reLAKSation 183.
Whose
attitude?
Seafoodintelligence.com reported on the publication of a new survey by the
British government’s Sea Fisheries Authority (Seafish). The purpose of the
survey was to investigate consumer attitudes to the environment and seafood.
This arose because, according to Seafish, there is an increased perception that
environmental issues are allocated a greater importance amongst consumers and
this may affect the way that seafood is bought and consumed. The survey
considered a range of issues that affect both the fishing and fish farming
industry but we at Callander McDowell would like to focus on just part of the
findings and the way that they relate to the salmon farming industry.
In
the UK, the salmon industry has developed separately from the traditional
fishing industry even though their products are sold through the same retail
outlets. This is because when Seafish were awarded their charter, some members
of the Parliament’s House of Lords objected to salmon being included in the
their remit. This was due to the association of salmon with sport fishing and as
a result, whilst Seafish can promote fish farming, they are unable to promote
farmed salmon. This is ludicrous but it is why the UK has a separate salmon
marketing organisation, whilst all other fish are marketed through Seafish.
Despite this separation, most consumers react in the same way for all fish and
thus the current Seafish findings will apply just as much to farmed salmon.
The
most outstanding feature of this survey are the responses given by the 750
consumers interviewed as to the criteria they use when deciding to buy chilled
seafood. The responses are so fundamental to the future of the salmon industry
that we have listed them all. Seafish ascribe the first seven of the key
purchase drivers as being high priority and the following six as being low
priority.
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Whilst
it would seem natural to focus on those drivers given the highest priority, we
believe that it is the low priority drivers which are of most interest.
In
a previous issue of reLAKSation, we have highlighted research from the now
defunct Scottish Salmon Board showing that 76% of consumers prefer Scottish
salmon to that of any other origin. We argued that if British consumers are
asked the specific question as to whether they prefer locally produced Scottish
fish to any other, they will undoubtedly give a positive response. However, when
faced with the choice in store, most consumers will ignore the country of origin
and select the fish which offers the best value for money. The current Seafish
research confirms this view. Country of origin is clearly not a major driver in
helping consumers decide which salmon to buy. In the UK, consumer choice is made
even easier by the fact that not one single retailer offers a choice of salmon
from different countries of origin where they are distinguished as being
different. By comparison, some retailers do offer salmon from different
countries of origin, but they are always packaged the same, are the same cut and
are the same price. According to the Seafish research, only the most choosy
consumer would rummage through the packs looking for salmon from a specific
origin.
Unfortunately,
whilst most consumers do not care about the origin of the salmon they buy, most
producers do. Scottish producers for examples, have an inherent belief that the
salmon they produce is the best in the world and they believe that consumers
should reward them accordingly. As most consumers are not interested in the
origin of the salmon they buy, they are unlikely to want to pay any more for it.
Yet, the Scottish Salmon Board research suggested that 72% of salmon consumers
are willing to pay more for Scottish salmon. Clearly, there is an enormous
divide between producers’ aspirations and consumer requirements which has to
be resolved. It is this divide which has led to the current trade war between EU
producers and non-EU producers and the imposition of safeguard measures. The
inability of Scottish and Irish producers to achieve their aspirations is blamed
on imports from Norway and elsewhere, when the reality is that these producers
have focused on those market drivers that are of little concern to consumers.
The
use of quality assurance marks also figures as a low priority driver when
deciding to buy fresh salmon, yet such a mark has been the central theme of
marketing Scottish salmon. The Tartan Quality Mark (TQM) was first introduced in
1991 and still used to promote salmon produced by 65% of the Scottish industry
through Scottish Quality Salmon. However, the Seafish survey suggests that
investment in the Tartan Quality Mark is largely a waste of time because only 7%
of consumers are influenced by the presence of such marks when buying fish and
seafood. In the case of the TQM, we suspect that the number is even less because
most consumers probably never come across the TQM at all. This is because the
TQM has now virtually disappeared from the retail sector. We suspect this is
because most of the retailers recognised that there was no benefit gained from
displaying fish with the mark. Certainly, consumers appeared unwilling to pay
more for fish with the TQM and as a result, when salmon was sold displaying the
TQM, consumers were only prepared to pay as much for the salmon as if it
didn’t carry the mark. Seemingly, consumers appeared to expect that the salmon
they bought reached the highest quality standards as a matter of right and were
not something for which they should have to pay extra.
When
they investigated the buying criteria for fish and seafood, Seafish also
considered the role of assurance marks in relation to food. They asked their 750
person sample whether they had heard of any of a number of different food
certification marks. The largest responses were to Lion Quality, which is the
mark for British eggs and which has been highly promoted over the years. 72% of
respondents recognised the Lion Quality mark with 57% identifying the British
Farm Standard Red Tractor. The certification mark with the lowest recognition
were the RSPCA Freedom Food label with 19% and the Marine Stewardship Council
with only 7% recognition. Presumably, if the survey had included the TQM, the
level of positive recognition would have being even lower. Seafish concluded
that there was an awareness of assurance marks, they seemed peripheral to food
purchase decisions. This was due to a limited understanding of what the symbols
signified. Seafish believe that most consumers simply placed their trust in the
retailer to provide a quality offering.
We,
at Callander McDowell, can again conclude that the independent Scottish
producers, most of whom support quality assurance schemes have wrongly laid the
blame with imports for their failure to persuade consumers to actively select
salmon with a quality mark. The fact is that consumers want something very
different from what producers want to provide.
Interestingly,
one of the main objectives of the Scottish Executive’s Strategic Framework is
to encourage the aquaculture industry to invest more in quality schemes as a way
of differentiating Scottish production from that from elsewhere. Clearly, the
Seafish research shows that this is a complete waste of time and instead,
producers should be looking at producing what consumers really want.
This
is not the first time that research has shown that using the country of origin
as a marketing tool does not persuade consumers to buy. The first International
Salmon Farmers Association market survey also highlighted a similar response.
That survey was conducted in several countries, not just the UK, yet the
findings showed that country of origin, regardless of what country, was largely
irrelevant to the buying decision. The salmon industry ignored the results then
and no doubt will ignore the latest Seafish work. After all, what consumer will
be able to resist buying the best salmon in the world when they see it comes
from Scotland and is guaranteed to be of the highest quality by the presence of
the Tartan Quality Mark?