reLAKSation 150.
Mixed
up message:
According to Sea Food Intelligence, the second phase of the £3 million
promotional campaign is to be delayed until Scottish Farmed Salmon has been
formally awarded PGI (Protected Geographic Indication) designation. Scottish
Quality Salmon hope to put Scottish Farmed Salmon into an elite category with
some of Europe’s finest foods. PGI is granted to food producers who can prove
their premium market position and reputation. Although Scottish Quality Salmon
applied for PGI status last October, the European Commission has yet to confirm
that Scottish Farmed Salmon has been awarded the designation, even though the
six month consultation process has long since passed.
The
second and main phase of the £3 million Scottish salmon promotion aims to
promote the health benefits of eating Scottish Farmed Salmon through a range of
advertising, leaflets and posters. Scottish minister for aquaculture, Alan
Wilson said that the health benefits of eating oily fish like Scottish salmon
are well proven and the campaign will improve consumer confidence and make the
markets more robust to future challenges (such as those posed by the article in
Science). This is why the Scottish Executive has contributed £1.5 million to
the campaign.
The
Science article was particularly scathing about salmon farmed in Scotland and so
it is quite understandable that the Scottish industry wants to persuade
consumers that their salmon is not only safe to eat, but that it is also
extremely healthy. However, if the industry tries to use the campaign to promote
too many messages at once, there is a real danger that consumers could be
further confused. The health benefits of eating salmon and PGI are two very
different issues and the industry really needs to decide which one it wants to
promote.
The
problem for the Scottish industry is that Scottish salmon is not the only salmon
available to British and French consumers. UK shoppers are just as likely to buy
farmed salmon from Norway or Ireland and in some cases, Chile or the Faeroe
Islands. Increasingly, some stores are also offering fresh wild caught or farmed
Pacific salmon. Does it matter if the campaign encourages consumers to eat more
salmon irrespective of its method of production or its origin? Of course not!
Surely, as an industry, we want consumers to eat more salmon. Naturally, the
Scottish industry wants that salmon to be Scottish, but does it matter as long
as they eat more salmon. Since the Scottish industry are paying for the
campaign, they would hope that the Scottish industry will benefit most, but in
exactly the same way that Norwegian producers underwrote the last European
generic campaign, all producers should benefit.
The
dilemma facing the Scottish industry is that as much as they try to promote the
Scottish ‘brand’, the reality is that most consumers remain indifferent as
to the origin of the salmon they buy. The decision to buy salmon or not is
mainly driven by whether consumers consider the fish to be value for money, not
by its origin. Clearly, by trying to link the campaign to Protected Geographic
Status, Scottish Quality Salmon hope to persuade consumers otherwise. However,
this is unlikely. Although the Scottish industry would like to believe that
their salmon are superior to those produced elsewhere, the fact is that in their
home market, consumers are not willing to dig any deeper into their pockets and
pay a premium price for Scottish salmon. Those supermarkets that offer salmon
from more one origin price them all identically. Any difference in the price of
salmon between supermarket chains reflects their customers aspirations rather
than any differences in origin. Brian Simpson, Chief Executive of Scottish
Quality Salmon told IntraFish that PGI should help boost sales, especially in
continental Europe. He said that ‘we have consumers that want to be reassured
that it is not just the industry who are saying that the product is good.’ Mr
Simpson added that ‘these independent accolades are very important to certain
consumer groups, particularly those paying premium prices’. Yet, seemingly the
only consumers ready to pay a premium price are those in France who buy Label
Rouge salmon. According to Mr Simpson, Label Rouge is Scottish salmon’s
highest accolade and that PGI will cover a wider segment of Scottish salmon. It
is however worth remembering that sales of Label Rouge salmon only account for
5000 tonnes of Scottish production, which mean that the bulk of production is
not sold at a premium. As these independent accolades are important to those
consumers willing to pay a premium price, PGI is unlikely to make any real
impact.
The
main of aim of PGI status is not as an accolade of excellence but rather to
ensure that the authenticity of local foods is protected. Thus only producers
based in the Parma locality can produce Parma ham. One British supermarket did
try to sell identical ham produced elsewhere under the Parma name but was
stopped from doing so. This is the real purpose of PGI. Thus, if PGI status is
granted then only salmon farmed in Scotland will be able to be called Scottish
Farmed Salmon. However as most consumers are not concerned whether the salmon is
farmed in Scotland or Norway, PGI status is unlikely to confer any extra
benefit.
The
decision to postpone the second phase of the promotional campaign is therefore
only going to delay the process of encouraging those consumers deterred from
eating salmon by the misleading information given in the Science article to
start buying salmon again. The longer that such consumers have away from salmon,
the more difficult it will become to return.
The
first phase of this promotion has demonstrated that the consumer appears to be
the least important part of this campaign. The delay to the start of the second
phase until PGI status is awarded simply confirms that the producers image of
their salmon is more important than market development.
Agree
to disagree:
IntraFish report that the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten claims that the
European Commissioner for Fisheries, Franz Fischler has clashed with his
counterpart in Trade, Pascal Lamy over the issue of safeguards. Seemingly, Mr
Fischler doesn’t think much of the proposal to introduce provisional punitive
measures on imported salmon. Apparently, this internal dispute is one of the
reasons why it is taking so long to decide whether to implement these measures
or not. If agreement is not reached at their forthcoming meeting, it could be
some weeks before the matter is discussed again.
Clearly,
the issue of safeguards has caused a major rift not only between some member
states but also between various departments. Since the current market situation
is very different to when the application was first drawn up, there is already a
case for rejecting any proposal to introduce provisional punitive measures. The
lack of agreement within the EU itself is further demonstration that this
application was ill-conceived and does not take into consideration the needs of
the European majority.
At
a time when Mr Fischler is overseeing huge cutbacks on the catching of marine
fish, it makes absolutely no sense to place any restrictions on the flow of any
farmed fish to the consumer. Perhaps, if the Scottish industry looked more to
the market, rather than focus on pointless accolades like PGI status, then they
would see this too.
Super-sized.
The
London Evening Standard has suggested that the British public is becoming
disenchanted with superstores and forgoing the one-stop weekly shop and instead
visiting local stores two or three times a week. A study by Lancaster
University’s Management School has said this is why the supermarkets have
started to diversify into the local store format with Local’s and Metro
stores. However, we at Callander McDowell believe that Professor Clark, who led
the three year project has drawn the wrong conclusion.
The
increasingly strict planning constraints of large out of town stores and the
lack of sites encouraged some supermarkets to experiment with smaller in town
formats, following the example of Marks & Spencers food only stores. These
small stores focussing on the provision of fresh convenience foods encouraged
urban consumers to use the stores in the same way the previous generations have
use the local corner store. This has resulted in a whole new way of shopping in
which the increasing number of consumers living in town centres could continue
to buy the same products as they would have bought from the larger superstores.
The supermarket groups have reacted to this positive response with the rapid
development of many new smaller store formats. Thus the reason that the number
of people relying on one store for all their shopping has fallen from 46 to 31%.
By comparison, consumers living in a rural area continue to use the superstore
for a one stop shop, simply because they do not have the same access to local
stores as their urban counterparts. The British public have not become
disenchanted with the superstore, they just use it in a different way. This is
just another example of changing shopping habits and shows why even the primary
producer should continually look at the marketplace to ensure that they supply
the right products to meet the changing consumer demands.