Everyone knows the marketing slogan: Pork, the Other White Meat; but has it made pork products any more desirous to the consumer? After all, that is the intent of the pork check-off program, as it tries to produce and market a better product to enhance the price of pork. Has it achieved what it set out to do, particularly with consumers also being bombarded by marketing messages also promoting beef and poultry?

The $60 million pork check off program is controlled by the National Pork Board, and NPB Directors hired economists from North Carolina State University and RTI International to evaluate the impact of the pork advertising expenditures. The research took advertising expenditures into consideration, along with health issues that tend to soften demand. Those included foot and mouth disease in Britain in 2001, BSE in Washington State in 2003, listeria fears in poultry in 2002, and Avian influenza in poultry in 2004.

When the beef and pork check-off programs began in 1987, beef took off rapidly with its “Beef, Its What’s for Dinner” promotional campaign. The economists report, “On average, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board spent more on beef advertising than the National Pork Board on pork advertising. However, the Pork Board has increased its advertising expenditures over the course of the program while the Beef Board’s advertising expenditures have changed little in nominal terms. In 1987, the debut year of both programs, the Beef Board spent about $27.3 million on beef advertising and promotion in contrast to the $9.8 million expenditures by the Pork Board on pork advertising and promotion. In 2005 the Pork Board’s expenditures on advertising and promotion activities were $35 million, while the Beef Board’s expenditures on the same activities were $28.2 million. Taking into account the effect of inflation on media costs over the past two decades, the real generic beef advertising expenditures likely have fallen since the inception of the check-off program.”

The economists believe that consumers already have a tendency to purchase specific quantities of meat, before exposure to any advertising. Those quantities are 14.2 pounds of beef, 7.3 pounds of pork, and 7.2 pounds of poultry. If the price of the meat increases, the consumer will spend more to get that quantity of meat, but will reduce what they spend on additional quantities.

In conclusion, the economists report, “We find the impacts of advertising and food safety effects to be economically small compared with price and expenditure effects. However, cost-benefit analyses are needed to evaluate whether such practices are profitable to producers.” However, they believe that generic pork advertising appears to help demand for poultry more than pork. Poultry, of course, does not have a check-off program but may be getting a “free ride” from the pork producers.

Summary:
Any investment should be periodically evaluated, and the investment made by pork producers into a generic advertising program was statistically evaluated in an attempt to determine its value. The economists found that consumers are already pre-disposed to purchase certain meats, and generic advertising paid by the check-off had only a small impact on increasing sales.