Marketing Strategies: Salmon VS Tuna

Tuna and salmon are the most consumed species of fish in the Western world and they can both boast about being healthy and lean sources of protein. However tuna, especially in canned form, has seen a lack of growth in recent years in major markets such as the US and some EU markets like the UK. This may have something to do with how the product is being marketed.

Both tuna and salmon are popular food choices in canned form, as well as in dishes such as sushi, but tuna leads the canned segment in most markets, whereas salmon tends to be dominant in the fresh and frozen categories. The two fish are both rich in nutrients, and there is not a big difference in the health benefits that they can offer as both are full of Omega-3, healthy oils and fatty acids.

Some even argue that tuna is healthier than its counterpart as it contains fewer calories. Comparing a chunk white albacore 5oz can of tuna in water with a 5oz can of pink salmon in water; the tuna contains around 125 calories per 56g compared to canned salmon’s 150 calories per same weight.

When it comes to price, tuna can also often be the better option. If we compare the price of canned tuna and canned salmon, at US retailer Walmart a 5oz can with Chicken of the Sea skinless boneless chunk style pink salmon in water sells for USD 1.66 as part of a four pack. Solid white albacore in water from the same brand and same size costs USD 1.27 and chunk light tuna in water costs USD 1.12; both also sold in four-packs.

In 2015 tuna lost out to both salmon and shrimp in terms of being the most popular seafood on the US market. But if tuna holds the same standard as salmon, or even comes out on top when it comes to both nutritional value and price, how come it falls behind in sales?

Consumption of canned tuna in the US has been on the decline for several years. This has often been put down to a lack of quality as well as an increase of additives in the product. Negative publicity on mercury has also been a leading factor, causing the tuna industry to defend itself, rather than promote itself. This could be an indication as to why the marketing of salmon has been more successful than the marketing of tuna.

In the first six months of 2016, 10,000 tons less of canned tuna were imported in the US when compared to the same period the year before, which according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the lowest Jan-Jun import level on record for seven years.

Sales data also presents a substantial decline in overall ambient tuna purchases in the US in recent years, dropping around 15 percent in volume from 2006 to 2015.

So what can be done to tempt Americans to eat tuna again? A falling consumption, especially among young Americans, shows an urgent need for improvement in the marketing of the product.

Chicken of the Sea is a brand that has both tuna and salmon products in its portfolio and the Director of Marketing at the company, Maureen McDonnell, believes that some people have the wrong impression of tuna and its health benefits. She explains to Atuna that the brand is working to change this view.

“There is an incorrect perception among some consumers that tuna lacks some of the same day-to-day nutritional benefits of salmon. However, new programs touting the nutritional and antioxidant benefits of tuna, like our ‘Sea the Possibilities’, are changing this perception, especially among younger consumers.”

On the other hand, Chicken of the Sea states that the group has seen an increase in sales for both tuna and salmon products after the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020 were released, encouraging consumers to choose seafood instead of other proteins. The brand says that it is “definitely strengthening the nutritional reputation of tuna and other seafood.”

Leading health organizations such as the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association also recommend eating seafood twice a week, so the evidence of health benefits gained from eating fish is heavily reported.

“We definitely think it is possible to increase consumption of tuna. We’ve already seen the benefits of linking Chicken of the Sea to the new Dietary Guidelines calling for increased seafood consumption – and then using quick, tasty new tuna recipes to make it easy for consumers to respond. All of our promotional efforts, whether tuna, salmon or multiple-variety, include unique new recipes and serving suggestions as well as a compelling call-to-action.”

But there are still some quite obvious differences when it comes to the marketing strategies used across the two species. When picking up a pack of salmon in the supermarket, whether canned, fresh or frozen, the region the fish was caught is often written clearly on the front. The words “Alaskan Caught” or “Norwegian Caught” are often included in an attempt to attract consumers.

Both Alaskan and Norwegian salmon producers have pumped significant funds into marketing the region their fish was caught in. As well as this, they have had a strong focus on promoting a positive message about the fish and its many health benefits.

Norway for instance has invested heavily in marketing and seafood promotion via the Norwegian Seafood Council and has in this way managed to make its salmon renowned for high quality all over the world.

When looking at a can of tuna, the region where the fish was caught can often be found upon closer inspection of the packaging, but the origin is hardly ever used as a selling point. One reason for this is that tuna is a global species which is available to fish all year, in oceans all over the world.

Additionally, there is no quality premium which has been given to a specific tuna-catching area and hence this is not marketed to consumers as the “ideal” region to source tuna from.

Salmon farming and wild salmon are for example restricted only to certain regions, and additionally, wild salmon catch is only available seasonally, once a year.

Promotional advertising campaigns have shown in the past that health is more important when it comes to salmon, and sustainability is a more important focus when it comes to tuna.

Sustainability has long been a topic clouding the tuna industry, with stock figures on bluefin tuna for example being used by general press sources as an overall communication on the state of tuna populations.

Reports indicate that the tuna industry has been more commonly criticized for its fishing practices, and therefore brands and retailers might be more conscious to prove that the product is sustainably and ethically caught, rather than focusing on health benefits.

While “Omega 3”, “Natural” and “High in Protein” are logos often found within the salmon segment, tuna cans are dominated with labels such as “Dolphin Friendly”, “MSC” and “Pole and Line”.

For tuna, sustainability-related labels take a heavy focus and can use up space that otherwise may have been used to promote the health traits we more commonly see on salmon. But the case might be, as COS suggests, that it is exactly these labels that tuna cans would need to include in order to increase sales.

Another difference between the two species is whether they come from the wild or from farms. Around 70 percent of all salmon found in supermarkets come from farms. In comparison, around 5,544 tons of tuna worldwide come from farms, which only makes out around 0.1 percent of all tuna sold on the market.

There has been dispute over whether farmed fish is as healthy as wild fish and there are proven benefits and disadvantages to both types. But one thing is clear; the issue of sustainability is bound to be bigger with wild-caught fish than with fish farming.

This doesn’t mean that the salmon industry has not experienced any struggles. A well-known issue of farming salmon is the use of antibiotics to fight the bacterial disease “furunculosis”, which is now seen as a dangerous practice because of antibiotic resistance. However, Norwegian scientists managed to create a vaccine against the disease, reducing the need and use of antibiotics.

Antibiotics in salmon is a bigger and more serious problem than mercury in tuna, which actually hasn’t been proven to be dangerous. But the salmon industry has been relatively successful in dealing with the negative media publicity and criticism that it has experienced as a consequence, whereas especially the US tuna industry has been less effective in countering the negativity.

As mercury can have had an impact on the declining tuna sales, the tuna industry has failed to tackle tuna’s undeserved bad image and the misinformation that has gone out to consumers. There have been no scientific studies proving the legitimacy that mercury is dangerous when eating a normal amount of tuna, and there are no proven cases of humans suffering harmful side effects from it.

In fact, other reports have indicated that the level of selenium present in canned tuna counteracts the effects of mercury. This is a message that the tuna industry has been unable to get across to consumers.

There are several points that tuna can learn from salmon in order to improve its marketing, and as a result increase sales. A stronger focus on specific health benefits is likely needed to attract consumers as tuna is currently losing out to salmon, which in popular belief is the healthier and more sustainable fish.

In addition to this, investing more money into promoting specific tuna catching areas connected with a solid sustainability certification program, can help regions such as the Maldives and the PNA convince consumers that they are linked to sustainability and pristine ecosystems. A combination of these factors can help the tuna industry to strengthen the popularity of the fish, and come out as the winner to regain the best-seller spot.