Retailers Key to Driving Organic Market Growth

The Soil Association's market report for 2014 shows a 4% rise in sales of organic products, a welcome return to growth for organic devotees.

The performance by type of product has been well documented. Sales of eggs were up by 16%, yogurts by 14%,chicken by 8%, and milk by 3%.Veg sales were down 2% as were sales of red meat and sausages, which dropped by 6%.

The strongest sectors for organic produce are dairy, which accounts for 28% of all spending on organic foods, and baby foods where over half of all sales are organic.

Attention has been drawn to the role of brands in driving growth. Yeo Valley sales are quoted as being up by 13%, and there is talk of good performances from Rachel’s yogurts, and Green and Black chocolate.

Less well documented is the pivotal part that retailers play in the fortunes of organics.

Milk growth is being powered by sales in Aldi and Lidl, which jumped by 410% and 166% respectively. And sales of fruit and vegetables were propped up by these two retailers both of whom now stock organic variants. Aldi claims that their organic offer saves shoppers 30% versus prices in bigger supermarkets. Ocado, the online grocery retailer saw sales grow by 14%, broadly in line with their overall sales trends. Riverford Organics, the online box delivery service posted an 8% growth in the year to May 2014, taking their sales to £44.4 million, and Abel and Cole, also in the box business,  reported sales of £65 million, which according to owners Wm. Jackson represented “strong growth”.

Conversely, mainstream supermarket performance was patchy, with the best results coming from Waitrose, up 3.5%

.

What this all may suggest is that the organic label on its own is not enough to guarantee a secure future. Sales success seems to be down to a combination of operating in the right categories, choosing a strong and committed retail partner, and ideally, building a powerful brand where being organic is just one aspect of what makes the consumer want to pick it off the shelf.

The Increasingly Complex Consumer

It is becoming harder to work out what is going through the consumers mind as they do their food shopping.

On the one hand we could conclude that all roads lead to lower prices.

The growth of  discounters ALDI and Lidl with sales up 30% and 13% respectively versus prior year, has forced the big 4 retailers to re-evaluate their strategies. Morrisons who are the worst hit of all have led the way, declaring that they will drop prices by £1 billion over the next three years to help them compete. Where Morrisons led, others were swift to follow particularly Tesco and ASDA, the former also struggling to grow sales, and the latter keen to preserve their position of always being 10% cheaper. Indeed, like lemmings hurling themselves over the cliff, the race to the bottom has started with all the major retailers dropping the price of milk, bread and eggs.

 

It is not just the Aldi Lidl phenomenon that is leading to change. The last few years have seen the rise of the disciplined shopper who sticks rigorously to a pre-planned list. 48% did so in 2008, the figure is 67% in 2013.(Bord Bia) As a result, the amount that the shopper spends per trip has dropped. Retailers have responded with  heavy, value orientated promotions, but have not found the magic growth formula. Indeed, in the last 12 weeks, grocery growth was 2.2%, just 0.3% ahead of inflation.(Kantar worldpanel)

As to the future, work done by IGD suggests that consumer confidence is increasing, but feeling better is not encouraging people to slacken the purse strings. When asked about their priorities for 2014, 64% said it was about saving money, 47% wanted to reduce food waste to save money, and 47% were determined to stick to a budget.

So maybe the lemming rush to slash prices is indeed the right answer.

And yet.....

We hear that premium food ranges are growing faster than value ranges. Tesco’s Finest range is growing by 12%, and Sainsbury’s Taste the Difference by 9%. (Worldpanel/NFU conference)

Waitrose, not known for being cheap, is showing year on year growth and now has 5% of the total market, its highest ever share.

Sales of organic produce have returned to growth, up 2.8%.(Soil Association). Organic milk is enjoying a mini boom, up 9% in value and 7% in litres. (Dairycodatum).

RSPCA Freedom Food higher welfare products have been bought by 52% of shoppers.

So what are we to conclude?

First, the price issue cannot be ducked. Not only are consumers committed to finding low prices, they have, in their phones, tablets and computes an easy way of checking that they are indeed buying a particular item at the lowest price. However, with all the grocers selling products at the same price, it is becoming less of a reason to choose one store over another.

However, people are prepared to spend on what they value – that hard to define combination of what benefits a product offers and a feeling in the consumers mind that these benefits are worth paying for.

Knowing what the consumer wants and providing it effectively remains at the heart of a successful business strategy.

Consumer Opinion and its Influence on Monsanto and Arla Decisions

Last week Monsanto announced that it is stopping efforts to persuade the EU to allow Genetically Modified crops to be grown in Europe. And Arla announced that it is introducing its own farm assurance scheme because, they say, the Red Tractor no longer satisfies the needs of retailers or consumers. Both stories illustrate the importance of understanding consumers, and the impact they have on the business climate in which farming operates.

In the case of GM crops, those who supported their introduction failed to realise that there was no compelling reason for consumers to embrace the technology. GM was not going to make food cheaper, or more nutritious, health giving or delicious. This lack of a clear benefit means that whilst 13% of the population are strongly opposed to GM, and 3% strongly in favour, over 50% do not have a view either way, a figure that has remained the same for the last 10 years. (Source: IGD research). And such is the lack of interest or concern that, according to Food Standards Agency research undertaken last year, 76% of the population have never sought information on the topic, and 63% have never talked about it with anybody.

Add to this inertia the vocal lobbying done by anti GM campaigners, and the lurid stories put out by the tabloid press (example - the Daily Mail’s headline following Monsanto’s announcement was “Frankenstein food firm quits Europe”) then it is unsurprising that Monsanto felt it sensible to put their efforts elsewhere.

In the case of the Red Tractor, those in charge have failed to recognise that a growing number of consumers these days want more than bare minimum standards, particularly when it comes to animal health and welfare.

Whilst just 16% of people put animal welfare as a key driver of their food buying behaviour compared with 74% for price and value and 76% freshness and quality, almost 80% state that animal welfare matters to them. These numbers are sufficiently sizeable for retailers to take note and act. (Source: Labelling Matters Project by RSPCA, Soil Association, WorldSociety for the Protection of Animals, Compassion in World Farming).

The Red Tractor people are now starting to rethink their approach, and now seem prepared to move forward. Commenting on the Arla announcement the Red Tractor response was to say that they would work with Arla to ensure that the scheme meets the needs of buyers, consumers and farmers.

Farming faces a number of major issues as it strives to balance food production and environmental management, whilst remaining competitive in a global fight. Consumers will have a view on all of them, from TB management to large scale pig and dairy farms, crops for biofuels to animal cloning.

Farming leaders need to ensure that consumer opinion forms the backcloth to deciding the issues upon which the industry feels it must stand its ground.

Organic Sales Still Dropping - What Will Restore Growth?

The Soil Association’s recently published Organic Market Report shows that sales of organic products fell by 1.5% in 2012.

There are pockets of strength, particularly where brands are well known and promoted. Combined sales of specialist retailers Ocado, Abel and Cole and Riverford Organics grew their sales by 10%.  Rachel’s Dairy, noted for its yoghurts, grew by 15% and Yeo Valley who sell a range of dairy products grew by 6.6%.

 Under 35’s spent more on organic products than ever before. Sales to catering outlets are up.

But some core markets still struggle. Supermarket sales of pork, eggs, and poultry dropped by 30%, horticulture products (fruit and veg) dropped by 8%, milk sales are down 4%, lamb down 2%, and beef down 1%.

So what of the future. The Soil Association admits that difficult economic circumstances have hindered organic sales and we know that money will be short for a few years yet.  And herein lies the problem. Whilst many consumers like the idea of buying organic, they struggle to convince themselves that the organic premium is worth paying on a regular basis.

This nettle has to be grasped if supporters of organic produce want to see sustained growth.

It is not enough for the Soil Association to chastise government for not doing enough and lambast the big multiple retailers for turning their back on organics.

The government cannot address the fundamental issue of consumer demand. Scotland’s Organic Action Plan, cited by the Soil Association as a template that the English government should follow, is helpful in that it provides support for farmers to convert to organic and makes funds available for businesses to promote their products. But the Scottish plan acknowledges that at the end of the day it is consumers who are key to success.

Multiple retailers are close to consumers but in a low growth, highly competitive environment they will not offer up precious shelf space to products whose sales don’t justify it.

There are just two ways to overcome the consumer issue. Either, communicate a compelling reason to justify the organic premium –or - reduce the premium.

The first route is difficult. The organic story is a complicated one to tell, and getting across the idea that organic is an integrated way of producing food is difficult when funds are limited and consumers are used to picking up messages in sound bites or in 140 characters on Twitter.

So is there any mileage in the second route, namely reduce the price premium. This would be ideal because many consumers like the idea of buying organic. Indeed some 80% do so, but too infrequently to affect growth.

Reducing the price premium requires increasing yields.  And to increase yields requires solid science, and science needs funding. At the moment there appears to be just one project tackling production issues – a Duchy Originals sponsored initiative led by the Soil Association with the help of the Organic Research Centre at Elm Farm. Whilst welcome, its progress will be slow. Starting May 2012, it is not due to complete its initial findings until May 2015. Only at this point will it decide on research priorities.

Here is the question. Would the considerable funds currently available across British governments, the EU, the Soil Association itself, the industry groups Organic UK and the Organic trade Board be better spent on broadening and speeding up scientific work.

This is not to overlook the task of communicating with consumers.This is probably most effective when done by strong, trusted brands. The success of Rachel's, Yeo Valley, and Riverford shows that when done well the organic story translates into solid sales growth.

Putting the Organic Market into Perspective – Small and Likely to Remain So

The Soil Association’s market report for 2010 has been published and as expected shows a big drop in sales over the last year. Equally to be expected it is full of enthusiasm about the sector’s future, and points to a slowing in the sales decline.

But before anyone considering investment in organics plunders the piggy bank it is worth remembering that the organic market always was tiny, even in its heyday, and no amount of zeal will lead it to being anything but tiny.

It is important to remember this, for the whole thrust of the Soil Association report is that the 2009 decline was a blip, that organic farming is the only way to go to minimise carbon emissions, and that by wise allocation of the amount we eat organic farming will be able to satisfy food demand in the future. All that is required, says Peter Melchett, policy director, is money – money from the government both to research the sector and to increase support for farmers converting to organics, preferential treatment for organic produce in the public sector procurement, and money from the EU to bolster consumer demand.

As we know though, money is in short supply now. Whichever government wins the next election there will be swingeing cuts to budgets, with DEFRA being no exception. The little money that is available needs to be spent on projects that benefit the whole of agriculture, not just a particular, noisy sector.

Just how tiny is the organic market?

Sales in 2009 were £1.84bn, and are now below what they were in 2006. This is less than 2% of total expenditure on food and drink.

Performance by individual market varies but even in yoghurts, which, due to splendid branding efforts by Yeo Valley and Rachel’s, have the highest share of organic to standard sales, the organic share is just under 7%.

Organic milk sells 171,000 litres a year compared with a total market of 5 billion. Around 30,000 head of organic beef are killed each year compared with a total of 2.2 million. The figure for lamb is around 174,000 compared with a total kill of 15.8 million.

Producers in the organic market face a roller coaster ride. Farmer premiums for organic meat are rarely high, and often erratic. In 2009, the farmgate price of beef dropped by 3.5%, and the premium dropped from 22% to 9%. The premium for lamb dropped from 8% to 4%. The premium for milk also dropped back even though demand held up fairly well.

We cannot look to other countries and say that in time organics will account for a meaningful percentage of total sales. Even in affluent Denmark, the country with the highest percent of organic to standard sales, organics only account for 6% of the total market (Soil Association 2009 Market report). Not to be sniffed at, but not mainstream either.

All this is not to decry that there is a core of consumers completely devoted to buying organic, and farmers who deeply believe in organic principles. The point is that careful thought should be given to allocation of scarce funds to a small sector when the needs of agriculture in general are extremely pressing, and money is tight.

FSA Research Furore Shows Organic Movement Must Get Back to its Roots

The FSA’s pronouncement that organic food is no healthier than that farmed conventionally has generated acres of headlines, hundreds of comments, and thrown the organic world into disarray.

It’s interesting to reflect on why the reaction has been so vocal. After all, the FSA was very specific in its research. It stated that its remit was only to look at nutrient content of organic versus conventionally produced products, and it also stated that conclusions were drawn from 55 fully defensible, peer reviewed scientific studies. Its findings echo those of the pro-organic, scientifically based EU project QualityLowInputFood who at the conclusion of 5 years of research said - “Health claims for organic foods are not yet substantiated.”

So why the furore?

One of the problems with the rise and rise of the organic market is that its recent explosion has been due more to hype than substance, fuelled by uncritical affluence.

Any publication over the last few years about organic food implies that it is better for you. Celebrity chefs, food writers in the broadsheets, and bodies such as the Soil Association have all insisted that organic food is the only sensible thing to eat, but they have rarely backed this up with scientific facts. Indeed even after the FSA report was published, a writer in a middle class paper was saying that there are certain food purchases that should always be organic, but yet again gave no reason why, and a Sunday paper had a full page article headlined “We dig out the facts from the manure”, but still filled the page with opinionated claim and counterclaim rather than facts. So one reason for the uproar could be that food writers and chefs may well be feeling very silly about supporting something unfounded, and possibly worried about their credibility.

The Soil Association and other organic supporters will understandably be concerned that their carefully built market will collapse down round their ears, especially in the current difficult economic climate.

So how should the organic world respond?

Instead of rushing to damn the FSA’s findings, organic practitioners should be re-evaluating in a calm, fact based and non spun way, the reasons why people might consider buying organic food.

They are fortunate in that already there is a highly committed core of organic devotees. A look at the reams of comments which newspaper articles generated from the general public gives a good steer on what they value. These people suggest that the main reason for purchase is not what is in organic food but what isn’t. The vast majority say that the reason they buy organic is to avoid pesticides. A few said they just have a belief that the whole system with its focus on the soil onwards is the right way to farm, some feel it is better for the environment, and some feel it promotes higher standards of animal welfare. (Few mentioned taste, although in a health story this is perhaps not surprising).

The organic movement needs to slow down, concentrate on what is true and factually supported about this approach to farming, tell the public and allow them to make an educated choice. Any supporting facts need to be backed by rigorous and defensible research.

This is not a strategy which will support fast growth. Recent IGD research shows that the number of people actively interested in avoiding pesticides for health reasons is relatively small . Far higher is the number seeking to promote good animal welfare, but many issues have been addressed by conventional farming such as free range eggs, and higher welfare pork and chicken. Those interested in animal welfare can choose to buy locally produced meat, and see for themselves whether the animal welfare standards behind their meat is what they want.

So whilst massive market growth will not come from a slower approach, and there may even be a sales decline in the short term, the movement can be sure that their integrity will be protected, the public will be reassured, and longer term, the organic movement will achieve the sustainability and public confidence that it seeks.

What is striking about the organic movement is that its current high powered, fast talking, heavy spinning marketing focus, with its frequent denigration of conventional agriculture, is the complete antithesis of what organic farming is all about. Organic agriculture is a slow maturing way of farming which aims to work in harmony with the natural world to ensure long term sustainability. There is little about it which is unnatural or false. It would be good if organic marketing and organic production were more closely aligned.