Reports
GENERIC PROMOTION : success or FAILURE? The EU Salmon Campaign, March, 2000
Evaluation of the Campaign Analysis
The March 2000 issue of Fish Farming International reports on the progress of the investigation to analyse the worth of the joint European generic promotional campaign. Commissioned by the Norwegian Seafood Export Council, Oystein Myrland of the University of Tromso and Professor Henry Kinnucan of Auburn University, Alabama have been analysing the impact of the promotional campaign in the three target countries, Germany, France and Spain. This was to assess whether the NOK 50 million a year spent on the promotion is producing an acceptable return on investment.
Oystein Myrland had said that detailed results would not be ready until the analysis was presented at the AquaVision 2000 conference. However, he provided a summary in which said that sales of Atlantic salmon in the German market have increased by 1.5-2% a year in a total market of 90,000 tonnes. He said that this increase is a significant improvement and also suggests that there are signs of progress in the French and Spanish markets as well, although he does say that the figures currently available are not detailed enough to allow sound judgement to be made at this stage.
On October 15th 1998, Intrafish reported on the inception of the historic joint promotional campaign with the first phase focusing on the German, French and Spanish markets, although the latter was restricted to areas around Barcelona and Madrid. The contract was undertaken by the advertising agency Bates Worldwide.
Their message was 'Salmon - Success Made Simple'. They hoped to show that salmon is a sophisticated and easily handled product, available at a reasonable price. The aim of the promotion was to show that salmon is a serious alternative to chicken and meat.
The main thrust of the promotion was through a TV advertisement, supported by magazine advertisements. The initial distribution of resources meant that £968,000 was spent on TV commercials in France, £1.2 million in Germany and £298,000 in Spain. The total spend on printed advertisements was £170,000, £218,000 and £137,000 respectively.
Jack Robert Moller of the Norwegian Seafood Export Council (EFF), who have overseen the campaign said that it was expected to bear fruits from the first weeks onward, but he declined to say publicly by how much demand was expected to increase as a result of the campaign.
The Results - phase 1 (December 1998)
Four weeks after the start of the campaign, Intrafish reported that the first figures were expected to be published; however these failed to appear. Jack Robert Moller said they had not collected enough data to draw any conclusions, but they were continuously working on it. Meanwhile, the influential German Fisch Magasin expressed concern about the campaign, suggesting that no one had taken any notice of it.
On January 14th, 1999, Intrafish reported that the first results of the generic campaign had indicated that it had been successful. In France, 45% of those surveyed claimed that they had seen the advertisement and 60% of those had said that it made them want to buy salmon.
In Germany, the response had not been so good with only 22% remembering the advertisement and only half of those saying that it had made them want to buy salmon.
Two weeks later, Intrafish reported that the Norwegian Seafood Export Council had experienced some difficulty in figuring out the exact impact of the first phase of the campaign, but the preliminary results showed that sales o f salmon in Barcelona increased by 51.6% as compared with those of December 1997. In Madrid the increase was 17.5%. During February, the EFF were hoping to present an evaluation of the campaign to date.
At the beginning of March, Mr Moller announced the second round of the campaign. This was due to take place over Easter. Mr Moller said that the first phase showed that it is important for the media campaign to be supported by a follow up type initiative from salmon exporting companies and the stores. He also said that they had learnt that the goal of increasing sales was too focused, as it is a long-term activity to build up new sales.
The only estimates of sales from the first round were those resulting from the Spanish market. Mr Moller said that it is much more difficult to measure the effects of the campaign in France and Germany, although he said that they had learned from the French campaign that the retail stores must take a much more active part.
As a consequence of their experiences, the second phase of the campaign would take place over Easter in just France and Germany and that the campaign would be different in these two countries. The reasons being that the French know salmon far better as a product, than the Germans.
The French campaign would last two weeks followed by a two week break then resuming from a further two weeks. In Germany, it was deemed that the campaign should be more concentrated so in order to build up consumer knowledge about salmon, magazine advertisements would be followed up by recipe inserts etc.
Fiskaren reported at the end of March details of market growth for the year 1997 to 1998, i.e. prior to the campaign. According to Jack Robert Moller of the EFF sales of Atlantic salmon had grown by 11.4, although the total market for salmon had remained static. This was because less Pacific species had been imported. The total market for Atlantic salmon was just over 100,000 tonnes. During November and December 1998, i.e. a similar period to that covered by the generic campaign in 1999, sales of fresh salmon had increased by 40% over 1997 figures.
Intrafish expanded on these figures suggesting that in Germany, market growth for Norwegian salmon was 30% with the whole market growing between 10 and 20%. The total market for salmon in Germany for 1998 was 83,000 tonnes, up from 70,000 tonnes the previous year.
The Results - phase 2 (Spring 1999)
In July 1999, EFF released the results of the Easter campaign. According to Intrafish, 39% of German women recalled seeing the campaign, a marked increase on the 22% from the first round. Consumption of salmon increased by 10% amongst those who had actually seen the advertisements, equating to a 2% increase for the whole country. According to EFF, the German campaign had a budget of NOK 12 million producing similar results to the Christmas campaign, which had a budget of double this amount (NOK 17.5 million?).
The Results - phase 3 (Autumn 1999)
No results have been published.
A report in FIS, dated 16th September 1999, implied that the market for salmon in Germany had been over-stated. Import and export figures released by the German Federal Office of Statistics in Wiesbaden record that in 1998, salmon imports from Norway decreased by 15% from 62,798 tonnes to 58, 328 tonnes. At the same time, imports from the US increased to 6,112 tonnes, from Scotland to 4,881 tonnes in addition to 302 tonnes of Chilean salmon and 190 tonnes of Canadian salmon. This makes a total import of 71,890 tonnes, as compared to an EFF figure of 82,000 tonnes.
However, of more interest is the fact that out of the 71,890 tonnes of salmon imported into Germany, 42,847 tonnes was re-exported to France and Italy. This means that German consumption in 1998 was only 29,000 tonnes, far short of the 82,000 tonnes quoted by EFF and the 90,000 tonnes suggested by Oystein Myrland for 1999.
Evaluation of the Campaign Analysis
It is difficult to evaluate the success or failure of the joint European generic promotional campaign, simply because of the limited amount of data, which has so far been made available. The fact that details are so scarce must be a clear indication that the campaign was not such a great success. This is because any organisation would try to capitalise on the successes, extolling the benefit s of the campaign. In effect, a successful campaign should be used as a marketing tool in itself. This has not happened in this case; therefore the supposition must be that it has failed to achieve its aims.
This assumption is confirmed by the comments of influential Fisch Magasin, whose editorial suggested that the campaign in Germany had been largely ignored. In addition, William Crowe, Chief Executive of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation interviewed by Intrafish for their end of year review commented that 'the Exports Council has had a history of getting it wrong in the past.... Whether they got the advertising right is a question that is being looked at, at the moment. The first year of the campaign was rushed there is no doubt it.'
The view of the advertising promoted here is one, which was expressed at the onset of the original campaign. There is no doubt that the TV advertisement was extremely polished and well produced. However, there is concern that the message sent out was not the right one if the aims were to be achieved.
It would be easy to blame the advertising agency for any failure of the advertising campaign, however it must be remembered that this is a promotional campaign conducted by committee and therefore the final approach will always be a compromise.
The committee comprises of representatives of three industries, Norway, Scotland and Ireland, each of which will have very different ideas about how to promote its salmon. Certainly, the Scottish industry had previously rejected any attempt to conduct a joint campaign, since it viewed its salmon as superior to that produced in Norway. It was only the imposition of the EU salmon agreement, which forced the Scottish industry to sign up to the campaign.
The Scottish industry has always perceived that their salmon is a high quality product for which the consumer is prepared to pay a premium price. It is inconceivable that the Scottish industry would agree to participate in a campaign, which promotes salmon as a commodity product. As already stated the actual TV advertisement was very polished and Professional, however its message clearly conflicted with the overall aim of the campaign. Although the EFF have never indicated as to their expectations with regard to increased sales, there was an anticipation that salmon could be shown to be a serious alternative to beef and chicken. This was not apparent from the advertisement, neither was the message that salmon is simple, that is unless the concept was that it is so simple that it can be prepared by a man. Instead, the overriding message was that salmon is a luxury type of food, intended to be served at special occasions, such as at a dinner party.
Yet, it is clear that if the salmon industry wants to grow the market, it must promote salmon as a value for money, everyday food, and a realistic alternative to meat and chicken. Placing the advertisement in a setting, which clearly suggests a high income life style and providing a scenario which implies something of a special occasion, will never encourage the typical family to consider salmon as an everyday meal option. Thus, the advertisement itself must be considered to be a failure because it will never achieve its aim of making salmon a realistic alternative to meat and chicken. It is simply sending out the wrong message.
It has been suggested that it was a mistake to assume that the French, German and Spanish markets are similar and therefore the same approach can be adopted in each country. Certainly, the market penetration is different in each country, but in the current global market, any differences in each market should be negated by the fact that the campaign is a generic one. Suggesting that a TV advertisement, which simply relies on one word - salmon, should be adapted for each country is simply an excuse for sending out the wrong message.
William Crowe of the SSPO has said 'we know we have ABC1 consumers in France, we haven't got C2 and D consumers yet. Now I'm not sure we will get them, that's a long haul to try to persuade people who have never eaten salmon to start consuming it on a regular basis. [...] What again some of the French research is saying to us is that 'we're eating enough salmon, thank you very much. Once a week is enough, not three times a week.' This is what is coming out.'
This raises a number of questions. Market research is the backbone on which any promotion is based. If market research has shown that ABC1 consumers in the French market are already converted to salmon, but are prepared to only buy it once a week, then it might be assumed that this market is nearing saturation. Equally, if research has shown that C2 and D consumers are unlikely to be persuaded to try salmon, then the question must be asked, why the generic campaign was targeted at France at all, since it is unlikely that it would have little further impact on increasing demand.
The answer could be that the market research is flawed being directed at reflecting the industries existing preconception of salmon. It is unlikely that the current TV campaign would induce any C2 and D consumers to try salmon simply it does not relate to their lifestyle. Equally, ABC1 consumers are unlikely to be persuaded to consume more salmon, if their perception of the fish is that it is something to be used for special occasions only. Professor Kinnucan (private correspondence) has suggested that following extensive market research and testing in 1992, the US beef industry decided to switch the emphasis of their promotion from light to heavy meat eaters. It was decided that getting heavy meat eaters to consume more beef was a most cost-effective way to grow the market than by getting light eaters to consumer more. However, whilst this is an attractive idea, it does not appear to have worked. Consumption of beef in the US has actually fallen from 69.6lb per head in 1987 to only 63.8lb in 1997, a drop of 8%. This is despite a huge promotional budget of $83 million a year.
The results from the three phases of the generic campaign have not been generally forthcoming. As previously stated, this suggests that the campaign has not been a great success, otherwise the industry might try to capitalise on their achievement.
The results can be considered by their target markets.
In France, 45% of those surveyed, following the first phase of the campaign, claimed that they had seen the advertisement and 60% of those had said that it made them want to buy salmon. There is no indication of how many converted this desire and actually bought salmon. These results are still to be publicised. However, during November and December 1998, i.e. a similar period to that covered by the generic campaign in 1999, sales of fresh salmon increased by 40% over 1997 figures. Thus, growth in excess of this figure should be expected following the generic campaign.
The results of the campaign in Germany are unclear. Professor Myrland has said that the German market in 1999 is about 90,000 tonnes, but according to the German Office for Statistics the market size for the previous year was only 29,000 tonnes. Equally, Oystein Myrland has said that the market has grown by 1-2% per year, whilst according to the EFF, market growth for the previous year was between 10- 20%. Interestingly, Jan Blichfeldt of Bates, the advertising agency employed to conduct the campaign expressed the view that such generic market promotions really only enhance existing market trends, but will rarely work against them. This is exactly what the US beef industry has discovered
The only data for the Spanish market suggests that sales in Barcelona have grown by 51.6%, whilst those in Madrid has increased by 17.5% over the previous year. These figures are so widely contrasting t hat there must be an element of doubt as to their validity. Equally, the figures do not necessarily reflect the success of the campaign since the sales growth highlighted is over that of the previous year. It is quite possible that sales have been steadily increasing over the 12 months prior to the campaign and that sales growth for the months just before the campaign was already at a similar level. If this is the case, then the campaign cannot be judged to be a success.
The success or failure of any promotional campaign, regardless of the product or service, can only be judged against a predetermined measure, as well as an expectation, which must be built into the campaign. Without such a measure, then there is no purpose to the campaign since it cannot be fully evaluated.
It would appear from this campaign, that no such measure was applied. This is because from the outset, there has been no publicised expectation of what the campaign should achieve. In fact, the reverse has been true, as any expectation has been deliberately withheld.
In this case, the Norwegian Seafood Export Council has commissioned Oystein Myrland of the University of Tromso to 'measure' the success or failure of this campaign. According to his interview with Fish Farming International, Professor Myrland has evaluated the campaign by sending out questionnaires after the conclusion of each phase. The aim of the questionnaire was to identify those who had seen the campaign and could remember it without being prompted.
Ultimately, Oystein Myrland wanted to discover the answer to four key questions: -
- Had they seen the TV ads?
- What was their general attitude towards salmon?
- Where did they place salmon in terms of importance within their own portfolio of fish products?
- What was their actual consumption of salmon in relation to other fish products?
However interesting the answers to these questions, non-are able to provide a measure of whether the generic campaign was a success or not. In fact only one o f the four questions related to the campaign at all and this was the first; had they seen the TV ads? And even this question is largely irrelevant.
Comments made by Jack Robert Moller of EFF from the outset suggest that the aim of the campaign was to bring about an increase in demand, which would be identified by an increase in sales from the first weeks onwards.
The aim to increase sales must indicate that the only measure as to whether the campaign was a success or not is whether there has been an increase in sales of salmon in each of the target markets, over those in the weeks before the campaign began. This does not relate to the import figures into each market but specific consumer sales. An increase in imports does not necessarily mean that sales have increase since the salmon could be destined for processing into a totally different product, e.g. Smoked salmon, canned salmon or ready meals, non-of, which would feature in the survey. Equally, the salmon could be destined for another market altogether and therefore an increase in imports, however desirable, can never be a measure of the success of such a campaign.
The only way that the true impact of the campaign can be measured is by monitoring the actual level of sales of salmon in each market, just before, during and after the campaign. Such information can only be obtained from stores selected specifically for this purpose. Trouw Aquaculture provides an example of this type of evaluation in their Outlook magazine number 12. This identifies increased sales of trout in the south west of England during a TV based promotion.
Professor Kinnucan has dismissed this type of approach (private correspondence). He suggests that such sales information includes significant extraneous factors and that in order to evaluate it most effectively, it is necessary to obtain information about the price of the advertised product and the prices and advertising expenditures for competing products. In addition, other market forces, which might affect demand e.g. consumer income and seasonality, must be held constant. Professor Kinnucan's view might be relevant to an academic study, but most farmers are more likely to be interested in the simple fact as to whether the campaign has persuaded consumers to buy more fish.
In addition to the sales data, the Trouw promotion also identified consumer attitudes to trout both during and after the campaign. However, like other consumer surveys it avoided asking the specific question as to whether the respondent had actually bought t h e fish as a result of the campaign. One of the reason why this type of question rarely features on consumer surveys is due to the very nature of the questions which are usually multiple choice and do not allow for either a yes or no answer nor one which permits an independent response.
However, if there is no data to support actual sales, the only questions that must be asked and which are relevant to the campaign are: -
- Do you already buy salmon?
- Did you see the advert?
- Did the advert prompt you to buy salmon?
- Will you buy salmon again?
Oystein Myrland has said that the evaluation of a generic campaign is much harder than for a comparable branded product. This is because the producer already knows the production costs and has control over output. This means that clear sales and price objectives can be set and therefore measured. He says that a generic campaign is more difficult to control since rising demand will allow prices to strengthen and thus encourage producers to increase output which in turn may cause prices to fall again.
Unfortunately, this view is mistaken, since the cyclical process to which he refers is so lengthy that it would only be relevant if the industry conducted an almost permanent promotional campaign. Professor Kinnucan has suggested in his private correspondence that empirical evidence indicates that salmon producers are well able to expand output within 1-2 years of a price rise. This would then lead to the possibility that the promotion might cause price disequilibrium (demand outpacing supply and then supply outpacing demand). The real problem is that like other Professors of Agricultural Economics before him, who have considered the problems of the salmon industry, there is an assumption that the industry is experiencing the cyclical behaviour of a mature agricultural industry. This assumption is wrong for salmon farming is still undergoing continued growth, which has been interrupted only by deliberate and forced interference. Salmon farming has not yet reached the cyclical stage to which he refers.
In addition, there is absolutely no reason why sales cannot be measured in exactly the same way as for branded goods by sampling selected stores and thus obtain a true measure of the success or failure of the campaign.
Professor Kinnucan suggests that this may be appropriate for targeted campaigns that use point of sale material. However, for reasons such as the extraneous market forces, he believes that this approach can be misleading. This is because generic advertising cannot exert any control over other elements of the marketing mix such as price and product. If this is the case, it must be questionable as to whether generic promotion is the most relevant approach to the continued expansion of the salmon market .
According to Oystein Myrland, part of his evaluation is to assess the competition to salmon. So far he has only been able to conclude that the only challenge to salmon sales comes from trout and tuna. Such an assessment is totally irrelevant to the generic campaign since the whole purpose of the promotion was to make salmon a serious alternative to meat and chicken. The presence of a well-established fish species from non-sustainable resources is no threat to salmon's position in the market place. As it is possible to raise trout in the sea, it is interchangeable with salmon and equally poses no threat to the salmon farming industry.
Fish Farming International asked Oystein Myrland as to whether he believed that the decision to invest the bulk of the NOK 50 million in TV advertisements was the correct choice. He replied by saying that this was a good question, but one which he was not willing to answer as yet. However, on current evidence the answer looks clear cut an d that the campaign has largely failed.
Advocates of this campaign will be ready to suggest that it is easy to criticise and to be negative, but a much harder job to come up with positive suggestions to improve salmon's position within the European market place. One of the possible reasons for the apparent failure of the campaign and thus the way in which it can be rectified may have much to do with perceptions of what marketing is about.
The generic salmon campaign is often referred to as the generic marketing of salmon, but this is a misnomer. Promotion, of which this campaign is all about, is just part of the marketing mix and it cannot be taken in isolation. It is wrong to suddenly suggest that the industry should engage in the promotion of salmon without a clear idea of what the campaign is to achieve. This can only be determined by defining specific aims to take the market from one predetermined point to another.
Marketing is about getting the right product to the right market, at the right price, at the right time and for producers to make a profit doing so. The apparent aim of this campaign was to show that salmon is a realistic alternative to meat and chicken. If this was the intention, then salmon had to be made available in forms which the typical meat and chicken consumer can relate to and at a similar price level. The TV advertisement did not suggest this at all, but rather gave a totally different message. This reflected many of the existing industry preconceptions of the salmon it produces. Such views must change if the industry really wants to continue to grow the salmon market. Salmon must be perceived as a value for money product with an everyday meal option appeal. If producers started to develop salmon to fill this market, then the need for this form of generic promotion will be negated altogether.