The Palmetto Insider

Sometimes it’s the little things  that government does that show, well, that they just don’t know what they are doing. Take the latest GM ad, remembering that GM is now a government-run company.

This is General Motors most recent television spot:

This ad could have been shot in 1950 before computers even existed.

Now, let’s see what Toyota and Audi produced:

I’m no marketing executive, but I think it’s pretty obvious which advertisement is more creative and likely to drive consumers to dealerships.

As the Policy Council has written, state-funded advertising marketing, economic development – the whole shebang – will never be as good as what the private sector can provide.  Just look at the Palmettovore campaign.

South Carolina designated $10 million in the FY 2010 budget to destination specific tourism marketing. The federal government may be creating a $400 million “Fannie Travel” — as Sen. Jim DeMint called it — to promote travel to the U.S.

Advertising does not fall under the domain of essential government functions. Just another reason why the government should not be bailing out private companies, and why government ownership will only further drive these companies into the red.

The economy, and South Carolinians, would be better off if that money were back in the hands of individual companies, leaving the industries themselves to generate the most effective advertising.

After all, would you rather see the GM commercial, or the ones by Toyota and Audi?

A recent article in The Spartanburg Herald Journal left the impression that Upstate students were eating locally grown broccoli, despite the fact that vegetable doesn't grow well during hot-weather months.

In a testament to the success of the S.C. Department of Agriculture’s marketing campaigns pushing state residents to eat locally grown produce, we’ve apparently managed to turn long-standing agronomy practices on their head.

Witness a Sept. 23 story in The Spartanburg Herald-Journal titled “Schools celebrate connection with locally grown food.” The piece begins:

Broccoli is one of fifth-grader Andrea Diaz’s favorite vegetables served in Arcadia Elementary School’s cafeteria. Andrea recently learned that having the green veggie on her lunch plate doesn’t just benefit her, but the local farmers who grew it.

The problem is, broccoli doesn’t grow in South Carolina in the summer. The vegetable develops best when exposed to an average daily temperature between 65 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Broccoli is known as a cold weather crop and you have to grow it before there’s too much heat,” said Fred Broughton, marketing specialist with the S.C. Department of Agriculture.

Some broccoli is grown in the state in the fall and winter, according to J. Powell Smith of the Clemson Extension Service, but he knows of no South Carolina farmers who grow it in the summer.

“They may grow some during summer way up in the mountains, but it probably wouldn’t be good quality,” he said. “It wouldn’t be of the quality that we want to promote as a South Carolina product.”

The Herald-Journal article focused on Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers’ visit to Arcadia Elementary School, part of an “Eat Local” event sponsored by Chartwells School Dining Services, which is the food service company for Spartanburg School District 6.

Weathers has been promoting South Carolina produce through such campaigns as Fresh on the Menu and Palmettovore, which received at least $250,000 in taxpayer funds between them during the past fiscal year.

The rationale behind the Palmettovore campaign is that SC-grown produce and products are local, which purportedly makes them fresher and therefore healthier. Also buying SC products is supposed to help the Palmetto State’s economy.

But, interestingly, among the items on the menu at Arcadia Elementary earlier this week were sweet potatoes from Nash Sweet Potatoes in Hendersonville, N.C., nearly 50 miles north of Spartanburg.

So, were Spartanburg elementary school students served low-grade broccoli grown in the South Carolina mountains? Or perhaps the Palmetto State has undergone a sudden catastrophic cooling that enabled farmers to raise the floret-topped vegetable here this summer.

In fact, there wasn’t any broccoli served at Arcadia Elementary on the day The Herald-Journal reporter visited the school and won’t be for several weeks, until the weather cools, according to an employee of Chartwells School Dining Services.

“I think what happened is that the student made the comment about broccoli and the reporter wrote around that,” according to Cynthia Robinson, a spokeswoman for Spartanburg 6.

The Department of Agriculture paid $50,000 to the advertising agency Chernoff Newman for these actors to dress as fruits and vegatables in promotion of South Carolina agriculture.

If, as SC Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weather asserts, demand for South Carolina-grown produce is on the rise, then one has to question why South Carolina is putting scarce tax dollars into a program that promotes locally grown products.

Last month, the state agriculture department rolled out its “Palmettovore” campaign, the latest phase of its Certified SC Grown push. According to Weathers, a Palmettovore is a person who attempts to eat only farm products grown and processed in South Carolina. It’s supposedly healthier, better for the state’s economy and better for the environment, according to the campaign’s specious logic.

But beyond that, a least one publication is reporting that the Palmettovore campaign came about as a response to the increased demand for local produce and products.

“The rage of eating and buying local has sparked a new campaign by the state called Palmettovore,” according to The Myrtle Beach Sun News.

If that’s true, then demand for locally grown products was already in place before the state spent tens of thousands of tax dollars on the Palmettovore effort. In other words, consumers were already aware of the high quality of SC-grown products, meaning Palmettovore is redundant and wasteful.

And, of course, that doesn’t even address the question of whether it’s the purpose of government to spend tax dollars to promote a specific industry.