reLAKSation 41.
In the pink: At the end of last month, the British Daily Mail carried an article asking whether your salmon is pink enough for you? Sadly, the article was extremely misinformed raising issues, which were resolved long ago.
However, the media debate concerning the use of pigments does stimulate the question as to whether the salmon flesh we produce needs to be pink at all?
Certainly, the expectation for the salmon that consumers buy is that it is pink in colour. The Oxford English Concise Dictionary definition for salmon is 'a silver scaled, pink-fleshed anadromous fish of the genus Salmo'
Yet, with the advent of organic salmon, it would now seem that for some consumers, this expectation has been diminished. This is because the Soil Association has deemed the traditional pigments used in salmon farming to be unnecessary, even though they are an essential part of the salmon's biological requirements. Instead, organic farmers have resorted to using shrimp waste, which is actually a poor source of these pigments. The result is salmon, which is a 'pale' imitation of the natural fish.
The production of organic fish has meant that salmon farming has developed a twin-stream approach to marketing, based on the colour of the fish. However, this idea is not new.
Back in 1989, when prices first collapsed, the industry response was to demand a cutback in production so that the market image of salmon would not be devalued. This was unrealistic (as it still is today) because the lower prices actually stimulated demand for a low priced, value for money, fish. Production therefore continued to increase.
By comparison, we at Callander McDowell, proposed a twin-stream approach to the market, whereby those sections of the industry who wanted to retain the luxury image of salmon, whilst the majority produced fish for the value for money market. The intention was to differentiate the fish so that the two streams would appear totally separate to the consumer and therefore they would not impinge on each other.
Whilst those consumers who subscribe to the luxury market are bothered about the salmon they purchase, those buying into the value for money concept, probably do not. Salmon has become a popular value for money fish, helped in part by the high price and limited availability of the traditional fish species. If cod were still cheap and widely available, then these new salmon consumers would probably continue to buy cod. However, this is not the case, primarily because the very act of farming has made salmon so accessible.
If salmon prices rose and/or became less available, then many of these new consumers would simply stop buying it and look for another cheap alternative. They are not that bothered, although in the UK, consumers prefer to buy the traditional species and are not that adventurous to buy 'strange' alternatives.
The original proposal was to omit pigment from the feed of the salmon produced for the value market. This would clearly differentiate it from the usual perceptions of pink-fleshed salmon. In addition , it would also help reduce the production costs, offsetting the lower market prices. The pigment free salmon looks grey, when raw, but after cooking it turns white. This may not be that appealing to many consumers, but as the market is changing, this low cost alternative could be used as a ready substitute in many secondary processed, added value products.
It was proposed that the 'new' fish be given a market name of 'Arctic' or 'Polar' salmon. However, at the time, this proposal was considered almost heretical and it was never really considered. Yet, ten years on, the industry has followed this twin stream approach, albeit not in quite the same way. Poor pigmentation is now viewed as being acceptable. Perhaps, now is the time to consider the moving in the alternative direction and soak up some of this so-called over-production into what would be a non-competitive market?
Wooing the public? The European marketing fund, generated by sales of Norwegian salmon, is to be redirected towards improving salmon's public image. According to IntraFish, this is to counter much of the negative publicity, which has recently appeared in the media.
Is this a last gasp attempt to utilise this funding before it disappears with the impending termination of the EU salmon agreement?
The generic promotion of European salmon has not been a great success. If it had, prices would not have fallen in the way they had since increased consumer demand would have maintained prices at previous levels. The econometric study conducted to investigate the effect of the promotions on the marketplace, showed demand increased by between 1-2%. This is far less than the increase demand stimulated by falling prices.
Perhaps, this funding could have been better used to investigate the possibility of non-competitive market development, allowing individual sections of the industry to pursue their own specific aspirations.
Instead, the funding is now to be directed at wooing the public with positive messages about European salmon.
The question is whether such PR will have any effect on salmon consumption. The answer is probably no. This is because good news is no news, whereas the press is always happy to pass on the bad.
The anti-salmon lobby is all to ready to capitalise on a willing media looking for a good story, even if the story is old and inaccurate. This is why there has been so much negative press recently. For example, the recent story about pigments focused on salmon, but ignored the huge usage in eggs, a real every-day food.
Since most of the scare stories are simply one-day wonders, the effect on consumers is negligible. They are more influenced by price, which seems to override most concerns.
If PR is to be of any value, then it needs to be tied into something of interest to the consumer. Perhaps a money offer voucher would do more to offset any unwarranted negative publicity than the usual PR oriented media hype?
Booking the Cook! As avid exponents of improved marketing, we applaud any attempt to encourage consumers to buy more salmon. However, we do believe that it must be the correct form of targeted marketing as otherwise there will be no clear benefit.
For this reason we can understand why Norwegian farmers feel aggrieved that they are paying for the EU generic promotion, not because they are paying for it, but rather because it has achieved little to encourage a sustained increase in the consumption of salmon.
We were therefore interested to see that the latest attempt at salmon promotion has hit the bookshelves. The new recipe book 'Nick Nairn's Top 100 salmon recipes' is published by BBC publications and is sponsored by the salmon farming company 'Aquascot'.
This is a very attractive book, with many colourful photographs, but we do wonder as to the type of consumer who will be tempted to spend £10 to buy it.
With only salmon on the menu, it must be someone who actually is a salmon devotee or a cook book collector who will buy this book. The average member of the public is unlikely to want to buy such a specialist volume. This means that it will do little to encourage the many potential consumers, who currently do not buy salmon to do so.
Prof. Henry Kinnucan who conducted the evaluation of the EU generic promotional campaign posed the question as to whether it is better to concentrate marketing efforts towards existing salmon consumers to persuade them to eat more, or convert non consumers to start doing so?
The problem with the existing consumer base is that it consists of mostly older age groups. The younger section of the public shy away from salmon and it is this potential market which the salmon industry really needs to target. Otherwise, when the older consumers pass away, they will not be replaced by the younger generations to which salmon consumption is completely alien.