Beef industry media analysis – July-September 2011

Summary

Traditional media
Traditional media coverage comprised 965 reports, with 24 percent of stories earning favorable ratings. Economics conversation remained the most prominent issue category this quarter. A significant portion (45%) of economics coverage was made up of discussion regarding the impact of weather disasters, and was largely neutral. Additional discussion about economics centered on cattle prices, consumer beef prices, foreign trade and the impact of the beef industry on the U.S. economy.

Nutrition/health was the least favorable issue category, receiving a negative rating of 40. Discussion of nutritional vegetarianism, beef’s connection to cancer and heart disease, as well as beef’s fat content and relation to obesity featured most prominently in nutrition/health coverage this quarter.

Beef marketing reporting increased in the July-September period, growing 12 percent compared to last quarter. Despite this increase in volume, the favorability of coverage declined by five points to a slightly favorable 57 rating. Discussion of various beef choices, different beef cut qualities, and summer grilling drove reporting about beef marketing this quarter.

Social media

Social media coverage consisted of a sample of 857 posts that included content on message boards, social video sites, blogs and Twitter. The share of favorable social media posts decreased this quarter, while shares increased for both neutral and unfavorable coverage. These changes resulted in a decline of three points in overall favorability from last quarter, dropping from a neutral 46 favorability to a slightly unfavorable 43 rating.

Beef safety overtook nutrition/health as the most prominent issue category, discussed in 445 posts averaging a slightly unfavorable 41 rating. Nutrition/health generated the second-highest volume with 268 posts averaging a moderately unfavorable 39 rating. This quarter, social media discussion of each issue category averaged a lower favorability than was seen in traditional media. The largest difference was observed in beef marketing, in which social media reports discussed the impact of weather disasters on beef prices and the cattle cycle.

Discussions about environment issues were featured prominently in the social media coverage of the beef industry. Environment reporting made up 24 percent of overall coverage and averaged a slightly unfavorable 40 rating. While traditional media coverage of the environment was driven by discussion of cattle and wildlife, social media posts focused more on cattle emissions and their reported impact on global warming.

Background/Methods

Traditional and social media coverage of beef and cattle industry issues is analyzed through a special service called CARMA (Computer-Aided Research and Media Analysis). The beef checkoff-funded issues management program commissions this analysis for tracking and response efforts for beef media coverage in the following areas: diet/health, environment, food safety, beef marketing, animal welfare and economics. Because of the large number of social media posts, only a representative sample of this coverage is analyzed through CARMA.

The CARMA system rates media coverage favorability on a scale of zero to 100 based on criteria including headline, length, placement, number and quality of favorable and unfavorable sources and general tone of an article. In this rating system, articles that fall in the 45-55 range are considered neutral or balanced. In the reports on ratings, favorable means favorable to the beef industry.

Because a single article can address more than one issue, it may be analyzed as part of more than one issue area. Therefore, article volume and percentages across the issue areas will not add up.

Discussion

Animal rights/welfare/health Traditional media

Animal rights reporting in traditional media continued to diminish, falling 26 percent to 113 reports in the July-September period. Discussion of the issue category was the least prominent since the third quarter of 2008, when it had 114 reports. Favorability of coverage this quarter rebounded three points to 44 a slightly negative, but nearly neutral rating.

Ethical vegetarianism remained the most prominent topic in animal rights reporting despite its coverage falling 23 percent to 43 stories. The drop-off in discussion was most pronounced in July, while reporting rose consecutively in subsequent months. Although attention on the topic was again solidly negative this quarter, favorability of ethical vegetarianism coverage improved three points to a 35 rating. Criticism of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) tactics in the media contributed to this improvement, which partially offset negative discussion of vegetarianism due to animal welfare concerns. This unfavorable coverage included stories on vegetarian school cafeterias and parents easing their children into adopting plant-based diets, which addressed ethical qualms with meat as well as nutritional concerns.

Figure 1

Click here to view larger version

Social media

Animal rights discussions made up 21 percent of the beef industry’s social media coverage this quarter, down 4 percentage points from the April-June period. Meanwhile, the issue category continued to receive moderately negative attention, averaging a 38 rating, representing a six-point deficit to the favorability of animal rights’ traditional media coverage.

The leading discussion topic remained cruelty in production practices with 107 reports, representing 61 percent of animal rights social media coverage. Stories on cruelty varied widely, but included prominent discussion of underground videos depicting livestock abuse, laboratory-grown meat as a way to protect farm animals from harm and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) implementing new rules for federal inspectors to combat inhumane treatments of animals. Overall, coverage was solidly negative due to a prevailing presumption of cruelty in production practices.

Online coverage about beef choices trended higher this quarter, increasing 71 percent to 53 reports. This increase stemmed from social media users pointing to alternative meats, including organic or natural products, which allegedly come from farm operations more hospitable to animals.

Beef marketing Traditional media

Beef marketing’s traditional media coverage comprised 100 reports averaging a 57 rating. Coverage increased by 12 percent this period, but made up only 10 percent of overall beef industry coverage. Beef choices remained the leading topic among beef marketing articles this quarter, increasing 40 percent to 49 reports and averaging a 54 rating.

Beef choices saw several favorable stories highlighting alternate types of beef, including Kobe and Kobe-style beef, as well as articles discussing different beef labels helped to improve the favorability of beef choices this quarter. However, unfavorable stories regarding research into artificial, lab-grown meat mitigated some of the positive impact of these favorable stories.

Cuts preparation/qualities was the most favorable topic in beef marketing discussion this quarter. Numerous media outlets published articles that provided consumers with advice on which cuts of meat to choose depending on the meal, as well as the best cuts to purchase in order to maximize their budgets.

Figure 2

Social media

Beef marketing remained the least discussed category in social media, and was discussed even less frequently than in traditional media. Notably, social media’s beef marketing posts decreased eight points in favorability over last period. A substantial increase in unfavorable beef choices reporting helped drive down the favorability of beef marketing coverage, with these reports focusing on the differences between grass-fed and organic beef, and beef without such labels.

Cuts preparation/qualities generated the most favorable beef marketing coverage within social media this period, as well as experiencing the largest increase in volume. Several posts recommended different cuts of beef based on either health concerns or taste preferences.

Beef safety
Traditional media
Beef safety issues received slightly less media attention this quarter, with coverage declining 12 percent to 240 reports. The favorability of beef safety coverage strengthened slightly, up one point from last quarter to a still-neutral 48 rating.

Pathogens and beef was a leading topic; reporting included coverage of several beef recalls, including a recall of 131,300 pounds of ground beef by Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., which was discovered to contain E. coli when a family in Ohio fell ill after eating the meat. In addition, reporting focused on the USDA announcement that the sale of beef containing six additional strains of E. coli would be banned. Overall, pathogens and beef coverage averaged a slightly unfavorable 43 rating, down two points from last quarter. Coverage of recalls was also slightly unfavorable, averaging a 40 rating. Foodborne illness and beef and meat was one of the least favorable topics this quarter, with negative coverage of the Tyson recall contributing greatly to the topic’s moderately unfavorable 37 rating.

Social media
Beef safety became the most prominent category in social media reporting, as beef safety issues were discussed in just over half of the industry’s coverage, more than double the category’s prevalence in traditional media reporting. Discussion of pathogens and beef, recalls, hormones and antibiotics was of a much greater volume in social media versus traditional media.

Pathogens and beef generated the largest volume of mentions among beef safety topics, addressed in 235 reports. As seen in traditional media reporting, attention on pathogens and beef was particularly prominent due to mentions of possible E. coli contamination in discussion of beef recalls, as well as mentions of the proposed rule by USDA to declare six non O157 STEC E. coli strains are an adulterant in beef products.

Coverage of antibiotics was also prominent within social media reporting on beef safety. Coverage focused on the consequences of use in livestock, with many posts also advocating for eating only organic meat or adopting a vegetarian diet.

Economics
Traditional media
Economic issues continued to dominate beef industry coverage, with the category’s share of total reporting increasing to 42 percent despite witnessing a 4 percent decline in volume to 403 articles. Economics coverage remained neutral, averaging a 51 rating, up one point from last quarter.

Impact of weather disasters emerged as the leading topic within economics reporting this period and was discussed in 182 reports. The vast majority of articles mentioning this topic focused on the drought affecting the Midwest and southwestern United States and the impact it is having on ranchers, their livestock and the beef industry. Numerous reports discussing additional aid for ranchers and farmers and other emergency actions received moderately favorable ratings, allowing for the overall neutral rating for the topic.

Figure 3

Notably, discussion of the beef industry and the U.S. economy increased 167 percent, from 15 to 40 reports this period. However, the favorability of coverage declined four points to a slightly favorable 55 rating. This lower score was a result of an increase in coverage mentioning the future of beef prices and questioned the ability of ranchers to meet the country’s beef demand. Articles containing these mentions received ratings ranging from solidly to slightly unfavorable.

Social media
The prominence of economics reporting again saw substantially lower coverage in social media than in traditional media. In fact, economics made up only 13 percent of social media reporting, the second least prominent category. Beef prices continued to be the most prominent topic within social media coverage of economics, appearing in 45 reports averaging a 40 rating. Notably, reporting on beef prices declined by six points this period, and was more unfavorable compared to traditional coverage. Social media conversation focused mainly on the drought’s influence on beef prices, but also included discussion of the increasing price of cattle feeds, which in turn increased rbeef prices.

The impact of weather disasters became the second leading topic within social media discussion of economics. The majority of these reports centered on the drought and the issues it raised for ranchers and their herds, including problems with grazing, the water supply, wildfires and culling livestock.

Environment
Traditional media
Similar to animal rights, environment had its smallest story volume in years this period. Discussion of the environment declined from 216 stories last quarter to 166 stories this period.

Cattle and wildlife was the most discussed environmental issue despite its story volume declining by half to 51 articles. Furthermore, the subject’s favorability improved by two points to a neutral, but nearly positive, 54 rating. Moderately to extremely favorable attention on ranchers’ environmental stewardship and conservation efforts contributed to the topic’s favorability improvement.

Beef’s carbon footprint reporting increased 220 percent to 16 stories this quarter and was highly negative, averaging a 23 favorability rating that marked a 20-point decline from the prior period. Coverage was spurred largely by the Environmental Working Group’s report claiming that beef has the second highest carbon footprint of all food items that it examined. Although news coverage of this report was relatively limited, numerous letters-to-editors and opinion pieces cited the report in advocating that readers consume less meat. Notably, opinionated content often cited benefits to the environment, such as reduced carbon footprint, alongside claims that forgoing meat is better for personal health. Aside from stories on the Environmental Working Group report, discussion of scientists working to produce meat in laboratories typically mentioned that such technology is advocated by those concerned about climate change, energy shortages and animal cruelty.

Social media
There were 204 posts on the environment this quarter, up 34 percent. Coverage averaged a 40 rating, which marked a three-point decline from last quarter. The perception that raising conventional beef harms the environment permeated much of the category’s social media discussions. For example, a post on lifewithnature.com decreed that forgoing meat is “probably the greenest move you can make,” alleging that meat production is energy, water and land intensive and contributes to global climate change (Sept. 1).

Figure 4

Cattle and global warming garnered more discussion than any other environmental issue, as its coverage increased 80 percent to 83 reports, averaging a solidly negative 35 rating. Meanwhile, beef and carbon footprint’s coverage increased 82 percent to 69 reports and averaged a strongly unfavorable 34 rating. Much of these stories discussed the Environmental Working Group’s carbon footprint report. Yet, many stories depicted cattle and beef production as aiding global climate change without ever mentioning the carbon profile of meat. While numerous posts discussed beef’s carbon footprint or suggested that cattle production has a global warming impact, only 16 posts specifically encouraged readers to make their diet “green” by forgoing meat.

Nutrition/health
Traditional media
Nutrition/health coverage declined 20 percent to 230 reports. Reporting this quarter averaged a moderately unfavorable 40 rating compared to slightly unfavorable 42 rating last period. This favorability decline coincided with increased attention on beef regarding cancer and heart disease that rated solidly to strongly negative overall, while lean beef discussions, averaged slightly favorable, halved from last period.

Nutritional vegetarianism, the leading topic by story volume this quarter receded 7 percent to 116 reports. This decline was less than the decrease in nutrition/health reporting overall. The favorability of stories mentioning nutritional vegetarianism held constant, again averaging a solidly unfavorable 34 rating. Discussion peaked in August, when the topic garnered roughly half its coverage for the quarter, due to attention on former president Bill Clinton’s vegan diet, which reportedly improved his cardiovascular health. Such stories featured Clinton, medical doctors and dieticians praising the health benefits of forgoing meat.

Among the most negative nutrition/health topics this quarter, beef and heart disease, discussed in 37 reports averaged a strongly unfavorable 28 rating. Such coverage also stemmed from attention on Clinton’s vegan diet purportedly helping to improve his heart health. Notably, CNN aired a broadcast special entitled “The Last Heart Attack” that highlighted factors such as red meat consumption as raising one’s heart attack risk. This piece again featured Clinton, as well as doctors Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn, discussing meat consumption as harmful to heart health (Aug. 28). Furthermore, discussion of beef and heart disease appeared in several opinion pieces advocating readers forgo meat, suggesting that eating beef and red meat raises one’s risk for heart disease.

Social media
Nutrition/health discussions appeared in 31 percent of all social media stories this period, down 12 percentage points from last period when nutrition/health had the largest share of industry coverage. Moreover, the issue category’s favorability declined five points to a moderately negative 40 rating, due to fewer discussions on favorable topics such as lean beef and animal protein benefits, as well as greater discussions on beef and red meat consumption raising one’s risk for developing cancer or type-2 diabetes.

Like in traditional media, nutritional vegetarianism was the leading topic within social media nutrition/health reports. However, the topic was more prominent in social media than traditional media coverage of nutrition/health issues – a 55 percent share versus a 50 percent share. The favorability of nutritional vegetarianism fared slightly better in social media, in which the topic averaged a moderately unfavorable 36 rating, versus traditional media, in which the topic averaged a solidly negative 34 rating. The improved social media performance stemmed from more prominent positive discussions, such as posts cautioning that a vegetarian diet may be nutrient deficient.

Protein and type-2 Diabetes received discussion in 35 reports this period, up 218 percent from last quarter. Attention on a Harvard study suggesting that regularly eating processed and red meats raises a person’s risk of developing type-2 diabetes contributed to the topic’s coverage growth. As such, its prominence is likely temporary and may recede.

Conclusions

Attention on the Environmental Working Group’s “Meat Eaters Guide” influenced the beef industry’s coverage considerably, spurring unfavorable discussion of beef’s carbon footprint, as well as alleged health drawbacks, and cattle production’s contribution to global warming. The “guide” garnered substantial coverage in both traditional and social media, cited by many vegan and vegetarian proponents. Naturally, the beef industry would be well-served to counter notions of beef or cattle production causing global warming or otherwise significantly harming the environment as swiftly and effectively as possible. If impressions of beef or meat harming the environment were to become prevailing, it could act as a “third leg” of a vegetarian argument that going meatless is best for human health, animal welfare and the environment.

Social media discussion of the benefits of protein on muscle development and bodybuilding decreased substantially this quarter, which had a material impact on the favorability of social media coverage. This type of discussion is some of the most favorable for the beef industry, not only in social media but across all coverage. Ensuring that beef remains top of mind during discussion of lean protein for muscle development will help balance some of the more unfavorable reporting on the industry.