reLAKSation 336. Callander McDowell
Up or down?: The salmon market has traditionally exhibited two price peaks each year. One is at Christmas and the other at Easter. The advent of salmon farming has meant that these peaks have gradually diminished as increasing production ensures that consumers always have salmon to buy. As salmon farming expands, it might be expected that prices would remain relative stable, yet prices have varied significantly over the years. This is due to the intervention of trade disputes, irregular harvests and a lack of long-term strategic planning. This has produced unpredictable price swings which follow no particular pattern.
As we approach Easter, prices might still be expected to rise in line with stronger demand for fish over the holiday period. Seafoodintelligence.com report that week 10 prices from Norwegian statistics show an increase of 3.1% on the previous week. Kyst.no have learnt from Fish Pool that there may be some resistance from the market to these higher prices, even thought the increase is not in the same league that once might have been expected. Despite such uncertainty, prices are not expected to fall.
What is certain is that consumers will not have to dig deeper into their pockets when buying salmon for the Easter holidays. Whilst speculation continues as to how prices may develop over the next week, the retail sector has already decided to treat consumers to an Easter salmon bonanza. We are still a week away from Easter and it is already possible to buy salmon at prices not seen since Easter 2004 with whole fish being offered at less than half price. Different supermarkets are offering differing deals and some have yet to declare their Easter deals. Various offers can be seen below including similar deals in the French retail sector.
As in previous years, we will record all the Easter deals in a future issue of reLAKSation (see our archive).
We, at Callander McDowell, have previously argued that consumer demand in the traditional European markets has been significantly suppressed by high prices. The rapid growth of the salmon farming industry has been fuelled by large volumes of low cost fish. This has attracted consumers who have found salmon to be a versatile, healthy eating, value for money alternative to more traditional species such as cod. This is why salmon has overtaken cod as the most popular fish in the UK market. However since the European Commission imposed the MIP on Norwegian exports, prices have soared, even though the MIP has not been directly responsible, and consumer demand has weakened. It now looks like the supermarkets are using Easter as a springboard to re-stimulating the consumer salmon market. We can only wait and see whether this is the start of something new or just another short-term movement in the prices that the consumer must pay.
Turn on the light!: According to IntraFish, London’s Billingsgate Fish Market recently hosted a ‘Celebrating Sustainable Seafood’ conference during which various speakers praised the degree to which the sustainability movement has brought together a range of stakeholders, who now cooperate together in pursuit of sustainability. However, Chris Leftwich, the Director of the Fishmonger’s Company said that despite its successes, sustainability has failed the one group that matters most - the consumer. He suggests that the vast majority of the public are left in the dark with regards to sustainability.
By comparison, Martin Glenn, CEO of Bird’s Eye Igloo told IntraFish during the North Atlantic Seafood Conference in Oslo that many consumers have grasped the concept of sustainability but it hasn’t changed the way they buy fish. A Bird’s Eye survey found that whilst 84% of consumers are concerned about falling fish stocks and 90% believe that cod is affected most, only 10% say that they will now never buy cod due to threatened stocks.
Clearly, the seafood industry has a major problem conveying its message to those that either don’t know about sustainability or don’t want to know. One reason is possibly because there are so many different perceptions of what sustainability really means. In the last issue of reLAKSation we discussed Michelen starred chef Tom Aitken’s new sustainable fish and chip shop. In interviews, he stresses that he aims to serve only fish from sustainable sources, yet one item on the menu, cod is highlighted as coming from a Marine Stewardship Council certified fishery. Does this mean that the cod he serves is more sustainable than the other species on the menu, which he claims to be also sourced from sustainable sources? Is Tom Aitkens subscribing to a two tier sustainability? It is no wonder consumers are confused.
[Tom’s Place has now been reviewed by a some of the leading restaurant critics. For a different perspective read:
AA Gill in the Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/a_a_gill/article3386897.ece
Matthew Norman in the Guardian http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,2264740,00.html
Terry Durak in the Independent on Sunday http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/reviews/toms-place-cale-street-london-795547.html ]
Another example of customer confusion is the large declaration of sustainability displayed behind the fish counters in Wal Mart’s Asda’s stores. The message is that the fish counter has been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council to sell fish from sustainable sources. This implies that all the fish sold from the counter are sustainable but what it really means is that the counters have been certified to sell MSC certified fish. In the case of Asda, this is currently two species – Pacific cod and Pacific salmon. The rest of the fish may be from sustainable sources, but equally they may not.
The MSC recently announced that they are to spend $1 million promoting their eco label. We, at Callander McDowell, think that this is the wrong approach and that the message will simply bounce off deaf ears. Instead, we believe that if the industry wants to really take the sustainability message on board then it must make sure that the supply chain offers no choice and only deals in sustainable species. This way, shoppers at stores like Asda need not worry whether they are buying sustainable species or not, as all fish on the counters will be sustainable even if it means that their choice is reduced.
If the fish and seafood industry understands and supports sustainability, then it must also accept the responsibility. Consumers should be left to choose which fish they want to buy rather than have to worry whether it is sustainable or not.
Interestingly, Martin Glenn of Bird’s Eye Iglo seems to agree. He said that retailers can change consumers buying behaviour but he doesn’t think that they can do it based on sustainability. This seems an about turn given that Bird’s Eye, when under Unilever ownership, helped found the MSC approach to sustainability. Perhaps he now knows better than most that sustainability isn’t the issue to force a change in consumer behaviour. This is why the choice needs to be taken out of consumer’s hands.
Mr Glenn thinks a different approach is preferred. He believes that it is easier to shape consumers buying behaviour on the functionality of the product but then he would since his company is promoting the omega – 3 fish finger based on MSC Alaskan Pollock. Mr Glenn told IntraFish that they have had terrific results but we at Callander McDowell wonder whether this may be due to the extensive TV advertising and the widespread price discounting of this product rather than any particular consumer desire to move away from the popular cod fish fingers. The fact that Birds Eye now produce less cod fish fingers means that consumers have to look harder to find the cod product rather than the omega -3 one which tends to be more prominently displayed.
In much the same way, if retailers only stock sustainable species, then consumers will find it impossible to buy species that are not. Equally Tomn Aitkens needs only tell his customers that the fish he serves is sustainable. He shouldn’t need to have to qualify this by saying that the fish is MSC certified. Maybe he has used the MSC certification to deflect attention away from the fact that the cod comes from the Pacific Ocean and has been previously frozen rather than it being fresh and locally caught.
Why, why, why?: The FishSite reported that Nofima (formerly Fiskeriforskning) has asked why, given that seafood is so healthy, don’t young adults living alone buy and eat fish? Nofima has commissioned a study to try to find out why and they are seeking out young people who prefer not to choose fish or perhaps do not even like fish at all to help them uncover the answers.
We wouldn’t be too surprised if Nofima find it difficult to come to any definitive conclusion because there are a whole host of reasons why younger consumers don’t consider eating fish. The problem is nothing new and results from changes to lifestyle affecting people over the past few decades.
Research previously conducted for the fish industry showed that the bulk of fish consumers were then aged 45 and above. Young people made up the smallest group of fish consumers. At the time, the researchers concluded that young people did not have the time or the money to buy and cook fish. This did not change even when couples got married and started to raise families. However when they reaches the age of 45, their families had grown up and started to leave home meaning that these older consumers had more money and more time and therefore started to buy fish.
We, at Callander McDowell, disagreed with this conclusion. Instead we argued that older consumers were raised at a time prior to the rise of the supermarkets when families bought food from independent retailers including the fishmonger and then ate meals together as a family.
The rise of the supermarket coincided with, and responded to, the arrival of busier more independent lifestyles where consumers sought more convenient choices. Younger consumers were more familiar with this way of life where families ate together less, meal times became less defined and grazing and snacking became the norm. Younger consumers became less knowledgeable about foods and cooking and looked to the microwave for meal solutions.
Yet, it’s not quite as simple as this. Fresh chicken and beef still dominates the supermarket shelves. The move to convenience has not diminished sales of these proteins. The reason is that these meats are offered in many convenient forms and therefore are suited to the convenience lifestyle. With fish it’s a very different story. The fish fresh fish counter is often used as a vehicle to display a range of different species, many as whole fish. Younger consumers find it difficult to relate these whole fish to something that they can put on the table to eat. Thus they simply avoid fish altogether. This image of fish remains even though there is a growing trend of offering portions and other more convenient presentations. Younger consumers still don’t know how to transform these into something to eat.
Sales of other meats have been boosted by the growing availability of chilled prepacks which allows consumers to pick and choose which they want to buy. The same trend can also be seen with chilled fish, however most packs of fish contain two fillets rather than a single portion. This does not encourage young consumers living on their own to buy packs. In fact, the retail sector is not really geared to the needs of individuals living on their own, whether young or old.
The underlying reason why younger consumers don’t buy and eat fish has more to do with the lack of products suited to the needs of the younger lone consumer. The industry needs to produce what these consumers would probably buy rather than those that the industry thinks young consumers want to buy. More likely, the industry doesn’t even think about the younger consumer at all. For example, Nofima focuses on the issue that fish is healthy but is this issue one that really concerns younger consumers? We suspect not. The industry can bang on about healthy eating as much as it likes but if healthy eating is not why younger consumers buy the food they do then they will never convince younger consumers to start eating fish.
Finally, fish doesn’t really feature in the menus of the many fast food restaurants that younger consumers frequent, so it is not really surprising that fish doesn’t feature much in their diets. Fish needs to be more accessible to younger consumers and until it is, younger consumers are unlikely to change the food they eat.