I was at a conference showing the shift of trade in Beef. we are opening the door for other counties to figure out how to provide a similar product.

The additional benefits are as follows. We could actually start selling beef from cows 30 months and older to the Japanese. It would be paid for by market participants. It would also increase the survellience without increasing cost. Also, we would be viewed as a trading partner that works with that countries values vs one that tries to impose those values on them,

PPRM
Click to expand...

PPRM, we probably are closer on this issue that it looks. My main bias is that I feel it will come back to bite us ANY time we give in to emotion based, rather than science based medical type inputs into our end product, beef.

Whether it is BSE testing that means little to nothing in finding or stopping BSE, or whether it is claims that naturally or organically grown cattle produce additional health benefits in the BEEF.

Yes, I realize we could, heck many already are, do the process, hype it up to the consumer and sell them the beef at obscene prices above what beef that actually is comparable is bringing.....and everybody will be happy....unless those consumers catch on and, typically of we humans, decide someone else is to blame.....and the backlash harms our industry.

It is something else entirely, and fine with me, if natural and organic programs simply tell consumers what they are doing and that if they want the beef they consume raised in that manner, it is going to cost more. No inflated health claims.......no put-down of conventionally raised beef, not even increased tenderness or flavor claims without independent testing to support those claims. Everyone understands one another and is honest about what they are doing.

MRJ
Click to expand...

MRJ, the consumers should decide these issues, not you. Isn't that where all new money comes from in this industry? If some people want their beef raised in a certain way and are willing to pay more for it to be raised that way, why are you trying to stop anyone from selling to that market? Can't little packing plants cater to those desires? It only brings more money into the producer's pockets. That is a good thing, isn't it?

Let the consumer decide what health claims they want to believe. You can advertise to those same consumers if you believe your way is better. You should not dictate to the consumer what they want. It is the other way around. That is the beauty of free markets. It gives people what they want to buy, whether it be a coke with real sugar in it or beef raised a certain way. Who made you queen of their decisions?
Click to expand...


Econ, where do you believe I have said the consumers should NOT "decide these issues"? I have only said the consumer should NOT be LIED to regarding what the product they are being sold does or does not contain, or will or will not contribute to their health.

Show us where I said I was trying to stop anyone from "selling to that market"? Can you discern the difference between advertising and selling beef based on how it is raised, how it tastes, etc. RATHER THAN on perceived, UNPROVEN nutrition and health benefits? The former is fine, the latter is cheating! If the seller is going to claim health, or nutrition benefits, they had better be able to prove them through very reliable tests, not presumptions or perceptions.

I'm sure sorry some of you see nothing wrong in being dishonest with consumers.

I'm definitely not trying to keep consumers from buying what they want. I'm trying to keep them from being cheated by those selling beef by making or implying false claims about it. The old adage: "Let the buyer beware," is more than a little mean spirited and may be used to justify cheating some people, it seems.

MRJ
 
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
PPRM said:
MRJ,

I do appreciate that you discuss issues without resorting to name calling. I have always enjoyed discussing issues with you for that rason. I tend to stay on the other side of the forum because of the lack of civility that tends to occur here. Sometimes you and I agree and other times we don't, but I do appreciate your points of view.....

Ok, here's where we differ on this one. I am saying if consumer or trading partner is saying we approve of Beef raised, handled or tested in this way, then I will just do it if it makes economic sense. I am NOT the one that initiates the value in this case. I have complied with what the customer has asked for.

The Japanese consumer knows all Japanese Beef is tested. Do they know it doesn't neccessarily mean it is BSE Free??? I really don't have the sources to know that, but I also really don't view that as my end goal. I have found in sales, you waste time arguing with someone that wants something. It is simple to provide that beef from the US. And put it on the backs of those that want to be in this market. Meanwhile, we try to force what we percieve as good and right onto thier culture. All the while others are stepping up and claiming what was our market share of exports. I was at a conference showing the shift of trade in Beef. we are opening the door for other counties to figure out how to provide a similar product.

The additional benefits are as follows. We could actually start selling beef from cows 30 months and older to the Japanese. It would be paid for by market participants. It would also increase the survellience without increasing cost. Also, we would be viewed as a trading partner that works with that countries values vs one that tries to impose those values on them,

PPRM
Click to expand...

PPRM, we probably are closer on this issue that it looks. My main bias is that I feel it will come back to bite us ANY time we give in to emotion based, rather than science based medical type inputs into our end product, beef.

Whether it is BSE testing that means little to nothing in finding or stopping BSE, or whether it is claims that naturally or organically grown cattle produce additional health benefits in the BEEF.

Yes, I realize we could, heck many already are, do the process, hype it up to the consumer and sell them the beef at obscene prices above what beef that actually is comparable is bringing.....and everybody will be happy....unless those consumers catch on and, typically of we humans, decide someone else is to blame.....and the backlash harms our industry.

It is something else entirely, and fine with me, if natural and organic programs simply tell consumers what they are doing and that if they want the beef they consume raised in that manner, it is going to cost more. No inflated health claims.......no put-down of conventionally raised beef, not even increased tenderness or flavor claims without independent testing to support those claims. Everyone understands one another and is honest about what they are doing.

MRJ
Click to expand...

MRJ, the consumers should decide these issues, not you. Isn't that where all new money comes from in this industry? If some people want their beef raised in a certain way and are willing to pay more for it to be raised that way, why are you trying to stop anyone from selling to that market? Can't little packing plants cater to those desires? It only brings more money into the producer's pockets. That is a good thing, isn't it?

Let the consumer decide what health claims they want to believe. You can advertise to those same consumers if you believe your way is better. You should not dictate to the consumer what they want. It is the other way around. That is the beauty of free markets. It gives people what they want to buy, whether it be a coke with real sugar in it or beef raised a certain way. Who made you queen of their decisions?
Click to expand...


Econ, where do you believe I have said the consumers should NOT "decide these issues"? I have only said the consumer should NOT be LIED to regarding what the beef they are being sold does or does not contain, or will or will not contribute to their health.

Show us where I said I was trying to stop anyone from "selling to that market"? Can you discern the difference between advertising and selling beef based on how it is raised, how it tastes, etc. RATHER THAN on perceived, UNPROVEN nutrition and health benefits? The former is fine, the latter is cheating! If the seller is going to claim health, or nutrition benefits, they had better be able to prove them through very reliable tests, not presumptions or perceptions.

I'm sure sorry some of you see nothing wrong in being dishonest with consumers.

I'm definitely not trying to keep consumers from buying what they want. I'm trying to keep them from being cheated by those selling beef by making or implying false claims about it. The old adage: "Let the buyer beware," is more than a little mean spirited and may be used to justify cheating some people, it seems.

MRJ
 
My goodness MRJ, you are on a high horse today. The USDA keeps telling consumers that they have nothing to worry about and yet time and again problems occur.

Good grief. You want to make anyone who supplies a product that differs from the Cargill or Tyson product out to be a cheat or a deceiver, while defending the norm which has tons of flaws of it's own. Does the almighty survailance program guarantee consumer safety - hell no. (If you beleive the feed transmission and species jumping theory that I feel you do).

MRJ -
I'm sure sorry some of you see nothing wrong in being dishonest with consumers.
Click to expand...

Who is the "you" you are talking about MRJ? Randy Kaiser or John Tyson?

Give it a break MRJ. Support for testing does not translate into support for deception. Your conclusions are silly and show your desperation in the arguement.
 
Rod-----"All I'm saying is the person doing the testing on the U24Ms, and selling the beef to the consumer had also better come clean and tell the consumer that the test is meaningless. In effect, they've just wasted 20 bucks that could have went to BSE research."


All I am saying is if someone says "I want this.".....I say it will be this many dollars. I am not so presumptuois as to think that because mty views differ, I need to change thiers. Stand in front of a customer in any business and argue with them, you will lose ground. Find the price on what they want and you generally will sell it. If they decide they want something else, then find the price of it.........One story I read when US BSE irst came out described street demonstartions by Asian (I think Korean) consumers afraid we would force thier country to buy unsafe beef......That is a fear based on the perception that a country is more likely to strong-arm its beliefs on someone....

Bottom line, who says we know mcuh on this BSE deal and who says we are right. A lot of european countries thought it was no big deal (I take the pretext that they were sincere in setting thier policies). Much to the demise of thier industry...


PPRM
 
MRJ---"I'm definitely not trying to keep consumers from buying what they want. I'm trying to keep them from being cheated by those selling beef by making or implying false claims about it. "

I worked in food processing for about 10 years, 5 for a very major company with tons of training. I understand and agree with the difference between labeling according to process vs labeling according to unfounded claims.

I have also worked in sales for 6 years. I wasted a lot of time argueing with dealers on what I THOUGHT THEY SHOULD stock. I also lost lots of sales argueing with customers on WHAT I THOUGHT THEY SHOULD BUY FOR THIER RANCH.......I stopped doing this and not only began selling more, but listening more.......I started understanding thier views and sometimes found my presumptions were off base. I will ask if they ever thought about product X if I think there is sound basis for it applying better, but it isn't ever about me being right...Often, they have resached and are right.....

So, back to beef. I have listened to a lot of speakers talk about demand and successful Branded programs. One thing that consistently comes up is that consumers identify with ranchers and the western theme. it is something you don't find so much in Pork or Poultry. Some of the reason consumers will pay more is as much to do with a feeling of identity as anything. Some of the programs in my area actually have ranchers stand at the supermarket the Beef is sold and talk face to face with the customer.

When someone calls and says, 'I hear from my friend your beef is the best they have ever had, can I get some organic too??????" I tell them flat out I don't raise Organic. I do desribe what I raise and the method. It is usually what they have described in thier mind as the process that appeals to them. They are buying what they are comfortable with. I tell them why I choose not to raise organic (The methodology isn't that different, but the cost is). Then they choose. I have had people in my Church say, no thanks, we want Organic. Fine and if I new a good source, I would send them....

I get asked about Antibiotics. If an animal is sick, i doctor it and identify it. It goes to Tyson.

Are they wrong or right about it being the right choice? Heck if I know. But what brings them back is the flavor and tenderness. I hear it time and time again. I sell a frozen product that is dry aged and USDA inspected. All I ever really do is my best and raise what I eat myself.

Heck, I went the long way to say I think everyone that buys from me already had thier mind made up as to what they were looking for before they met me.....I have never had any backlash, just repeat customers. I think anyone that trys to tell them they are wrong comes accross as either arrogant or maybe a hidden agenda. I do think that answering questions fairly and honestly builds trust and understanding.

Sometimes there's confusion as to when I am talking about me personally selling to my customers and when i am tallking about us as an industry selling to Japan. My reasoning on the Japan deal stems from my personal experiences, but NO, I am not looking to sell tested beef any time soon....

I have been told my ideas are fraudulant and I am selling snakeoil....Anyone that personally knows me knows better...I say if you want to sell your product ddifferently than me, go ahead, it is a free country,

MRJ, I spent a lot of words, maybe because I have enjoyed our past discussions, whether we agree or disagree. I hope you find my views tend to be my own as I do listen and then decide for myself. Some of the endless namecalling and rudeness tend to make me stay awayfrom this side of the forum, I find our discussions different, so thanks,


PPRM
 
PPRM said:
All I am saying is if someone says "I want this.".....I say it will be this many dollars. I am not so presumptuois as to think that because mty views differ, I need to change thiers. Stand in front of a customer in any business and argue with them, you will lose ground.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one :)

As a sideline, having some spare time, and being a bit of a gearhead, a few years ago I started up a sideline business selling diesel performance parts and building engines/trucks for towing and racing. I often disagreed with a customer who asked for something, and 99% of the time, after I explained why, they were very happy that I took the time to explain things to them. It bought me alot of respect among my customers that I took a chance on ticking them off. Now, if after explaining my way of thinking to the customer, they still decided they wanted something a certain way, I stacked the parts in their trucks and sent them on their merry way :)

Edit: I just read your post to MRJ (it wasn't up when I responded). I think you and I are pretty much saying the same thing, and I hope I didn't come across as someone who thought you were being a fraud or selling snakeoil.

Rod
 
MRJ, I have been a very successful salesman in an earlier part of my life. I never did it by lying. You never need to if you have a good product. If you have a bad product, get another job. When in sales, your job is to get what the customer wants. I would never lie to them to get them something fraudulently. Never. It is a bad policy with a bad ROI.

Thanks PPRM for the thread.
 
Rod,

I never thought you were anything but sincere....I do often have to ask someone questions about capacity. If I think they are wanting to buy something too light, often because of price, I will get them to look at the heavier product and tell them why it is better....I have even told someone to buy a product in another brand if I think mine is innappropriate.

However, this is a bit different. Often they have done the research, ect....They are buying in based on thier values.....Does that make sense??? If the Japanese value a $20.00 or $40.00 test, I really feel strongly that it is inappropriate for me to tell them thier values are wrong. I can say, "would you consider this untested product? It likely is the same" but the decision is thiers.....That is if we give them a choice...


BTW Econ, within the threads I have read, I have never seen MRJ say selling someone something they ask for is Fraudulent. I have seen her say making unfounded claims is. Like she said, maybe we are closer on this than we think,


PPRM
 
PPRM said:
If I think they are wanting to buy something too light, often because of price, I will get them to look at the heavier product and tell them why it is better....
Click to expand...

Well, I never said I made alot of money at the performance shop, just a alot of very happy customers :lol: I found with the performance business, people were often going to the higher end stuff (ie:higher horsepower) and they didn't understand what they were getting into.

I think in this day and age of the internet, most customers are very happy to find a retailer who is willing to take the time to discuss their purchase. There is so much information on the net, with the majority of it being incorrect or not explained within context, that its refreshing to have someone knowledgable discuss things with you.

My hometown TruValue is shutting their doors at the end February. It was no WalMart on selection or price, but the owner knew almost everything there was to know about every product he sold or could get. He'd never try to sell you a $5 item if the $1.99 one would fill your needs. He'll be missed around here.

Rod
 
Econ101 said:
MRJ, I have been a very successful salesman in an earlier part of my life. I never did it by lying. You never need to if you have a good product. If you have a bad product, get another job. When in sales, your job is to get what the customer wants. I would never lie to them to get them something fraudulently. Never. It is a bad policy with a bad ROI.

Thanks PPRM for the thread.
Click to expand...

Econ, did I say that you lied about a product? My comments are about those who DO make unverified claims about nutrients or residues in beef.

That is commendable. Why, then, do you believe people should not have to verify and prove with tests by independent laboratories their claims that their "natural" or "organic" beef is better than conventionally produced beef, when the law requires that there be NO residues in any beef, other than marinades listed on the label?

I have never "needed to lie", nor have I, to sell my cattle or beef, often at or very near market topping prices, I might add.

PPRM, Thanks! I think we are pretty much on the same page in this discussion, and I've enjoyed the non-threatening tone. I sure never took your views as anything but your own and don't see any "snakeoil" evidence in your posts.

MRJ
 

Latest posts

Back
Top