3. Methodology.
The authors of the ISFA report state that they are only concerned with consumer's perception of salmon, as this is what dictates choice of product in the store. Unfortunately, this statement is extremely misleading as it is unclear as to whether this means that the consumers' perception dictates what salmon products the store stocks on its shelves, or whether it refers to the actual selection of the product of those already available in the store.
In the context of this study, which ultimately concerns market development, this statement must refer to the products, which the store selects. If this is the case, then this view is extremely erroneous. Whilst the views and responses of the consumers are very important within the context of the marketing mix, the consumer is not responsible for the ultimate selection of which products are stocked. This is the retailers' decision. It is only when the product is finally on the supermarket shelf, that the consumer is able to exert his or her view on the choice of products on t he market. If the product is what the consumer wants, then it will sell. If it is not, then it will remain firmly on the shelf.
The idea that consumers' perception of salmon can be the main driver of the market is equally mistaken. Consumers' perception is of interest, but consumer activity is much more important. This is why a market audit is such an important part of the marketing mix. It is much more meaningful to know which consumers are buying salmon, the sort of products these consumers are actually buying and the market trends for these purchases, than just their perception of a product.
The authors also state that the degree to which the study does or does not reflect reality as the producer or retailer understands it does not concern them. This is an extremely blinkered view, since the reality in relation to the producer and retailer, are an integral part of the market, which cannot, and must not, be ignored.
The reality of the market place is many times more critical to the future of the industry than any market perception. The report states the methods used in the study. These include: -
An initial qualitative programme of 30 non-directive, in depth interviews in each country. These interviews lasted 90 minutes each and the consumers was a llowed to talk freely to express feelings and thoughts about food, meals fish and salmon, without direct questioning.
These interviews were analysed to extract the consumption drivers and brakes, which the authors describe as salmon's mythology. This rele vance of this mythology will be discussed within the appropriate section of this report, however there must be some doubt as to how non-directive these interviews were. The mythologies refer to gender related attributes, which are not the sort of referenc es used in common, every day language in relation to food. This terminology appears to be rich in market-speak and other buzzwords, which implies that the interviews if not directed, were heavily influenced.
A subsequent quantitative street survey of 300 salmon consumers in each country in which questions were posed about when and why salmon is eaten. Whether the results of this survey are representative of consumers in each country is open to doubt. The sample questioned in each country is very small and unlikely to be statistically significant. Market research is an exact science in terms of statistical representation and certainly in terms of the UK market, the number of interviews conducted is usually well over 1000. Scottish Quality Salmon recently c ommissioned a survey from MORI; a leading market research company and the sample size totalled 1945, well exceeding the sample used in this survey.
These surveys led to the following two analyses: -
Mythology: The report suggests that such mythologies represent the sector drivers and underlying ideologies that mean a product, such as salmon, is in tune with global consumer trends. Equally, it can refer to products that are positioned in opposition to the main drivers of consumption. However, mythology is a n unfortunate term in relation to these contexts, since mythology is usually associated with legends and stories not facts or the reality of the market place. The simple reality is that if the salmon industry does not produce the type of products which t h e market want, then consumers will look to other products which meet their needs. This is not a new idea but one which the salmon industry has largely ignored over the last decade, preferring to focus on issues such as country of origin, which are only minor influences in the consumer buying process.
The Mythological analysis is supposed to show what consumers think salmon really is. This is what is thought to influence the consumer and what makes them decide to buy salmon. However, the authors appear to believe that these mythologies drive the market irrespective of how pertinent or not they are to reality. This is mistaken. The reality of the market place is of paramount importance and is the major influence to driving the market forward. The salmon in dustry is littered with examples of consumer ideologies, which bear little resemblance to the realities of the market place.
The situation/ function analysis is supposed to provide a photograph of consumption today, which enables determination of not only w hen salmon is eaten but also why. However, at this stage of industry development when salmon products have not yet been particularly diversified, the relevance of this type of analysis needs to be questioned. After all, it is only two or three years since whole salmon was still perceived as the main market presentation. Salmon consumption is still relatively insignificant, as compared to chicken for example, that whether salmon is eaten for Sunday lunch or Monday night is largely unimportant. By comparison, other issues are far more consequential to the future for salmon market development. For example, many consumers and potential consumers still do not consider salmon to be a value for money everyday meal option. This is because the message emanating from the industry suggests that salmon continues to maintain an elevated market position, if not quite its previous luxury status.
The segments of demand identified by this study are grouped together in this analysis in areas of similar marketing mix, enabling products to be adapted to any given meal occasion. However, the salmon market is clearly a long way from requiring definition of whether a product will be intended for breakfast, lunch or dinner.
The authors describe this analysis as a powerful new tool , however, much of the information displayed in the schematic matrix of consumption is simply common sense as it applies to anybody, even salmon farmers, who consumes food. There is however a danger that such a matrix can predefine both meal functions and situations. For example, the matrix omits to include the easy to cook meal function within the dinner/couple/starter and dinner/party/starter meal situations, when as in the modern environment, such a consideration can be a major factor in meal selection.
The authors have highlighted that, from the outset, it is important to understand that a segment of demand is not the same as demand for a given product. The demand may be for a meal centred protein that is easy to cook and easily digestible, whic h could be met by salmon, but as the authors point out, it may also be met by a chicken breast or a hamburger steak. Yet, if this demand was for a fat rich, heavy protein, then salmon could never be considered as an option. Salmon producers must capitalise on the strengths of their product, which are already well defined. These predetermine the type of meal situation for which salmon is most appropriate and therefore this schematic matrix is largely irrelevant.
The market shares and percentages are the result of the 300-consumer survey in each country. Although this is a very small sample, the authors claim that the data provides a reliable hierarchy of demand. However, they also state that the figures are not necessarily a reflection of total national consumption. If this is the case, then the data can only be said to be relevant to the sample and not to national consumption.