v. Competition.
According to Oystein Myrland, part of his evaluation is to assess the competition to salmon. So far he has only been able to conclude that the only challenge to salmon sales comes from trout and tuna. Such an assessment is totally irre levant to the generic campaign since the whole purpose of the promotion was to make salmon a serious alternative to meat and chicken. The presence of a well-established fish species from non-sustainable resources is no threat to salmon's position in the market place. As it is possible to raise trout in the sea, it is interchangeable with salmon and equally poses no threat to the salmon farming industry.
vi. Conclusion.
Fish Farming International asked Oystein Myrland as to whether he believed that the d ecision to invest the bulk of the NOK 50 million in TV advertisements was the correct choice. He replied by saying that this was a good question, but one which he was not willing to answer as yet. However, on current evidence the answer looks clear cut an d that the campaign has largely failed.
Advocates of this campaign will be ready to suggest that it is easy to criticise and to be negative, but a much harder job to come up with positive suggestions to improve salmon's position within the European market place. One of the possible reasons for the apparent failure of the campaign and thus the way in which it can be rectified may have much to do with perceptions of what marketing is about.
The generic salmon campaign is often referred to as the generic mar keting of salmon, but this is a misnomer. Promotion, of which this campaign is all about, is just part of the marketing mix and it cannot be taken in isolation. It is wrong to suddenly suggest that the industry should engage in the promotion of salmon wit hout a clear idea of what the campaign is to achieve. This can only be determined by defining specific aims to take the market from one predetermined point to another.
Marketing is about getting the right product to the right market, at the right price, at the right time and for producers to make a profit doing so. The apparent aim of this campaign was to show that salmon is a realistic alternative to meat and chicken. If this was the intention, then salmon had to be made available in forms which the typical meat and chicken consumer can relate to and at a similar price level. The TV advertisement did not suggest this at all, but rather gave a totally different message. This reflected many of the existing industry preconceptions of the salmon it produces. Such views must change if the industry really wants to continue to grow the salmon market. Salmon must be perceived as a value for money product with an everyday meal option appeal. If producers started to develop salmon to fill this market, then the need for this form of generic promotion will be negated altogether.