You need 3-4 paragrapgh on this topic discussion

Chicken marketers have been very successful in telling consumers the variety of ways the product can be used.

This factor, when coupled with the trend toward eating healthful, nutritious, low-calorie foods, has given chicken a differential advantage over beef. Pork producers have found some success with their "the other white meat" advertising campaign.

While it is a stretch to say that pork has the same low-calorie, low-fat attractiveness as chicken, pork has moved closer to the image of chicken and farther away from beef due to its advertising.

The pork producers point out that they are first at breakfast (bacon and ham), and lunch (pork derived luncheon meats). Per-capita consumption of beef has dropped from 75 pounds per person to 65 pounds; pork represents 47 pounds per person, and poultry, 75 pounds per person. Fish makes up the balance. It is at dinner that pork trails both chicken and beef.

To stop the slide in beef consumption, beef marketers mounted a promotional campaign to try to convince meat eaters that beef, like chicken, can also be cooked in a variety of ways, including ethnic fare (kabobs, stir fry, beef fajitas, steaks).

It would appear, therefore, that while beef marketers have been able to convince consumers that beef can be cooked in a variety of ways just as chicken and pork can.

But have they convinced consumers that beef has a broad-based differential advantage over chicken and pork based on their marketing strategy?