• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Center information
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Summary
 Main














Title: evaluation of the effectiveness of public relations activities in reducing dairy delivery case losses
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00047739/00001
 Material Information
Title: evaluation of the effectiveness of public relations activities in reducing dairy delivery case losses
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L.
Riddle, Pamela H.
Publisher: Food and Resource Economics Dept., IFAS, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1983
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00047739
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front cover
    Title Page
        Title page
    Center information
        Center information
    Acknowledgement
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Summary
        Page iv
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
Full Text
/ DO
l:O 7
[ :I-


DOCUMENT


Staff Report















FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH CENTER
FOOD AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611





















AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
ACTIVITIES IN REDUCING DAIRY DELIVERY CASE LOSSES


By


Robert L. Degner and Pamela H. Riddle


Staff Report 12


June 1983


Staff papers are circulated without formal review
by the Food and Resource Economics Department.
Content is the sole responsibility of the authors.




Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611














The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center is
a service of
the Food and Resource Economics Department
of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences


The purpose of this Center is to provide timely, applied research

on current and emerging marketing problems affecting Florida's agri-

cultural and marine industries. The Center seeks to provide research

and information to production, marketing, and processing firms, groups

and organizations concerned with improving and expanding markets for

Florida agricultural and marine products.

The Center is staffed by a basic group of economists trained in

agriculture and marketing. In addition, cooperating personnel from

other IFAS units provide a wide range of expertise which can be applied

as determined by the requirements of individual projects.










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Appreciation is expressed to Mr. Joseph R. Antink, President of

Florida Dairy Products Association for his continuing enthusiasm for

and support of our research on the case loss problem. We are also

very grateful for the cooperation of FDPA's Board of Directors and

the many processing plant managers and other employees that willing-

ly provided data.

Thanks are also due Ms. Lois Schoen for typing the manuscript.









TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................. i

LIST OF TABLES .................................................. iii

LIST OF FIGURES................................................. ii

SUMMARY .......................................................... iv

INTRODUCTION.................................................... 1

OBJECTIVES.................................................... 4

PROCEDURE......................................................... 4

FINDINGS.......................................... .............. 4

Number of Cases Purchased................................. 5
Evaluation of the Public Relations Efforts................... 10
Adoption of Other Case Loss-Control Measures................. 14

CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 17

APPENDIX.......................................................... 18

REFERENCES................... ... ...... ...... ..... ............ 26






















ii









LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 A summary of the Florida Dairy Products Association's
public relations efforts designed to reduce losses 3
of dairy delivery cases..................................

2 Case purchases and total case expenditures, by area, 8
1981 and 1982............................................

3 Case purchases per 1,000 cases of product sales, 1976,
1981 and 1982.............................................. 11

4 Managers' evaluations of the effects of the 1981 and
1982 public relations efforts............................ 13

5 Managers' ratings of the effects of the public relations 14
programs on case losses..................................

6 Managers' general comments regarding the public 15
relations efforts ................................ .....

7 Control measures or management changes implemented in
1981 and 1982 to reduce case losses by Florida dairy 16
processors...............................................


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Number of cases purchased in Florida, 1981-1982............ 6

2 Case expenditures in Florida, 1981-1982 ................... 6

3 Number of cases purchased by area, 1981-1982............... 7

4 Case expenditures by area, 1981-1982 ...................... 7

5 A comparison of 1981 and 1982 case purchases, by area...... 9

6 Average number of cases purchased per 1,000 cases of
fluid product handled in Florida, 1976, 1981 and 1982...... 12












SUMMARY


The purpose of this study was to evaluate public relations (PR) efforts
conducted by the Florida Dairy Products Association in November 1981 and July
1982. The first PR effort consisted of paid advertising in five metropolitan
newspapers, news releases and letters to editors of 20 major newspapers, and
letters to law enforcement agencies, schools, colleges, universities, hotels,
motels, restaurants, and retail food stores.

The second PR effort, conducted in cooperation with the Retail Grocers
Association of Florida and the Florida Poultry Federation, consisted of news
releases sent to 300 daily and weekly newspapers and to 400 radio and tele-
yision stations.

The objective of both efforts was to serve notice to the general public
that taking cases is illegal and costly and to inform dairy customers and
others of the severity of the problem.

All active processing plants were surveyed to determine case purchases
relative to volume for 1981 and 1982. The rationale was that the PR activities
largely affected 1982 case purchases.

Usable data were obtained from 16 processing plants. Case purchases for
these plants increased by approximately 10 percent from 1981 to 1982, and
volume remained virtually unchanged.

Total case expenditures declined 4.4 percent; the average case cost dropped
from $2.67 to $2.32. Case costs declined due to increased competition and a
continued shift toward less expensive cases.

The ratio of case purchases to volume increased from 8.8 cases per
1,000 cases of fluid product in 1976 to 17.9 in 1981. This reflects a 15
percent annual rate of increase. The ratio in 1982 was 19.7 cases per 1,000
cases of product, a 10 percent increase over 1981.

If the 15 percent rate of increase in case purchases relative to
volume had continued from 1981 to 1982, an estimated 36,700 more cases
would have been required for 11 plants which reported volume. At an
average price of $2.32 per case, the additional cases would have cost
about $85,000.

For the seven plants which did not institute additional case loss
control in 1982, the estimated savings (compared with the historical
trend) totalled 18,600 cases valued at about $43,000.

The case loss problem appears to be getting worse, but the Florida
Dairy Products Association's PR program may have temporarily slowed the
rate of increase.









AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
ACTIVITIES IN REDUCING DAIRY DELIVERY CASE LOSSES

INTRODUCTION


The Florida Dairy Products Association (FDPA) first commissioned the

Florida Agricultural Market Research Center (FAMRC) to analyze the dairy

delivery case loss problem in 1977. This first research effort placed

Florida processors' losses at $1.3 million, and a follow-up study in 1979

estimated losses at $1.5 million (Mathis and Degner, 1977, 1979). Another
study was conducted in 1981 for FDPA which devised a statistical tech-

nique which can be used by individual firms to monitor case life and thus

help to evaluate the success of various case loss prevention efforts (Degner

and Shonkwiler, 1981). Thus, FDPA has a long history of combatting the

case loss problem and has established a national reputation for taking the
initiative against the misuse of dairy processors' property. Despite these

continuing efforts to reduce case losses, the problem has persisted. In

1981 and again in 1982, FDPA opted to try several public relations activ-

ities directed toward the general public and customers to create greater
awareness of the problem.

The first public relations program began in November 1981, and con-

sisted of paid newspaper advertisements and correspondence directed to of-
ficials of selected institutions. Quarter-page, professionally prepared

ads were placed in major newspapers in Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville, Tampa,

and St. Petersburg. The combined circulation of these newspapers was ap-

proximately one million.


Robert L. Degner is associate professor and Pamela H. Riddle is research
assistant of food and resource economics, University of Florida.





2



Letters describing the seriousness of the problem and soliciting help

in reducing case misuse were sent to editors of the 20 largest newspapers

in the state, along with press releases that could be run as a public service.

Letters were also sent to heads of 465 law enforcement agencies and 2,000

schools, colleges and universities. Also receiving letters were 9,000 man-

agers of hotels and motels, 22,000 restaurants, and 16,000 other retail out-

lets which receive fluid milk products in delivery cases (Table 1).

The second major public relations effort was conducted in July, 1982,

in cooperation with the Retail Grocers Association of Florida and the Florida
Poultry Federation. The focus of this campaign was to increase the general

public's awareness of the misuse of dairy delivery cases, shopping carts, and

egg crates. The combined losses of equipment to these three industry groups
was estimated to be $13 million per year for Florida alone. This public re-

lations effort used professionally designed and written news releases which

were sent to 300 daily newspapers and 400 radio and television stations

(Table 1). Copies of the materials used are in the Appendix.

The two public relations activities were estimated to have reached
4 to 5 million Floridians (Neely, 1982). However, considerable "spin-off"

publicity was obtained which may have reached substantially greater num-

bers. This is certainly the case on a national basis where such publications

as The Wall Street Journal, Hoard's Dairyman, and Dairy Record ran feature
stories as a result of the FDPA campaigns. The combined costs of the two

efforts were slightly over $12,000 (Neely, 1982).








Table l.--A summary of the Florida Dairy Products Association's public re-
lations efforts designed to reduce losses of dairy delivery cases.


Date Description Coverage


November, 1981

Paid advertisements (1/4-page) in 5 major newspapers; approx-
major newspapers imate readership: 1,000,000

Letters and press releases to editors 20 major newspapers

Correspondence program:

Law enforcement agencies 465

Schools, colleges and universities 2,000

Hotels and motels 9,000

Restaurants 22,000

Retail outlets 16,000

July, 1982

Joint public relations program with 300 daily and weekly news-
the Retail Grocers Association papers and 400 radio and
of Florida and the Florida Poultry television stations
Federation, involved preparation and
distribution of a joint news release









OBJECTIVES


The primary objective of this research project was to determine the

effectiveness of the public relations efforts in reducing dairy delivery

case losses. A secondary objective was to identify innovative loss con-

trol techniques adapted by FDPA members, and to attempt to appraise their

effectiveness.


PROCEDURE

The brief mail questionnaire was sent to top executives of the 25

active processing plants in the state in January 1983. Telephone follow-

ups were made in mid-February and again in early March to non-respondents.

The basic analytical procedure was to compare 1981 and 1982 case purchases

relative to volume of fluid product. The rationale was that the timing of

both public relations efforts would largely affect 1982 case purchases.

I't was recognized that considerable year to year variation in case pur-

chases occurs for given firms, but it was thought that aggregate case

purchases would give an indication of comparative case losses for 1981

and 1982.


FINDINGS

Industry response to the survey was excellent, with some data pro-

vided by approximately 90 percent of the active processing plants. Only

two sizable firms failed to respond. Although several plant managers

were willing to cooperate, they did not complete questionnaires because

their case purchases and volume figures were reported by other managers.





5


Several others declined because they either used no cases for delivery, or

because they judged their volume sold in Florida to be of minor importance.

It should also be noted that most data from one major firm could not be

used because it was in the process of starting up operations in 1981, and

inclusion would have distorted the 1981-1982 comparisons. Thus, most

of the findings presented below are based upon responses of 16 plant man-

agers representing 18 plants and 11 firms. Sales volume was reported by

managers of 11 plants.


Number of Cases Purchased

The total number of cases purchased by 16 reporting plants was 886,832

in 1981 and 974,716 in 1982, a 9.9 percent increase (Figure 1). Surprisingly,

total case expenditures for the same firms dropped from $2,363,908 to

$2,260,401, a 4.4 percent decrease (Figure 2). This decline in total case

expenditures was caused by a 13 percent drop in the average per unit case

price. The average case cost $2.67 in 1981, but only $2.32 in 1982. The

price reduction, according to several processors, was due to increased com-

petition among case suppliers and continuation of the shift toward lighter

weight, and less expensive cases. The number of cases purchased increased

from 1981 to 1982 in three of the four major metropolitan areas analyzed.

Case purchases and total expenditures for cases are reported for those areas

that had at least three firms reporting; absolute figures for Orlando could

not be released to avoid disclosure (Figure 3 and 4, Table 2).

Four firms in Miami purchased over 240,000 cases in 1981 and 306,000

in 1982, or a 28 percent increase. Total expenditures were $627,617 and

$716,534, respectively.







Number of
Cases
1,000,000

900,000 1981
1982

800,000 .

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000



Figure 1 --Number of cases purchased in Florida, 1981-1982.
Case
Expenditures
(Dollars)


3,200,000

2,800,000

2,400,000

2,000,000

1,600,000

1,200,000

800,000

400,000


Figure 2.--Case expenditures in Florida, 1981-1982.








Number of cases 1981
1982
800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000 .

200,000 .
100,-, ...........
100,000



Miami Jacksonville Tampa/St. Pete
Figure 3 .--Number of cases purchased by area, 1981-1982.

Case Expenditures
(Dollars)

800,000

700,000---

600,000 ""

500,000 .

400,000

300,000

200,000 -
.0... .......
100,000 i i '

0 '.. ___lj


Miami Jacksonville Tampa/St. Pete
Figure 4.--Case expenditures by area, 1981-1982.









Three firms in Jacksonville purchased nearly 300,000 cases in 1981,

and about 315,000 in 1982, a 6 percent increase. However, total expen-

ditures fell from about 711,000 to 663,000. Case purchases by three

firms in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area totalled about 102,000 in 1981,

but increased to nearly 114,000 in 1982, an 11 percent increase (Table 2,

Figure 5).


Table 2.--Case purchases and total case expenditures, by area, 1981 and
1982.


Number 1981 1982
of firms Cases Case Cases Case
Areaa reporting purchased expenditures purchased expenditures

Cases Dollars Cases Dollars

Miami 4 240,116 627,617 306,157 716,534

Jacksonville 3 298,583 711,390 315,050 663,388

Tampa/
St. Petersburg 3 102,473 258,990 113,885 268,075


aFigures for the Orlando area are not reported to


Although actual case purchases cannot be divulged

two reporting firms' aggregate case purchases declined


avoid disclosure.

for the Orlando area,

by 8 percent. However,


when case purchases for these firms were analyzed relative to volume, case

purchases per 1,000 cases of product were found to have increased slightly.

Case purchases relative to volume were calculated for 11 plants (Table 3).

Overall, volume for the reporting plants showed an extremely small decrease













;' 1981
1982



Percent


130

120

110

100

90 ...

80...

70 .. ^|


60
.:7. ,.-.
50


g....



20

10



Miami Orlando Jacksonville Tampa/St. Pete

Figure 5.--A comparison of 1981 and 1982 case purchases, by area.












from 1981 to 1982, 0.13 percent, while case purchases increased by approx-
imately 10 percent. It should be noted that the total Florida fluid milk

market grew during this period, but this decline in volume for the re-

porting firms is due to the entry into the market by a major new pro-

cessing plant for which data could not be used. Of these plants, six had

increases in case purchases relative to volume, four had decreases, and

one was unchanged from 1981 to 1982. The number of cases purchased per
1,000 gallon of fluid product handled ranged from 7.1 to 39.3 in 1981 and

7.3 to 35.2 in 1982. When case purchases and volume were combined for both

years, the ratio of cases to product ranged from 7.2 to 37.4. The average
for all 11 plants was 17.9 in 1981, 19.7 in 1982, and 18.8 over the two-year

period. The alarming finding is that the ratio of case purchases to volume

has increased from 8.8 in 1976 to 19.7 cases per 1,000 gallons of product

in 1982 CTable 3, Figure 6). Changes in the distribution system which re-

quire a greater float probably accounted for much of the increase, but it

appears that the case loss problem was more severe in the 1981-82 period.

Evaluation of the Public Relations Efforts


A superficial examination of the proceeding discussion could lead one

to conclude that the public relations efforts had little or no effect in

reducing case losses. However, if case purchases relative to volume are com-

pared for 1976 and 1981, the rate per 1,000 gallons of fluid product increased

at a rate of about 15.25 percent per year for the five year period; a com-

parison of the 1981 and 1982 rates shows a 10 percent increase.







Table 3.--Case purchases per 1,000 cases of product sales, 1976, 1981
and 1982.


Firma 1976 1981 1982 1981-1982

----- Case purchases per 1,000 cases of product ---

1 __b 15.8 11.7 13.7
2 --- 7.6 20.1 13.7
3 --- 7.1 7.3 7.2
4 --- 14.9 18.2 16.6
5 --- 20.7 19.3 20.0
6 --- 39.3 35.2 37.4
7 --- 16.9 14.5 15.7
8 --- 14.8 20.3 17.6
9 --- 28.1 28.1 28.1
10 --- 5.7 11.6 8.7
11 --- 15.8 22.0 18.8


State average 8.8 17.9 19.7 18.8
low 3.2 7.1 7.3 7.2
high 20.7 39.3 35.2 37.4

aFirms appear in random order to avoid disclosure.

bNot available.

Thus, a logical conclusion is that the case loss problem is still severe

and getting worse, but the public relations program may have slowed the
rate of increase. If the 15.25 percent rate of increase in case purchases

per 1,000 cases of product would have continued from 1981 to 1982, the case

purchase rate would have been 20.6 cases per 1,000 cases of product rather

than the observed rate of 19.7. This would have required purchases of 36,700

more cases in 1982 for the 11 reporting firms. At the average price of $2.32

per case, additional case expenditures of approximately $85,000 would have been

required. Part of these savings are probably attributable to control measures

instituted by four plants. However, the seven plants that iniated no control

measures during the 1981-1982 period had a smaller than usual rate of increase.

Had the 15.25 percent increase prevailed, these seven firms would have been

required to purchase about 18,600 cases at an approximate cost of $43,000.





12



1976
1981
1982




Cases purchased
per 1,000 cases
of product

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6*



2



Figures.-- Average number of cases purchased per 1,000 cases of
fluid product handled in Florida, 1976, 1981 and 1982.








Because of the great amount of variability exhibited in an individual

plant's case acquisitions from year to year, it can also be assumed that a

great deal of variability exists for the entire industry as well. As a re-

sult, the point estimates of case purchases per 1,000 cases of product for

1976, 1981 and 1982 may be subject to considerable error. Nevertheless,

there is evidence that the public relations program may have ameliorated

the problem to some degree.

Plant managers were also asked for their opinions of the effectiveness

of the public relations efforts. Reactions were mixed. Approximately half
said that both phases had no effect. About one-fourth were uncertain of the

results, but several said that case losses were reduced as a result (Table 4).


Table 4.--Managers' evaluations of the effects of the 1981 and 1982
public relations efforts.


Year of effort, Managers
Evaluation Number Percent

1981

No effect 8 50
Minimal effect 3 19
Uncertain 4 25
Substantially reduced
case losses 1 6
16 100

1982

No effect 7 44
Minimal effect 3 19
Uncertain 4 25
Substantially reduced
case losses 2 12
16 100









Similarly, on a five-point scale which rated the effectiveness of the pub-

lic relations efforts, 50 percent of the managers said the efforts had no

effect, but 50 percent rated them moderately effective (Table 5).

Table 5.--Managers' ratings of the effects of the public relations
programs on case losses.


Effects Number Percent


Extremely effective 0 0

Moderately effective 8 50

No effect 8 50

Moderately detrimental 0 0

Extremely detrimental 0 0

Totals 16 100


Interestingly, none rated the efforts as having detrimental impacts on case

losses, a common fear expressed in an earlier study (Mathis and Degner, 1977).

Some managers' comments reflect a general feeling that the public relations

efforts have had a short-term effect on losses, but had negligible long-run

impacts (Table 6).


Adoption of Other Case Loss-Control Measures

The majority of plant managers, 65 percent, implemented no new case loss

control measures during 1981 or 1982. However, four plants initiated employee

education measures, three began case accounting procedures, and one firm con-
ducted public relations programs patterned after the first FDPA effort. The

firm engaging in public relations efforts used personal letters to customers

and newspaper ads to call the problem to the attention of the general public

(Table 7).










Table 6.--Managers' general comments regarding the public relations
efforts.



General comments


"I feel it would take a continuous advertising program to make any appre-
ciable difference in our losses." --St. Petersburg.

"I do believe the ads and publicity have kept the case problem in abeyance
and have arrested the escalation of the problem." --Jacksonville.

"It seems that we still have a major problem." --Miami.

"The customer's awareness should be increased,as well as the public's
awareness,to make a joint effort to control case losses." --Orlando.

"We do not have a big case loss problem; neither do we have the account-
ability to measure case loss." --Jacksonville.

"Most of our cases are found in people's yards and flea markets. I
think some of these people should be arrested." --Miami.

"It seems to have slowed the difference temporarily, but not perman-
ently." --St Petersburg.

"Public awareness has been greatly increased. Letters and calls have
been received from the buying public giving names of companies and
individuals which have milk cases on trucks, motorcycles, in garages, etc."
--Orlando.








Table 7.--Control measures or management changes implemented in 1981
and 1982 to reduce case losses by Florida dairy processors.


Control measures implemented in 1981 and 1982 Number Percenta


None 11 65

Employee education programs 4 24

Case accounting 3 18

Public relations letters to customers 1 6

Public relations own newspaper ad 1 6
_b ___a


aBased upon 17 responses.
bNot summed because of multiple responses.











CONCLUSIONS


The case loss problem is still a very costly one for Florida dairy pro-

cessors, as demonstrated by the acquisition of 10 percent more cases from 1981

to 1982 in view of virtually unchanged volume for the reporting firms. While

the evidence is not overwhelming, there is reason to believe that FDPA's pub-

lic relations efforts may have reduced the rate of increase of case losses.

Several firms reported substantial short-run reductions in case purchases and

attributed the reductions to the public relations efforts (Neely, 1982) How-

ever, the effects are believed to be short-lived. This is certainly consistent

with most advertising research.

Considering the relatively low cost of FDPA's public relations efforts,
the large audience reached by the direct efforts and the spin-off publicity,

and the apparent amelioration of the case loss problem, it appears that the

investment was worthwhile.





























APPENDIX








The Great Dairy Case


MYSTERY
CAN YOU
f SOLVE THIS
e S-lrLLION+ PROBLEM? n


HERE ARE THE FACTS!
Many Floridians have become
unknowing "accomplices" in the disappear-
ance of some 500,000 dairy delivery cases
each year. Based on information in a con-
tinuing University of Florida study,
"suspects" in the case include persons
who are not aware that:
* Recurring losses to the state's dairy
industry and ultimately YOU the con-
sumer may exceed $2 million this
year alone
* Marked dairy container cases are the
sole property of each of the state's 34
dairy processors;
* Dairy cases are NOT cheap "throw-
aways" (similar containers are sold in
stores for $10.00 each) but are designed
for frequent re-use in delivering dairy
foods to stores, schools, hospitals and
other outlets;
* Dairy processing plants at times have
to close down production because cases
have not been returned ... a waste of
valuable resources that, again, directly
affects your pocketbook;
* And, that unauthorized use of dairy
cases is a CRIMINAL ACT, punishable
as a first degree misdemeanor!
Here are just a few of the some 28
misuses of dairy cases turned up in the
university study:
Book and parcel carriers
on the backs of bikes
and in the trunks of
automobiles;

r Room dividers and
a INstorage units in homes;
Table props and display
n stands in stores and II


Now...
Take a Closer Look At A Dairy
Case, And What It's REALLY
Made For!
Each dairy has its own name stamped
or imprinted on the sides of each of their
cases, clearly identifying their ownership
and the purposes for which the cases are
intended.
But there is something more. Also im-
printed on each case is a notice to
.this effect:

WARNING
"Use by other than the registered owner is
punishable by law."
New dairy cases will also carry specifics of both
the Florida Theft and Marked Box Acts, and the
Florida Retail Theft Act, under which those con-
victed of unauthorized use may be prosecuted.

It's obvious that some of those who
take dairy cases know exactly what they
are doing either stealing, receiving or
unlawfully using private property. They
will have to be prosecuted.
But many more otherwise law-abiding
people are being misled into thinking
their occasional "appropriation" of dairy
cases is not actually dishonest.
So now we know...
YOU Are The Solution
Yes, by simply knowing the facts
presented here, we believe you can help
us warn others who may become un-
knowing "accomplices" in a serious mat-
ter that affects us all.


roadside stands; THANKS
| Spare part and tool for helping to
carriers by tradespeople solve the
and service workers; GREAT
I Tr-m and rardPn Tr A TTl 1


supplies and tools... CASE A
CASE MYSTERY!
Crab traps and fish
containers by sport and A message from
commercial fishermen; Florida Dairy Products Association
GET THE PICTURE? Orlando, FL 32801 (305) 849-0581


<







NE [E For more information, contact:
Q J. R. Antink, President
SFlorida Dairy Products Association
Suite 315 Bradshaw Building
FLORIDA DAIRY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION Telephone: (305)84581



For release week of 11/16/81

(MEMO TO FOOD EDITORS: We need your help in holding down
costs of dairy foods for Florida consumers--and to assure
a steady supply of product--by reducing the tremendous loss
of dairy container cases. Release below, along with enclosed
ad repro proof, explains the problem. The ad is scheduled
to run week beginning November 16. Your support of this
public service message will help immeasurably. Thanks!)





WHO-DONE-IT? -- THE GREAT DAIRY CASE MYSTERY


A statewide appeal to John and Jane Q. Consumer is going out

from the Florida dairy industry this week to help solve the

"Great Dairy Case Mystery."

The "Mystery" involves the disappearance of increasingly

large numbers of dairy container cases--those sturdy plastic,

sometimes wire, crates Florida dairies use to deliver their

products to outlets all over the state.

The loss will cost Florida dairies-and ultimately consumers-

an estimated $2,000,000 or more this year alone. Nationally,

losses are expected to total over $85 million. "This is a

serious, and growing concern to Florida dairies and should be

to consumers," reports Joseph R. Antink, President of Florida

Dairy Products Association.

According to continuing studies conducted by the University

of Florida's Agricultural Market Research Center, more than

500,000 containers have to be replaced each year by the state's

(more)




DAIRY CASE MYSTERY -- 2 21

34 dairy food processors. In addition, case shortages at some

Florida plants result in temporary shut-downs, interrupting the

supply of milk and other dairy foods to stores, schools, hos-

pitals and other outlets.

Unwitting contributors to the problem, researchers found,

are many otherwise honest people who are apparently unaware

of the value, intended re-use, and the criminal nature of un-

authorized use of dairy container cases. The University studies

identify some 28 illegal uses, ranging from tool and parts storage

to room dividers and trailer supports, to crab traps, fish

containers and table props and displays.

University reports also reveal that numerous newspaper and

magazine articles and advertisements feature in-home uses for

milk cases, which "probably stimulates unauthorized use."

Compounding the problem is the fact that similar plastic containers

are sold in some stores for about $10 each.

Because of the confusion, "it seems that many people are

actually misled into thinking that the occasional use of dairy

cases doesn't really constitute theft, or actually harm anyone,"

Antink said. However, he added: "Dairy cases are not cheap

throw-aways, but expensive, privately-owned property designed

for frequent re-use by the dairies."

Dairy cases are stamped, or embossed with the name of their

owner, along with a warning that unauthorized use is prohibited

by law and punishable by imprisonment and/or fine.

"Obviously some who take dairy cases know exactly what they

are doing--and they will have to be prosecuted," Antink said.

"We believe, however, that many others are unknowing 'accomplices'

due to insufficient knowledge. These are the folk we are

appealing to."












(SUGGESTED COPY FOR LETTER FROM PROCESSORS TO
EDITORS OF LOCAL NEWSPAPERS. .Please Note:

(1) Address letter (s) to editor or
publisher, if their names are
known to you.

(2) Use "P. S." only if newspaper is one
of those in which advertisement is
scheduled to run, i. e., Miami Herald
Florida Times Union, St. Petersburg
Times, Orlando .Sentinel Star, Tampa
Tribune)







Dear Editor:


Please use the following letter-to-the-editor in a
near-future issue:

Extremely serious losses of dairy delivery cases in
Florida are a growing concern to processors of the state,
and should be to dairy product consumers.

The loss is costing Florida dairies, and ultimately
consumers, an estimated $2,000,000 annually. Nationally,
the loss is well over $85 million.

Approximately one half million of these expensive
reusable containers (some made of wire, but most of durable
plastic) have disappeared in the past 12 months. Case
shortages at times result in temporary shut-downs of
processing plants--a waste of valuable time and resources.

Dairy cases are private property with specific in-
tended uses: delivery of milk and other dairy foods to
stores, schools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels and other
outlets. It is unlawful to appropriate them for any other
purpose.

Sad to say, many thousands of these cases turn up in
the hands of otherwise honest people who apparently are
unaware of their value; their intended re-use, and the
criminal nature of their unauthorized use.









(Suggested Copy For Letter From
Processors To Editors Of Local
Newspapers) continued Page 2



According to studies by the University of Florida's
Agricultural Market Research Center, some 28 illegal uses
have been identified. These range from tool and parts
storage, crab traps and fish containers by individuals
and businesses, to room dividers, trailer supports and
other uses in and about the home.

It appears that some newspaper and magazine articles
have actually fostered these and other adaptations without
making it clear that any unauthorized use of dairy cases
is illegal. (Similar plastic containers, costing about
$10 each, are available at some stores, adding to the
public's confusion.)

It seems that the attitude projected to the public by
such misleading reports is that occasional use of privately-
owned dairy cases doesn't really constitute theft, or actually
harm anyone. This simply is not true.

Dairy cases are stamped, branded, embossed or impressed
with the name of the dairy owner, along with a warning that
unauthorized use is prohibited by law. (Florida Statutes,
Chapters 506 and 812 makes illegal possession punishable by
imprisonment and/or fine.)

To reduce losses, and assure a continuing flow of
dairy foods to consumers, we must take positive action to
recover and retain our dairy cases. Public understanding
of this problem will greatly help in providing a solution.

Sincerely yours,



John Doe
General Manager


P. S. Attached is a reproduction of an advertisement
scheduled to run in (name of newspaper) the week of
November 16-20. If this letter appears in the same time
period it will help reinforce this important message.
Thank you.


















OFFICERS
Chairman of the Board
William N. Butler
Butler Foods, Inc.
Naples
Vice Chairman of the Board
Curry J. Bassett
Velda Farms
Winter Haven
Treasurer
Darryl R. Mahan
T. G. Lee Foods, Inc.
Orlando
DIRECTORS
a JAMES C. BASSETT
Bassett Dairy Products, Inc.
Perry
WAYNE COOK
Meadow Gold Supreme
Dairy Products
Tallahassee
JAMES L. COOPER
Superbrand Dairy
Products, Inc.
Jacksonville
JAMES GARNER
Flav-O-Rlch
St. Petersburg
A. LAMAR GARRETT
Borden, Inc.
Orlando
MURRAY GAY
Publlx Super Markets. Inc.
Lakeland
L. F. HALLBERG
Pet, Inc., Dairy Division
St. Petersburg
THOMAS H. HART
Hart's Dairy, Inc.
Fort Myers
RICHARD T. LEE
T. G. Lee Foods, Inc.
Orlando
JOE F. MINTER
Borden. Inc.
Tallahassee
GEORGE MOTLEY
Borden, Inc.
Tampa
DAVID NEELY
Flav.O-Rich
Jacksonville
DONALD E. FERRET
G. A. Perret's Dairy Farm, Inc.
Jacksonville
NORMAN RASMUSSEN
Farm Stores, Inc.
Miami
JIM RUDY
Velda Farms
Miami
H. CODY SKINNER
Skinners' Dairy, Inc.
Jacksonville
R. GENE SMITH
Superbrand Dairy Products
Jacksonville
JOHN SWIDEN
Bowman Dairy
Northbrook, Ill
J. DOYNE YORK
McArthur Dairy, Inc.
Miami
SPECIAL DIRECTORS
DR. JAMES J. JEZESKI
Food Science &
Human Nutrition Dept.
University of Florida
DR. JAMES R. KIRK, Chmn.
Food Science &
Human Nutrition Dept.
University of Florida
DICK JONES
Hussmann Refrigeration, Inc.
Tampa
President. Alligator Club


24





Florida Dairy Products Association, Inc.

BRADSHAW BUILDING SUITE 315
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801
JOSEPH R. ANTINK, President TELEPHONE 305/849-0581













(Letter Copy To All Florida Law Enforcement Agency Heads)








Dear _


If a bank or armored car is hit in a multi-million dollar
robbery, every law enforcement agency in Florida -- with
the news media breathing down their necks -- would be on
a sharp lookout for the culprits. Right?


But, until now, little attention has been paid to a
multi-million dollar (and growing) theft that takes
place each year in this state, and throughout the nation.


We're talking about the alarming increase in the loss of
dairy container cases, estimated to total some one
million last year in Florida, alone. This means a loss
of some $3 million to $4 million, which is ultimately
borne by the consuming public. Total loss nationwide is
more than $85 million!


In addition to the tremendous cost of replacing these
durable plastic and wire containers, case shortages
have at times required temporary shut-downs in the
state's 34 dairy processing plants. Besides the waste
of valuable time and resources, this results in the
interruption of the critical flow of dairy foods to
schools, hospitals, stores and other outlets.


From studies conducted by the University of Florida we've
learned that many of these privately owned dairy cases
are stolen from behind supermarkets and other food outlets
for numerous unauthorized uses.


Florida Statutes 506 and 812, the Florida Theft and
Marked Box Act and the Florida Retail Theft Act, make












illegal possession of the cases a first degree misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment and/or fine.

Sad to say, the university study indicates many thousands of
cases turn up in the hands of apparently honest people who are
unaware of their value, intended re-use by the dairies and the
criminal nature of their unauthorized use.

Our association is seeking new legislation to further facili-
tate the prosecution of dairy case theft: we will inform you
if and when these proposals are implemented.

We have addressed the problem of the honest, but misguided case
user with a recent statewide public education campaign which
seems to have proved effective in getting the general public's
attention. (See enclosed copy of the advertisement, "The
Great Dairy Case Mystery," which appeared in every major daily
newspaper in the state.)

We are still, however, faced with the large scale theft of
dairy cases which are stolen for a wide variety of uses. Just
a few identified in the university study include: crab traps,
table props and display stands, and containers for plants,
spare parts and tools, fresh fish -- and, you name it!

As you can see, we are not out to prosecute the occasional
misinformed person who may take one or two cases for personal
use (book and parcel carriers, home and garden tools and
supplies, etc.) But we feel we must seek a crackdown on the
"hard core" dairy case thieves in order to reduce if not
eliminate the growing loss.

We are, therefore, seeking the cooperation of all law enforce-
ment agencies in Florida to help resolve this matter. Your
personal attention to this request will be greatly appreciated.
Additionally, may we suggest you publish this letter or its
contents in your monthly publication to notify other members of
your agency of this serious problem of misusing the dairy
industry's property. Please call on us if you need additional
information.

Sincerely yours,



/R. Antink
President
JRA:jig


Enclosure










REFERENCES


Degner, Robert L. and J. Scott Shonkwiler, Determining Dairy Delivery Case
Life Using a Practical Sampling Procedure, Industry Report 81-11,
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Food and Resource
Economics Department, IFAS, University of Florida, August, 1981.

Mathis, Kary and Robert L. Degner, Dairy Delivery Case Losses in Florida
1979, Industry Report 79-6, Florida Agricultural Market Research
Center, Food and Resource Economics Department, IFAS, University
of Florida, November, 1979.

Mathis, Kary and Robert L. Degner, Dairy Delivery Case Losses in Florida
Costs and Controls, Industry Report 77-1, Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center, Food and Resource Economics Department,
IFAS, University of Florida, June, 1977.

Neely, David. "Florida Dairy Product Association Public Relations/
Advertising Campaign to Reduce Dairy Case Losses in Florida", pre-
sented to the Florida Dairy Products Association, Palm Beach,
Florida, June 23, 1982.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs