Signup to receive email updates
- Transdermal Banamine approved
- Survey: Nearly one-third of Americans support ban on slaughterhouses
- Court documents allege mislabeling of U.S. beef
- Record-high U.S. per capita meat, poultry disappearance seen in 2018
- New study: Don’t graze fescue to the ground
- USDA announces changes to U.S. beef grade standards
- Value of bull to commercial herd exceeds ‘relative’ value
- April 2018 (1)
- February 2018 (3)
- January 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (2)
- November 2017 (2)
- June 2017 (2)
- May 2017 (2)
- April 2017 (4)
- March 2017 (3)
- February 2017 (3)
- January 2017 (3)
- December 2016 (2)
- November 2016 (5)
- September 2016 (6)
- August 2016 (2)
- July 2016 (3)
- June 2016 (3)
- May 2016 (5)
- March 2016 (3)
- February 2016 (1)
- December 2015 (5)
- September 2015 (2)
- August 2015 (3)
- July 2015 (2)
- June 2015 (3)
- May 2015 (6)
- April 2015 (2)
- February 2015 (3)
- January 2015 (5)
- November 2014 (2)
- October 2014 (6)
- September 2014 (4)
- August 2014 (6)
- July 2014 (2)
- June 2014 (2)
- May 2014 (3)
- April 2014 (2)
- February 2014 (3)
- January 2014 (4)
- December 2013 (1)
- May 2013 (1)
- April 2013 (3)
- March 2013 (1)
127 Total Posts
follow our RSS feed
Sunday, February 1, 2015
IN an era when consumers have a wealth of information at their fingertips, where do they turn for recommendations on meat purchasing?
That's the question assistant professor of consumer economics Kuo-Liang "Matt" Chang and a team of South Dakota State University researchers sought to answer when trying to determine the best way to use social media to encourage beef consumption. The research was supported by a grant from the South Dakota Beef Industry Council.
In addition to Chang, the research team included assistant professor of economics Lisa Elliott, assistant professor of journalism and mass communications Rocky Dailey and extension field specialist Shannon Sand in Rapid City, S.D.
Social media platforms provide a wealth of quantitative analytics, including the number of people who visited the site, what they viewed and their demographics, according to Briana Burgers, nutrition assistant and director of online communications for the South Dakota Beef Industry Council.
"We want to know what information our consumers want to see from us," Burgers said. "This study gives us the qualitative data we need."
Recipes, nutrition info
Based on an online survey filled out by 126 South Dakota residents — most of whom were ages 24-45 — websites are the number-one source of nutrition information and recipes, followed by family and friends, according to Chang.
The third most popular place the respondents turn for recipes is magazines, followed by social media, he said.
However, for nutrition information, social media takes a back seat to health professionals, magazines and television, in that order.
In looking at consumers' nutritional knowledge, Chang found that more than half of respondents identified beef as containing more iron than other meats, but only 25% knew that a chicken thigh has more fat than a steak.
Nearly 45% of respondents had shopped for groceries based on information posted on social media, according to Chang. Although only 27% shopped for meat online, about 77% said they are willing to try new products based on their friends' suggestions on social media.
More than 80% of the respondents used Facebook, while just over 50% visited Pinterest, and Twitter came in third, Chang said, noting that the beef council maintains a presence on all three.
"This suggests that the beef council can take increasing advantage of the great marketing opportunities on these platforms," he said.
In addition, Burgers said she also writes a blog in which she tries to connect with Millennials and provides easy, convenient and nutritious recipes with how-to photos.
Consumers viewed nutrition and health as top priorities when purchasing both beef and poultry, while 55% felt that price was important when purchasing beef and 58% when buying chicken. This difference is not statistically significant, though, Chang pointed out.
Approximately 37% of the respondents buy their beef at a chain store, such as Hy-Vee or Walmart, while 33% purchase half or a quarter of their beef from a friend or family member, according to Chang.
When faced with higher beef prices, South Dakota consumers purchase less meat in general, rather than selecting less-expensive alternatives such as chicken, Chang explained. However, midwesterners consume 10% more beef than the rest of the nation.
"One type of meat does not necessarily compete with the other," Chang said.
Consumers will purchase a variety of meats that complement, rather than substitute for, one another.
To complete the study, Chang will interview 25 respondents to find out how the beef council can draw visitors to its website and to tailor its social media messages to their needs.
taken from Feedstuffs