Wednesday, March 09, 2011

What's wrong...

With this graph?


1. Guess which meat doesn't have a checkoff.
2. I doubt if "Be inspired" could have less effect than "TOWM"
3. If checkoffs prevented things from getting worse, how would you prove it?

Maybe producers are not even coming close to understanding the changing American diet.


Anonymous said...

Why didn't we eat much chicken back in the 40's?

Brian in Central IL said...


Wonderful find on the graph- telling for sure!

As a former pork producer who still follows the industry when I heard of the new slogan I was floored. I can not believe this made it out of final draft. My Wife, who has never been around the industry, overheard the news report I was watching when the slogan was announced and she felt the new slogan is the absolute wrong idea. She actually stopped and commented as to such which is really not in her nature.

I will say I am surprised by the graph as much as I was by the new prok slogan. For years I have heard how well PTOWM did in terms of driving sales and creating a great brand awareness. I still support the check off in terms of research and such, but this really makes me question where my dollars went in support of marketing. If all the check off funds were there to essentially prop up demand and not increase that is questionable at best. I guess on one end pork needed to get the message out that it is a healthy wholesome product next to chicken, but wow this is not even close!

My take, cut all marketing funding and drive all the cash into research and find profits and reduced expenses on that end. If we can continue to find ways to reduce the cost to produce pork and make the industry sustained I am all for it. I don't need a commercial to get me excited to buy pork at the store, its already on my shopping list. In the meantime, I will still do my part to hold up pork demand.

Anonymous said...

There may be more than 1 (one) variable other than check off!

Epistemic closure at it's best.
meaning being unreceptive to facts that don’t fit into the pre-approved (farmer)worldview

John Phipps said...

anon1: Please go the source for an explanation.

Brian: All seriousness aside, I think the fact there are no "pork fingers/nuggets" is the real hurdle. The percentage of food made from ingredients at home makes it necessary to be microwavable/deep-friable, I'd guess.

anon3: Guilty - but still an interesting correlation.

From Virginia said...

While it is legitimate to debate the merits of generic promotion, the reaction to the tag line from folks who find nothing "inspiring" should be understood in the context of the target audience. This campaign is aimed at 28% of consumers who consume 68% of fresh pork at home. The tag line was tested with this group, and was even volunteered by them as the most appealing descriptive. Time will tell if it is effective. The pork check off is the only check off that has established solid metrics for measuring success, having set a goal of 10% increase in number of eatings and in expenditures. Most are not willing to set such specific goals.

Anonymous said...

Ananymous 1 Maybe this graph didn't capture the "home raised" chicken from back then. Thinking back to my childhood in the 50's on the farm we probably ate much more of our beef & pork. The chickens were laying eggs and providing money for my mom and the household expenses.

JRthe original said...

John you should post up the dairy's abysmal failure of a checkoff! We are actually in far worse shape than any other commodity!

John Phipps said...


I was taken back by the chart myself - which is why I posted it.

And even allowing your points, it is hard to escape what it shows: per capita pork consumption seems to be a constant despite all kinds of economic and cultural influences.