Jump to content

Adam Boot

Members
  • Content Count

    426
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Seller statistics

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

Adam Boot last won the day on April 23

Adam Boot had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

314 Excellent

1 Follower

About Adam Boot

  • Rank
    Pupa

Converted

  • Beekeeping Experience
    Honey Marketer

Location

  • Location
    Auckland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was referring to this post. An extraction and packing facility is actually not that costly, but it can be if you have deep pockets and want all the bells and whistles. Once you've got together the 50+ documents MPI want as part of your RMP, it is pretty simple. The twice annual audits are the costly part. SQF - No, not the market Halal and Kosher - please.... Holding finished stock - warehouse space. Delivery - well, come on, that is not hard. Here is my question again: If having a brand is so terrible, why did Midlands create one? That is a good question. However the starting position for Midlands was different. Midlands were already a large scale packer of OEM private label product. They already had the facility and the bells and whistles in place before embarking on their own brand creation. Brands added security to an existing product mix. A gap in the market was identified before developing a brand to fill the gap. They had the IP within the team to execute a brand or brands with a long term strategy - years not months. In my opinion this is more complex. C are a class act that made some errors that only became obvious with hindsight. Large scale vertical integration is often a sensible move forward in many industries. The integration becomes harder the more diverse the skill sets between the integrated entities. Industrial large scale food manufacturing is a very different skill set to farming (bee keeping). Add a fickle crop such as Manuka and the issue increases. The security they had as a honey buyer came from many and multiple suppliers across many regions without the fixed cost associated with owning. As owners, they cannot achieve the same risk mitigation across supply/quality/cost. Their own crop will never supply all their own requirements and thus to greater or lesser extents they still must go to market to fulfil Honey requirements each season. At the same time, they have acquired the addition fixed costs of Bee keeping. As they acquire more hives they do not necessarily acquire or retain the IP at the same rate. In my opinion their average kg’s per hive will probably be less than a good Bee Keeping operation of 4-6,000 hives. By owning the hives, they also have a commitment to use all the honey, even the non- Manuka and grades or Multiflora that do not fit their product range. Of course, they can sell of the honey they do not require but only at market rate – if they can sell it? In my opinion the Brand is a different story. Though very strong in China the brand has been hijacked by the Daigou channel, becoming a brand on continual discount and promotion. This makes it difficult for major domestic retailers to commit to. Once you brand has become synonymous with discounting you become pigeon hold. This can be compounded if your company name is the same as your brand, especially if you are a publically traded company. That said if there is a company in this industry capable of developing an additional brand or brands and having the means and distribution networks to support them to success it would be the Big C.
  2. Just my opinion. But if you believe you are going to pack 250g or 500g jars, labeled, packed in shipping cartons and sell them to retail in any significant volume and clear $7.50 per kg, then go for it - fill your boots. That is before your standard MPI compliance, UMF licence, (SQF if you want to supply significant retailers) Halal, Kosher. Processing plant and equipment, finished goods stock holding. Weekly or even next day delivery bla, bla, etc etc
  3. At last someone stating the obvious truth. Multiple brands are not the pricing solution. Arguably the more beekeepers that create their own brands the worse the position becomes. Most so called brands are not brands. They are simply a label placed on a jar. Without any USP's or KSP's and without promotion to deliver any messages of difference they are just same, same Me2 product. The owners of the products soon discover that the only ammunition in their sales arsenal is price. The retailer then has multiple choice all competing on price. A simple downward spiral for the majority. Just look at the wasted investment into small packing operations and the number of labels (brands) that rise and fall in no time at all. Please show me where the value creation is to be had with multiple versions of the same product all competing on price?
  4. I don't entirely agree with your opinion. Strong brand = more sales = more purchases of honey = benefit to beekeeper Are you suggesting that beekeepers want to share the cost of creating and marketing brands and the risks associated?
  5. I reads as 'the Manuka industry' not the Australian Manuka industry
  6. In western economies there is always % of savvy consumers with disposable income that choose products based on more that price alone. French Brie can win over the German equivalent in Germany. English Cheddar can win over a Belgian equivalent. French Champaign will win over as sparkling Spanish Chardonnay. A % of consumers will pay for quality product from NZ. It is up to us to define that % and grow it. NZ only produces 1% of global honey consumption. We should be able to sell all we produce once we have re established markets and defined our points of difference. Very good point. We have recently developed a range of Naturally flavoured clover honey. Caramel, Vanilla, Orange, Lime, Lemon and Ginger. This is directly aimed as an alternative spread, dip, topping to 'Processed' sugar based jams and preserves or high fat spreads such as peanut butter.
  7. The supermarket does not reduce it's % margin. The $ dollar margin reduces as their buy price reduces.
  8. Indeed a few common sense gems. A lot of excuses for their own poor business model and a smattering of complete and utter bull - Great article!
  9. HaHa.........I am flattered I would even be in the running James
  10. I think it is 'Kalara' Manuka does not sell itself at the right price without strong marketing and a point of difference. The industry is plagued by mediocre product/brands, Australian junk product, product blended off shore to avoid MPI definition and counterfeit product. Many companies are working incredibly hard to re open markets for the Non Manuka honey. There is traction and success but the process is a long one. I am not saying that your marketing idea is not a good one but what were you intending to do with a couple of hundred K and how far would that get you and your project? There needs to be a plane with objectives and outcomes if people are to invest.
  11. NZ produces a relatively small amount 20,000+ tonnes of honey in a global market of 2m+ tonnes. Marketed well we should be able to find a profitable home for our quality product. China is just one of many competing nations.
  12. I am not entirely sure why you suggest we should be competing with China so not sure I get the point?
  13. Give the guy a break. You have to start managing at some point. If he has been working along side these people for years during holidays he should have his feet firmly on the ground. Life will soon nock the sharp edges of him on his way.
×
×
  • Create New...