202 



UNFORTUNATELY, THE U.S. HAS A REPUTATION FOR ITS STRENGTH WHEN 

 IT COMES TO OPENING MARKETS BUT WEAKNESS IN MARKETING FOLLOW- 

 UP. THE BENEFIT OF TRADE AGREEMENTS SHOULD BE MEASURED BY THE 

 BLACK AND WHITE OF THE "BOTTOM LINE" (I.E., SALES), AND SIMPLY PUT, 

 SALES IS A FUNCTION OF THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE U.S. CAN COMPETE 

 IN AN OPEN MARKET. SADLY, OUR COMPETITORS HAVE THE EDGE ON US 

 WHEN IT COMES TO AGGRESSIVE MARKETING PROGRAMS. 



AT LEAST IN THE RED MEAT INDUSTRY, THE U.S. HAS A COMPETITIVE 

 HANDICAP IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE. ACCORDING TO OUR 

 RESEARCH, ALL OUR MAJOR COMPETITORS OUTSPEND US IN TERMS OF THE 

 RATIO OF MARKET DEVELOPMENT SPENDING TO THE VALUE OF THEIR 

 EXPORTS. TAKE THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY FOR EXAMPLE; EVEN AFTER 

 GATT IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED BY 2000, EUROPE CAN STILL DIRECTLY 

 SUBSIDIZE MEAT EXPORTS TO THE TUNE OF ALMOST $1.5 BILLION PER 

 YEAR. IN THE U.S., THE RED MEAT INDUSTRY CAN EXPECT LESS THAN 

 $8 MILLION IN GOVERNMENT RESOURCES IN 1994 FOR EXPORT MARKET 

 DEVELOPMENT. DESPITE WHAT SOME MAY VIEW AS AN AGGRESSIVE 

 INTERNATIONAL MARKETING PROGRAM, THE U.S. RED MEAT INDUSTRY 

 AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT STILL COLLECTIVELY SPEND LESS THAN 

 1 PERCENT OF ITS TOTAL INTERNATIONAL SALES ON FOREIGN PROMOTION. 



