RT Outers - Divert Your Eyes

[deleted user 436632456]

So it's became very clear to me that there is 2 reasons why farmers don't like RT and assurance schemes-
1) They don't like the compliance and paperwork - Understandable it's not for everybody and it doesn't make you a better farmer.
2) Their not getting bang for their buck via premiums- Totally understandable as well.

But what if.. your a bit of a punter/gambler like myself and think.. "There could be opportunity in this"

And what I mean is that you put yourself out there and RT/Supermarkets/Buyers approach and tell you what level of compliance they require but the condition is that they will be paying a fair price for it.

I get the argument that ^^^ is probably what RT should already be doing but they aren't.

I mean if some company wants to offer me 50p per kilo extra for high level of compliance.. sign me up

 

[Wellytrack]

What’s fair? Fair to the supermarket?

 

[Lincsman]

Why would they want to increase their costs? their customers dont really care, but would if it cost them more.

 

[Pieces_of_Eight]

Selling more power to the retailers isn't what farming needs.

[Most producers have sweet FA left to sell anyway...]

 

[Brisel]

So it's became very clear to me that there is 2 reasons why farmers don't like RT and assurance schemes-
1) They don't like the compliance and paperwork - Understandable it's not for everybody and it doesn't make you a better farmer.
2) Their not getting bang for their buck via premiums- Totally understandable as well.

But what if.. your a bit of a punter/gambler like myself and think.. "There could be opportunity in this"

And what I mean is that you put yourself out there and RT/Supermarkets/Buyers approach and tell you what level of compliance they require but the condition is that they will be paying a fair price for it.

I get the argument that ^^^ is probably what RT should already be doing but they aren't.

I mean if some company wants to offer me 50p per kilo extra for high level of compliance.. sign me up

Hopefully someone who supplies the retailers with fresh produce will comment on this. It's a fair question & I've said before that personally, I'm not against an assurance scheme, just not this runaway train of Jim Moseley's.

The vegetables I used to grow had to be part of whatever scheme that retailer wanted e.g. Nature's Choice or Leaf Marque. That was a while ago & the supermarkets have escalated this in an effort to provide points of difference over their competitors. Ask a potato grower how many schemes they are in & Red Tractor is by far the least stringent. From my limited discussions with growers since, these schemes are a condition of market access though to get into that market the retailers did pay a bit more, even if they kept raising the bar for no additional premium. Does that sound familiar?

I used to grow wheat for Warburtons & Weetabix. Both wanted more than just RT but not much more & it wasn't costing us a great deal to get access to those markets that paid a small premium. I was happy to supply them and it served us well.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

So it's became very clear to me that there is 2 reasons why farmers don't like RT and assurance schemes-
1) They don't like the compliance and paperwork - Understandable it's not for everybody and it doesn't make you a better farmer.
2) Their not getting bang for their buck via premiums- Totally understandable as well.

But what if.. your a bit of a punter/gambler like myself and think.. "There could be opportunity in this"

And what I mean is that you put yourself out there and RT/Supermarkets/Buyers approach and tell you what level of compliance they require but the condition is that they will be paying a fair price for it.

I get the argument that ^^^ is probably what RT should already be doing but they aren't.

I mean if some company wants to offer me 50p per kilo extra for high level of compliance.. sign me up

I think you have overlooked the crux of the problem with RT in that it has tried to become compulsory and it's stated aim is to have ever higher standards.
This is coupled with NO compulsion for anyone else in the food chain to have all supplies meeting those same standards.
Ever increasing costs and time spent meeting standards while only being paid the same as the lowest standard is not sustainable.
It just requires a properly functioning market place OR controls on the standards of imports.

As @delilah is oft heard saying, "market share is the root of all evil" [or words to that effect]

 

[delilah]

It just requires a properly functioning market place OR controls on the standards of imports.

As @delilah is oft heard saying, "market share is the root of all evil" [or words to that effect]

We can forget the latter, whereas the former is entirely doable.
Any attempt to negotiate a fair deal for primary producers in the current marketplace is p!ssing in the wind (or words to that effect).

 

[deleted user 436632456]

My view is that you would effectively be an facilitator to their marketing department.

Say a home meal kit provider or even Tesco's finest approach you and make a list of requirements, they want to sell the end user a proper field to fork storyboard with their product, even down to what animal is being supplied, part of the conditions is you supply pictures of the animal at various stages throughout its life, where the animal grazed, it's winter diet, and all other compliance that comes with it etc etc they want to sell that the animal, the end user is eating, really had the best life it could have at my farm.
And for that privilege they have to pay me and extra £1.50 a kilo (But I'm a dealing man, will settle for £1.25) and the ball is in my court, if its not a good deal for them or me it won't be done.

Karen from the housing estate probably doesn't care, but Charlotte in her German car from walton-on-thames probably does, and she would be their target market.

TBH RT have never sold or marketed the products they are supposed to be, so why not let proper marketing departments suggest what they require to sell my products better? And we both win.

 

[JP1]

1. Get the Parrish Amendment pushed through Parliament - ideally with Gove’s head on a spike

2. Remove the BRC’s majority control of RT

3. Return RT standards to the original and without mission creep

4. Bring forward proper clear food labelling







Maybe , possibly maybe I’d consider returning . The premium won’t last anyway

 

[delilah]

Say a home meal kit provider or even Tesco's finest approach you and make a list of requirements, they want to sell the end user a proper field to fork storyboard with their product, even down to what animal is being supplied, part of the conditions is you supply pictures of the animal at various stages throughout its life, where the animal grazed, it's winter diet, and all other compliance that comes with it etc etc they want to sell that the animal, the end user is eating, really had the best life it could have at my farm.
And for that privilege they have to pay me and extra £1.50 a kilo (But I'm a dealing man, will settle for £1.25) and the ball is in my court, if its not a good deal for them or me it won't be done.

Are you finishing - oh I don't know, lets say - 500 cattle per week ? That you can deliver to whichever abattoir in the UK Tesco tell you to ?
You are trying to make your entirely laudable marketing plan fit into the current oligopolistic market. It wont.
Market share is the root of all evil.

 

[farmerm]

So it's became very clear to me that there is 2 reasons why farmers don't like RT and assurance schemes-
1) They don't like the compliance and paperwork - Understandable it's not for everybody and it doesn't make you a better farmer.
2) Their not getting bang for their buck via premiums- Totally understandable as well.

But what if.. your a bit of a punter/gambler like myself and think.. "There could be opportunity in this"

And what I mean is that you put yourself out there and RT/Supermarkets/Buyers approach and tell you what level of compliance they require but the condition is that they will be paying a fair price for it.

I get the argument that ^^^ is probably what RT should already be doing but they aren't.

I mean if some company wants to offer me 50p per kilo extra for high level of compliance.. sign me up

Buyers will happily give 50p "extra" but only after the knocked it off the base price in the first place.... everyone's a winner...

 

[digger64]

So it's became very clear to me that there is 2 reasons why farmers don't like RT and assurance schemes-
1) They don't like the compliance and paperwork - Understandable it's not for everybody and it doesn't make you a better farmer.
2) Their not getting bang for their buck via premiums- Totally understandable as well.

But what if.. your a bit of a punter/gambler like myself and think.. "There could be opportunity in this"

And what I mean is that you put yourself out there and RT/Supermarkets/Buyers approach and tell you what level of compliance they require but the condition is that they will be paying a fair price for it.

I get the argument that ^^^ is probably what RT should already be doing but they aren't.

I mean if some company wants to offer me 50p per kilo extra for high level of compliance.. sign me up

when we have a chinese takeaway ,if we spend over a certain level we get free prawn crackers - we dont actually ask for them ,we dont need them,they dont affect our menu choices or restaurant choice,they often get thrown away but we do accept them and have sort of more or less taken them for granted as an expectation . Also we will eat an alternative type of takeaway if it suits regardless of the supply of free prawn crackers .
(These must cost the supplier something ). We wouldnt be prepared to pay extra for them unless an individual requested them by choice , but we would be prepared to pay extra for something that costs or pleases us like delivery , quality,presentation and this might affect which restaurant we choose to supply us.
This is how processors etc see farm assurance , I dont think the consumers even see it at all .

 

[Spencer]

Not a fan of prawn crackers.. Nor red tractors, good simile

 

[deleted user 837354]

RT is compulsory to farms even though it isn't compulsory on food and retailers don't even care about it. It has no marketplace prescence and means nothing to consumers. What is the point?

Retailers and big brand names won't use generic logos or brand names that their competitors can use. Why would they want to associate themselves with a logo that could undermine their own? It makes no sense.

I see Arla lacto-free milk has no mention of it's providence nor a red tractor logo on it. The company have created a powerful brand name and a unique selling point for their product. What advantage does putting a red tractor logo on it give them when Nestle and co can use it as well?

Product differentiation is the name of the game, a product becomes distinct and desirable to consumers and you can whistle a margin from it.

I just see no need for RT when the marketplace clearly wants to diverge into individual schemes that are better able to deliver increased margin for all the players within it.

Red tractor seems to be a 'do as we say for your own good' kind of mentality. It's supporters all bang on about how great it is and stops producers having to abide by several other schemes- wakey wakey, it doesn't protect the industry from cheaper imports, and in many sectors there are already better schemes for which cold hard cash is paid to people complying with it.

RT seems to want to regulate the commodity end of the market. The future needs to be aimed at more than being a mere commodity producer these days.

 

[Midnight plough boy]

My view is that you would effectively be an facilitator to their marketing department.

Say a home meal kit provider or even Tesco's finest approach you and make a list of requirements, they want to sell the end user a proper field to fork storyboard with their product, even down to what animal is being supplied, part of the conditions is you supply pictures of the animal at various stages throughout its life, where the animal grazed, it's winter diet, and all other compliance that comes with it etc etc they want to sell that the animal, the end user is eating, really had the best life it could have at my farm.
And for that privilege they have to pay me and extra £1.50 a kilo (But I'm a dealing man, will settle for £1.25) and the ball is in my court, if its not a good deal for them or me it won't be done.

Karen from the housing estate probably doesn't care, but Charlotte in her German car from walton-on-thames probably does, and she would be their target market.

TBH RT have never sold or marketed the products they are supposed to be, so why not let proper marketing departments suggest what they require to sell my products better? And we both win.

Tesco’s finest don’t need to approach you though - they’ve got their marketing sorted. They’re selling the same product to Charlotte as they are to Karen, except that Charlotte’s comes in a posher looking silver box with a heftier price tag. So they don’t need to pay you £1.25 more because they’re not paying any more for it.

 

[digger64]

My view is that you would effectively be an facilitator to their marketing department.

Say a home meal kit provider or even Tesco's finest approach you and make a list of requirements, they want to sell the end user a proper field to fork storyboard with their product, even down to what animal is being supplied, part of the conditions is you supply pictures of the animal at various stages throughout its life, where the animal grazed, it's winter diet, and all other compliance that comes with it etc etc they want to sell that the animal, the end user is eating, really had the best life it could have at my farm.
And for that privilege they have to pay me and extra £1.50 a kilo (But I'm a dealing man, will settle for £1.25) and the ball is in my court, if its not a good deal for them or me it won't be done.

Karen from the housing estate probably doesn't care, but Charlotte in her German car from walton-on-thames probably does, and she would be their target market.

TBH RT have never sold or marketed the products they are supposed to be, so why not let proper marketing departments suggest what they require to sell my products better? And we both win.

I think Sharon, Charlotte and Mr Tesco would tell you to go home and feed your cattle do what you are good at and stop making things complicated . Seeing as they havent interferred with or judged your business let them do theirs , but if you dont annoy them to much and the price is reasonable they will support you ,but they need to know its yours, so could you and your colleagues perhaps put a bright little eye catching red , white and blue label on it prominent place as they are in a hurry when they food shop or that they can see when they select online or decisively lob it in the trolley .
P.S. Sharon and Charlotte have both said they dont really care what colour your tractor is or how many flashing lights it has .

 

[milkloss]

And for that privilege they have to pay me and extra £1.50 a kilo (But I'm a dealing man, will settle for £1.25)

There’s our problem right there........ divide and rule.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Buyers will happily give 50p "extra" but only after the knocked it off the base price in the first place.... everyone's a winner...

I think that many farmers don't realise [ or wilfully ignore] that virtually every premium or bonus offered is actually just a reason to pay others less, and ultimately limit the price for everyone.

 

[Cowmansam]

My view is that you would effectively be an facilitator to their marketing department.

Say a home meal kit provider or even Tesco's finest approach you and make a list of requirements, they want to sell the end user a proper field to fork storyboard with their product, even down to what animal is being supplied, part of the conditions is you supply pictures of the animal at various stages throughout its life, where the animal grazed, it's winter diet, and all other compliance that comes with it etc etc they want to sell that the animal, the end user is eating, really had the best life it could have at my farm.
And for that privilege they have to pay me and extra £1.50 a kilo (But I'm a dealing man, will settle for £1.25) and the ball is in my court, if its not a good deal for them or me it won't be done.

Karen from the housing estate probably doesn't care, but Charlotte in her German car from walton-on-thames probably does, and she would be their target market.

TBH RT have never sold or marketed the products they are supposed to be, so why not let proper marketing departments suggest what they require to sell my products better? And we both win.

Have you ever read a dairy contract

 

[deleted user 436632456]

Retailers and big brand names won't use generic logos or brand names that their competitors can use. Why would they want to associate themselves with a logo that could undermine their own? It makes no sense.

I think it is time the retailers and big brand names came out and actually declared what they want!!

RT has mudded the waters and placed themselves as the go to in-between guy, and really they have done it so badly and lined their pockets along the way.

If the retailers and big brand names where allowed to interact without the interference of RT to growers and producers and set their own standards, I think the market would be a different place than it is today.

If you don't like or don't want to produce to Asda's standards... produce for someone else then.

The "Edge" for the retailers is one up man ship on the competition, that approach will not suit every farmer but as long as there is an incentive in it i.e. a premium for the one's that do decide to go down that route.

But it only works if that premium is guaranteed.