@article{Mounter:126316,
      recid = {126316},
      author = {Mounter, Stuart W. and Griffith, Garry R. and Piggott,  Roley R.},
      title = {The Payoff from Generic Advertising by the Australian Pig  Industry in the Presence of Trade},
      journal = {Australasian Agribusiness Review},
      address = {2005},
      number = {1673-2016-136802},
      series = {Volume 13},
      year = {2005},
      abstract = {The Australian pig meat industry today competes in a  global market environment, with significant quantities of  both pork exports and pork imports for further processing.  In March 2003 Australian Pork Limited (APL) launched a  advertising campaign to raise domestic per capita  consumption of pork, and increase consumer awareness and  preference for identified Australian pig meat. This is  funded from producer levies. Over the period 2003 to 2005,  APL advertising expenditure is forecast to be at least 15  per cent above 2001-02 domestic advertising expenditure  levels. Domestic advertising expenditure by APL for the  2002-03 financial year was actually 30 per cent above the  previous year’s level. The question is whether these pig  producer funds are being well spent. Evaluation of pig meat  advertising expenditure has been undertaken in the past,  but not in the context of a trading industry.

An  equilibrium displacement model of the Australian pig meat  industry accounting for imports and exports was specified  to study the returns to producers from different  advertising scenarios. Total returns in terms of producer  surplus gains were estimated for each scenario. The results  indicated that producers receive the largest returns from  domestic bacon/ham advertising and the least from export  pork advertising. Producer surplus changes associated with  a 30 per cent increase in domestic pork advertising  expenditure were calculated for three different trade  scenarios, including a hypothetical no-trade scenario.  Returns to producers were shown to be very sensitive to the  value chosen for the elasticity of demand response to  advertising, but were unlikely to be positive based on past  estimates of the relevant parameter values. Returns to  producers were also dependent on assumptions made about the  trade status of the industry and the way in which the  advertising was funded.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/126316},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.126316},
}