Dec 4, 2013 | Branding, Change, Marketing, retail, Sales, Small business
The produce branding model used by the agricultural so called marketing programs run by industry bodies all fail the basic test of being consumer centric. Generally they are retailer centric, using grower levies to fund discounts, and sometimes display space, never brand building. ”
“Australian tomatoes” is not a brand, it is simply a description.
Besides, the major retailers are exercising their control of the supply chain by not allowing proprietary brand building marketing anywhere near their stores.
The major retailers hold varying shares of produce categories. I suggest that hard vegetables like potatoes and carrots are in line with their overall share of around 75%, but their share of sensitive, seasonal fruit is probably more like 40%, with everything else falling somewhere in between. Where they fall depends on the “commodity” status of the produce, and consumers view of the trade-off between convenience and freshness, taste, and the more subjective things like customer service and product provenance.
Sydney Harvest is determinedly consumer centric. It is an evolving business model that creates a collaboration between the best growers in the Sydney Basin ands specialist produce retailers in Sydney to deliver field fresh, best quality, provenance assured produce to discriminating consumers, turning the usual supply chain into a demand chain.
Currently in pilot, the initiative is setting out to determine if there is a market in the niche, as there is certainly a niche in the market for such a collaboration.
Dec 2, 2013 | Change, Governance
So, the Treasurer has blocked the acquisition of Graincorp by Archer Daniels Midland. However, the acquisition of Warrnambool Cheese and Butter by Canadian group Saputo is OK.
Go figure!
These two businesses are amongst the last significant, strategically important agribusiness assets left in Australian hands, they are subject to the same rules, same laws, yet the political outcome is different.
Why?
Irrespective of your position on the rights and wrongs of these two proposed transactions the fact that there is a different outcome from the political deliberations must be of concern. I have not heard any logical arguments that lead to a conclusion that the outcomes should be different, and can only assume it comes from political expediency, hypocrisy and hubris rather than a dispassionate application of he laws meant to govern us.
The other reason I am pissed off with this decision is that I lost a $50 bet. I was certain that after the approval of the Saputo takeover of WCB in October, that the precedent provided would be sufficient for the Treasurer to ignore the silly blathering of Warren Truss, and acerbic tongue and threats of Barnaby Joyce, and be consistent.
Not so it seems.
There are reasonable, logical and economically and socially defensible arguments on both sides of the question, and inevitably not everyone would have been happy with a consistent decision, but those observing the behaviour of the government will scratching their heads at the inconsistency.
I do however look forward to the smug, self-congratulatory remarks of Mr Truss who I expect will sound like George Pell on Rohypnol, I need to lose some weight, and this may help.
