reLAKSation 301. Callander McDowell
Black and white: In an article discussing the possible revival of black fish trade, the Fishupdate newspaper looked at the consumer response to ethically sourced fish.
Countering reports that consumers are unwilling to pay a premium for ethically sourced fish, Quentin Clarke from Waitrose says that his customers are increasingly prepared to pay more to ensure what they are buying has been sourced to the highest possible standard. He added that the You-Gov survey showed that 40% of consumers said that they would be prepared to pay more for ethically sourced fish. Back in 2005, Seafood Choices Alliances found that the 40% of consumers who would be willing to pay more for ethical fish would be willing to pay an extra 5-10%.
The real problem is that what consumers say in these surveys is not necessarily what they will do in practice. In 1996, the then Scottish Salmon Board took out an advert in the Grocer which stated that 76% of consumers preferred Scottish salmon to that of any other origin and that 72% were willing to pay more for it. Unfortunately, despite such a high level of response, there wasn’t a single shred of evidence to show that even one consumer had paid any extra to buy salmon of Scottish origin. The reason why was simple, consumers were unable to tell any difference between salmon from Scotland and salmon from elsewhere. They concluded that Scottish salmon did not merit the extra cost.
Whether this 40% of consumers will pay more for an ethical fish remains to be seen. They may not be able to tell whether a fish comes from a sustainable source or not but supermarkets like Waitrose cater for the more affluent end of the market. Their customers tend to be more aware of the ethical issues and thus may be more prepared to pay a higher price for their fish. Fish sales in Waitrose run to 10% of the UK market as compared to 4% of the grocery market and this suggests that their customers are still willing to buy fish even if the price is higher. They are also aware of the health benefits of fish consumption which would also boost Waitrose’s sales.
Whether this picture will be echoed in other store groups is unclear since other supermarkets tend to be more price-driven. Certainly, the past experience of the salmon industry would suggest that as prices have risen, demand has fallen. If sustainable fish becomes more expensive, it is likely that consumers will simply look for alternative meal choices.
Quentin Clarke says that the days of cheap fish are over and in future consumers will not have a choice. We, at Callander McDowell, do not agree. Mr Clarke, in common with many arguing for ethically sourced fish, ignores the basic fact that there is a choice and that choice is to buy farmed fish.
Changing tune: Angus MacMillan of Western Isles salmon producer West Minch Salmon has said that he is keen to forge new partnerships with his counterparts in Norway. He told Fishupdate.com that he would like to meet small and medium Norwegian salmon farmers during the forthcoming AquaNor exhibition in Trondheim with the aim of forming new alliances of common interest.
According to IntraFish, Odd Steinsbo, Chairman of the Norwegian Seafood Association (NSL) has indicated that Mr MacMillan would be more than welcome in Norway. He said that there are many common challenges faced by both Scottish and Norwegian producers, such as sea lice, farm escapes and disease, which could benefit from cooperation. Yet, however well intentioned, Mr Steinsbo may be sadly disappointed for it seems that Mr MacMillan may have a totally different idea about the form that possible future cooperation may take.
Mr MacMillan has said that it is time for the smaller companies like his, to work out some common aims to protect themselves from what could be overwhelming market forces. He added that there has been a lot of disagreement between Norway and Scotland down through the years with most of it being orchestrated by the large companies. Mr MacMillan wants to discuss what they can to do to get a voice for the smaller producers in the salmon industry because at the moment we do not have that voice.
Who is he kidding? This is the same Angus MacMillan who has been what IntraFish describe as one of the most prominent members of the EUSPG, the quasi-salmon representative organisation that has brought chaos to the international salmon industry over the last ten years. They have submitted two dumping cases to the European Commission in Brussels and managed to obtain the ear of both the Scottish Executive and the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry and persuade them to apply for safeguard measures too. This is quite an achievement for a group of small farmers who have no voice. We, at Callander McDowell, would suggest that Mr MacMillan and his colleagues have perhaps had a little too much of a voice.
Now in a complete turn around Mr MacMillan appears to have forgotten the many past accusations of Norwegian dumping and is now blaming the large companies for orchestrating the previous disagreements and sparring between Norway and Scotland. It seems that the problems are no longer the fault of national differences but rather of those between large and small companies. Maybe, because it is now so long ago, Mr MacMillan has forgotten that when the Scottish industry brought the first dumping case against Norway, there was only one large player and it was then Scottish.
Whilst Mr MacMillan is keen to meet with small producers in Norway, he is also keen to retain the trade measures that have been imposed against them. He said that everyone should support the continuation of the MIP as it has stabilised the market and given producers some certainty for making investment plans, stabilising their workforce and developing their markets. Whilst this would be nice if it were true, the reality is that at best the MIP is only a safety net when prices fall to the Euro2.80/kg level. At prices above this, the MIP exerts absolutely no effect at all and thus cannot have stabilised the market as Mr MacMillan believes, but then Mr MacMillan is still looking through his blinkered EUSPG eyes rather than taking the clearer view. He finishes by saying that if there are companies out there who do not want the MIP then ‘we want to know the reasons why’.
We wonder whether Mr MacMillan’s comments are the mark of desperation since he and his colleagues in the EUSPG have never before been interested in anyone else’s view. They have simply acted like a bull in a china shop and forced their vision on the rest of the industry without any discussion or forethought of what others might want. For example, the EUSPG persuaded the Scottish Executive to apply for safeguards on behalf of the whole Scottish industry without any form of consultation with the rest of the ‘Scottish’ industry.
Mr MacMillan wants to know why the MIP should be withdrawn. The answer is simple. The MIP is nothing but a crutch to protect those who have refused to recognise the need for dynamic and innovative market-led strategies aimed at producing what consumers actually want. Instead, the EUSPG have lived in the past believing that they should be handsomely rewarded for producing whatever they think the market wants. It could be argued that producers like Mr MacMillan need time to implement change which is why they need the protection of the MIP, but the reality is that this dispute has been going on since 1989 from whence the independent Scottish producers have never been interested in anything but their own view.
In fairness to Mr MacMillan, he has now recognised the need for responding to the marketplace and he was one of the first farmers to convert his production to organic with the expectation of higher margins than he had been able to achieve from the Scottish identity. The irony of the situation is that now Mr MacMillan is an organic producer, his fish would not be covered by the MIP since the EU have now deemed that organic production is outwith the current trade measures.
This week four leading UK supermarkets have offered their customers discounts on organic salmon. This is because there is currently a glut of organic salmon in the marketplace. This mirrors the problems of 1989 when the Scottish industry accused Norway of over-production. Now organic producers are harvesting more fish than the market wants. What’s the difference? Well this time, they have only themselves to blame because as production has grown, there has been little attempt to expand the market.
It seems that Mr MacMillan has not learnt from the past. As he realises that he can no longer blame Norway for his problems, he has turned his attention to the large multi-national companies and it seems that he is hoping to use their growth to divide the industry in Norway.
Mr Steinsbo is not the only member of the Norwegian industry to welcome Mr MacMillan’s initiative. Trond Davidsen of FHL is happy to meet with him. Mr Davidsen has said that they already have good cooperation with the Scottish industry through the SSPO, especially since Sid Patten took over the helm. Is it not the case that as Mr MacMillan is a signed up member of the SSPO, he is already part of the current industry cooperation? But then again, this isn’t the type of cooperation that Mr MacMillan appears to have in mind!!!
What’s the beef?: A recent survey by the Beefeater restaurant chain found that more than £60m of food is wasted annually by home cooks who buy expensive ingredients trying to emulate various celebrity chefs. Many of these ingredients are bought and then never used again. The most wasted ingredient is lobster and crab meat followed in ninth place by mussels and this is because having bought them, home cooks discover that they have no idea how to prepare them. This often leads to many home cooks feeling totally useless in the kitchen when all they need is a little more instruction in a few of the basics.
Beefeater also questioned home cooks about whether they actually enjoyed cooking. A whopping 48% of home cooks said that they hating cooking seafood which may not be that surprising since many cooks have little idea how to prepare fish and usually overcook it. Celebrity recipes make things worse as most people feel like failures when they try to replicate the dishes.
The fish and seafood industry is always keen to engage with celebrity chefs not only to promote fish and seafood consumption but also to raise the value of the various products. However, this survey seems to suggest that such celebrity might actually be working against the industry and deterring consumers. There may be something to be gained by downplaying the celebrity and creating a basic simplicity about fish and seafood instead.