I am having a little trouble understanding why no staffer from the Produce for Better Health Foundation was included in the Produce Marketing Association’s “Sesame Street” task force.

No argument from me about the credentials of those who are on the task force, but why not include a senior staff from PBH in the mix?

With such high hopes to leverage the “Sesame Street” brand, it would have made sense to include the industry’s promotion generic outfit as the foundation is laid. Plus, PMA’s experience in licensing the “More Matters” message and logo would provide a voice of experience to the task force.

Whatever the reason for the apparent snub, we can only hope that members of the task force that have served PMA in a volunteer capacity or who have leaned on PBH for resources will be the voice for inclusion as the heavy lifting for this ambitious project begins.

I was disappointed that the Perishable Pundit suggested that the “Sesame Street” branding effort could actually reduce consumption. That’s a little sensational for the thoughtful guru, particularly when the main premise for the argument is that some older kids don’t dig Big Bird like they once did.

 Prevor writes:

“Plunging ahead without research is not just putting the industry in danger of losing money; it is putting the country in danger of reducing consumption.”


That’s crazy talk, Jim. The industry needs to plunge away and measure the results over the course of the two year agreement, Sure, it would be immeasurably better if the industry had $150 million in generic promotion assessments to help implement this Sesame Street campaign. But the sharp marketing minds enlisted for this task force - notwithstanding the painful omission of PBH - will deliver a winning opportunity to create awareness and demand for fresh produce in return for a modest investment.