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

Quizno's:Your Checkoff $ at Work

Econ101 said:
The checkoff funds would have been much better spent getting the USDA to allow testing for shipments to Japan than sandwiches at quiznos. There needs to be an analysis to see just how much the money spent returns on investment. Absent that, you are just throwing good will money at the wind.

You know, I've always found it a little odd that we producers should be on the hook for advertising our goods to the end consumers. Do the logging companies have to pay advertising dollars so the furniture companies can sell furniture? How about diamond miners? Do they pay out dollars so Ben Moss can sell rings? If the packers weren't allowed into so doggoned many competing markets, perhaps they'd be footing some of these advertising bills and pursuing Quiznos to sell the prime sub. Just a random thought.

Rod
 
MRJ said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
I thought that everyone who has possession of cattle had to pay at sale time.

Mike- you have to own the cattle over 10 days to be required to pay the checkoff-- lets off trader buyers and packing plants....

OT, you forgot to include sale barns in that litany of those who do not pay checkoff. Basically, traders, buying and selling while normally only owning the cattle for a short time before passing them on to longer term owners are excluded from paying into the checkoff.

However, there are packers who also donate money to checkoff projects they believe to be of value to the entire industry. Work to eradicate e Coli is one that comes to mind.

MRJ

MRJ- I don't know if any sale barns that own cattle- just handle them for a commission... Usually the transaction doesn't take place until a buyer purchases them-- and if its a sales barn person they are then acting as an order buyer......
 
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
Where is Quiznos advertizing anything but BEEF and that is what we, the producers, produce. The packers are JUST MIDDLE MEN. Someone between the orginial source the Producer and the customer the person that eats it. If we don't advertize our product the packers will have no need to buy our cattle. :roll:

Tam, the bse "salmon run" showed that profits are not necessarily handed down to producers. Don't you ever learn a thing? The checkoff funds would have been much better spent getting the USDA to allow testing for shipments to Japan than sandwiches at quiznos. There needs to be an analysis to see just how much the money spent returns on investment. Absent that, you are just throwing good will money at the wind.
Isn' the checkoff funds suppose to be used for promoting beef as in advertizing new products not for lobbying the Government to do things like testing?

Well Econ since you don't seem to know I found this on several State Check Off web site
What can't the checkoff do?

By law checkoff funds cannot be used to influence government policy or action. This includes lobbying.
Now Econ how did you say it would be better spent and do you think the Law prohibiting lobbying should be broken?
 
mj...However, there are packers who also donate money to checkoff projects they believe to be of value to the entire industry.

What is the percent the packer pays vs. the percent the producers pay?
 
Tam said:
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
Tam, the bse "salmon run" showed that profits are not necessarily handed down to producers. Don't you ever learn a thing? The checkoff funds would have been much better spent getting the USDA to allow testing for shipments to Japan than sandwiches at quiznos. There needs to be an analysis to see just how much the money spent returns on investment. Absent that, you are just throwing good will money at the wind.
Isn' the checkoff funds suppose to be used for promoting beef as in advertizing new products not for lobbying the Government to do things like testing?

Well Econ since you don't seem to know I found this on several State Check Off web site
What can't the checkoff do?

By law checkoff funds cannot be used to influence government policy or action. This includes lobbying.
Now Econ how did you say it would be better spent and do you think the Law prohibiting lobbying should be broken?


Chickenhead, I meanTam, I know the rules and I know it was illegal. I was just illustrating the point that all the checkoff dollars spent in the world can not combat bad policy in the USDA for producers.
 
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
Tam said:
Isn' the checkoff funds suppose to be used for promoting beef as in advertizing new products not for lobbying the Government to do things like testing?

Well Econ since you don't seem to know I found this on several State Check Off web site
What can't the checkoff do?

By law checkoff funds cannot be used to influence government policy or action. This includes lobbying.
Now Econ how did you say it would be better spent and do you think the Law prohibiting lobbying should be broken?


Chickenhead, I meanTam, I know the rules and I know it was illegal. I was just illustrating the point that all the checkoff dollars spent in the world can not combat bad policy in the USDA for producers.

The cattle producers who know and understand the Beef Checkoff know that.

BTW, there have been studies conducted showing how the Beef Checkoff returns money to the producers via projects ultimately increasing demand for beef.

Tommy, it really doesn't matter to me, but would guess it is more of their money than checkoff money, overall. Don't you think the very successful efforts to cut the incidences of e Coli are a good example of that partnership?

MRJ
 
Tommy said:
mj...However, there are packers who also donate money to checkoff projects they believe to be of value to the entire industry.

What is the percent the packer pays vs. the percent the producers pay?




Bryant notes that over the past five years, for every checkoff dollar spent on these kinds of partnerships, foodservice partners have put up about $56, on average.

I'd say that is a pretty good return on investment
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
Tommy said:
mj...However, there are packers who also donate money to checkoff projects they believe to be of value to the entire industry.

What is the percent the packer pays vs. the percent the producers pay?




Bryant notes that over the past five years, for every checkoff dollar spent on these kinds of partnerships, foodservice partners have put up about $56, on average.

I'd say that is a pretty good return on investment

BMR, if that is how you do your accounting for your return on investment, keep your day job and don't go into the investment business.

The accounting for calculating the return on investment for beef checkoff returns to producers can not be quantified and you know it. It goes through too many hands. The "tax" for advertisement should be at the packer level, not the producer level. That could be more quantifiable.
 
Amazing! How can there STILL be so much confusion about the Beef Checkoff????

Tommy, I don't know what the percentage that the packers pay for checkoff partnered projects may be. I'm sure it varies from year to year. However, the fact that they are not required to do that says good things about them, IMO. But then again, I do not believe they are evil incarnate as some people do.

I may try to find out if records are kept of their contributions. But am sure anyone could at www.cbb.org .

Econ, you are SO confused! The money put into Beef Checkoff promo partnerships has NOTHING to do with TOTAL "return on investment" of checkoff dollars to producers!

It is money put into several specific partnership projects by the businesses involved. It IS measureable. And it has been $56.00 from them for each $1.00 of Beef Checkoff money, TO DATE. And that definitely is a good return on THAT type of investments!

There have been studies that show how the Beef Checkoff spending has returned money (maybe $5.00 to $1.00, ? not sure as that was several years ago) was quoted at one time) back to the cattle producer paying into it. I don't know the methods and am certain that you will not believe it possible, but some people are confident that it has happened. Check it out at the CBB for yourself, for a change.

Econ, are you really that confused that you, in one post you demand there be "an analysis to see just how much the money spent returns on investment (because) absent that, you re just throwing good will money at the wind" and in the same thread, you state "The accounting for calculating the return on investment for beef checkoff returns to producers can not be quantified and you know it. It goes through too many hands"......so which is it, truthfully? And what are your qualifications to make that determination? Do you pay the beef checkoff directly? Or is that just another of your "analogies" or another of the games you like to play with us "idiots"? Or were you "just illustrating the point"?

OT, so, what is the difference between the "sale barn" owning cattle, and the OWNER of that sale barn also owning cattle? Sure, in that case they would be supposed to pay the checkoff, but you say you haven't heard of any sale barns owning cattle, and that seems strange, to me. Maybe there are "sale barn" cattle only in SD???? Just semantics. No big deal.

Are you saying that it never happens that sale barn owners make the mistake of guaranteeing someone a price for their calves and end up owning them and running them as yearlings........besides sometimes deciding to buy yearlings and run them on grass to make some money on cattle that were selling cheap? If that never happened, I don't know why, over the years, I've heard quite a number of people complain of the sale barns, with their deep pockets, running up the price of grass leases to run yearlings, above what an ordinary yearling guy with no sale barn behind him could afford. And, agreed, if they are holding them a short time, they are acting as an order buyer or cattle trader, so not required to pay checkoff in that case. But does anyone check on them to assure they only hold them the ten day limit?

Rod, have you been in business since before the mandatory checkoff? Did you know that there had been a voluntary one, and many producers believed that they should not pay it because the "big guys" probably didn't, and then some of the big guys who had been faithfully paying it felt that it wasn't fair that the "little guys" were free-loading off their money in enjoying the same benefits of the checkoff? While both probably were partly correct, that was the basis for the legislation CATTLE PRODUCERS caused, to bring the mandatory Beef Checkoff to a vote. It passed with cattle producers voting it in by a nearly 80% margin. It always was producer driven and run, with USDA oversight to assure compliance with the law. The cattle producers who decide which projects to support clearly believe that the advertising is worth a large percent of the budget. Personally, I would prefer that more go to research into the true benefits of the nutrients in beef, and to educating government agencies and the health professionals of those facts. Then consumers should get more educational materials and/or advertising than the simple "feel good" beef advertising.......if it were a perfect world!

Don't logging COMPANIES advertise? Furniture companies sure do. Diamonds are advertised, but I doubt the actual guys doing the logging, or building the furniture, or digging out the diamonds do any advertising. The Beef Checkoff IS the COMPANY (cattle producers). It just happens that the guy cashing the check when he sells calves often is the same guy who is out shoveling out the barn that morning! Quite different than the guy mining the diamonds, cutting the trees, or gluing up the chairs paid wages for his hours of work, instead of owning the end product. Granted there are a few small operations where the owner is the operator, but am guessing not so much as among cattle producers.

I do wish those visionaries had made the Beef Checkoff a private entity so that those who chose not to participate had that right, and would not be forced to benefit from the work of the checkoff against their will.

I believe no one has a clue of the actual dollar value of the volunteer work of the thousands of people who make the checkoff system function. We need some economist to quantify that for us!

Mike, another question for you, do you know if packers advertise at all on their own?

MRJ
 
MRJ said:
1)Personally, I would prefer that more go to research into the true benefits of the nutrients in beef, and to educating government agencies and the health professionals of those facts. Then consumers should get more educational materials and/or advertising than the simple "feel good" beef advertising.......if it were a perfect world!

2) Don't logging COMPANIES advertise? Furniture companies sure do. Diamonds are advertised, but I doubt the actual guys doing the logging, or building the furniture, or digging out the diamonds do any advertising. The Beef Checkoff IS the COMPANY (cattle producers). It just happens that the guy cashing the check when he sells calves often is the same guy who is out shoveling out the barn that morning! Quite different than the guy mining the diamonds, cutting the trees, or gluing up the chairs paid wages for his hours of work, instead of owning the end product. Granted there are a few small operations where the owner is the operator, but am guessing not so much as among cattle producers.

1) Then say something about it MRJ. If it were Canadian dollars going to large chain restaurant like Quiznos, who can bloody well afford their own advertising, I'd be deeply offended.

Bear in mind I'm Canadian, so we didn't have the same progression of our check off dollars that you did. Heres a pretty good link to ours:
http://www.cattlefund.net/national.asp

Half of ours goes to increasing demand for our product, the other half to a variety of research products. While I fully support the beef checkoff, and even the national advertising to increase beef demand (well, the packers sure as hell aren't gonna do it) I just find it interesting that we should be on the hook for our advertising to end consumers.

2) Cattle producers are primary producers. 99% of us sell to middle men (feedlots) or value add companies (packers). Same as logging companies. Same as diamond miners. Same as grain farmers by the way, who don't have to advertise thier product. In every single case, the final link in the chain foots the advertising bill. EVERY case. Except for ours. It doesn't matter who receives the cheque at the end of the day, or who owns the business, it only matters what rung of the ladder you're on. We're on the bottom rung, and as such, we should be able to expect others the foot the advertising bill.

So Leons' does the advertising for their furniture, not RKL Logging. Ben Moss does the advertising for their rings, not Diamond North Mining. McGavins does the advertising for the whole wheat bread, not my father who sells them the grain. Why is Mike on the hook for Quiznos?

Rod
 
MRJ said:
Amazing! How can there STILL be so much confusion about the Beef Checkoff????






MRJ

Simple answer- Its run by the NCBA, who trys to keep it as confused as possible so no one knows whats going on with their tax dollar!!!

Comical, when a self professed checkoff leader and long time NCBA member like MRJ can't even tell you the makeup of the NCBA Federation Division- or who is in charge, a chairman or vice chairman- or who that person is :???: :lol: ....When ever an organizations charter is so confusing that the members can't follow its make up- it has been done for a reason.. :wink:
 
Oldtimer said:
MRJ said:
Amazing! How can there STILL be so much confusion about the Beef Checkoff????






MRJ

Simple answer- Its run by the NCBA, who trys to keep it as confused as possible so no one knows whats going on with their tax dollar!!!

Comical, when a self professed checkoff leader and long time NCBA member like MRJ can't even tell you the makeup of the NCBA Federation Division- or who is in charge, a chairman or vice chairman- or who that person is :???: :lol: ....When ever an organizations charter is so confusing that the members can't follow its make up- it has been done for a reason.. :wink:

The reality is, OT, that people like yourself do not want to know. You only want to promote mis-information to make the program look bad and critic izing what others are doing, as you spend lots of time doing on this forum.

It is totally not true to say that anyone other than the CBB "runs" the beef checkoff. The states, via their leadership in the NCBA Federation division do "run" the state half of the checkoff, but not the national share of it, though they may use some of their state money to add to the national projects if they choose to, which many states do.

I provided links to where people could find the information or ask staffers for it. What is wrong with that?

BTW, the "confusing" system WAS done for a purpose, which I've explained may times. It is complex in order to include the most possible cattle producers, leaving no one out who wants to participate, and making it fair to all.

There is a difference between people who simply haven't taken time to check it out, and people who deliberately promote false information in order to cause trouble for the checkoff.

When did I ever "proclaim" that I am a leader in the beef checkoff? I have held such positions in the past, but that was long ago.

MRJ
 
It was rweally weally fowxy how the packers excluded themselves from the beef checkoff and are the first in line for the benefits.


I guess that is the result of the NCBA pursuing the interests of the packers and the producers at the same time. The packers give the political donations and influence policy. It shows.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top