Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Implants
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Anonymous" data-source="post: 2674"><p>ChrisB, I enjouyed your post. You seem to be a pretty level headed guy even though I took a little bit of a cheep shot at you. I should have taken more time to phrase my words better. My apologies! I think your perception of the public is pretty good. Given a choice people are going to buy what they think is best for them. No one takes a moldy piece of meat over a fresh cut and so on. I don't believe in using scare tactics, but the facts are that the consumers are afraid of STEROIDS. Just the word STEROIDS invokes a negative response. It doesn't make any difference if it is a trace amount worth mentioning or not. We spend millions of dollars on advertising our beef to the public each year with good slogans like, ALL NATURAL RANCHERS RESERVE. We want to instill confidence in the consumer that our product is wholesome and good for you! You can't do that by telling them what they are eating has been enhanced with STEROIDS. Personally I feel that the publics perception of STEROIDS hurts the beef industry and the people that use them hurt our industry. So coined the phrase (CUT YOUR OWN THROAT). Their is more to the beef market than just growing them big! That's easy if you use good genetics, are selective, and have a good management program. Best of luck to you!</p><p></p><p>Rod</p><p></p><p>> You may be right, that when asked</p><p>> people will say they want natural.</p><p>> But when they are at the meat</p><p>> counter, they seem to pay more</p><p>> attention to price. If I was</p><p>> direct marketing all my beef, I</p><p>> would not implant, as I think it</p><p>> may be easier to market. But in my</p><p>> opinion that seems to work better</p><p>> for people that only have a few</p><p>> head to sell.</p><p></p><p>> Please explain how I am</p><p>> "slitting my own throat"</p><p>> by making more money? Don't get me</p><p>> wrong, I understand your point. I</p><p>> always hear how we need to give</p><p>> the consumer what they want, but I</p><p>> figure the consumer will get what</p><p>> they want when they are willing to</p><p>> pay for it.</p><p></p><p>> Maybe this is a bad example, but</p><p>> we all get angry when we hear how</p><p>> our Nike's or Reebok's are made at</p><p>> "sweat shop's" in</p><p>> foreign countries right? When the</p><p>> public is interviewed by the</p><p>> press, the majority of people say</p><p>> they will be less likely to buy</p><p>> those products. But we keep buying</p><p>> them because the quality is very</p><p>> good and they are in style. Let's</p><p>> say Nike decides to make their</p><p>> product here in the USA. Labor</p><p>> goes up considerably, so now the</p><p>> board members and owners have to</p><p>> cut their salaries by 50% right?</p><p>> Sure. Instead they have to raise</p><p>> the price for their shoes. Now we</p><p>> are at footlocker looking for a</p><p>> pair of shoes. There is a pair of</p><p>> Reeboks on the shelf for $50, and</p><p>> next to them is a similar pair of</p><p>> Nike's for $100. Both are still a</p><p>> good product, but who is going to</p><p>> sell more shoes and who will be</p><p>> out of business shortly? I realize</p><p>> this is not a good comparison to</p><p>> the beef market, and I really</p><p>> don't know where my shoes are</p><p>> made. But the point I'm trying to</p><p>> make is that what people say they</p><p>> want and what people actually do</p><p>> is not the same.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Anonymous, post: 2674"] ChrisB, I enjouyed your post. You seem to be a pretty level headed guy even though I took a little bit of a cheep shot at you. I should have taken more time to phrase my words better. My apologies! I think your perception of the public is pretty good. Given a choice people are going to buy what they think is best for them. No one takes a moldy piece of meat over a fresh cut and so on. I don't believe in using scare tactics, but the facts are that the consumers are afraid of STEROIDS. Just the word STEROIDS invokes a negative response. It doesn't make any difference if it is a trace amount worth mentioning or not. We spend millions of dollars on advertising our beef to the public each year with good slogans like, ALL NATURAL RANCHERS RESERVE. We want to instill confidence in the consumer that our product is wholesome and good for you! You can't do that by telling them what they are eating has been enhanced with STEROIDS. Personally I feel that the publics perception of STEROIDS hurts the beef industry and the people that use them hurt our industry. So coined the phrase (CUT YOUR OWN THROAT). Their is more to the beef market than just growing them big! That's easy if you use good genetics, are selective, and have a good management program. Best of luck to you! Rod > You may be right, that when asked > people will say they want natural. > But when they are at the meat > counter, they seem to pay more > attention to price. If I was > direct marketing all my beef, I > would not implant, as I think it > may be easier to market. But in my > opinion that seems to work better > for people that only have a few > head to sell. > Please explain how I am > "slitting my own throat" > by making more money? Don't get me > wrong, I understand your point. I > always hear how we need to give > the consumer what they want, but I > figure the consumer will get what > they want when they are willing to > pay for it. > Maybe this is a bad example, but > we all get angry when we hear how > our Nike's or Reebok's are made at > "sweat shop's" in > foreign countries right? When the > public is interviewed by the > press, the majority of people say > they will be less likely to buy > those products. But we keep buying > them because the quality is very > good and they are in style. Let's > say Nike decides to make their > product here in the USA. Labor > goes up considerably, so now the > board members and owners have to > cut their salaries by 50% right? > Sure. Instead they have to raise > the price for their shoes. Now we > are at footlocker looking for a > pair of shoes. There is a pair of > Reeboks on the shelf for $50, and > next to them is a similar pair of > Nike's for $100. Both are still a > good product, but who is going to > sell more shoes and who will be > out of business shortly? I realize > this is not a good comparison to > the beef market, and I really > don't know where my shoes are > made. But the point I'm trying to > make is that what people say they > want and what people actually do > is not the same. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Implants
Top