reLAKSation 303. Callander McDowell
Super salmon: The following appeared on the food news page of the latest issue of the Tesco magazine:
“Super Salmon - As part of Alzheimer’s Awareness Week from 1 July (www.challengedementia.org.uk), the Alzheimer’s Society has produced a booklet on how to reduce the risks. Research shows that eating oily fish such as salmon, as part of a balanced diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, may offer the best prospects for long term wellbeing. Look out for MSC-labelled Wild Alaskan salmon fillets, Alaskan salmon fishcakes and mackerel. Tesco fully supports the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which certifies sustainable fisheries. Find a list of certified species and where to buy MSC-labelled seafood on www.msc.org.”
This one single paragraph illustrates all that is wrong with the sustainable fisheries movement. It is not just that readers of the Tesco magazine may wrongly infer that the only way to avoid Alzheimer’s is to eat MSC approved oily fish, but the implication is that farmed salmon, including that produced by the local industry in Scotland, is not sustainable. The Alzheimers’ Society themselves actually make no reference to which oily fish to eat only recommending that oily fish should be eaten at least once a week.
In an article published by FIS.com, Rupert Howes, Chief Executive of the MSC says that it is in everyone’s interest to support sustainable fisheries. Unfortunately, the MSC have deemed that only wild catch fisheries can carry the MSC logo so that immediately excludes all farmed species. The problem is that fish counters are not divided into distinct wild caught and farmed fish sections but rather the fish are all mixed up. The average consumer has no idea (unless they bother to read the labels, which is not always possible as it would be necessary to lean right across many counters to see them clearly) whether fish are wild caught or farmed so in retailers that display the MSC logo on individual labels, consumers may think (wrongly) that these are the most sustainable offerings. Since farming is the most effective way of reducing the fishing pressure on wild stocks, this is clearly not the case.
The whole subject of sustainability is a minefield. Even within the wild caught fish sector, MSC certification does not guarantee that the fish are the most sustainable available. This is because the certification process is driven by commercial interests. Thus, we have the ludicrous situation in which MSC approved Alaskan Pollack (and if the labels are correct, some Alaskan Pollack which is not MSC certified) is shipped halfway round the world to be used in the European market as a substitute for threatened cod stocks. Meanwhile, stocks of saithe are reportedly plentiful. Saithe is a relative of the Pollack, which is unlikely to be certified because demand of this species is low. Currently it is possible to buy saithe fillets for as little as £3.89/kg compared to £8.38/kg for cod. If no commercial interests opt to apply for certification for saithe then consumers will assume that it is not a sustainable species when the reality is that it is.
Whilst Rupert Howes says that sustainability is in everyone’s interests, it appears that he also wants sustainability to be equated only with the MSC logo however the MSC does not have a monopoly on sustainability. There are other ways to achieve sustainability such as by encouraging consumers to try fish species from under-utilised stocks and by actively selecting farmed alternatives.
Prove us wrong: The Glasgow Herald reports that the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation have embarked on a charm offensive to convince Scottish politicians and businesses of something that consumers worldwide already appreciate – Scottish salmon is a premium product. Sid Patten SSPO’s Chief Executive said that ‘we don’t have to convince our customers as over a million fresh farmed salmon meals are eaten everyday in the UK alone.
Whilst we, at Callander McDowell are in doubt that there are some fantastic salmon being grown in Scotland, we do not believe that it is possible to infer that Scottish salmon is a premium product just because over a million fresh farmed salmon meals are eaten in the UK everyday. It is only necessary to walk into almost all the major supermarkets to see that consumers are not just eating Scottish salmon, but also salmon from Norway and in some cases even Chilean salmon. Whilst Mr Patten as head of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation may believe that his members’ salmon merit a premium status, the fact is that many consumers are happy to buy whatever salmon is available and do so again and again. And although Mr Patten believes that his members’ salmon is a premium product and presumably commands a premium price, there is absolutely no evidence from the UK retail market to show that consumers pay any more for Scottish salmon than they do for Norwegian or any other farmed salmon. This is despite claims in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise 2005 economic report, Trends in the Scottish Farming Industry, which is mentioned in the Herald article, although not in this context. The Executive Summary of the economic report states that ‘UK consumers are favourably disposed towards salmon sourced in Scotland and in most cases are prepared to pay a premium for a Scottish product’.
One of the services that Callander McDowell provides is a regular survey of salmon products in the UK retail sector. This survey is updated weekly and has been ongoing for over six years. Despite many visits to countless retail outlets, we have yet to find any evidence that UK consumers pay a premium for Scottish salmon based on its Scottish identity. If anyone can provide an example of such premium pricing, we would be happy to be proved wrong.
Whenever we have received a response to this request, it has always been with regard to Label Rouge Scottish salmon sold in France. We have observed Label Rouge Scottish salmon in French stores with a premium of around 25%, which is the figure the SSPO claim on their website. However, over the past couple of years, we have found it increasingly difficult to find any Scottish salmon, let alone Label Rouge salmon in French supermarkets. This is not surprising since, according to GlobeFish, less than 5,000 tonnes of Scottish salmon were exported to France in the first four months of this year and we suspect most of this went for smoking since Scottish smoked salmon still maintains a noticeable presence in the French market.
The problem now for Scottish producers is that Norwegian salmon has also been granted Label Rouge certification which means that Scotland no longer holds this unique place in the French market. Whilst Mr Patten argues that Label Rouge is an indication that Scottish salmon is a quality product, consumers are unable to differentiate between Scottish and any other salmon. This is why they are not prepared to pay more for it yet this is not a recent change.
Before its sale to Morrison’s, Safeway was the one supermarket chain that continued to use the Tartan Quality Mark on packs of TQM approved Scottish salmon. In fact they had special labels printed with the TQM symbol incorporated into it. They also had two other labels; one stating ‘Salmon fillets’ and the other ‘Scottish salmon fillets’. It was often possible to find packs of salmon using all three labels options mixed up on the same shelf in the same store. The clear indication that consumers were not willing to pay more for either Scottish salmon or TQM Scottish salmon was that all there packs were identically priced for exactly the same weight of fish!
Another day, another week!: Last week was ‘Red Tractor Week’. We have previously discussed the ‘Red Tractor’ in reLAKSation. It is the logo used to signify that the food has been farmed and packed in the UK and that food safety and hygiene standards have been met. ‘Red Tractor Week’ was to promote British food and the benefits of buying food with the ‘Red Tractor’ logo. Unfortunately, ‘Red Tractor Week’ largely passed us by even though we were in and out of British supermarkets all week. We were only made aware of the promotion through the pages of the Tesco magazine referred to in our first comment.
This was the first ‘Red Tractor Week’ and so we might be forgiven for our ignorance of the promotion however, ‘Red Tractor Week’ appears to follow the same old formula adopted by similar organisations to promote their produce. It therefore would be of no surprise if most consumers remained blissfully unaware of what happened during the week or even its purpose. Yet one thing we can be sure of is that the organisers will have deemed that the promotion was a great success.
By consulting the ‘established formula’ for this type of promotion, the first thing to do is to roll out a celebrity and get them to do something out of character: In this case, the launch was a ‘high profile’ photocall in central London featuring members of parliament racing on mini red tractors. The ‘Red Tractor’ website suggested that the public join in the fun and come and cheer on your favourite MP!!!
The winner was Scotland’s Lord Rupert Redesdale with Tory MP Nadine Dorries coming a close second and Tim Farron in a respectable third place. These might be someone’s favourite MP’s but we have never even heard of them.
Back to the formula; If the celebrity isn’t a chef then get one to demonstrate his cookery skills using your produce: ‘Red Tractor Week’ engaged the services of James Tanner, a minor celebrity chef from TV’s Ready Steady Cook. Mr Tanner made his appearance in the car park of Tesco’s Cheshunt store (near Tesco’s head office) between 11 and 3 last Wednesday. The following day the demonstration trailer, without Mr Tanner then turned up at Tesco near Gatwick airport and at Tesco in Abingdon Oxfordshire on the day after that. Then it was packed away.
The ‘formula’ then appears to suggest that stickers should be applied to some products in store as this is the cheapest way of expanding the promotion reaches all parts of the country: The ‘Red Tractor’ sticker proclaims that ‘your food in safe hands’ was applied to some packs of meat and other produce in Tesco but wasn’t observed anywhere else. Stickers may be seen as a way of connecting with the consumer, but as the sticker doesn’t say much or provide any inducement to buy the product, it appears to actually serve little purpose.
Finally, according to the formula, give something away for free: The ‘Red Tractor’ promotion offered a free booklet of 12 recipes through their website. The booklet contained recipes supplied by a number of Britains’ best loved celebrities including James Tanner(?) Ian Botham (ex-cricketer) and Sally Gunnell (ex-athelete). Although it was free, consumers had to send off a self addressed envelope with a 70p postage stamp attached.
This formulaic approach usually comes to an end with the release of a press statement claiming that the week was a great success. The ‘Red Tractor’ promotion has yet to issue such a statement but we have no doubt that it will be forthcoming.
We, at Callander McDowell, are all in favour of promoting our produce to consumers but we often wonder if these types of promotions are more for demonstrating to individual producers that their industry is doing something rather than actually trying to persuade consumers to buy the produce.
Most consumers probably have no idea that the promotion is underway. Photos of the launch usually end up in the trade press and no where else. Press coverage of the promotion is usually minimal and unless it includes high profile products is restricted to store magazines.
Stickers on products are usually only seen by those consumers who are already looking at the product with the intention of making a purchase. Those who never buy the products will never see the stickers and hence will never be encouraged to buy the product.
Finally, only the really dedicated consumers will take the time and trouble to actually visit a website to learn of offers and gifts.
Of course, the overriding factor that limits these promotions to such restricted activity is money and no producer is that willing to contribute hard earned cash towards promotion even if there could be some benefit in return.
It may cost money but we believe that the only way to persuade consumers to either try or buy the produce is to take it to them rather than wait for them to come to the produce. Thus any promotion should be focused towards the store entrance when it can be accessed by all shoppers entering the store. In addition to tastings and samples, consumers need inducement to put their hand in their pocket to try ‘new’ produce so money-off or other financial incentives are essential. Packs of the produce also need to be on hand for shoppers to take there and then otherwise they will forget the products if they have to go looking for them.
Over the years, we have observed several promotions relating to fish and seafood and have been struck how focused they are on the fish counter. The problem is that most shoppers actively avoid the fish counter and chilled sections. These consumers will never consider buying fish and seafood if we leave it to them to seek out the promotion. In our view it is time this long established formula is dropped in favour of a more proactive approach. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to happen because it costs money. It’s cheaper to hire out a couple of mini tractors and engage the services of a chef for the day. At least someone will have had fun that way and they may consider that their day has been a success.