Jonathan Kamens <Jonathan Kamens >>
wrote:

> Sqwertz > writes:
>>> My, aren't you good at changing the subject. You said that there's no
>>> rational reason for people to buy kosher Empire chicken rather than
>>> non-kosher chicken.
>>
>>Oh, so now you're making up quotes from me, putting words into my
>>mouth?
>
> "Though I certainly admit buying things like Empire Chicken is
> probably on the rise, but not for any rational reason."
>
> *plonk*

Ahh, the 'ol "I know that wasn't what he meant, but I'll use this an
as excuse to slink away and pretend I can't hear him"

I was referring to the wholesomeness of the kosher chicken - which
is what we were talking about. You conveniently snipped the rest of
the context of my quote. If you want to argue the taste factor, we
can change the subject if you'd like.

Yeah yeah, I know - you answer to a Higher Authority, and all that
crap.

-sw

SMS <SMS >> wrote:

> I guess what he thinks is that the reason that the kosher products sell
> better is unrelated to the fact that even many non-Jews prefer to buy
> kosher products when available.

Name one Kosher product that sells better than an equivalent
non-kosher product. Concord grape wine doesn't count.

> That is correct. Of course the other chicken growers are free to add
> more salt to their product, but it probably wouldn't help the taste much
> since the mass produced chickens taste so bad to begin with.

I guess this is why Empire Kosher is outselling Foster Farms and
Butterball, right?

Are you two out of straw men yet?

-sw

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:25:14 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

> SMS wrote on Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:18:42 -0700:
>
> S> Mark Thorson wrote:
> S> There's really no "legal" about it. Some manufacturers will
> S> put a K (with no circle) on their product, claiming that
> S> it's kosher, but it's just a letter they print on the box,
> S> not an official certification.
>
> ??>> jdoe wrote:
> ??>>> I don't think that was a kosher butcher you were going
> ??>>> to, pork in any form is not kosher
> ??>>
> ??>> Pig-skin-derived gelatin is commonly legally marketed
> ??>> as "kosher".
>
>I have no religious reasons for worrying about it but claiming
>something is kosher or pareve when it is not is fraud and will
>be treated as such in my state. I won't go into stories I have
>heard that inspecting is a job for the owner's no-good, barely
>qualified son-in-law.
>
>James Silverton

i think those 'stories' are just that, stories (or more likely,
jokes). i'm quite sure the 'certifiers' are themselves certified.

(of course, i have no direct knowledge of this, but what the hell,
it's usenet.)

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:57:05 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> Actually it does, and does so with numbers.
>
>Still, the numbers are all over the place.
>
>"only 21 percent of the 10.5 million Americans who buy kosher do it for
>purely religious reasons."
>
>"Hebrew National, which had sales in excess of $100 million last year,
>now estimates that nearly 75% of its customers are non-Jews."
>

well, how much of the hundred million is hot dogs and salami? people
might by those because they taste better.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:32:44 GMT, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>And how often are these facilities inspected by their certifying
>organizations? Now compare that to the USDA inspectors that are
>*always* on site in many food production facilities.
>
>-sw

i'm not sure whether you're trying to be sarcastic here, but i
wouldn't say there are that many facilities where u.s.d.a people are
'always' present. maybe in days gone by, but certainly not now.

your pal,
blake

On Mar 20, 12:57�pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:57:05 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:
>
> >Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> >> Actually it does, and does so with numbers.
>
> >Still, the numbers are all over the place.
>
> >"only 21 percent of the 10.5 million Americans who buy kosher do it for
> >purely religious reasons."
>
> >"Hebrew National, which had sales in excess of $100 million last year,
> >now estimates that nearly 75% of its customers are non-Jews."
>
> well, how much of the hundred million is hot dogs and salami? �people
> might by those because they taste better.

Of those remaining 25pct who are Jews probably less than 1pct who buy
Hebrew National products don't keep kosher... Jews who keep kosher
don't buy meat products that are displayed in so close proximity to
non kosher meat products at Hebrew National's are typically
displayed. Probably less than 5pct of the world's Jews keep kosher
anyway. You'd be amazed at how many Jews who claim to keep kosher
because they won't bring shellfish and pork into their homes but will
eat out at a Chinese restaurant and have no problem with eating
shrimp, lobster and spareribs. Very few Jews today even pretend to
keep kosher... once a year, for Passover, they buy a box of matzo..
that's as kosher as they get. I've yet to meet a Jew who claims to
keep kosher who actually does. Anyway there is no law in the talmud
that says to be a Jew one must keep kosher, keeping kosher is a
choice.

blake murphy <blake murphy >> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:32:44 GMT, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>>And how often are these facilities inspected by their certifying
>>organizations? Now compare that to the USDA inspectors that are
>>*always* on site in many food production facilities.
>
> i'm not sure whether you're trying to be sarcastic here, but i
> wouldn't say there are that many facilities where u.s.d.a people are
> 'always' present. maybe in days gone by, but certainly not now.

There's a USDA inspector in every meat/poultry slaughter
house/abattoir and processing plant. By law, these businesses must
have a USDA inspectors on site every hour of every day they operate.

This is how they indirectly enforce shutting down a plant for
non-compliance and/or violations - by removing it's USDA inspectors,
which means it must close as a result of the action.

This does not mean they're actually doing their job, as evidenced by
the California slaughterhouse that was slinging live cows around
with forklifts. But I still think having USDA inspectors on site is
a far better system than a suit from Kosher Union who comes in a
couple times a year with an invoice for blessing their production
line.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets..._101/index.asp

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
> SMS <SMS >> wrote:
>
>> I guess what he thinks is that the reason that the kosher products sell
>> better is unrelated to the fact that even many non-Jews prefer to buy
>> kosher products when available.
>
> Name one Kosher product that sells better than an equivalent
> non-kosher product. Concord grape wine doesn't count.

Campbell's Vegetarian vegetable soup. Of course your premise is
incredibly stupid to begin with. As soon as a manufacturer realizes that
his kosher competition is selling better he runs out and gets certified.

Actually you could compare almost any of the canned foods coming in from
Mexico and China versus similar canned food products in the U.S., but
this would be as dishonest as what you're doing. The Mexican generics
sell for much less, and sell in lower volumes, but it's not because of
certification (though if consumers had the assurance of the
certification they'd likely be more willing to risk buying these
products). They only sell at all because they're cheap.

>
>> That is correct. Of course the other chicken growers are free to add
>> more salt to their product, but it probably wouldn't help the taste much
>> since the mass produced chickens taste so bad to begin with.
>
> I guess this is why Empire Kosher is outselling Foster Farms and
> Butterball, right?

Meat products are very different than other kosher products. Kosher meat
products are usually much more expensive because of the extra production
costs. However if you want to compare sales growth rates, Empire is
probably growing faster because of both increased demand for kosher meat
products and because of the high rating they get in taste tests.

Look at a product that was not certified then became certified, i.e.
Campbell's Vegetarian Vegetable soup. They made no changes to the
ingredients, they simply made changes to the production process, i.e.
not using machinery also used for non-kosher products. They did this for
one reason: to sell more units in order to make more money.

> Are you two out of straw men yet?

Since you're the one claiming that kosher products don't sell more
because of the certification, it's up to you to provide a citation or
reference that contradicts all the ones that have already been posted.
Obviously you can't do this, or you would have done so already.

You've created a straw man, by trying to compare the sale of totally
different products, one kosher one non-kosher, selling at wildly
different prices, rather than address the actual reason that a
manufacturer decides to certify their product, which is to increase
sales of a specific SKU.

Now if you found two versions of the same product that were exactly the
same in both ingredients and marketing, other than one version being
kosher and one not being kosher, you might be able to make a valid
comparison. Since the cost of certification is in the thousands of a
cent per unit sold, there would likely be no difference in price,
certainly not more than 1 cent.

On Mar 12, 4:25 pm, Ted > wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg4OG...eature=related
>
> Take a look on your shelves.
>
> ted


The person's username is "FanOfDavidDuke"

David Duke used to be Grand Wizard of the KKK.

By the way, should it tell you something about a group when they call
their leader, "Grand Wizard". Seriously, are they in high school
playing D&D?

"Grand Wizard", its hilarious!!!!!!

SMS <SMS >> wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>> SMS <SMS >> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess what he thinks is that the reason that the kosher products sell
>>> better is unrelated to the fact that even many non-Jews prefer to buy
>>> kosher products when available.
>>
>> Name one Kosher product that sells better than an equivalent
>> non-kosher product. Concord grape wine doesn't count.
>
> Campbell's Vegetarian vegetable soup.

I guess I phrased that challenge poorly. Campbells sells more soup,
period. It did not attain that status by getting kosher
certification for a few (or one) of it's products.

I was thinking more along the lines of the kosher branded
items/manufacturers Like hot dogs, or poultry, or ...

> Of course your premise is
> incredibly stupid to begin with. As soon as a manufacturer realizes that
> his kosher competition is selling better he runs out and gets certified.

That's incredibly stupid as brands like Hebrew national or Empire
Kosher would never have market domination.

> Actually you could compare almost any of the canned foods coming in from
> Mexico and China versus similar canned food products in the U.S., but
> this would be as dishonest as what you're doing. The Mexican generics
> sell for much less, and sell in lower volumes, but it's not because of
> certification (though if consumers had the assurance of the
> certification they'd likely be more willing to risk buying these
> products). They only sell at all because they're cheap.
>
>>
>>> That is correct. Of course the other chicken growers are free to add
>>> more salt to their product, but it probably wouldn't help the taste much
>>> since the mass produced chickens taste so bad to begin with.
>>
>> I guess this is why Empire Kosher is outselling Foster Farms and
>> Butterball, right?
>
> Meat products are very different than other kosher products. Kosher meat
> products are usually much more expensive because of the extra production
> costs. However if you want to compare sales growth rates, Empire is
> probably growing faster because of both increased demand for kosher meat
> products and because of the high rating they get in taste tests.
>
> Look at a product that was not certified then became certified, i.e.
> Campbell's Vegetarian Vegetable soup. They made no changes to the
> ingredients, they simply made changes to the production process, i.e.
> not using machinery also used for non-kosher products. They did this for
> one reason: to sell more units in order to make more money.
>
>> Are you two out of straw men yet?
>
> Since you're the one claiming that kosher products don't sell more
> because of the certification, it's up to you to provide a citation or
> reference that contradicts all the ones that have already been posted.

Again, more straw men. I never said they don't sell more because of
that. There you go quoting things I didn't say. If anything, I
explicitly said the opposite if you care to review the thread. The
increased sales are attributed to people who think they're getting a
more wholesome product.

Obviously people that are kosher will seek out the certificated
products, thus making them sell more than they would had they not
been claimed kosher.

> Obviously you can't do this, or you would have done so already.

I still haven't seen anything that convinces me. The few quotes I
saw were ridiculous claims not based on logic. Which I already
disputed.

> You've created a straw man, by trying to compare the sale of totally
> different products, one kosher one non-kosher, selling at wildly
> different prices, rather than address the actual reason that a
> manufacturer decides to certify their product, which is to increase
> sales of a specific SKU.
>
> Now if you found two versions of the same product that were exactly the
> same in both ingredients and marketing, other than one version being
> kosher and one not being kosher, you might be able to make a valid
> comparison.

Butterball vs Empire. Ball Park vs Hebrew National.

Happy now? This is getting boring. You will never convince me that
you and any other person who follows religious dietary restrictions
are of sane mind and body. And nothing short of a scientifically
conducted poll would convince us that kosher products do/don't sell
better among non-koshers because they're kosher.

> Since the cost of certification is in the thousands of a
> cent per unit sold,

More exaggeration to support your claim, even if the differenmce
between 1/1000th of a cent and $.01 is still less than $.01.

-sw

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:02:49 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>SMS <SMS >> wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote:

>
>Happy now? This is getting boring. You will never convince me that
>you and any other person who follows religious dietary restrictions
>are of sane mind and body. And nothing short of a scientifically
>conducted poll would convince us that kosher products do/don't sell
>better among non-koshers because they're kosher.

To an extent you are right - in this newsgroup we are just speculating
as to why. We don't know for sure if it is people who keep kosher,
believe kosher is purer or tastes better, have food allergies, keep
halal, etc. But, it doesn't matter.

What matters is that the manufacturers believe that getting a kosher
designation increases their sales and that the resulting profits more
than offset the cost of getting that designation. If getting the
designation didn't, companies other than those intentionally serving the
kosher market, like Hebrew National and Empire, would not bother with
it. After all profit is profit.



>
>> Since the cost of certification is in the thousands of a
>> cent per unit sold,
>
>More exaggeration to support your claim, even if the differenmce
>between 1/1000th of a cent and $.01 is still less than $.01.
>
>-sw

Robert Klute > wrote
> Sqwertz > wrote
>> SMS <SMS >> wrote
>>> Sqwertz wrote
>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote

>> Happy now? This is getting boring. You will never convince me that
>> you and any other person who follows religious dietary restrictions
>> are of sane mind and body. And nothing short of a scientifically
>> conducted poll would convince us that kosher products do/don't
>> sell better among non-koshers because they're kosher.

> To an extent you are right - in this newsgroup we are just speculating as
> to why. We don't know for sure if it is people who keep kosher, believe
> kosher is purer or tastes better, have food allergies, keep halal, etc.

Or even whether they even consider whether its got a kosher label on it or not.

> But, it doesn't matter.

Corse it matters, particularly if they dont even check whether its got a kosher label or not.

> 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.

> and that the resulting profits more than offset the cost of getting that designation.

And that in spades.

> If getting the designation didn't, companies other than those intentionally serving
> the kosher market, like Hebrew National and Empire, would not bother with it.

Or the cost of the kosher certification is a trivial part of their total costs,
so they just take the easy way out and get it when it doesnt require any
fundamental change in the way the product is produced etc.

> After all profit is profit.

But it may not be feasible to work out just what value the kosher label has in terms of sales.

>>> Since the cost of certification is in the thousands of a cent per unit sold,

>> More exaggeration to support your claim, even if the differenmce
>> between 1/1000th of a cent and $.01 is still less than $.01.

Robert Klute wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:02:49 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>> SMS <SMS >> wrote:
>>
>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote:
>
>> Happy now? This is getting boring. You will never convince me that
>> you and any other person who follows religious dietary restrictions
>> are of sane mind and body. And nothing short of a scientifically
>> conducted poll would convince us that kosher products do/don't sell
>> better among non-koshers because they're kosher.
>
> To an extent you are right - in this newsgroup we are just speculating
> as to why. We don't know for sure if it is people who keep kosher,
> believe kosher is purer or tastes better, have food allergies, keep
> halal, etc. But, it doesn't matter.

For the record, I have never kept kosher. I just don't like the
misinformation being spewed by the likes of Sqwertz.

> What matters is that the manufacturers believe that getting a kosher
> designation increases their sales and that the resulting profits more
> than offset the cost of getting that designation. If getting the
> designation didn't, companies other than those intentionally serving the
> kosher market, like Hebrew National and Empire, would not bother with
> it. After all profit is profit.

Note that the certification cost is a tiny part of the total cost in
many cases. What really costs is having to often have separate machinery
for processing kosher and non-kosher products. You can't cook and
package pork rinds on the same machinery used for potato chips that are
kosher.

One of the big target markets for kosher products is vegetarians and
vegans that are looking for parve products, though since fish is
considered parve, maybe the designation is best suited for pescotarians.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:13:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> wrote:

>Robert Klute > wrote
>> Sqwertz > wrote
>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote
>>>> Sqwertz wrote
>>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote
>
>>> Happy now? This is getting boring. You will never convince me that
>>> you and any other person who follows religious dietary restrictions
>>> are of sane mind and body. And nothing short of a scientifically
>>> conducted poll would convince us that kosher products do/don't
>>> sell better among non-koshers because they're kosher.
>
>> To an extent you are right - in this newsgroup we are just speculating as
>> to why. We don't know for sure if it is people who keep kosher, believe
>> kosher is purer or tastes better, have food allergies, keep halal, etc.
>
>Or even whether they even consider whether its got a kosher label on it or not.
>
>> But, it doesn't matter.
>
>Corse it matters, particularly if they dont even check whether its got a kosher label or not.

What doesn't matter is if they do check, why the check. If they don't it
they don't contribute to the increased sales and thus not part of the
population the manufacturer is targeting.

>> 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. Apparently, just one had enough of
a audience, possibly strict vegetarians or vegans.

>
>> and that the resulting profits more than offset the cost of getting that designation.
>
>And that in spades.
>
>> If getting the designation didn't, companies other than those intentionally serving
>> the kosher market, like Hebrew National and Empire, would not bother with it.
>
>Or the cost of the kosher certification is a trivial part of their total costs,
>so they just take the easy way out and get it when it doesnt require any
>fundamental change in the way the product is produced etc.

Again, they do it when the increase in net revenue exceeds the costs of
implementing it. I would include the cost of setting up separate
production lines or changing the recipe as part of the costs of getting
the designation.

>> After all profit is profit.
>
>But it may not be feasible to work out just what value the kosher label has in terms of sales.

Maybe not the exact cost, but good enough to whether to do it. 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.

Robert Klute wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:13:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> > wrote:
>
>> Robert Klute > wrote
>>> Sqwertz > wrote
>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote
>>>>> Sqwertz wrote
>>>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote
>>>> Happy now? This is getting boring. You will never convince me that
>>>> you and any other person who follows religious dietary restrictions
>>>> are of sane mind and body. And nothing short of a scientifically
>>>> conducted poll would convince us that kosher products do/don't
>>>> sell better among non-koshers because they're kosher.
>>> To an extent you are right - in this newsgroup we are just speculating as
>>> to why. We don't know for sure if it is people who keep kosher, believe
>>> kosher is purer or tastes better, have food allergies, keep halal, etc.
>> Or even whether they even consider whether its got a kosher label on it or not.
>>
>>> But, it doesn't matter.
>> Corse it matters, particularly if they dont even check whether its got a kosher label or not.
>
> What doesn't matter is if they do check, why the check. If they don't it
> they don't contribute to the increased sales and thus not part of the
> population the manufacturer is targeting.

At the Trader Joe's near me, they have signs on the shelves indicating
that a product is kosher, so you can't miss the designation. There's no
real way of knowing how many people decide to purchase a product that
they would otherwise not purchase because it's kosher.

It's clear that most of those that look for the kosher designation do it
for reasons that are not religious, whether those reasons are good or
not. I do the same with organic. I don't really care if a product is
organic, but the organic designation at least means that the product has
no HFCS, which is an ingredient I avoid, but that is present in a huge
number of foods and beverages. I won't buy Heinz Ketchup due to the HFCS
(though now they've come out with an organic version with no HFCS), but
the organic ketchup is no more expensive, and doesn't have HFCS.

Robert Klute > wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Robert Klute > wrote
>>> Sqwertz > wrote
>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote
>>>>> Sqwertz wrote
>>>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote

>>>> Happy now? This is getting boring. You will never convince me that
>>>> you and any other person who follows religious dietary restrictions
>>>> are of sane mind and body. And nothing short of a scientifically
>>>> conducted poll would convince us that kosher products do/don't
>>>> sell better among non-koshers because they're kosher.

>>> To an extent you are right - in this newsgroup we are just speculating as
>>> to why. We don't know for sure if it is people who keep kosher, believe
>>> kosher is purer or tastes better, have food allergies, keep halal, etc.

>> Or even whether they even consider whether its got a kosher label on it or not.

>>> But, it doesn't matter.

>> Corse it matters, particularly if they dont even
>> check whether its got a kosher label or not.

> 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.

>>> 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.

> Apparently, just one had enough of a audience,
> possibly strict vegetarians or vegans.

And you dont even know whether Campbells believes that the
kosher label significantly increases the sales of the particular
product, JUST that the tiny cost of the kosher label is worth
spending with that particular item or that they chose to give it a
whirl to see if it had any effect on the sales of that particular product.

Its sales clearly didnt convince them to bother with any
other products if that is the only one with a kosher label.

>>> and that the resulting profits more than offset the cost of getting that designation.

>> And that in spades.

>>> If getting the designation didn't, companies other than those
>>> intentionally serving the kosher market, like Hebrew National
>>> and Empire, would not bother with it.

>> Or the cost of the kosher certification is a trivial part of their total costs,
>> so they just take the easy way out and get it when it doesnt require any
>> fundamental change in the way the product is produced etc.

> Again, they do it when the increase in net revenue
> exceeds the costs of implementing it.

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.

> I would include the cost of setting up separate production lines or
> changing the recipe as part of the costs of getting the designation.

The second is very unlikely, and you dont know that it doesnt have
a separate production line regardless of the kosher certification.

>>> After all profit is profit.

>> But it may not be feasible to work out just what
>> value the kosher label has in terms of sales.

> Maybe not the exact cost,

Not even close in fact when so many other factors also affect the sales
that a particular product will achieve with an operation like Campbells.

> but good enough to whether to do it.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

> 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.

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.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:48:17 GMT, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>blake murphy <blake murphy >> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:32:44 GMT, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>And how often are these facilities inspected by their certifying
>>>organizations? Now compare that to the USDA inspectors that are
>>>*always* on site in many food production facilities.
>>
>> i'm not sure whether you're trying to be sarcastic here, but i
>> wouldn't say there are that many facilities where u.s.d.a people are
>> 'always' present. maybe in days gone by, but certainly not now.
>
>There's a USDA inspector in every meat/poultry slaughter
>house/abattoir and processing plant. By law, these businesses must
>have a USDA inspectors on site every hour of every day they operate.
>
>This is how they indirectly enforce shutting down a plant for
>non-compliance and/or violations - by removing it's USDA inspectors,
>which means it must close as a result of the action.
>
>This does not mean they're actually doing their job, as evidenced by
>the California slaughterhouse that was slinging live cows around
>with forklifts. But I still think having USDA inspectors on site is
>a far better system than a suit from Kosher Union who comes in a
>couple times a year with an invoice for blessing their production
>line.
>
>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets..._101/index.asp
>
>-sw

my mistake, then. carry on.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:10:39 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:48:17 GMT, Sqwertz >
>wrote:
>
>>blake murphy <blake murphy >> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:32:44 GMT, Sqwertz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And how often are these facilities inspected by their certifying
>>>>organizations? Now compare that to the USDA inspectors that are
>>>>*always* on site in many food production facilities.
>>>
>>> i'm not sure whether you're trying to be sarcastic here, but i
>>> wouldn't say there are that many facilities where u.s.d.a people are
>>> 'always' present. maybe in days gone by, but certainly not now.
>>
>>There's a USDA inspector in every meat/poultry slaughter
>>house/abattoir and processing plant. By law, these businesses must
>>have a USDA inspectors on site every hour of every day they operate.
>>
>>This is how they indirectly enforce shutting down a plant for
>>non-compliance and/or violations - by removing it's USDA inspectors,
>>which means it must close as a result of the action.
>>
>>This does not mean they're actually doing their job, as evidenced by
>>the California slaughterhouse that was slinging live cows around
>>with forklifts. But I still think having USDA inspectors on site is
>>a far better system than a suit from Kosher Union who comes in a
>>couple times a year with an invoice for blessing their production
>>line.
>>
>>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets..._101/index.asp
>>
>>-sw
>
>my mistake, then. carry on.
>
>your pal,
>blake


Kosher certification varies greatly from product to product, company
to company and certifier to certifier. There are many, many different
hechshers (hundreds), some considered acceptable by some Jews and not
by others.

My husband's company does work at a plant that makes baking products.
Whenever a certified batch is being made, the rabbi is there for
inspection. He inspects not only the ingredients and process, but even
the boiler water (including tasting the condensate!) and storage
areas, among other things. He is at that plant 2 or 3 times a week, at
least. This is a relatively small company, too and not all its
products are certified kosher.

Boron

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:53:15 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> wrote:

>Robert Klute > wrote
>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>> Robert Klute > wrote
>>>> Sqwertz > wrote
>>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote
>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote
>>>>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote
>
>>>>> Happy now? This is getting boring. You will never convince me that
>>>>> you and any other person who follows religious dietary restrictions
>>>>> are of sane mind and body. And nothing short of a scientifically
>>>>> conducted poll would convince us that kosher products do/don't
>>>>> sell better among non-koshers because they're kosher.
>
>>>> To an extent you are right - in this newsgroup we are just speculating as
>>>> to why. We don't know for sure if it is people who keep kosher, believe
>>>> kosher is purer or tastes better, have food allergies, keep halal, etc.
>
>>> Or even whether they even consider whether its got a kosher label on it or not.
>
>>>> But, it doesn't matter.
>
>>> Corse it matters, particularly if they dont even
>>> check whether its got a kosher label or not.
>
>> 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, adding the Kosher symbol it targeting a group of consumers
for whom that designation has a positive influence on their purchasing
decision.


>>>> 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. Campbell's has decided it is
not worth the effort, and that is there right.


>> Apparently, just one had enough of a audience,
>> possibly strict vegetarians or vegans.
>
>And you dont even know whether Campbells believes that the
>kosher label significantly increases the sales of the particular
>product, JUST that the tiny cost of the kosher label is worth
>spending with that particular item or that they chose to give it a
>whirl to see if it had any effect on the sales of that particular product.

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.

>
>Its sales clearly didnt convince them to bother with any
>other products if that is the only one with a kosher label.
>
>>>> and that the resulting profits more than offset the cost of getting that designation.
>
>>> And that in spades.
>
>>>> If getting the designation didn't, companies other than those
>>>> intentionally serving the kosher market, like Hebrew National
>>>> and Empire, would not bother with it.
>
>>> Or the cost of the kosher certification is a trivial part of their total costs,
>>> so they just take the easy way out and get it when it doesnt require any
>>> fundamental change in the way the product is produced etc.
>
>> Again, they do it when the increase in net revenue
>> exceeds the costs of implementing it.
>
>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. Why bother introducing any new product when you have no
idea whether it will sell or not?


>> I would include the cost of setting up separate production lines or
>> changing the recipe as part of the costs of getting the designation.
>
>The second is very unlikely, and you dont know that it doesnt have
>a separate production line regardless of the kosher certification.

I didn't say it would involve a separate production line. Only that if
it did it would have to be included in the costs. For example, if
Campbell's did decide to do a kosher split pea soup, it would have to do
it on a separate production line from the split pea with ham soup to be
kosher. Similarly for the vegetarian vegetable soup to be pareve, it
could not be prepared or canned on the same line as a cream of vegetable
soup or any meat containing soup.


>
>>>> After all profit is profit.
>
>>> But it may not be feasible to work out just what
>>> value the kosher label has in terms of sales.
>
>> Maybe not the exact cost,
>
>Not even close in fact when so many other factors also affect the sales
>that a particular product will achieve with an operation like Campbells.
>
>> but good enough to whether to do it.
>
>Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

If it were easy, everyone would do it or not. But that is what surveys,
market research, data mining, benchmarking, etc are for - helping to
make more than a wild guess. 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.

>
>> 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.


>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. The kosher designation has a broader appeal
within the populace than just those who keep kosher for religious
reasons. If it didn't only companies for whom producing kosher products
is part of their mission statement would do it. Although even Coca-Cola
finds it worthwhile to ship non-HFC coke during Passover.

Robert Klute > wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Robert Klute > wrote
>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>> Robert Klute > wrote
>>>>> Sqwertz > wrote
>>>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote
>>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote
>>>>>>>> SMS <SMS >> wrote

>>>>>> Happy now? This is getting boring. You will never convince
>>>>>> me that you and any other person who follows religious dietary
>>>>>> restrictions are of sane mind and body. And nothing short of a
>>>>>> scientifically conducted poll would convince us that kosher products
>>>>>> do/don't sell better among non-koshers because they're kosher.

>>>>> To an extent you are right - in this newsgroup we are just speculating as
>>>>> to why. We don't know for sure if it is people who keep kosher, believe
>>>>> kosher is purer or tastes better, have food allergies, keep halal, etc.

>>>> Or even whether they even consider whether its got a kosher label on it or not.

>>>>> But, it doesn't matter.

>>>> Corse it matters, particularly if they dont even check whether its got a kosher label or not.

>>> 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.

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

>>>>> 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.

> 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.

> and that is there right.

>>> Apparently, just one had enough of a audience, possibly strict vegetarians or vegans.

>> And you dont even know whether Campbells believes that the
>> kosher label significantly increases the sales of the particular
>> product, JUST that the tiny cost of the kosher label is worth
>> spending with that particular item or that they chose to give it a
>> whirl to see if it had any effect on the sales of that particular product.

> 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.

>> Its sales clearly didnt convince them to bother with any
>> other products if that is the only one with a kosher label.

>>>>> and that the resulting profits more than offset the cost of getting that designation.

>>>> And that in spades.

>>>>> If getting the designation didn't, companies other than those
>>>>> intentionally serving the kosher market, like Hebrew National
>>>>> and Empire, would not bother with it.

>>>> Or the cost of the kosher certification is a trivial part of their total
>>>> costs, so they just take the easy way out and get it when it doesnt
>>>> require any fundamental change in the way the product is produced etc.

>>> Again, they do it when the increase in net revenue exceeds the costs of implementing it.

>> 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.

>>> I would include the cost of setting up separate production lines or
>>> changing the recipe as part of the costs of getting the designation.

>> The second is very unlikely, and you dont know that it doesnt have
>> a separate production line regardless of the kosher certification.

> I didn't say it would involve a separate production line.
> Only that if it did it would have to be included in the costs.

Thats too obvious to be worth mentioning.

> For example, if Campbell's did decide to do a kosher split pea soup,
> it would have to do it on a separate production line from the split pea
> with ham soup to be kosher. Similarly for the vegetarian vegetable
> soup to be pareve, it could not be prepared or canned on the same
> line as a cream of vegetable soup or any meat containing soup.

Duh.

>>>>> After all profit is profit.

>>>> But it may not be feasible to work out just what
>>>> value the kosher label has in terms of sales.

>>> Maybe not the exact cost,

>> Not even close in fact when so many other factors also affect the sales
>> that a particular product will achieve with an operation like Campbells.

>>> but good enough to whether to do it.

>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

> If it were easy, everyone would do it or not.

That was EASY TO CLAIM, not easy to determine.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> Although even Coca-Cola finds it worthwhile to ship non-HFC coke during Passover.

Different matter entirely. Plenty ship Xmas specific products in the
appropriate season too. Easter and Thanksgiving etc in spades.

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.

Robert Klute > wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Robert Klute > wrote

>>>>> 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.

Corse it does.

> The comapny still has to make the effort, and I assume, regularly get it renewed.

And that may well be a trivial part of their total costs when nothing
needs to be changed in the production of that particular product.

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

> Semantics.

Nope. Targetting is very different to doing what costs peanuts and might benefit sales.

> 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.

Not if it costs peanuts and they are including it in case it makes any difference.

Thats not targetting, thats just doing what makes sense.

Same with listing the ingredients properly when the law doesnt require that.

>>>>>>> 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.

Yes, but with some products the cost of that is peanuts.

> I may be a fixed cost that is very small when amortized
> across the number of units sold, but it still is a cost.

And with some products that cost is peanuts.

>>> 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.

Wrong when it may help sales and is so cheap to include that it isnt
even worth spending anything to try to see if it does help sales.

>>> 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.

No one said you did.

> 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.

And that is just plain wrong when it costs a lot more to test that claim
than it does to just add the kosher label, particularly when its never
going to be possible to test the claim that it helps sales rigorously.

> Although, I suppose it could justify it as part of
> their being socially responsible or some such.

Or just that its a cheap thing to try.

They clearly didnt see much effect if it really is the only product of
theirs thats got a kosher label or whoever decided to try that either
got a boot in the arse for trying it or no longer works for them etc.

>>>> 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.

Or its so cheap to have it that you dont even bother with any reasoning.

>>> 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?

Both there.

> With an existing product there is a history to compare it with.

That doesnt help with what competitors may start doing.

> 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.

Swamped, particularly by the stocking behaviour.

>>> 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

Nope.

> and any manufacturer with experience will have a
> pretty good handle on those 'important' factors you cite.

Nope, again, its not even possible.

>> 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.

No it isnt.

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

And most who buy that particularly product arent those people.

>>> 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.

Doesnt matter whether care or not.

> Let's look at vegans. They want an assurance that
> the products they eat contain no animal products.

And those are a tiny subset of those who buy that product.

> If getting kosher certification allows me to provide that
> assurance without alienating other customers, great.

But only a tiny subset of those who buy that particular product are even vegans.

The bulk of the buyers of that particular product just like that particular soup.

>>> 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.

And this one is likely at the low end given that its a vegetable based product.

Peanuts for an operation like Campbells.

And you dont even now whether the reason its the only product with
a kosher label is because some operation which is attempting to get
Campbells to add kosher labels to their products which qualify did that
for free to get Campbells to see how easy it can be to get certified.

> 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.

Much less than even the cost of cleaning that particular line etc, let alone the ingredients and printing the labels.

In "Rod Speed"
> wrote:

> SMS > wrote

>> Actually hot dogs is one of the only foods where most non-kosher
>> customers_do_ actually care a lot about the certification, simply
>> because of what goes into non-kosher hot dogs.
>
> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
> claim.

Reading the government-mandated labels is hard for you?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Bert Hyman wrote:
> In "Rod Speed"
> > wrote:
>
>> SMS > wrote
>
>>> Actually hot dogs is one of the only foods where most non-kosher
>>> customers_do_ actually care a lot about the certification, simply
>>> because of what goes into non-kosher hot dogs.
>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
>> claim.
>
> Reading the government-mandated labels is hard for you?
>

Actually it's not the government mandated label, which has very little
enforcement, it's the kosher certification. You don't want to be eating
the non-kosher all-beef hot dogs because they're using all the parts of
the animal that the kosher hot dogs can't use.

Bert Hyman > wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> SMS > wrote

>>> Actually hot dogs is one of the only foods where most non-kosher
>>> customers_do_ actually care a lot about the certification, simply
>>> because of what goes into non-kosher hot dogs.

>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

> Reading the government-mandated labels is hard for you?

Irrelevant to how many CARE about the labels.

SMS > wrote
> Bert Hyman wrote
>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>> SMS > wrote

>>>> Actually hot dogs is one of the only foods where most non-kosher
>>>> customers_do_ actually care a lot about the certification, simply
>>>> because of what goes into non-kosher hot dogs.

>>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

>> Reading the government-mandated labels is hard for you?

> Actually it's not the government mandated label, which has very little enforcement, it's the kosher certification. You
> don't want to be eating the non-kosher all-beef hot dogs because they're using all the parts of the animal that the
> kosher hot dogs can't use.

But its perfectly fine to eat non kosher burgers eh ? Yeah, right.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:12:39 -0700, SMS >
wrote:

>Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In "Rod Speed"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> SMS > wrote
>>
>>>> Actually hot dogs is one of the only foods where most non-kosher
>>>> customers_do_ actually care a lot about the certification, simply
>>>> because of what goes into non-kosher hot dogs.
>>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
>>> claim.
>>
>> Reading the government-mandated labels is hard for you?
>>
>
>Actually it's not the government mandated label, which has very little
>enforcement, it's the kosher certification. You don't want to be eating
>the non-kosher all-beef hot dogs because they're using all the parts of
>the animal that the kosher hot dogs can't use.

To be kosher, beef must be slaughtered properly, its lungs and organs
must be free of any disease, and drained of all blood. Now, by
tradition, in respect to Jacob, the sciatic nerve is removed.

To be thorough in removal of blood the meat is 'koshered' or washed,
salted, and rinsed and all the blood vessels are removed. Also, to be
thorough the major nerves are removed. The hindquarter is usually sold
to non-kosher butcher as removing the nerves and blood vessels in the
the hindquarter is a pain.

The liver is treated specially to make it kosher by slitting and
broiling to draw out the blood.

So, beef lips, cheeks, and tongue are kosher.

Sqwertz > wrote in
:

>
> Obviously people that are kosher will seek out the certificated
> products, thus making them sell more than they would had they not
> been claimed kosher.

People are not kosher, by definition.

Robert Klute wrote:
>
> So, beef lips, cheeks, and tongue are kosher.

If you're trying to claim that those make it into kosher hot
dogs, I'm not sure I believe that. Tongue is a delicacy and
costs more than normal cold cuts at the deli. So that certainly
is not going into hot dogs. Similarly for cheeks, although I
never realized that until this week. I can't speak for the lips.

Bill

Bill > wrote
> Robert Klute wrote

>> So, beef lips, cheeks, and tongue are kosher.

> If you're trying to claim that those make it into kosher hot
> dogs, I'm not sure I believe that. Tongue is a delicacy and
> costs more than normal cold cuts at the deli.

Thats not true of all the tongues that are available.

> So that certainly is not going into hot dogs.

The bulk of them do.

> Similarly for cheeks,

Nope, we fed it to the dogs, literally.

> although I never realized that until this week. I can't speak for the lips.

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:49:32 GMT, Bill > wrote:

>
>
>Robert Klute wrote:
>>
>> So, beef lips, cheeks, and tongue are kosher.
>
>If you're trying to claim that those make it into kosher hot
>dogs, I'm not sure I believe that. Tongue is a delicacy and
>costs more than normal cold cuts at the deli. So that certainly
>is not going into hot dogs. Similarly for cheeks, although I
>never realized that until this week. I can't speak for the lips.

I have no idea what companies like Hebrew National put in their hot
dogs, other than the state that they only use the forequarters. It is
just that people often assume meanings for kosher that aren't true. In
any event, it is not that you don't want the obscure cuts of beef in
your sausage. They often are the most flavorful. In any event sausages
were, and still should be, a way of utilizing those tough, flavorful,
odd sized cuts and trimings to reduce waste. I can think of nothing
more wasteful than only putting tender cuts of meat in sausages - there
are better ways to prepare and enjoy them.