What Irish Farmers, Free Range Cows and Johnny Rotten Tell Us About Butter Eaters

Butter advertising. There’s a lot of it about at the moment.

Advertising is expensive. The costs can run into millions, so companies want to get their advertising right. This they try and do by talking to consumers about butter in general, and their brand compared with competitors’ brands. Armed with all this market research, companies come up with the messages and slogans they think will persuade us that their butter is best.

So a look at what each of the brands is saying in their advertising gives us a good steer on what is important to consumers when it comes to butter.

Three of the four biggest brands are foreign owned – Lurpak from ARLA, Kerrygold from the Irish Dairy Board, and Anchor from Fonterra. Only Countrylife owned by Dairy Crest is British.

Here’s what each is saying.



Lurpak, the brand leader, sells on taste. Their slogan is “ Good food deserves Lurpak”, and it reminds us that taste is all important when it comes to a food product.

More interesting is the Kerrygold advert. Aware of growing respect on the part of the public for farmers, a group of healthy looking Irish dairy farmers explain that they are part of a cooperative which means they get a fair price for their milk. The advert shows that they love their cows, implying that they will be well cared for. They say the cows are grass fed, and this, plus showing acres of lush green fields, puts across a feeling that Kerrygold is a natural, wholesome product. Whilst a very complicated set of messages, the overall tone reassures those consumers worried about farmers being fairly rewarded, those worried about animal welfare, and those who want to be sure their butter comes from cows fed naturally on grass.

Anchor with their slogan “The free range butter company”, emphasises that their cows are free to roam outside all year. To the strains of the theme tune from the Great Escape, a cartoon cow astride a motor bike leaps the fence to freedom. By using the words free range with their overtones of a better life, the clear implication is that Anchor cows have a better life than those who cannot get out. Again it’s an animal welfare story, but with a natural slant too, for a cow free to roam will by implication only eat good fresh grass.

And so to Countrylife featuring Johnny Rotten, or John Lydon as he is now known. Unashamedly jingoistic, it trumpets the brand’s Britishness, picking up on the consumer trend to support British brands. It also has a quality message too, with Lydon saying at the end that he buys because of the butter’s great taste.

What do these advertising messages suggest about consumers, butter and British dairying?

The thorniest issue has to be indoor housed cows with the twin implications of a life cooped up in a small space, and a questionable diet that does not include fresh grass . According to the NFU, only 1% of British cows are kept in this way. Nevertheless, two big, foreign owned brands feel they can use the fact that their cows are able to go outside as a reason to buy their products. Such advertising might raise a doubt in consumers' minds about exactly what sort of a life the British cow has, and what precisely is going into the butter product.

More straightforwardly, it is clear that food products have to taste great to succeed, and that the main reason to buy butter as opposed to margarine is that it is an all natural food.

Finally, the Kerrygold advertising reminds us that not only Irish farmers enjoy a good reputation with the public. There is a warmth now towards farmers and farming which should be

cherished.

Animal Welfare - What Does the Public Really Think?

Animal welfare issues are again in the news.

Last week alone saw Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall take on Tesco in the cause of truthful labelling on chicken, Jamie Oliver supporting British pigs, a concerted advertising campaign by Sainsbury promoting their Freedom Foods pork, chicken, and salmon, and news of their ban on caged eggs. We also heard that Tracy, marchioness of Worcester has done a programme advocating better pig welfare, to be screened tonight.

On the other hand, last week also saw a piece by Andy Bond of ASDA in The Grocer claiming that worrying about animal welfare is yesterday’s agenda, and that celebrity chefs are patronising cash strapped consumers. Waitrose who have for years promoted high animal welfare standards seem to be losing sales, and organic meat products, which support high welfare, have apparently seen a big sales drop in the last three months.

So do consumers care?

The facts suggest that many already care enough to have changed how they shop, and that the more information they are given about the issue, the more prepared they are to change. It’s by no means everybody, and even the worried have limits on how much they are prepared to pay, but there is a growing movement to higher welfare products.

IGD research continues to find this. They say that whilst price has increased in importance as a factor influencing shopping habits, the number of consumers who have specifically bought foods with high animal welfare standards has increased from 11% in 2007 to 18% in 2009. They also point out that use of free range eggs has now moved to processed foods such as mayonnaise and pasta.

TNS the market research group in a survey commissioned by Compassion in World Farming have reported that free range chicken sales grew by 35%, and higher welfare sales by 42%, between December 2007 and December 2008. They also say that in December alone, standard chicken sales dropped by 11% in total and by 55% in Tesco. Free range, higher welfare and organic chickens now account for about 15% of sales, still small, but growing fast.

On to pigs. Jamie’s programme attracted 1.9 million viewers, less than the 3 million for his chicken programme, but nevertheless a sizable audience. It is early to judge whether it has made a difference although Waitrose have reported that their sales of pork (all British of course) rose by 20% following the programme.

It looks as if Andy Bond’s sweeping statement that consumers are not prepared to pay for higher welfare products is just not true, and if we are talking patronising, then for Bond to lump all his customers into one box and not recognise that people have different priorities, pressures and values, seems patronising in the extreme.

Most supermarkets, even Tesco and ASDA have acknowledged the trend and sell a higher welfare chicken to help the conscience stricken but cash strapped consumer.

Sainsbury have introduced a Freedom Food endorsed option costing about £1.50 more for the average bird, but with a clear explanation of the better rearing conditions. Sainsbury have also kept their range of basics, free range and organic for those who want alternatives.

They are adopting the same approach on pork. Again, it’s Freedom Food endorsed, again there is an explanation of why it is better for the pigs, and the extra price is small at about 50p per kilo more than standard.

Where will the animal welfare issue go from here? I feel that as awareness of how farmed animals are raised grows, consumers will increasingly look for higher welfare options. It may take years, and it will require commitment from well known respected champions like Hugh and Jamie who will not be put off by vested interests coming down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks, and equally will seek out the full facts before acting. It was a bit depressing for example that Jamie in his admirable support for British pigs did not mention that there are still some unsavoury yet legal pig raising conditions here such as housing the animals on slats. But you have to start somewhere.

There is evidence too that animal welfare concerns could extend to other species. The long running Anchor advertisements for butter from “free range cows”, with the implication that not all cows run freely in the sunshine as consumers would like to believe, would be an example of a company, foreign at that, spotting both the trend towards higher welfare.

Finally, it is not too difficult to imagine that better welfare conditions become such an issue that supermarkets decide to raise the bar for producers yet refuse to pay more.



























claiming that worrying about animal welfare is yesterday’s agenda, and that celebrity chefs are patronising cash strapped consumers, and a concerted advertising campaign by Sainsbury promoting their Freedom Foods pork and chicken, and their ban on caged eggs. This week Tracy, Marchioness of Worcester, will be seen on More 4 TV in the cause of pigs. Meanwhile Waitrose who have for years promoted high animal welfare standards seem to be losing sales, and organic products, which also promote high welfare, have seen a big sales drop in the last three months.

So do consumers care? The facts suggest that many already care enough to have changed how they shop, and that the more information they are given about the issue, the more prepared they are to change. It’s by no means everybody, and even the worried have limits on how much they are prepared to pay, but there is a growing movement to higher welfare products.

The IGD continues to find this. They say that whilst price has increased in importance as a factor influencing shopping habits, the number of consumers who have specifically bought foods with high animal welfare standards has increased from 11% in 2007 to 18% in 2009. They also point out that use of free range eggs has now moved to processed foods such as mayonnaise and pasta.

TNS the market research group in a survey commissioned by Compassion in World Farming have reported that free range chicken sales grew by 35%, and higher welfare sales by 42%, between December 2007 and December 2008. They also indicated that in December alone, standard sales dropped by 11% in total and by 55% in Tesco. It should be said though that the percentage of sales in free range, higher welfare and organic remains small.

On to pigs. Jamie’s programme attracted 1.9 million viewers, less than the xx for his chicken programme, but nevertheless respectable. It is early to see whether it has made a difference although Waitrose have reported that their sales of pork (all British of course) rose by 20% following the programme.

It looks as if Andy Bond’s sweeping statement that “xxxxx” is just not true, and if we are talking patronising, then for Bond to lump all his customers into one box and not recognise that people have different priorities, pressures and values, seems patronising in the extreme.

Sainsbury have spotted the trend, and have been very shrewd in the way that they have tackled the issue. In an effort to help the conscience stricken but cash strapped shopper, they have introduced Freedom Food endorsed, higher welfare chicken with a clear explanation of why it is better for the birds. It does cost more but only about xxxx a kilo, or £ for an average bird. They have also kept their range of basics, free range and organic for those who want an alternative.

They are adopting the same approach on pork. Again, it’s Freedom Food endorsed, again there is an explanation of why it is better for the pigs, and again, the extra price is small.

Where will the animal welfare issue go from here? I feel that as awareness of how farmed animals are raised grows, consumers will increasingly look for higher welfare options. It may take years, and it will require commitment from well known respected champions like Hugh and Jamie who will not be put off by vested interests coming down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks, and equally will seek out the full facts before acting. It was a bit depressing for example that Jamie in his admirable support for British pigs did not mention that there are still some unsavoury yet legal pig raising conditions here such as housing the animals on slats. But you have to start somewhere.

There is evidence too that others are looking at animal welfare conditions from a different angle. The long running Anchor advertisements for butter from “free range cows” would be an example.

Finally, it is not too difficult to imagine that better welfare conditions become such an issue that supermarkets decide to raise the bar for producers yet refuse to pay more.