4. The Mythologies behind consumption of salmon.
The researchers discovered that consumers in all three countries perceive salmon in the same three positive Mythologies: Muscle, Individualistic and Feminine. However, these Mythologies appear to contain significant contradictions.
a) Salmon is perceived to be a muscle, full of force and vitality as as sociated with sport. It is neither a meat nor fish, but yet to grow it must have had room and strong currents. Curiously, if it were not a fish, why would it need strong currents to grow? Perhaps a more realistic interpretation, at least pertaining to UK consumers, is that there is an increasing desire to disassociate the food eaten with the realities of the farmyard. Consumers prefer to buy a sanitised pre-pack of muscle, whether it is meat or fish. The less like the animal from which it is derived the better.
b) Salmon is also perceived to be individualistic, a free lone fish swimming the ocean depths, yet at the same time, consumers also believe that salmon is not a fish!
c) Salmon is seen as being feminine, beauty without anxiety and threat. The associat ion with gender is not new. Masculine products are those that are rich in nutrients, which may be perceived to sit heavily in the stomach. By comparison, feminine products are those that are light, even healthy. The rise in feminine type products may be a ssociated with a greater awareness of live styles and health. It is not a phenomenon exclusive to salmon.
However, the authors of this study have perhaps overstated the relationship of this gender association. Their description of the \ldblquote universe\rdblquote of food has become extremely confused. Gender appears to have been extended into unrelated expressions of the marine environment and vegetables. Perhaps this might be better described as follows: -
According to the authors, all three of these elements are highly valorising (sic) for consumers and it is these positive consumer images which have driven consumption to levels unseen since the "invention" of yoghurt. Unfortunately, this view is mistaken. The dominant consumer driver responsible for the massive increase in demand is clearly the low price of salmon. Consumers now recognise that salmon offers real value for money.
The report suggests with the democratisation of salmon consumption and increased pressure for transparency in labelling and traceability, there is a risk of disappointing consumers that if the marketing messages sent out by processors and retailers contradicts these fundamental "Mythological perceptions. Sadly, the importance of these mythologies is being over-stated, since the past experiences of the salmon industry has clearly shown that the consumers have largely ignored the messages emanating from the salmon marketing organisations. These have largely focussed on the high quality image and national identity of salmon, especially that produced in the UK. Consumers have failed to respond to this message and are content to buy the salmon, which represents the best value for money. Salmon has become more democratised (popular) and this is simply because, due to the expanded production of the salmon industry, it is now much more widely available and affordable. These are the issues which matter to the consumer and the suggestion that there is increased pressure for transparency in labelling and traceability comes more from the producers who are keen to protect their own markets, than from the consumer.
The authors state that if consumers were disappointed then the market would stagnate and products would be devalorised, increasing pressure on margins throughout the supply chain. The reality of the salmon industry is that margins have been under pressure ever since 1989, when prices first collapsed. This is because the industry has remained committed to its production led strategies and given little regard to market development. However, margins have declined because of increases in production, not because of consumer disappointment. Margins can be regained but this must be through market development and innovation.
At the same time, salmon has lost its luxury image and thus can already be considered as devalorised. Consumers cannot be expected to hold any product in high regard, which is produced, in mass volume. This is why innovative product development is so important. Any product has a natural life cycle, which needs to be refreshed or developed in order to maintain its market presence.
The study has shown that the principal competitor for fresh salmon is chicken, although this can cross into other segments and be another fish. On rarer occasions, it could be beef or even a vegetable. A number of the journalists attending the press conference to launch this study were given the impression that this might even include lettuce. The main competitor for smoked salmon is ham.
The authors of the report suggest that the word 'competitor' could be mi sleading in the case of salmon and thus it requires definition. According to the report a competing product is one which the consumer will use as a substitute for the product either because the right presentation is unavailable or because there is a need to vary the products eaten.
It is quite understandable as to why chicken is perceived to be the main competitor to salmon, since chicken is also nutrient light and represents value for money. In fact, the broiler industry is often held up as the model for the future of salmon farming and therefore both salmon and chicken are seen as being similar. Unfortunately, this view of a competing product is based on consumer perception but it ignores the reality of the shopping experience. Most meat, whether it be beef, lamb, pork, chicken or turkey, now sold in UK supermarkets is pre-packed. These packs are grouped together in banks of chiller cabinets. By comparison, fish is sold either loose at a separate fresh fish counter or in pre-packs in another chiller cabinet.
Salmon consumption has grown, but not at the cost of chicken. Salmon sales have benefited from the fact that consumers have gone to the fish counter to buy more traditional species. If these are either unavailable or too expensive, then the consumer then might look for an alternative. The widespread availability of salmon has meant that its presence now dominates the fish counter so consumers will naturally consider salmon as an alternative to other fish, especially when they recognise that it now competitively priced. If supplies of fish are limited, the consumer might move to the fish pre-packs section and if these too do not meet the consumers need, only then might the consumer look to other protein sources? Chicken may be an obvious choice, but the consumer will have a whole array of different meats and presentations to choose from. Of course, meat is not the only competitor to salmon. The list could include fish, shellfish, meat, manufactured vegetable proteins, eggs, cheese or vegetables. Any product, which is bought instead of salmon, is potentially a competitor, where it is either a substitute or to vary the meal options.
The authors suggest that it is essential to study products like chicken to benefit from their market experience. This is not a new idea, but one the salmon industry has consistently ignored.
The Image of Farming.
The authors suggest that in no country, is the consumer really aware of what salmon farming is. The research shows that French consumers do not believe that the salm on they buy is farmed. However, it is just as likely that most British and German consumers think about salmon in exactly the same way.
The report suggests that knowledge of farming is a key element in any awareness programme and such programmes are clearly necessary. However, the reality is that most consumers would like to remain divorced from the idea of farming. They prefer to know as little as possible about the origins of the food that they eat. Ideally, their food should bear as little resemblance as possible to the animal it comes from.
Choice criteria.
The authors suggest that the importance of brands, origins and quality labels vary enormously depending on the meal situation when the salmon is to be eaten. The authors recognise that they are ge nerally unimportant in most meal situations, except those, which may be a highly valorised, pleasure meal. However, even in these cases, such criteria may well be overstated.
In the case of salmon, brand image has never been a feature since there has been no or little investment in brand development and support. A leading British company attempted to brand their salmon several years ago, but failed because consumers recognised that the product was identical to that which was unbranded and no worth the extra cost. The failure was blamed on the distance between processor and the market place, but this was only an excuse as many processors are based in obscure locations.
Country of origin is often perceived as being an important factor in the salmon buying pr ocess, but the reality is that most consumers do not care about the origin as long as the fish represents value for money. Many sections of the industry continue to focus on origin, even though the last ISFA market survey clearly showed that it is unimportant to the consumer.
Quality marks are also perceived as being important to the buying process, but most consumers know little of the background to these marks and exactly what they signify. Instead, the consumer prefers to delegate responsibility to the supermarket to maintain a quality standard of the salmon they buy. This issue is discussed in the section pertaining to retailer attitudes.