Evaluation of publicity measures relating to the EU beef labelling system in Belgium

Abstract In response to growing consumer concerns about beef safety, the European Commission enacted several regulations concerning the identification and registration of bovine animals and compulsory labelling of beef and beef products. Additionally, the Commission provided funds for informing consumers about the guarantees offered by the traceability systems and the indicators on labels. This paper focuses on the evaluation of such publicity measures in Belgium during September 2000. The publicity campaign included a mass media advertisement with direct response components, and the distribution of a detailed information leaflet. The evaluation methodology includes cross-sectional data collection through consumer surveys pre and post the publicity event. The compulsory beef label indicators emerge as the least important and least attended cues by beef consumers. While the mass media advertisement scored well in terms of recall rate, informative content evaluation, and restoration of consumer confidence in beef, the direct response component and leaflet distribution were less successful. Implications pertain to the future planning and implementation of similar consumer information policies and publicity campaigns.

[1]  W. Verbeke.  Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat revisited after the Belgian dioxin crisis , 2001 .

[2]  A. Rayner,et al.  The impact of food scares on price adjustment in the UK beef market , 2001 .

[3]  S. Folta,et al.  An intervention to increase fruit and vegetable consumption using audio communications: in-store public service announcements and audiotapes. , 2001, Journal of health communication.

[4]  Pamela Marr,et al.  A beef producer initiative in traceability: Scottish Borders TAG , 1998 .

[5]  G. Laurent,et al.  Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles , 1985 .

[6]  Susan Miles,et al.  Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards , 2001 .

[7]  Banwari Mittal.  A comparative analysis of four scales of consumer involvement , 1995 .

[8]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Presenting risk information--a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes. , 2001, Journal of health communication.

[9]  R. Ward.  Evaluating the beef promotion checkoff: The robustness of the conclusions , 1999 .

[10]  D. Vermersch,et al.  Food safety issues and the BSE scare: some lessons from the French case , 1998 .

[11]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact , 2001 .

[12]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  The Emerging Role of Traceability and Information in Demand-Oriented Livestock Production , 2001 .

[13]  W. Verbeke,et al.  Probit analysis of fresh meat consumption in Belgium: Exploring BSE and television communication impact , 2000 .

[14]  W. Verbeke,et al.  Health communication and consumer behavior on meat in Belgium: from BSE until dioxin. , 1999, Journal of health communication.

[15]  R. Ward,et al.  GENERIC PROMOTION OF BEEF: MEASURING THE IMPACT OF THE US BEEF CHECKOFF , 1993 .

[16]  J. Zaichkowsky.  Measuring the Involvement Construct , 1985 .

[17]  Trevor Young,et al.  The impact of BSE on the demand for beef and other meats in Great Britain , 1996 .

[18]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  Traceability as a key instrument towards supply chain and quality management in the Belgian poultry meat chain , 1998 .

[19]  P. Verhoef,et al.  The effectiveness of direct response radio commercials, results of a field experiment in the Netherlands , 2000 .

[20]  Agro-food Marketing , 1997 .

[21]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  Consumer Perception of Traceability in the Meat Chain , 2001 .

[22]  Banwari Mittal,et al.  A causal model of consumer involvement , 1989 .