h a l f b a k e r y
Ask your doctor if the Halfbakery is right for you.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
FarmFair
Give consumers the option to support non-imported food | |
[Sorry if this idea seems UK-centric; it's
meant equally applicable to any country
but uses the UK as an example]
In the UK, farmers have a bad time
because food prices are so low, driven
down by supermarket chains and by
competition from imports. Many sectors
of farming barely break
even at present.
A good proportion of UK people claim to
want to support UK-produced food.
Indeed, produce is often marked as
"English" or "British" as a selling point
(even if it has only been packaged in the
UK - a piece of consumer deception).
I would like to be able to support UK
farmers, but I don't have the option of
paying an extra few pence for a litre of
UK-produced milk or a pound of minced
beef.
So, how to give customers the
opportunity
to support UK farmers in a way that
doesn't make a supermarket
uncompetitive?
Adopt a standard, easily-recognised
"FarmFair" (or whatever) logo to identify
food produced by local (UK) farmers. At
the checkout, the customer is asked if
they want to pay the "FarmFair" charge or
not. If they don't, fine - they pay the
regular low price. If they do, then an
extra
(say) 5% is added to the cost of all the
"FarmFriendly" items in their basket.
This
5% then goes straight back to the
farmers.
It is, in effect, a donation to support
farming in the UK.
Rather than deterring customers (as a
simple price-hike would), I think this
might actually attract customers: the
supermarket can claim to give customers
the option to support our local farmers,
whilst still offering and advertising the
"regular" low prices.
Even if 80% of customers choose not to
pay the "FarmFair" charge, there's still
20%
that might. Or 10%, or 5%. And at least
I'd have the choice.
Responsibility as part of a brand image
http://www.j-sainsb...geid=65&caseid=milk
Sainsbury "Farm Promise" milk - 5c of price goes to help farmers convert to organic. [jutta, May 31 2007]
Fairtrade brand, UK
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/
Not focused on UK farmers, though. [jutta, May 31 2007]
Do you not have Farmer's Markets where you can go directly?
http://www.ams.usda...mersmarkets/map.htm
[xandram, Jun 01 2007]
[link]
|
| |
Wouldn't it be simplier to vividly label the goods with the place of origin / production? |
|
| |
Alternatively, you could tax imported foods to the point where local produce is cheaper, but that would put you in danger of MFD for advocacy (a rule I'd like to see changed, as economics are a powerful force for change). |
|
| |
//simplier to vividly label the goods
with the place of origin// That is
already done - I concealed that fact by
stating it in the idea on the left. |
|
| |
//tax imported foods// no no no! The
point is not to coerce anybody. The
point is that a fair proportion of
consumers in the UK would like to
support UK farming, but have no easy
means to do so: they can only pay the
price that the supermarkets have
negotiated. And you can't blame the
supermarkets for that. |
|
| |
Realistically, the way this is done is by introducing brands that have the farm support as part of their brand image.
(Compare the "Fairtrade" brand.) |
|
| |
If you would like to support your local farmers, surely there must be some place that you can give money to without tying it to purchases of goods?
There's really no reason to lay the cost of managing the extra monetary flow on the supermarket chain. |
|
| |
//by introducing brands that have the
farm support// True, but then it
becomes a small niche and is
competing with existing products. The
idea was to take existing products
which are locally grown (and often
marketed on that basis) and which are
already on the supermarket shelves,
and give shoppers the option to express
their support without changing their
purchases. (Or to just pay the
supermarket price, if they prefer.) |
|
| |
//some place that you can give
money // True again. In particular,
there are farmers' markets and farm
shops, where the farmers usually get a
better return. However, many people
are lazy rather than stingy, and will
always do most of their shopping at
supermarkets (this includes me). The
aim was to make this a very easy (and
optional) option which shoppers can
feel virtuous about without making any
effort, but which does benefit the
farmers. |
|
| |
The comparison with "Fair trade" is a
good one inasmuch as people buy
fairtrade largely because they want to
help, and it is no additional effort to do
so: it's psychologically half-way
between regular shopping and charity.
This would be similar in that respect,
but different in implementation. |
|
| |
And re. the "Farm Promise" milk - yes,
and there are a few other things like
this, but they are very limited.
Supermarkets like to be seen to support
UK farmers because the public likes the
idea; but it eats into their profit
margins, so they can't be expected to
take it much further. By implementing
"FarmFair", the supermarkets are seen
to be helping the farmers even though
it's the customer who (if they wish)
actually pays for it. |
|
| |
/ lay the cost of managing the extra
monetary flow on the supermarket
chain.// True, and supermarkets would
not do it if it weren't popular. However,
as noted, they like to be seen to
promote UK producers, and so this
scheme might (?) work to their
advantage. And, given that the whole
thing operates through the same
computer-linked tils that they have at
present, and given that they already
have the trading links with the
suppliers, this may not cost them a lot.
I'm not expecting any supermarket to
do anything that's not in its own
interest. |
|
| |
[Good to see people supporting the UK
fishing industry here, btw] |
|
| |
// At the checkout, the customer is asked if they want to pay the "FarmFair" charge or not. |
|
| |
This (being asked to contribute money to a cause at the cash register) has happened to me once.
I can't speak for others, but for me, that makes me feel put on the spot, and I hate that - it's no longer about whether I want to give money, but whether I want to be seen by the clerk and the people around me as generous / patriotic / what have you, and I'd feel that the charitable organization is trying to exploit that pressure. I avoided the store for a while after that. |
|
| |
Not to say that that would be the majority reaction; but there *is* a cost to not disguising these contributions within the product. |
|
| |
//I'd feel that the charitable organization
is trying to exploit that pressure.// Yes -
I'd have to agree with you there - fair
point. |
|
| |
I don't think this is a bad idea, but can't you just go to local farmstands or farmer's markets?
[see link] |
|
| |
//but can't you just go to local
farmstands or farmer's markets// Yes,
one can, as I noted couple of annos
back. The point is that even well-
meaning people are lazy, and farmers'
markets are few and far between
compared to supermarkets (at least in
the UK - surely elsewhere too?). This
was meant to be as hassle-free as
possible for the consumer, because
people's altruism runs only so far. |
|
| |
However, I think [Jutta]'s last point is
probably the killer. |
|
| |