GrahamH wrote:

fisherman wrote:

ronmcd wrote:In a matter of months it's noticeable that produce in the supermarkets here in Scotland has largely changed from Scottish to British, but it's the branding that's changed not the produce.

I'm unclear how this works. If the success of the branding is in being Scottish, why would the producers allow it be changed? Why aren't they in control of their own marketing? (Or they are in control and choose this as a new branding strategy).

Scotland may be the brand in current markets, but great.gov.uk seems to be all about promoting assimilated 'British' products in new markets, with UK government support (tax payer's money). I can see why some producers will hope to profit from some marketing support to build a new brand identity in new markets. It would probably be more effective for Scottish brands to be promoted as Scottish etc, but no surprise that Whitehall isn't promoting 'regional' identities. It's the same thing as raving about Andy Murray as British when he's winning.

Thanks. Food for thought there, and makes sense of the marketing campaign.

Following the link, link, there is a regionalisation, though as pointed out, decidedly under the British banner. Also discovered there is currently an enquiry ongoing looking into the "success" of the food and drink campaign - can but hope it results in a more nuanced approach.

ronmcd wrote:I'm more worried about the protected status for produce. We will leave EU, lose the protections, US companies will then sell "Scotch" around the world and into EU and UK.

US lobbying for UK to drop food name protections to sell ‘Scotch whisky’

Cornish pasties and Scotch whisky are among the products that could carry a “Made in America” tag after Brexit. US lobbyists are calling for the UK to drop geographical name protections after Brexit to allow supermarkets to import American copies.

Under EU law, products including Melton Mowbray pork pies, Parmesan cheese, and Champagne have protected geographical status and cannot be made anywhere else. However, when the UK leaves the European Union it has to decide whether to maintain such protections or, as US lobbyists are urging, drop them.

While there is genuine cause for concern that these products could be under threat, I'm uncomfortable with the default assumption being we're fucked, and cannot be competitive. But admit I know next to nothing on how producers should fight to stay ahead. Labelling must be a way of showing authenticity, I would have thought.

Would the volume of Arbroath Smokie that is traded round the world necessarily increase or decrease if a New York oulet sold a NY Bagel flavoured Arbroath Smokie, or would discerning customers then seek out the authentic smokie, and in the process increase sales?

I mean who in the hell imports an Arbroath Smokie if not an already discerning customer, would it really be a nail in the coffin if the name got around and received more exposure? ( )

Is there no analysis that has a positive view on the affects an FTA has on regional food produce, or is it all negative?

Seriously, if a US corporation was able to sell "Scotch", not just in US or Russia or China (all places where the brand sells) but into UK supermarkets, that would be ok?

ronmcd wrote:Seriously, if a US corporation was able to sell "Scotch", not just in US or Russia or China (all places where the brand sells) but into UK supermarkets, that would be ok?

There are two sides to that story really. One involves analysing what is the least misleading to consumers, and the other involves analysing the way marketing exploits psychology to create a brand with an effective monopoly.

I'm not sure there are any right answers, are there*?

It'll probably be decided by industry lobbyists anyway for the most part.

*I've never been all that fussed whether my "Italian style hard cheese" comes from Parma or not, for example.

Thommo wrote:

ronmcd wrote:Seriously, if a US corporation was able to sell "Scotch", not just in US or Russia or China (all places where the brand sells) but into UK supermarkets, that would be ok?

There are two sides to that story really. One involves analysing what is the least misleading to consumers, and the other involves analysing the way marketing exploits psychology to create a brand with an effective monopoly.

I'm not sure there are any right answers, are there*?

It'll probably be decided by industry lobbyists anyway for the most part.

*I've never been all that fussed whether my "Italian style hard cheese" comes from Parma or not, for example.

Okay, that's a wider philosophical question. But the current situation is certain regional produce is protected, and brexit appears to be removing that for Scottish food and drink. Those protections seem a positive, removing them a negative. Which is why the US wants rid of them, of course.

They seem a positive for Scotch Whisky producers, certainly. Consumers though? I'm not so sure.

There might well be scope for protecting some identifiers, but I think all these issues of protectionism have two sides. My concern would only be that we (not we you and me, but we as a society) don't scrutinise anti globalism/protectionism selectively.

If I sound equivocal about that, I guess I am. I neither drink nor produce Scotch whisky (and none of my family work in the industry as far as I'm aware), so it has no real consequences for me. It's about as close to a brand as any geographically protected term gets mind you.

Well I for one am glad that I live in the EU where parmesan cheese comes from it should and feta is Greek.
The Japanese already produce "Scotch" that is sold as such in many markets.

ronmcd wrote:Seriously, if a US corporation was able to sell "Scotch", not just in US or Russia or China (all places where the brand sells) but into UK supermarkets, that would be ok?

Objectively, scotch can be seen as a process to arrive at taste and flavour - a recipe. If the recipe is followed faithfully then it is for the consumer to decide if the distiller is worthy of the name.

The vast majority of produce trades on their own brand name, will Johnny Walker, Singleton, The Macallan, Glenfiddich and Glenlivet really fail to go toe to toe in the open market place?

That said, the reality is that loosing the designation would, likely lead to loss in market share. I live within 20 miles of a dozen smaller distilleries, so as far is it goes, and for what it is worth, no I am not alright with it, as it would undoubtedly impact the area to some degree, but I'm also resigned to change being the way of the world - adapt or die.

BTW Diagio chose to market Bell's as a British Brand internationaly rather than a Scottish one.

A Diageo spokesperson replied: “Bell’s Scotch whisky has almost 200 years of proud Scottish history and its Scottish provenance and heritage are integral to the brand’s identity.

"Any marketing the brand does is intended to increase sales, which in turn supports the production of Scotch in Scotland

Thommo wrote:They seem a positive for Scotch Whisky producers, certainly. Consumers though? I'm not so sure.

There might well be scope for protecting some identifiers, but I think all these issues of protectionism have two sides. My concern would only be that we (not we you and me, but we as a society) don't scrutinise anti globalism/protectionism selectively.

If I sound equivocal about that, I guess I am. I neither drink nor produce Scotch whisky (and none of my family work in the industry as far as I'm aware), so it has no real consequences for me. It's about as close to a brand as any geographically protected term gets mind you.

I agree there is more than one side to regional brand protections. It probably is better for consumer's pockets to not have those protections. It seems clear to me that the protections benefit the producers. If most of the 'Scotch' on world markets is produced in places other than Scotland that has to be bad for Scottish distilleries.

But we don't expect Cornish pasties to all come from Cornwall or all Cheddar cheese to be made in a corner of Somerset and connoisseurs can select items that are if that matters to them.


I suppose the topical question here is whether rebranding regional produce as 'Great British', and in doing so giving up the PGI protections that are in place though the EU, benefits the UK or not. It seems to me it dilutes the brand and invites international competition. British whisky drinkers might get cheaper 'scotch' in buying American or Chinese versions but I can't see how that benefits the UK.


Not that we have many options given we are walking away from the EU so we won't be able to protect our regional brands in the EU and any UK only protection would be a little value.


There are some curiosities in there though. Like Orkney Scottish Island Cheddar

GrahamH wrote:

I agree there is more than one side to regional brand protections. It probably is better for consumer's pockets to not have those protections. It seems clear to me that the protections benefit the producers.

Maybe better for consumer's pockets, but certainly not for product's quality. It protects the consumers from cheap counterfeits, certifying a certain level of quality.

GrahamH wrote:British whisky drinkers might get cheaper 'scotch' in buying American or Chinese versions but I can't see how that benefits the UK.

Benefits to consumers and benefits to businesses benefit "the UK" in largely the same way. As with any issue government should consider business needs, but also individual standards of living, there's always a balance.

The flip side is where the economic benefit exists, foreign producers can penetrate domestic markets in both directions - cheese producers might lose out on "cheddar" sales and gain on "parmesan" sales. British vineyards might lose their stigma and start to sell some of their cheap and high quality products and so on.

I'd always take economic arguments with a pinch of salt mind you.

aban57 wrote:Maybe better for consumer's pockets, but certainly not for product's quality. It protects the consumers from cheap counterfeits, certifying a certain level of quality.

Not really, geographical protections and food quality laws are two different things. There are groups (like the Scotch whisky industry) that have stringent standards, but a lot of those standards are stringent purely for the sake of monopoly, not for the sake of quality: E.g. if you make your whisky in Scotland, but age it elsewhere, it can't be called Scotch.

In all likelihood most of this will be moot and future trade deals will incorporate some level of geographical protection anyway (as non EU deals presently do), and the independent issue of food safety laws probably won't see unsafe foods suddenly permitted either.

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

I agree there is more than one side to regional brand protections. It probably is better for consumer's pockets to not have those protections. It seems clear to me that the protections benefit the producers.

Maybe better for consumer's pockets, but certainly not for product's quality. It protects the consumers from cheap counterfeits, certifying a certain level of quality.

I don't think the problem will be cheap versions trading on the name and duping consumers, I supect the problem would be high quality products that threaten the original producer on taste or good marketing. As such this is a profit driven issue, by producers protecting their monopoly, and competitors trying to enter the protected market.

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

I agree there is more than one side to regional brand protections. It probably is better for consumer's pockets to not have those protections. It seems clear to me that the protections benefit the producers.

Maybe better for consumer's pockets, but certainly not for product's quality. It protects the consumers from cheap counterfeits, certifying a certain level of quality.

There is a quality control element, but that doesn't mean that versions made elsewhere are low quality.

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

I agree there is more than one side to regional brand protections. It probably is better for consumer's pockets to not have those protections. It seems clear to me that the protections benefit the producers.

Maybe better for consumer's pockets, but certainly not for product's quality. It protects the consumers from cheap counterfeits, certifying a certain level of quality.

There is a quality control element, but that doesn't mean that versions made elsewhere are low quality.

True. Not always, but often. Or it's a different product, made with different ingredients/processes. Anyway, it doesn't only protect the producer, but also the consumer, because he knows what he's buying.

Ozzies dont miss a trick:

How Australia's meat industry plans to flood post-Brexit Britain with products banned in EU

Exclusive: Campaigners and farmers concerned by removal of 'technical barriers' to trade with Australia that could cause influx of lower quality products

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

I agree there is more than one side to regional brand protections. It probably is better for consumer's pockets to not have those protections. It seems clear to me that the protections benefit the producers.

Maybe better for consumer's pockets, but certainly not for product's quality. It protects the consumers from cheap counterfeits, certifying a certain level of quality.

There is a quality control element, but that doesn't mean that versions made elsewhere are low quality.

True. Not always, but often. Or it's a different product, made with different ingredients/processes. Anyway, it doesn't only protect the producer, but also the consumer, because he knows what he's buying.

It is about quality. Anything made in a different area is another product. The reason why it is called a certain type is just to hang onto the coattails of the original product that has taken years of skill to build up its name.

The EU is about balancing protectionism and free trade, or if you prefer social controls on the market and all out capitalism.

That's the tragedy of Brexit, the leaders of brexit want all out of capitalism (and are running it) and you have the useful idiots who want far less capitalism/more social control water board nationalism.

Utter insanity

Scot Dutchy wrote:

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote:
Maybe better for consumer's pockets, but certainly not for product's quality. It protects the consumers from cheap counterfeits, certifying a certain level of quality.

There is a quality control element, but that doesn't mean that versions made elsewhere are low quality.

True. Not always, but often. Or it's a different product, made with different ingredients/processes. Anyway, it doesn't only protect the producer, but also the consumer, because he knows what he's buying.

It is about quality. Anything made in a different area is another product. The reason why it is called a certain type is just to hang onto the coattails of the original product that has taken years of skill to build up its name.

is the worry for the producers. A brand known for a particular quality or characteristics, with sales based on those characteristics, is devalued by other products being able to use the name and potentially be lower/different quality.

fisherman wrote:

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

I agree there is more than one side to regional brand protections. It probably is better for consumer's pockets to not have those protections. It seems clear to me that the protections benefit the producers.

Maybe better for consumer's pockets, but certainly not for product's quality. It protects the consumers from cheap counterfeits, certifying a certain level of quality.

I don't think the problem will be cheap versions trading on the name and duping consumers, I supect the problem would be high quality products that threaten the original producer on taste or good marketing. As such this is a profit driven issue, by producers protecting their monopoly, and competitors trying to enter the protected market.

Dont those competitors trading on their own merits already have access to the same market, able to compete on quality (but not regional brand)? So the only change under your scenario would be to disguise themselves as having the same characteristics as the regional branded produce.

ronmcd wrote:

fisherman wrote:

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

I agree there is more than one side to regional brand protections. It probably is better for consumer's pockets to not have those protections. It seems clear to me that the protections benefit the producers.

Maybe better for consumer's pockets, but certainly not for product's quality. It protects the consumers from cheap counterfeits, certifying a certain level of quality.

I don't think the problem will be cheap versions trading on the name and duping consumers, I supect the problem would be high quality products that threaten the original producer on taste or good marketing. As such this is a profit driven issue, by producers protecting their monopoly, and competitors trying to enter the protected market.

Dont those competitors trading on their own merits already have access to the same market, able to compete on quality (but not regional brand)? So the only change under your scenario would be to disguise themselves as having the same characteristics as the regional branded produce.

i think the point is that the others would not be trading on their own merits, they wold be trading on the famous brand. To the extent they produce a quality product it hurts the native producers directly and where quality is lower they devalue the brand overall.


So a 'regional brand' like cornish pasty or cheddar cheese carries no presumption of quality at all because any Tom Dick or Harriet can make goods uding those names to lowest common denominator food standards regulations.

Maybe M&S cornish pasty is traded on it's own merits (a random pick). Consumers will rely on merchants to manage quality control issues quite appart from the regional brand.

So people who now expect certain quality from a single malt scotch whisky will likely stop assuming that in future. They can still go for that particular distillers or sellers as trusted brands in their own right and presumably individual trademarks will still mean something so not everything is lost.