Comments on: Some Boards That Should Be Independent of the USDA http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/02/some-boards-that-should-be.html Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:32:55 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Sarah Brodsky http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/02/some-boards-that-should-be.html/comment-page-1#comment-5269 Sarah Brodsky Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:25:31 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=13523#comment-5269 Thanks for the information. I'm not concerned about the free rider problem; people still eat fruits that aren't covered by these boards (like raspberries). Maybe there's less advertising for them than there would be if they had their own boards, but I don't think the government needs to establish some minimum level of advertising. Thanks for the information. I’m not concerned about the free rider problem; people still eat fruits that aren’t covered by these boards (like raspberries). Maybe there’s less advertising for them than there would be if they had their own boards, but I don’t think the government needs to establish some minimum level of advertising.

]]> By: Papillon http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/02/some-boards-that-should-be.html/comment-page-1#comment-5268 Papillon Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:15:06 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=13523#comment-5268 The theory behind these promoting of fruits is that Brand X of blueberry spends money to market itself and Brand Y of blueberry gets the benefits as blueberries are, mostly, the same. It was trying to eliminate a 'free rider' problem in that Brand X spends money on promotion and Brand Y gets some of the benefit. Brand X and Y are competitors to a degree, but they also have the same goal of getting people to eat more blueberries. (Consumers can differentiate bottled water, but not blueberries? What a world!!) My facts below may be a bit out of date, but the gov use to mandate that Brand Y kick in toward the promotions even if it didn't want to. That was tested in court and I don't know how that turned out. Fruit/vegetables are hard to market, as it is mostly interchangeable. I remember 'Foxy' lettuce with Brooke Shields as its ad model about 20? years ago, but that is about it off the top of my head. Methods of production can make a difference (organic, local, Idaho potatoes). However, I don't think that MAKING people pay for something to 'help' them is the right answer. The theory behind these promoting of fruits is that Brand X of blueberry spends money to market itself and Brand Y of blueberry gets the benefits as blueberries are, mostly, the same. It was trying to eliminate a ‘free rider’ problem in that Brand X spends money on promotion and Brand Y gets some of the benefit. Brand X and Y are competitors to a degree, but they also have the same goal of getting people to eat more blueberries. (Consumers can differentiate bottled water, but not blueberries? What a world!!)

My facts below may be a bit out of date, but the gov use to mandate that Brand Y kick in toward the promotions even if it didn’t want to. That was tested in court and I don’t know how that turned out.

Fruit/vegetables are hard to market, as it is mostly interchangeable. I remember ‘Foxy’ lettuce with Brooke Shields as its ad model about 20? years ago, but that is about it off the top of my head. Methods of production can make a difference (organic, local, Idaho potatoes). However, I don’t think that MAKING people pay for something to ‘help’ them is the right answer.

]]>