Crescent Registered Pasteurized Ice Cream 1914-1918, Minnesota Historical Society

Over time there has been a change in consumer dairy preference. In 1939 the National Dairy Products Corporation was struggling to find uses for skim milk. They sold it as feed for chickens, hogs and other livestock and were researching to see if it could be used in other products (McInnerney 1939). Since WWII per capita consumption of cheese, frozen desserts, skim milk and nonfat dry milk has been increasing, but fluid whole milk, cream, butter and evaporated milk has declined, resulting in an overall decline in dairy consumption (Clement 1965). There is a general trend towards low fat milk instead of a relatively high milk fat content.

In early advertisements, such as the ones pictured on this page, milk is described as the perfect food. There are images of the pastoral cow and emphasis on the purity of milk. People in authority, such as the Food Administration, are quoted telling the benefits of drinking milk, especially for young people. Overall, the advertisements say that is necessary to consume dairy products, and it is especially important that young people consume dairy.

Agriculture marketing cooperatives are the source of many generic advertisements. At first antitrust groups saw such voluntary organizations as violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, but in 1922 the Capper-Volstead Act confirmed their partial immunity from antitrust laws (Manchester 1983). The purpose of the act was to allow farmers to form cooperative associations, which would give them advantages similar to that of a corporate structure (McMenamin and McNamara 1980). In 1970 the United Dairy Industry Association was formed from several other similar organizations. 1983, the Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act created the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board. An USDA Order outlined the provisions for operating the national dairy producer checkoff program. Checkoffs are mandatory fees that all dairy farmers pay. Dairy producers pay a fee of 15 cents per hundredweight, or about 2 cents a gallon. The dairy farmer funded checkoff program does generic marketing and research. While no taxpayer or government funds are involved, checkoff programs are started by acts of Congress and are directed by industry-government boards appointed by the Secretary of  Agriculture. In 1993 there was a vote called for by the Secretary of Agriculture where 71% of dairy producers voted in favor of retaining the checkoff program. Dairy Management Inc. was created in 1995 as the organization responsible for increasing demand for dairy products. DMI and the Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) came together in 1998 to start a single, nationally coordinated fluid milk-marketing program (DMI 2005).

One dairy cooperative said that marketing is the part of the business most critical to success (French 2004). Surely most other dairy businesses would agree. There have, however, been controversies with generic marketing in the dairy industry and all agriculture. It is mandatory for all dairy farmers to pay the checkoff (Edwards 2002, CFIF 2005), which goes mainly to marketing. Many dairy farmers who do nontraditional products, like organic milk, feel they should not have to pay for advertising that is competing with their product. There is a question of whether the federal government can force farmers to pay for advertising with which they disagree (Edwards 2002, CFIF 2005). An article in Brandweek said the program feels like a relic borrowed from the former Soviet Union (Edwards 2002). According to DMI, the checkoff has worked to increase demand. Yet, I found it surprising that the United States has these kinds of programs. In a capitalistic economy it seems odd that farmers would be forced to advertise together.

Dairy products window display in a Minneapolis department store, 1917. Minnesota Historical Society.

Cedar Summit Farm logo and PastureLand logo, used with permission

Dairy advertisements of today have not changed as much as one would expect. Many, especially for organic milk, focus on purity and the pastoral cow. Some, such as PastureLand, speak to the importance of caring for the environment, the cows and even rural America (French 2004). Other advertisement still focus on the health benefits, especially the benefits for young people. The Got Milk? advertisements use celebrities to emphasis the importance of drinking milk. Celebrities are so respected in our society that it is similar to the use of authority figures to convince people that milk is important. This is especially true of athletes, whom we consider to be the authority on health. An interesting point with these advertisements is that many of the non Caucasian celebrities are probably lactose intolerant, since that is prevalent in non-European communities. Everyone recognizes the milk mustache and knows “Got Milk?” Even St. Olaf has used spoofs of this widely known advertising campaign in advertisements on campus. There have been posters of President Tomforde sporting a gold mustache, using “Got Um Ya Ya?” and posters for the bookstore's, asking, “Got Grad Fest?”.

In researching the Got Milk? ad campaign I went to whymilk.com, which claims ownership of Got Milk? Whymilk.com is an online educational resource from MilkPEP, which earlier had combined with DMI to do a single fluid milk advertising campaign. There is no mention of DMI on whymilk.com. At the DMI web site they give an update that the Got Milk? campaign they managed with checkoff funds is doing well. The DMI, apparently, has shifted its efforts from the Got milk? program to the ‘3-A-Day of Dairy’ campaign. This is a complex system of advertising using the checkoff funds from dairy farmers.

drawing by C. Landau