On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:09:13 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> wrote:

>Robert Klute > wrote

(Trimming out some sections to keep the post size down).

>>>> What doesn't matter is if they do check, why the check.
>
>>> Wrong. We happened to be discussing whether the kosher
>>> label significantly increases the sale of particular items.
>
>>>> If they don't it they don't contribute to the increased sales
>
>>> You dont know that they arent buying it because the product
>>> appeals to them more than the alternatives available.
>
>>>> and thus not part of the population the manufacturer is targeting.
>
>>> We arent discussing targetting.
>
>> Yes we are,
>
>No we arent.
>
>> adding the Kosher symbol it targeting a group of consumers for whom
>> that designation has a positive influence on their purchasing decision.
>
>Wrong when it costs very little to have the kosher label and the manufacturer
>just includes it because it adds microscopically to the their total costs.

Doesn't matter if, in the overall scheme of things, it doesn't cost
much. The comapny still has to make the effort, and I assume, regularly
get it renewed.


>Thats not targetting, thats just doing everything that might
>achieve the best sales while it costs very little to include that.

Semantics. They may not be aiming this product select subgroup and only
that subgroup. They are using the symbol, and what it represents, to
expand or maintain their market by going after that group and adding to
the potential customer base for that product.


>>>>>> What matters is that the manufacturers believe that
>>>>>> getting a kosher designation increases their sales
>
>>>>> You dont even know that. Campbells clearly doesnt believe
>>>>> that if they really do only have one item with a kosher label.
>
>>>> Well, yes, that is the point. Campbell's doesn't
>>>> believe it is worth the cost for most of their products.
>
>>> And when you havent established that the cost is significant, that
>>> clearly shows that Campbells doesnt believe that the kosher label
>>> significantly affects sales of at least the products they sell.
>
>> The cost may or may not be significant.
>
>Corse its insignificant with a product which is kosher
>without any change in the way its produced.

There still is a cost associated with getting the certification. I may
be a fixed cost that is very small when amortized across the number of
units sold, but it still is a cost.


>> Campbell's has decided it is not worth the effort,
>
>You dont even know that they did decide that with the ones that
>dont have a kosher lable. They may not care about the jews and
>others who choose to buy kosher labelled products just because
>they cant find any products labelled as being suitable for their
>own silly requirements, and they only got the kosher label for
>that one particular product because someone in Campbells
>noticed that it would cost peanuts to have the kosher label on
>that particular product and so they might as well have it as not.

If you don't care then any effort isn't worth it.

:
>> I have no idea, and you don't either, as to why Campbell's only has one
>> kosher product or even why they got the kosher designation for that product.
>
>Yes, but I wasnt the one making any claim about why or how manufacturers choose
>to have a kosher label on their products, let alone the completely unsubstantiated claim
>that they do that because of the 'huge' increase of sales that purportedly guarantees.

Neither was I. I just wanted to point out that a company would be
violating its fiduciary responsibiliy if it went to the expense of
getting kosher certification on its products if it didn't have some
rational believe that it would result in increased sales and profits.
Although, I suppose it could justify it as part of their being socially
responsible or some such.

:
>>> You dont know that, particularly when its going to be very
>>> difficult for any manufacturer like Campbell to quantify just
>>> what increase in revenue there is from having a kosher label
>>> on that particular product, when there are so many other
>>> factors that also affect the sales of a particular product.
>
>> That is true for any product, kosher or not, particularly new product introductions.
>
>Yep.
>
>> Why bother introducing any new product when
>> you have no idea whether it will sell or not?
>
>Because there is no other viable way to do business.
>
>Its true in spades with movies and music, the most you can ever do
>is take a bet on whether it will fly and try it and see, and quite a bit
>of the time it flops for reasons that are completely outside your control,
>like too many other similar products appear at the same time etc.

Right, same with deciding to get kosher or organic or whatever
certification. It is a reasoned bet that it will increase or maintain
market share and/or sales in the face of competition.


>> But that is what surveys, market research, data mining,
>> benchmarking, etc are for - helping to make more than a wild guess.
>
>None of those help with determining what the effect on sales will be
>of a kosher label with a particular product, because it will be swamped
>by all the other factors, particularly who will bother to stock it and
>where it ends up on the shelves for consumers to notice etc.

Are we talking about an existing product or the introduction of a new
product? With an existing product there is a history to compare it
with. With a new product, I don't know about swamped, but you are right
that it becomes just one small factor among many different factors.


>> And, you may be right, Campbell's may have decided it just
>> isn't worth the effort to even research it. We just don't know.
>
>Yes, but you were the one claiming that they would have analysed the cost and benefit.
>
>Like I said, you just dont know if they even bothered to do that.
>
>It seems pretty unlikely that they carefully analysed that and determined
>that the kosher label would be worth having. MUCH more likely that with
>that particular product no production change was required, the cost of
>getting the label for the product was a trivial part of the total cost of
>production of that particular product and someone decided to give it
>a whirl and see what happened since it was so cheap to try.
>
>>>> If you are not that sure, then you do it for one product and see if
>>>> there is enough of an increase to justify doing for other products.
>
>>> Pity its impossible to be sure what a change in sales
>>> volume of a particular product like that is due to.
>
>> Oh, I don't know. If sales increase by X percent within Y months of
>> introducing the kosher version. The odds are pretty good that
>> something to do with that process resulted in a a favorable
>> perception by the public.
>
>Nope, not when sales are swamped by much more important
>factors like what stores bother to give it shelf space, and just
>where on their shelves they choose to put it etc.

Again this is new product introduction vs existing product changes and
any manufacturer with experience will have a pretty good handle on those
'important' factors you cite.


>The only real way to test the kosher label properly would be to release
>the product without the kosher label, see it clearly be a product that
>does achieve decent sales because it does get decent shelf space,
>and then add the kosher label, and see what effect adding the kosher
>label has on sales. Even then, thats not likely to prove much because
>its hard to be sure whether anyone actually noticed the kosher label
>got added, in a line of products where no other product has a kosher
>label, and that the change in sales if it occurs wasnt just due to other
>factors like someone who gets quite a bit of exposure in food circles
>commenting that its about the best veg soup currently buyable etc.


>
>>> It can be something as basic as no one else bothering to produce a soup
>>> for vegetarians, whether stores bother to stock that particular soup
>>> based on what they decide is likely to appeal to their customers, etc etc etc.
>
>> That's the whole point.
>
>Nope.

Yes, it is. People with dietary restrictions - whether medical,
ethical, or religious - want assurance that those restrictions are being
respected.


>> The kosher designation has a broader appeal within the populace
>> than just those who keep kosher for religious reasons.
>
>But you dont know that its the kosher label that gives it the better appeal, or
>just the fact that its a product that includes no meat and its that that provides
>the market appeal when there are so many loons that wont touch meat.

I don't care. Let's look at vegans. They want an assurance that the
products they eat contain no animal products. If getting kosher
certification allows me to provide that assurance without alienating
other customers, great.

>
>> If it didn't only companies for whom producing kosher
>> products is part of their mission statement would do it.
>
>Wrong if it costs peanuts to have the kosher label.

Based on a quick scan of the net, I have seen numbers ranging from
between $2K to $10K per plant depending on certifying and the number
visits a year required. This doesn't include the other costs the
manufacturer must bear to qualify for and maintain the certification.
So, while it is 'peanuts' it is a cost.