The German Market.
A report in FIS, dated 16th September 1999, implied that the market for salmon in Germany had been over-stated. Import and export figures released by the German Federal Office of Statistics in Wiesbaden record that in 1998, salmon imports from Norway decreased by 15% from 62,798 tonnes to 58, 328 tonnes. At the same time, imports from the US increased to 6,112 tonnes, from Scotland to 4,881 tonnes in addition to 302 tonnes of Chilean salmon and 190 tonnes of Canadian salmon. This makes a total import of 71,890 tonnes, as compared to an EFF figure of 82,000 tonnes.
However, of more interest is the fact that out of the 71,890 tonnes of salmon imported into Germany, 42,847 tonnes was re-exported to France and Italy. This means that German consumption in 1998 was only 29,000 tonnes, far short of the 82,000 tonnes quoted by EFF and the 90,000 tonnes suggested by Oystein Myrland for 1999.
Evaluation of the Campaign Analysis.
It is difficult to evaluate the success or failure of the joint European generic promotional campaign, simply because of the limited amount of data, which has so far been made available. The fact that details are so scarce must be a clear indication that the campaign was not such a great success. This is because any organisation would try to capitalise on the successes, extolling the benefit s of the campaign. In effect, a successful campaign should be used as a marketing tool in itself. This has not happened in this case; therefore the supposition must be that it has failed to achieve its aims.
This assumption is confirmed by the comments of influential Fisch Magasin, whose editorial suggested that the campaign in Germany had been largely ignored. In addition, William Crowe, Chief Executive of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation interviewed by Intrafish for their end of year review commented that 'the Exports Council has had a history of getting it wrong in the past.... Whether they got the advertising right is a question that is being looked at, at the moment. The first year of the campaign was rushed there is no doubt it.'
i) The advertisement.
The view of the advertising promoted here is one, which was expressed at the onset of the original campaign. There is no doubt that the TV advertisement was extremely polished and well produced. However, there is concern that the message sent out was not the right one if the aims were to be achieved.
It would be easy to blame the advertising agency for any failure of the advertising campaign, however it must be remembered that this is a promotional campaign conducted by committee and therefore the final approach will always be a compromise.
The committee comprises of representatives of three industries, Norway, Scotland and Ireland, each of which will have very different ideas about how to promote its salmon. Certainly, the Scottish industry had previously rejected any attempt to conduct a joint campaign, since it viewed its salmon as superior to that produced in Norway. It was only the imposition of the EU salmon agreement, which forced the Scottish industry to sign up to the campaign.
The Scottish industry has always perceived that their salmon is a high quality product for which the consumer is prepared to pay a premium price. It is inconceivable that the Scottish industry would agree to participate in a campaign, which promotes salmon as a commodity product. As already stated the actual TV advertisement was very polished and Professional, however its message clearly conflicted with the overall aim of the campaign. Although the EFF have never indicated as to their expectations with regard to increased sales, there was an anticipation that salmon could be shown to be a serious alternative to beef and chicken. This was not apparent from the advertisement, neither was the message that salmon is simple, that is unless the concept was that it is so simple that it can be prepared by a man. Instead, the overriding message was that salmon is a luxury type of food, intended to be served at special occasions, such as at a dinner party.
Yet, it is clear that if the salmon industry wants to grow the market, it must promote salmon as a value for money, everyday food, and a realistic alternative to meat and chicken. Placing the advertisement in a setting, which clearly suggests a high income life style and providing a scenario which implies something of a special occasion, will never encourage the typical family to consider salmon as an everyday meal option. Thus, the advertisement itself must be considered to be a failure because it will never achieve its aim of making salmon a realistic alternative to meat and chicken. It is simply sending out the wrong message.
ii) The target markets.
It has been suggested that it was a mistake to assume that the French, German and Spanish markets are similar and therefore the same approach can be adopted in each country. Certai nly, the market penetration is different in each country, but in the current global market, any differences in each market should be negated by the fact that the campaign is a generic one. Suggesting that a TV advertisement, which simply relies on one word - salmon, should be adapted for each country is simply an excuse for sending out the wrong message.
William Crowe of the SSPO has said 'we know we have ABC1 consumers in France, we haven't got C2 and D consumers yet. Now I'm not sure we will get them, that's a long haul to try to persuade people who have never eaten salmon to start consuming it on a regular basis. [...] What again some of the French research is saying to us is that 'we're eating enough salmon, thank you very much. Once a week is enough, not three times a week.' This is what is coming out.'
This raises a number of questions. Market research is the backbone on which any promotion is based. If market research has shown that ABC1 consumers in the French market are already converted to salmon, but are prepared to only buy it once a week, then it might be assumed that this market is nearing saturation. Equally, if research has shown that C2 and D consumers are unlikely to be persuaded to try salmon, then the question must be asked, why th e generic campaign was targeted at France at all, since it is unlikely that it would have little further impact on increasing demand.
The answer could be that the market research is flawed being directed at reflecting the industries existing preconception of salmon. It is unlikely that the current TV campaign would induce any C2 and D consumers to try salmon simply it does not relate to their lifestyle. Equally, ABC1 consumers are unlikely to be persuaded to consume more salmon, if their perception of the fish is that it is something to be used for special occasions only. Professor Kinnucan (private correspondence) has suggested that following extensive market research and testing in 1992, the US beef industry decided to switch the emphasis of their promoti on from light to heavy meat eaters. It was decided that getting heavy meat eaters to consume more beef was a most cost-effective way to grow the market than by getting light eaters to consumer more. However, whilst this is an attractive idea, it does not appear to have worked. Consumption of beef in the US has actually fallen from 69.6lb per head in 1987 to only 63.8lb in 1997, a drop of 8%. This is despite a huge promotional budget of $83 million a year.
iii) The results.
The results from the three phases of the generic campaign have not been generally forthcoming. As previously stated, this suggests that the campaign has not been a great success, otherwise the industry might try to capitalise on their achievement.
The results can be considered by their target markets.
a) France.
In France, 45% of those surveyed, following the first phase of the campaign, claimed that they had seen the advertisement and 60% of those had said that it made them want to buy salmon. There is no indication of how many converted this desire and actually bought salmon. These results are still to be publicised. However, during November and December 1998, i.e. a similar period to that covered by the generic campaign in 1999, sales of fresh salmon increased by 40% over 1997 figures. Thus, growth in excess of this figure should be expected following the generic campaign.
b) Germany.
The results of the campaign in Germany are unclear. Professor Myrland has said that the German market in 1999 is about 90,000 tonnes, but according to the German Office for Statistics the market size for the previous year was only 29,000 tonnes. Equally, Oystein Myrland has said that the market has grown by 1-2% per year, whilst according to the EFF, market growth for the previous year was between 10- 20%. Interestingly, Jan Blichfeldt of Bates, the advertising agency employed to conduct the campaign expressed the view that such generic market promotions really only enhance existing market trends, but will rarely work against them. This is exactly what the US beef industry has discovered
c) Spain.
The only data for the Spanish market suggests that sales in Barcelona have grown by 51.6%, whilst those in Madrid has increased by 17.5% over the previous year. These figures are so widely contrasting t hat there must be an element of doubt as to their validity. Equally, the figures do not necessarily reflect the success of the campaign since the sales growth highlighted is over that of the previous year. It is quite possible that sales have been steadil y increasing over the 12 months prior to the campaign and that sales growth for the months just before the campaign was already at a similar level. If this is the case, then the campaign cannot be judged to be a success.