بودجه بهینه تبلیغات عمومی صنعت شیر ایران

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسنده

• حبیب شهبازی

دانشگاه سید جمال الدین اسد آبادی

https://doi.org/10.22067/jead2.v29i4.49202

چکیده

یکی از اهداف اصلی برنامه‌ریزان، تصمیم‌گیران و دولت‌ها ارتقاء سطح بهداشت و سلامت جامعه از طریق ترویج و تأمین مواد غذایی سالم و مفید می‌باشد. یکی از کالاهای اساسی که نقش مهمی در تأمین مواد اصلی مورد نیاز انسان دارد، شیر است. به همین منظور بخشی از بودجه سلامت دولت‌ها و تولیدکنندگان صرف ترویج مصرف شیر با استفاده از تبلیغات عمومی می‌شود. در این خصوص هرچه اثربخشی بودجه تبلیغات بر سودآوری بیشتر باشد، تولیدکنندگان شیر تمایل بیشتری برای تخصیص بودجه خواهند داشت. تعیین سطح بهینه بودجه تبلیغاتی در راستای افزایش مصرف و سود و جلوگیری از اتلاف و تخصیص نابهینه بودجه، از مسائل عمده تصمیم‌گیری مدیریتی در واحدهای تولیدی خواهد بود. مطالعه حاضر با استفاده از الگوی جایگزینی تعادل و حداکثرسازی مازاد تولیدکنندگان نسبت به تبلیغات عمومی در سطح خرده‌فروشی، به برآورد شاخص شدت تبلیغات عمومی بهینه (سهم بودجه تبلیغات از هزینه تولید) شیر با دو سناریو پرداخته است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد شاخص شدت بودجه بهینه تبلیغات عمومی از 3674844/0 تا 4474182/14 درصد با میانگین 4617576/0 درصد برای سناریوی اول و 445766/13 درصد برای سناریوی دوم تغییر خواهد کرد. بر این اساس، چنانچه بنگاه‌های تولید شیر، حدود 44/13 درصد از هزینه تولید را صرف تبلیغات نمایند، علاوه بر افزایش مصرف شیر و از آن رو افزایش سلامتی جامعه و کاهش هزینه‌های درمان خانوارها، افزایش منافع نیز برای بنگاه‌های تولید‌کننده شیر تأمین می شود. همچنین پیشنهاد می‌شود دولت بخشی از بودجه سلامت وزارت بهداشت، درمان و آموزش پزشکی و بودجه تحقیقات و بودجه ترویج کشاورزی وزارت جهاد کشاورزی را صرف تبلیغات عمومی برای افزایش مصرف شیر در جامعه نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• بودجه سلامت
• تصمیم‌گیری مدیریتی
• سودآوری
• مازاد تولید‌کنندگان هزینه تولید

20.1001.1.20084722.1394.29.4.5.9

عنوان مقاله [English]

Generic Advertising Optimum Budget for Iran’s Milk Industry

نویسنده [English]

• H. Shahbazi

Sayyed Jamal University

چکیده [English]

Introduction One of the main targets of planners, decision makers and governments is increasing society health with promotion and production of suitable and healthy food. One of the basic commodities that have important role in satisfaction of required human food is milk. So, some part of government and producer healthy budget allocate to milk consumption promotion by using generic advertising. If effectiveness of advertising budget on profitability is more, producer will have more willing to spend for advertising. Determination of optimal generic advertising budget is one of important problem in managerial decision making in producing firm as well as increase in consumption and profit and decrease in wasting and non-optimality of budget.
Materials and Methods: In this study, optimal generic advertising budget intensity index (advertising budget share of production cost) was estimated under two different scenarios by using equilibrium replacement model. In equilibrium replacement model, producer surplus are maximized in respect to generic advertising in retail level. According to market where two levels of farm and processing before retail exist and there is trade in farm and retail level, we present different models. Fixed and variable proportion hypothesis is another one. Finally, eight relations are presented for determination of milk generic advertising optimum budget. So, we use data from several resources such as previous studies, national (Iran Static center) and international institute (Fao) formal data and own estimation. Because there are several estimations in previous studies, we identify some scenarios (in two general scenarios) for calculation of milk generic advertising optimum budget.
Results and Discussion: Estimation of milk generic advertising optimum budget in scenario 1 shows that in case of one market level, fixed supplies and no trade, optimum budget is 0.4672539 percent. In case of one market level and no trade, optimum budget is 0.3674844 percent. In case of one market level with trade, optimum budget according to own price trade elasticity of farm input, changed from 0.3675013 to 0.3674941 percent. In case of two market level and no trade at either market levels, optimum budget is 0.5094457 percent. In case of two market levels with trade only at retail, optimum budget according to own price trade elasticity of retail goods are changed from 0.509446 to 0.3674844 percent. In case of two market levels with trade only at farm, optimum budget according to own price trade elasticity of farm input are changed from 0.5094600 to 0.5094951 percent. In case of two market levels with trade at both retail and farm, optimum budget according to own price trade elasticity of retail goods and farm input are changed from 0.5085780 to 0.5117381 percent. This index in variable proportion hypothesis will be changed from 0.4143826 to 0.4164392.Estimation of milk generic advertising optimum budget in scenario 2 shows that in case of one market level, fixed supplies and no trade, optimum budget is 9.639368 percent. In case of one market level and no trade, optimum budget 8.9480986 percent. In case of one market level with trade, optimum budget according to own price trade elasticity of farm input, changed from 8.948178 to 8.948440 percent. In case of two market level and no trade at either market levels, optimum budget is 14.4113143 percent. In case of two market levels with trade only at retail, optimum budget according to own price trade elasticity of retail goods are changed from 14.413087 to 14.447182 percent. In case of two market levels with trade only at farm, optimum budget according to own price trade elasticity of farm input are changed from 14.413301 to 14.413689 percent. In case of two market levels with trade at both retail and farm, optimum budget according to own price trade elasticity of retail goods and farm input are changed from 14.379081 to 14.413792 percent. This index in variable proportion hypothesis will be changed from 13.294219 to 13.323525. Finally, Results indicate that milk generic advertising budget intensity index will be changed from 0.3674844 to 14.4474182 percent with mean of 0.4617576 percent for scenario 1 and 13.445766 percent for scenario 2.
Conclusion: According to the results, we proposed that milk producer should spend 13.44 percent of their production cost to generic advertising. This spending can increase milk consumption and it increase health society. Moreover, it decreases the household care and remedy spending and it increases the profitability of milk production firms. Also, government could spend to milk generic advertising from healthy budget of ministry of medical health, care and education or from agricultural promotion budget of ministry of Agri-Jahad.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Iran
• Generic advertising
• Milk production industry
• Optimum

مراجع

1- Allen R., 1953. Mathematical analysis for economics. London, UK: Macmillan Co.

2- Ball V., and Chambers R. 1982. An economic analysis of technical change in meat products industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 7: 699-709.

3- Board of Massachusetts Dairy Promotion., 2013. Annual Report.

4- Brester A., and Schroder A. C. 1995. The impacts of brand and generic advertising on meat demand. American Journal of Agriculture Economic, 77: 969-979.

5- Iranian Statical Center. 2012. The urban and rural household income and expenditure survey 2007-2012, Tehran, Iran.

6- Chung C., and Kaiser H. M. 2000. Determinants of temporal variation generic advertising effectiveness, Agribusiness, 16: 197-217.

7- Cranfield J. A. L. 2002. Optimal advertising with traded raw and final goods: the case study of variable proportions technology. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 27:204-221.

8- Erfanian Z. 2008. Assesment of advertisng in Iranain milk demand, Msc thesis, Faculty of agricultural economics and development, University of Tehran. (in Persian with English abstract)

9- Fao. 2014. Faostat, Http:/ www.Faostat.org. (visited 10 August 2015).

10- Gardner B. 1975. The farm-retail price spread in a cometitive food industry/ American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 45: 399-409.

11- Hosseini S. S., and Erfnian, Z. 2008. Factors affecting the demand for milk and dairy products , with an emphasis on advertising (study of the Iranian milk industry/ Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 39(1): 1-9. (in Persian with English abstract)

12- Hosseini S. S., Nikoukar A., Shahbazi H., and Ghorbani M. 2007. Assesment of production relation in agricultural marketing process in Iran (Case study: livestock and chicken industry). Agricultural Economics and Development, 21(2): 99-101. (in Persian with English abstract)

13- Hosseini S. S., and Shahbazi H. 2010. A model of Iran's farm-retail marketing margin for beef. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 12: 255-264.

14- Hosseini S. S., and Shahbazi H. 2014. Estimation of Iran's agricultural R&D optimal expentiture. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 45(1): 23-40. (in Persian with English abstract)

15- Iranian Dairy Industy Society, 2013. Report for Diary Full Cost.

16- Kalyan R., Naik P. A., and Russwll W. 2005. Planning marketing-mix strategies in the presence of intraction effects, Marketing Science, 24(1): 25-34.

17- Khalilian S., and Farhadi A. 2002. Factors affecting on Iranian agricultural sector 's export. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 39(10): 71-84. (in Persian with English abstract)

18- Kinnucan H. 1997. Middleman behaiviour and generic advertising rents in competitive interlated industies. AustralianJournal of Agricultural Resurce Managment, 41:191-207.

19- Kinnucan H. W. 2002. optimal generic advertising in an imperfevtly competitive food industry with variable proportions. Long Beach, California. American Assosiation of Agricultural Economics, 1-30.

20- Kinnucan H., Xiao H., and Yu S. 2000. Related effectivness of USDA's nonprice promotion instruments.Journal of Agricultural and Resource Managment, 25: 559-577.

21- Lenz J., Kaiser H. M., and Chung C. 1998. Economic analysis of generic milk advertising impacts of markets in NYS. Agribusiness, 14: 73-83.

22- Meghdari zanjani, P. 2000. Assesment the ads in the industries of durable household appliances (TV , refrigerator and stove ), using the Mix model, Msc thesis. Faculty of Economics. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (in Persian with English abstract)

23- Moosavi F. 2004. The effect of advertising on demand, price elasticity and profitability in Iranian Food Industry, Msc thesis. Faculty of Economics. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (in Persian with English abstract)

24- Mullen J., Wohlgenant M., and Farris D. 1988. Input substitusion and the distribution of surplus gains from lower us beef processing costs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70: 245-254.

25- Nerlove M., and Waugh F. 1961. Advertising without supply control:some implication of a study of the advertising of oranges. Journal of Farm Economics,41: 813-837.

26- Pakravan M. R., Mehrabi Boshrabadi H., and GilanPoor O. 2010. Factors affecting on demand ans cost of agricultural exports in Iran, Agricultural Economics and development, 24(4): 471-478. (in Persian with English abstract)

27- Parsons J. L., and Bass M. F. 1971. Optimal advertising expenditure implication of a simultaneous equation regression analysis, Opration Research, 19(3): 822-831.

28- Percy L., and Elliot R. 2005. Strategic advertising management. Oxford university Press, (Second Edition).

29- Pritchett J. G., Liu D. J., and Kaiser H. M. 1998. Optimal choice of generic milk advertising expentitures by media outlet. Journal of Agricultural And Resources Economics, 23(1): 155-169.

30- Roosta A. 1999. Evaluation of advertising impact. Monthly Journal of Marketing, 3. (in Persian with English abstract)

31- Rostamian R., Moghadasi R., and Sadrolashrafi M. S. 2009. Identifing trade flows in Irainan agriculture sector. Agricultural Economics Journal, 4(3): 203-220. (in Persian with English abstract)

32- Shahbazi H., and Hosseini S. 2009. Economic model for red meat marketing margins behaivior in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research. 40(1): 65-74. (in Persian with English abstract)

33- Shahbazi H., Kavoosi M., Peikani GH. R., Erfanian Z., and Abedi. S. 2009. Estimation of deadweight loss of monopoly in the milk production industry in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Economics and development, 65: 39-54. (in Persian with English abstract)

34- Shahnooshi N., Bakhshoodeh M., Firoozzare A., Azarinfar Y., and Nikoukar. A. 2011. Adequacy assesment ofe animal protein products supply in the goals of the fourth Development Plan. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 74(19): 221-249. (in Persian with English abstract)

35- USDA. 2013. Dairy promotion dollars conntinue to enhance demand, USDA Report. International Dairy Foods Association.

36- Venkateswaren M., and Kinunucan H. W. 1990. Evaluating fluid milk advertising in ontario: the importance of functional form. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 33:471-488.

37- Wohlgenant M. 1989. Demand for farm output in a compelete system of demand function. American Journal of Agricultural Economics.71: 241-252.

38- Ziaei H. R. 1996. Demand estimation of total imports of Iranian agricultural products (1964-1992). Msc thesis, Industrial University of Isfahan. (in Persian with English abstract)