A ‘Why Australian?’ campaign is more important than a simplistic logo 

The Australian Farm Institute convened the Future Trade Opportunities for Australian Agriculture conference in Canberra in June 2015. There was general agreement at this conference about the need to transition the Australian agricultural sector (in broad terms) from a plain old commodity exporter to a more innovative consumer product exporter. A major driver behind this aspiration was Australia’s limited production capacity relative to future global food and fibre demand projections. However, a significant sticking point in the discussion was exactly what role a national brand should play in the transition.

Over the last 50 years, the Australian agriculture sector has always been a globally significant exporter of largely undifferentiated agricultural commodities. These were commodities such as wheat, beef and wool that were marketed to overseas processors, which were part of a chain that eventually resulted in the manufacture of finished products suitable for purchase by consumers. Along the way, these commodities largely lost their ‘Australian’ identity.

The growing wealth of consumers in developing nations, coupled with the rapid globalisation of agriculture that has occurred over the past two decades, is necessitating major changes in order for Australian agriculture to remain profitable and competitive. Australia is now one of the highest cost nations in the world, meaning that it is very difficult for Australian agricultural produce to compete purely on price against products from major competitors such as Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, New Zealand and even the United States (US).

Fortunately, Australia has managed to develop well recognised and respected national systems to provide assurance about the food safety, chemical residue, and the pest and disease status of exported agricultural products. While the farm level requirements associated with these are often considered to be ‘just another cost’ for farmers, there is no doubt they have provided major benefits in export markets.

Australia’s uninterrupted access to the Japanese and Korean beef markets over the past decade, while competitors such as the US, Canada and Brazil have been denied access due to disease and biosecurity risks, is a very stark reminder of the value of these systems and the potential risk associated with their failure. ABARES has recently estimated that Australia’s biosecurity system is worth between $12,000 and $17,500 per year to the average broadacre farmer, or 12% to 17% of annual broadacre farm profits. (1)

The key challenge for Australian agriculture however is to find ways to maximise the value of the sector’s reputation, and also to consolidate and enhance that reputation in the future without incurring excessive costs. Many of the speakers at the conference made reference to the need for a national ‘brand’ that could be utilised for this purpose, although it was evident that exactly what this means or how it would be implemented is a subject requiring some debate.
There is a tendency by some to simplistically ‘stick a logo’ on any produce grown in Australia, on the assumption that the product will be preferred because it’s Australian. However, this is essentially what is already in place with the ‘Australian Made’ kangaroo logo, and it is hard to see why simply replacing the logo will make any difference.

It was also evident at the conference that some of Australia’s biggest agricultural producers and exporters are intent on developing and promoting their own brands (understandably) and have no intention of cluttering their product packaging real estate with a national logo that is available to anyone, irrespective of the quality or safety of their product. Nevertheless, despite the resistance of major exporters to the notion of a national logo, most were happy to acknowledge that the international reputation of Australian produce – and especially the food safety and biosecurity reputation – is an important component of their ability to market their products in higher value markets.
This leads to the conclusion that the critical first step should be the development of an information campaign explaining why Australian agricultural produce should be preferred and trusted by international and Australian consumers. Essentially, a ‘Why Australian’ campaign that brings together information about the underlying food safety, biosecurity and environmental standards associated with Australian agricultural production would provide a focus for all Australian efforts – be they by state governments, individual companies, industry organisations or the Australian Government – to enhance the appeal of Australian products for consumers.

Footnotes

1. Hafi, A, Addai, D, Zhang, K, Gray, EM (2015), The value of Australia’s biosecurity system at the farm gate: an analysis of avoided trade and on farm impacts, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), Canberra.

Back to August 2015 index