reLAKSation 15.
Secret Campaign: IntraFish reports that Michael Steinert, editor of EuroFish has criticised the EU generic salmon campaign of being too secretive. He has suggested that many importers and retailers, both supermarkets and small shops, in Germany are unaware that the latest round of the generic promotion is to run during May. The campaign is to consist of magazine advertisements and 15 and 30 second TV spots. Similar promotions will run concurrently in the two other target countries, France and Spain.
Seemingly, details of the campaign were given to various exporting companies to pass on to their customers. According to Svein Berg of the Norwegian Seafood Export Council, the task of notifying all the marketplace is too great for them to undertake and it is up to the exporters to ensure that the retail market have been made aware of the campaign.
Managing Director of Hallvard Leroy AS, Oyvind Fossoy claims that his customers have received all the necessary information about the campaign. Asked by Intrafish whether the criticism is therefore justified, Mr Fossoy did concede that the advance information could have been executed better, especially they have now had two and a half years experience of similar campaigns.
What seems clear is that there is some disparity between market and producer expectation of this campaign. Of the two, it is the market, which is of greater importance and if the market believes that information is lacking, then this is something that producers and the associated marketing organisations need to urgently address. It is very easy to discount the views of marketplace, but without it, the salmon industry will have no outlet for their salmon.
IntraFish reports that the largest publishers on fish issues in Germany had not been notified of the campaign. This underlies the fundamental problem, which is that if the salmon industry wants to expand its market in Europe, it needs to do more than put a few recipes in front of the retail customer. Greater awareness of salmon is needed throughout all sections of the marketplace.
Ever since its inception, the EU generic campaign has suffered from a poor flow of information down the whole of the fish supply chain. A media card, detailing the various advertising promotions, may have been distributed, but what appears to be lacking is the apparent absence of something as simple as the issue of regular press releases to the media. If the leading publishers of fish issues are unaware of the campaign, then who is?
As far as press releases are concerned the more publicity the better, especially as this type of coverage is generally free. There is no reason why details of the campaign cannot even be released to the mainstream press, especially the tabloids, which are always looking for a different spin. After-all, they are quick to pick up on the negative aspects of salmon farming, why not promote the positive as well.
Sadly, the organisers of the campaign appear ready to divest themselves of the responsibility of spreading the message and thus the outcome is inevitable, the message will fail to reach the market.
The absence of such responsibility is probably why most of the results from previous campaigns have not been forthcoming. An assessment of these campaigns can be found at www.callandermcdowell.co.uk under 'reports'.
The organisers of the campaign did commission their own evaluation of earlier campaigns. Professor Henry Kinnucan of the University of Auburn, Alabama and Oystein Myrland from Tromso conducted an in-depth econometric study for NSEC. They concluded that as a result of the campaign, the Germany market grew by 1-2%. However, they were unable to answer the specific question as to whether the campaign has induced any increase in salmon sales?
The European market for salmon continues to grow, despite protestations that it is now near saturation. This market growth is fuelled by salmon's low price and its widespread availability. These are the main drivers of the market. How much the generic campaign contributes to this growth is unclear? However as regular consumers tire of eating too salmon regularly, the challenge will be to persuade non-fish eaters to try salmon for a change. Promoting recipes through the generic campaign is unlikely to convince such non-consumers to try salmon. Instead, the campaign needs to move on and undertake pursue a wider marketing strategy to identify and target more specific consumer groups.
Branding - a strategic weapon: The latest issue of Outlook, the magazine of Trouw Aquaculture, the UK arm of Nutreco contains an article by Professor James Young of Stirling University about the benefits of branding. This article was taken from a presentation made at the Aqua Vision 2000 conference.
Professor Young suggests that the ultimate test for producers is whether consumers who bought their product are keen to repeat the experience. He believes that repeat sales come down to two factors. Did the consumer enjoy the buying experience and can they remember what the product was called and where it was bought? He also thinks that in today's marketplace where the modern supermarket carries over 30,000 different items, it is easy for individual products to become nameless items on a shelf. Professor Young therefore recommends that producers should enhance their products with a brand identity.
According to Professor Young, branding is a way of communicating with customers so that both existing and potential purchasers will be able to identify key features of the product they are considering buying. Speaking at Aqua Vision, he suggested that the salmon industry is not doing enough to improve their brand identity and that there is considerable scope for further development.
Yet, whilst branding might have some relevance in the wider food industry, it may not be such an ideal strategic weapon for salmon farmers, as Professor Young has suggested.
One of the dominating images of branding is of a product such as Coca-Cola. Coke has a brand identity of which most of the world is aware and to which many producers would aspire. Even professor Young refers to Coke as an example of successful branding. However, Professor Young has to concede that maintaining Coke as a global brand is a very costly exercise, which a small industry like salmon farming is unlikely to be able to afford.
However, those farmers who would like to pursue Professor Young's suggestion, there is more than one option to consider.
The most obvious form of branding is to use the company name. Kellogg's, Heinz and Guinness are all examples of well-known brands in the food and drink industry, which all have in their favour the benefit of being long established household names. These brands have been built up for many years, long before an intensive aquaculture industry was even conceived. They also have the advantage of producing mass market products, which appeal to all sections of the market place.
By comparison, salmon was always considered to be a niche market product, capitalising on a small luxury market demand. Atlantic salmon is increasingly popular, but it still has to break into the mass marketplace. Many consumers remain unaware that salmon is farmed and therefore fail to associate salmon with any individual company name. It is therefore unlikely that company branding will ever work for the salmon industry.
An extension of company branding is to create a separate brand name. This has been tried by some companies for example the Glenarm brand. The company attaches tags to fish, which identify the company brand name. The problem is that without the tag, the fish look the same as any other. As the tags are so easy to remove, the brand identity is very easily lost. Consumers are unlikely to either seek out a specific brand or pay more for it, unless the fish are significantly different.
Such brands are easier to apply if the fish is sufficiently differentiated from other similar products. This can be better achieved through added value processing. Not only is the fish changed, but also the consumer then perceives that she is receiving extra benefit for the higher price paid.
When Marine Harvest were owned by Unilever, they tried to brand their salmon - Lochinvar. The initial attempt was to produce prepacks of steaks and fillets, however, although the packs were taken on by Waitrose and Safeway, they were not received well by the consumer. This was because the salmon in the prepacks was not any noticeably different from similar products sold under the supermarket's own label. Additional attempts were made to further differentiate the products, but the plug was eventually pulled on the venture. Marine Harvest said at the time that their attempt at branding failed because the processing plant was too far from the consumer however, private correspondence with the then MD David McCarthy proved more telling. He wrote 'they don't brand fillet steak do they?'
Professor Young suggests that other ways to brand fish products include the use of a quality mark. The best well known of these is the Scottish Tartan Quality Mark. Interestingly, when the TQM was first launched it was actually called the Tartan Brand Mark.
The use of quality issues to promote brand can however, cause confusion amongst consumers. This is because they expect the products they buy to be of a certain quality as a matter of right. Promoting quality is difficult if the product is not noticeably different from any other. Certainly many consumers have been more persuaded by price than they have been by any perceivable differences in quality. Hence the price differential between quality salmon and the rest of the market is rapidly diminishing.
In his presentation, Professor Young also suggests that products can be branded to appeal to specific socio-economic grouping. He cites the case that Norwegian producers have achieved a strong branding image in the Asian market, whilst Scottish producers have developed their brand in the French market.
Yet, research by the International Salmon Farmers Association, supported by many observations of the retail market indicate that country of origin is one of the least important factors in the buying decision process for salmon. Brand development, based on origin, is actually unlikely to enhance the value of farmed salmon.
Finally, Professor Young suggests that some producers might benefit from co-operation with the major retail supermarkets as this may lead to far greater impact within the target market.
However, the reality of the modern market place is that despite Professor Young's suggestions, the major retailers are dominating the market place. Brand image is declining in favour of the supermarket brand. Thus, Marks & Spencers, Tesco, Sainsburys etc carry more weight with the consumer except with the most traditional brands
This change can be best illustrated with reference to Kellogg's who always claimed that they never made product for any other label, but their own. Yet, recently Kellogg's finally caved in to market forces and have started to produce supermarket own label products.
The power of the store branding can be demonstrated by Marks & Spencer who offer consumers their own- label Scottish TQM salmon. Which of these three potential brand images persuades customers to buy these salmon products. The answer is clear. The simple fact that consumers have opted to enter a Marks & Spencer store to buy food overrides any other factor. If M&S were to change their salmon products to those without a quality mark and without a defined country of origin, customers would continue to buy their salmon from M&S. This is because they have an inherent trust in the M&S brand. Consumers are unlikely to ignore the salmon and seek Scottish quality salmon from any other source. Such buying activity is equally apparent in all the other supermarket groups in exactly the same way.
Brand development therefore may not be such a strategic weapon for the salmon industry. It will be interesting to see as margins further decline, how many companies opt for the branding route.