reLAKSation 259. Callander McDowell
Which is which?: In the last issue of reLAKSation, we asked whether anyone could identify the origin of four different pieces of salmon fillet, which had been published on our web site. As part of their inquiry into the acquisition of Marine Harvest by Pan Fish, the UK Competition Commission aimed to determine whether there was a distinct market for Scottish salmon. We believe that as most consumers are unable to differentiate one piece of salmon from another, it is evident that the market is for salmon, irrespective of its origin.
For those of our readers who were unable to identify the Scottish salmon from the others, we have placed the label from the various packs against the picture of the piece of salmon it contained. The origin of each piece of salmon is as follows: 1-Chile, 2-Ireland, 3-Norway and 4-Scotland. It very much seems that Scottish salmon is just like any other piece of Atlantic salmon.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Scottish salmon fillet came from a pack sold by the UK supermarket Sainsbury’s. It is actually a pack from their premium range – Taste the Difference. The label actually states: 2 skinless and boneless fillets fresh from Shetland’s crystal clear coast waters; these moist and succulent trimmed fillets are bursting with rich flavour. In addition, the label states: Farmed Scottish (UK) salmon.
Since we published the picture of this Taste the Difference salmon, Sainsbury’s have introduced a new label for this pack, which we have also pictured on our website. This new label is part of a revamp of all Sainsbury’s labelling. The new label states: 2 skinless and boneless salmon fillets. Sweet fillets fresh from Shetland. This particular label also states: Farmed in UK.
Under EU labelling legislation, the name of the member state where the food is produced must be used, which in this case is the UK since Scotland is not a member state. There is nothing to stop Sainsbury’s using the Scottish origin in conjunction with the UK as in the previous label, but clearly they choose not to. We, at Callander McDowell believe that this change in labelling is part of a wider recognition that consumers are not selective by the country of origin. Instead, they are more interested whether it tastes good and whether it represents value for money.
Back in 2000, when the Competition Commission investigated the acquisition of Hydro Seafood by Marine Harvest, they concluded that the market for salmon was just for salmon, although they found that there was some demand specifically for salmon grown in Scotland. It would appear that this segment has diminished during the intervening years and that consumers have become increasingly aware that any differences between Scottish and other salmon are more perceived than real. We only hope that the Competition Commission also now recognise this reality of the marketplace.
What goes up must come down: Kyst.no report that salmon prices continue to fall and that the average price paid to farmers will be about NOK 32/kg this week. It probably won’t be too long before we start to hear the first grumblings that prices are falling too far. After all, the industry has been used to a rich bonanza but it does seem that the high prices cannot be sustained and this is for one very simple reason; once retail prices were raised, consumers turned away from buying salmon and sought cheaper alternatives.
The past couple of weeks have seen some British supermarkets slash the price of salmon in order to boost sales. Sainsbury’s offered Young’s branded packs of salmon fillet at half price at £3.74 per 320g pack (€5.55/kg, NOK45.15/kg). Tesco discounted whole salmon by a third to £4.66/kg (€6.91/kg, NOK56.25/kg) whilst Wal Mart owned Asda cut the price of salmon fillet sold from the fresh fish counter by half to £4.93/kg. (€7.32/kg, NOK59.51/kg). Other supermarkets have other deals. For example, Somerfield are offering 50% extra free on Young’s salmon fillets.
The most notable feature of these promotions is that the supermarkets are making every effort to bring them to the attention of their customers. Tesco hung a huge banner from the ceilings of their store to ensure that even those customers who were not contemplating buying salmon would at least be aware of it.
Sainsbury’s went one step further with a special label on packs highlighting the discount with a prominent bright red band. In addition, the packs were placed on the carousel end, where most offers can be found.
Clearly, these stores believe that it is necessary to make every attempt to stimulate interest again in salmon. Whether the industry feels the same way has yet to be seen.
Guilty of something: During the summer, the British Advertising Standards Authority announced the findings of their adjudication on the Birds Eye TV and poster campaign. Not surprisingly, the complaint was not upheld. The ASA have a poor record of supporting such complaints. We, at Callander McDowell would argue that the real problem with the adverts is that they rely on comparison with another part of the food industry and the danger in using such a tactic is that it can hurt everyone if it backfires.
Whilst the advertising company used by Birds Eye told the ASA that they were careful not to make any specific health claims for the products or denigrate any other product, the implications of the adverts were clear for all to see.
Certainly, food critic Jay Rayner writing in the Observer was under the impression that the advertising campaign was intended to emphasise the health benefits of freezing over the kind of artificial preservatives and additives that they do not use. However, he points out that these adverts focus on Birds Eye’s premium ranges such as the 100% beef burgers and prime cod fish fingers. What they fail to mention is that the company still makes a crispy chicken product which has more fat than protein (16.5% fat/15.4% protein and a chicken burger that is only 53% chicken. Further investigation shows that even their premium 100% burger contain nearly 25% fat compared with only 17% protein. It seems that Birds Eye’s healthy eating message does not extend across their whole business.
Jay Rayner says that when a food company promotes itself not according to whether what it sells is nice to eat but through some other principle, be it health or ethics, it runs the risk of empty sloganeering of which Birds Eye is certainly guilty.
However, whilst Birds Eye has been exonerated by the Advertising Standards Agency, there is another part of their advertising which is extremely misleading to the public.
The following is an example of their latest magazine advertising for their simply salmon range.
The advert refers to the salmon as wild pacific salmon but this could cover a multitude of sins. There are five different species of pacific salmon ranging from Chinook, Sockeye, Coho, Pink and Chum salmon. They are not the same and have very different eating qualities. Subscribers to IntraFish will often see reference to Copper River King salmon. This year, these fish were selling for nearly $30/lb in some supermarkets and are highly sought after. By comparison, the chum salmon, which is used in some added value products especially found in the discount stores, is almost inedible, at least to those used to eating Atlantic salmon. Consumers reading the Birds Eye advert have no idea what they are really buying. It is only if they read the ingredient list on the pack of the pack that they will learn that the salmon used in these products is the lowly Pink salmon and not one of the more highly regarded species that is usually associated with the best eating. It is no wonder that Birds Eye is reluctant to promote that in their advert!