Why not?
I see that the nays are now winning (9 to 7) the Fresh Talk poll on the desirability of a national promotion order, with mandatory assessments, for fresh produce. I spelled out some of the reasons why I thought the concept was solid in an earlier post. A national promotion order would provide forceful and flexible consumer messaging, give more effective media outreach tools, bolster the fresh produce industry with greater clout at the USDA, satisfy the need for a fresh first focus in generic promotions and boost trade promotion dollars considerably.
I would like to hear the top reasons why people don't think it is a good idea. Just tack your thoughts, anonymous or not, on to this post.
posted by Tom Karst @ 8:05 AM
4 Comments:
I'm libertarian. If the need or demand is there, the free market will create a better solution then the government.
Force advertising upon producers. this issue went to court once already. Additionally, not commodity specific enough. Why would an apple company want to pay to see and ad rich with grapes? To many varieties to manage equal space and time. Only the USDA and ad companies make out.
Both are good points. But doesn't the argument for the libertarian break down with the food safety issue. If the market was going to provide a solution, wouldn't it have done so by now?
If you say, a generic fresh approach is not commodity specific enough, I say the point is that you are promoting fresh rather than individual commodities. Compared to the meatpacking industry, for exmaple, there is much less concentration of market share by fresh produce shippers. Few if any fruit and vegetable marketers can create a national voice and message.
As to the courts, here are the ground rules for a promotion order, pulled from a dairy case on the Web:
In Wileman Brothers, the Court held that regulations creating a generic advertising program for California peaches, nectarines, and plums, paid for by mandatory assessments on handlers of those fruits, did not implicate the First Amendment. The Court identified three factors that distinguish such generic advertising programs from laws that abridge freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment. First, generic advertising programs "impose no restraint on the freedom of any producer to communicate any message to any audience." 521 U.S. at 469. Second, generic advertising programs "do not compel any person to engage in actual or symbolic speech," because persons "are not required themselves to speak, but are merely required to make contributions for advertising." Id. at 469, 471. And third, generic advertising programs "do not compel the producers to endorse or finance any political or ideological views." Id. at 469-470. The Court explained that requiring the members of an industry to pay assessments for generic advertising, which does not promote "any particular message other than encouraging consumers to buy [their product]," does not "engender any crisis of conscience" or otherwise interfere with any "freedom of belief." Id. at 471-472.
Using the AMS to raise consciousness is to expensive and bloated of a solution for a dubious campaign which although high sounding, is not worth the investment of time and money when I believe the public thru other media already knows the value of produce. Better to use the assessments for political action expenses to get legislation we need passed and lame congressional reps removed.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home