David Miller, 10 June 2008

Scottish Quality Salmon’s PR and Lobbying

Scottish Quality Salmon played a major part in the PR campaign to undermine the Hites study.  The initial response by the SQS communications department was to mobilise ‘scientific adviser’ – Dr John Webster.  SQS worked with London PR firm Chrome Consulting to develop key messages and brief Webster.  A document obtained by Spinwatch gives Chrome’s own account of the campaign, written for an international PR  industry competition:

Our actions during the first 36 hours of the crisis were to:

·        Thoroughly review the Science paper, analyse inaccuracies, agree stance and brief internally
·        Prepare and issue initial media statement to c.600 named UK media contacts as well as MEPs, MSPs, civil servants and via newswire distribution, some 22,500 international media outlets.⁷⁵

SQS and Chrome then issued a  ‘second statement focusing on the international scientific condemnation of the paper and the health benefits of regular salmon consumption.’  This focused on quoting the corporate linked scientists noted above. Their own account reveals the following actions:

 ·   Liaise closely with the Food Standards Agency to clarify its stance on the issue and likely actions and advise on the Scottish Quality Salmon stance
·   Update the Scottish Quality Salmon website and link statements to healthy eating information
·   Monitor news coverage worldwide and act swiftly to address negative comment.⁷⁶

Chrome Consulting’s own assessment concurs with the analysis in this chapter that the campaign was a great success:

The very first stories to appear focused on this crisis as a major food/health scare, yet within hours media were clearly and consistently reporting doubts about the veracity of the Science paper’s conclusions.  Within a day key media became actively hostile to the paper, its authors and backers, and strongly supportive of the Scottish salmon industry.  In all, some 78% of all the 843 items of monitored print and broadcast media coverage included comment and views from Scottish Quality Salmon, either directly quoted or expressed through a third party.⁷⁷

The use of ‘third party’ appeals involved scientists recruited by the industry.  SQS acknowledge that they co-ordinated their spin campaign with the SPAA and SOTA and that they had regular contacts with Charles Santerre, the SOTA consultant.⁷⁸ Two out of three international links on the SQS website in June 2004 were those of Salmon of the Americas and the SPAA.⁷⁹

The philosophy of salmon spin

Scottish Quality Salmon, along with the rest of the industry, sought to undermine criticism of Salmon farming using classic manipulative PR techniques.  This requires that ordinary citizens are seen as partly irrational and thus in need of appeals and campaigns which work at the level of ‘emotion’ and ‘perception’.  This was well understood by the early PR pioneers such as Ivy Lee whose view was that democracy put the ‘crowd in the saddle’ and that this required ‘courtiers’ to flatter and caress the crowd much as kings and queens had been in former times.  This approach was described approvingly by Walter Lippmann one of the earliest PR theorists as the ‘manufacture of consent’.⁸⁰

We can see this approach in the internal documents circulated between SQS and governmental bodies in the UK which were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. In February, March and April 2004 SQS commissioned market research to find out how the public responded to the news about salmon.  They found that ‘the farmed salmon industry has had its profile raised and some people do not like what they saw.’  The problem was, therefore, how to change the perceptions, rather than the industry.  Thus the researchers delved into the public response which is alleged to be ‘impressionistic, rather than rational’.⁸¹  A ‘rational model’ in which consumers ‘weigh evidence’ would suggest that ‘SQS should keep arguing its case to persuade doubters’.⁸²  ‘In fact,’ the researchers note, ‘this is not a good model’. The researchers examined both tabloid and broadsheet readers and found in the latter case that ‘there was nonetheless, even for them an emotional underpinning’.⁸³ To counter this ‘Firstly, it is essential to remember the non-rational aspect of any communication.  That is, even when arguing a rational case, great attention should be given to the overall impression made, whether in advertising or PR.’  ‘It should not,’ they conclude, ‘be assumed that the facts will speak for themselves’⁸⁴

The market research found that facts might encourage people to remember what is wrong with farmed salmon.  ‘A rational only response eg "toxins within European limits" prompts poor reaction’.⁸⁵  So instead, the manipulative approach was taken: ‘health benefits very persuasive’;‘Pew Charitable Trust and bias good secondary angle’. The strategy to be developed from these findings was:

*don’t provoke the negatives
*Deal with the impression in balance with the facts
*Visual imagery can be positive and negative
*Third party endorsement.

‘Educating consumers’ therefore meant countering ‘negative misinformation’ and ‘normalising’ impressions of salmon,⁸⁶ before ‘moving ‘on to more emotive, lifestyle messages’.⁸⁷

In the post crisis phase, SQS provided facility trips for writers to Scottish salmon farms. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act record that ‘Two national consumer journalists visited Scotland and met with fish farmers at an industry event, visited SQS and a fish farm.  Coverage is expected soon.’  According to the documents ‘both journalists were very positive following the visit, explaining how their concerns had been allayed.

In the recovery phase, note Chrome Consulting:

Highlights... included: activity to publicise the Food Standards Agency’s positive recommendations on oil-rich fish consumption (specifically including Scottish farmed salmon); and close work with the BBC to maintain fairness in its major contribution to the ongoing debate, a crisis-specific episode of the ‘Should I Worry About...?’ TV series (the answer being a resounding ‘No’).⁸⁸

The success of the recovery strategy depended on changes in public resistance to salmon, which could be influenced indirectly, not least via lobbying of government.

SQS lobbying

SQS employed the new labour connected lobbying firm Grayling to target the parliaments in Edinburgh, London and Brussels.  In January an information-shot was immediately distributed by email to MSPs, MPs and MEPs. Grayling provided a monitoring service for SQS and advised on lines to take when approaching decision makers. The communications campaign involved the SQSlobbying the Food Standards Agency.  Meeting with them on 5 April 2004, SQS attempted to persuade the FSA to support them more openly.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that SQS asked for access to any new data on toxicity ‘prior to publication’ and offered to supply data on contamination to the FSA.  But, they asked if ‘it would be treated as "commercial confidential"’.⁸⁹  The FSA note of the meeting describes SQS as ‘very nervous’ about bad publicity and about the possible findings of government expert committees on toxicity of dioxins.  They also recordthat ‘throughout the meeting SQS appeared to want the Agency to publicly endorse the eating of farmed salmon, and in particular that produced by SQS members.’ The minute also records that SQS ‘would like the Agency to be more supportive of salmon as a healthy food and of their strategy for improving the quality... of their product’

In response the FSA officials ‘emphasised that FSA advice relates to oily fish, of which salmon is one species, and that we would not endorse the eating of any individual fish species over others’.  In conclusion they noted ‘our role is to put the consumer first... and we could not be seen as endorsing specific products or companies’.⁹⁰

Yet by the 24th of June the FSA had reversed this position and specifically singled out salmon as safe to eat. ‘Is the advice on eating farmed salmon different to other types of oily fish?’ they asked in a Q and A on their website: ‘No, the advice on farmed salmon is the same.’⁹¹  No wonder Chrome Consulting mentioned this in their account of spinning salmon: ‘Highlights... included: activity to publicise the Food Standards Agency’s positive recommendations on oil-rich fish consumption (specifically including Scottish farmed salmon).’⁹²

The reversal is not surprising. The UK Food Standards Agency was the lead agency in determining UK and Scottish government responses.  It was set up to restore public confidence in government after the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food was discredited as being too close to industry.  The FSA was compromised from the beginning by drawing on the same civil service personnel who had previously worked in MAFF.  Its first head, Sir John Krebs was a devotee of corporate science, being both an outspoken advocate of GM food and a critic of organic food.⁹³  Krebs is also an advisor to the Science Media Centre, the corporate funded spin organisation which promotes GM.  He also has links to the Social Issues Research Centre (another corporate funded organisation which campaigns to influence reporting of science).  He was a member of the SIRC ‘Forum’ on Guidelines on Science and Health Communication along with other advocates of corporate science such as Dick Taverne of corporate funded front group, Sense about Science. ⁹⁴

Board members of the FSA included an adviser to Social Issues Research Centre (Jeya Henry)⁹⁵; adviser to Sense about Science (Richard Ayre), a former vice-Chair of Quality Meat Scotland (a meat industry promotional group); owners of shares in Unilever and Cadbury Schweppes (Graham Millar); a former Mars executive and an active member of the International Life Sciences Institute, (the leading food industry front group) (Maureen Edmondson); a vice-president of the Farmers Union of Wales (Alan Gardner).⁹⁶ The new (in 2005) chair of the FSA Deirdre Hutton has shares in  GlaxoSmithKline, Tesco and Unilever.⁹⁷  This is the body which consumers are supposed to believe is ‘independent’ of the food industry.

‘Natural is not in it’: Advertising farmed Salmon

Chrome Consulting were responsible for the advertising campaign run by SQS in summer 2004 in order to restore confidence in farmed salmon.  The campaign was designed specifically to correct, ‘the messages communicated by those that have tried to discredit salmon farming’.⁹⁸ In addition to general media advertising, the campaign consisted of distributing educational leaflets, postcards and posters to journalists and retailers. SQS reported good results for the campaign estimating that 25,322,000 adults saw the ads 2.4 times, leading to 52 per cent of all adults in the UK⁹⁹ With the slogan ‘naturally they’re the best’ the advertisements presented a misleading account of the industry. being exposed to their messages.

The industry campaign benefited from direct state support. The Scottish Executive helped finance the propaganda campaign to the tune of £1.5 million. The industry received a further £80,000 from the Crown Estate.  The Crown Estate is a property company that have ‘extensive marine assets throughout the UK, including 55% of the foreshore and all the seabed out of the 12 nautical miles limit’.¹⁰⁰

The Scottish Executive connection

The public money the Scottish Executive, the devolved administration in Scotland, ploughed into the ad campaign is unsurprising since the Executive has an open commitment to the fish farming industry.  On the day of publication of the Science study it joined the industry chorus.  Official documents show that by 4.15pm on 9 January 2004 Executive spin doctor Stephen Orr had already issued a statement under the name of the Minister.  ‘Below are lines in Allan Wilson’s name given to the media’, he wrote in an email to colleagues.¹⁰¹ The Executive statement simply emphasised the faulty judgements of the FSA:

The FSA have confirmed that PCB and dioxin levels in Scottish salmon are significantly lower than the thresholds set by the FSA, EU, WHO and indeed the US FDA.

Their statement bears an uncanny resemblance to that issued by the industry:

PCB and dioxin levels found in Scottish salmon were significantly lower than the thresholds set by international watchdogs such as the European Union, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) or even the US FDA.’¹⁰²

The rationale for the Executive position is expressed forcefully in the ‘background info’ to the statement which notes that Scotland has the third largest aquaculture/salmon industry in the world.

‘The industry supports more than 6500 jobs in some of the most economically fragile, fishery dependent, areas... accounting for around 50% by value of all Scottish food exports.  The salmon industry is the single most vital development in the economy of the Highlands and Islands in the last 30 years producing more income than beef and lamb combined’.

Devotion to the industry is maintained despite Marine Harvest, the biggest operator, being named as one of the 16 worst polluters in Scotland by the the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa). A fish-processing factory run by Marine Harvest in Fort William was accused by Sepa of ‘unlicensed releases to the environment resulting in a report to the procurator fiscal’. ¹⁰³ Marine Harvest and the rest of the industry were no doubt glad of the steadfast political and financial support they received from the Executive.  On 19 April 2004 Scottish First minister Jack McConnell opened a Marine Harvest fish farm in Mallaig and was presented with a pair of Gold Salmon Cufflinks.¹⁰⁴  Jack McConnell’s brother Iain was at that point a fish farm manager with Marine Harvest.¹⁰⁵

Conclusion

The campaign to destroy the credibility, and crucially the news value, of the study in Science was a stunning success.  Within a week it was off the news agenda.  The campaign also meant that future work by the scientists involved got markedly less coverage.  The industry in Scotland were able to call on government to fund their propaganda campaign on the health and safety of farmed salmon and they were able to rely on the Food Standards Agency to support this messaging on the science.  This was so, even though the FSA’s analysis was entirely mistaken and at best simply scientifically illiterate as the paper in Science was widely agreed to be correct. This unedifying tale suggests that the civil service and the government, in consort with the industry, are willing to put the needs of industrial scale aquaculture ahead of public health and sustainability.  To say that this is short sighted does not begin to describe the problem

In such circumstances, it is instructive that the International Public Relations Association awarded an international PR prize to Chrome Consulting who ran the campaign of misinformation for Scottish Quality Salmon.  This is best practice in PR.

The conclusion we can draw on this story is that the public received a distorted view of the potential risks from the mainstream media and as a result are not in a position to be able to make sensible judgements on risk.  At a wider level this story also shows how decisions taken in corporate boardrooms, PR headquarters and government offices have direct effects on what information is available and on what decisions are taken, often with no input from popular opinion and with no regard for the truth. It is only by exposing this kind of deception and campaigning for democratic controls over political processes and corporations that science communication can perform a democratic function.

--------

This is the final part of the article. The full article can be found in Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy

A note on sources

This article draws upon documents uncovered via the Freedom of Information requests to the Scottish Executive, Food Standards Agency and Crown Estate as well as other unpublished documentation.  Copies of all the documents referred to here can be found at the Spinprofiles website http://www.spinprofiles.org.

This chapter was written with the aid of research carried out by three students on my course on Globalisation and anti globalization at Stirling University.  Thanks very much to them for all their insights.  I have been asked not to name them for fear of blighted careers.

Notes

75. Chrome Consulting, Scottish Quality Salmon: The Facts, Entry 204, IPRA Golden World Awards for Excellence 2005 Category 7:   Recover from crisis Entrant:  Chrome Consulting Ltd Client: Scottish Quality Salmon, Available: http://www.spinprofiles.org/images/4/45/ChromeEntry204.pdf
76. Ibid.
77. Ibid.
78. Interview with Julie Edgar, Scottish Quality Salmon media manager.
79. http://web.archive.org/web/20040619163932/http://scottishsalmon.co.uk/links/index.htm
80. See Hiebert, R.E. Courtier to the Crowd: the Story of Ivy Lee and the development of Public Relations, Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1966; Lippmann, W. (1921) Public Opinion, London: Allen and Unwin, p. 158.
81. Ockwell Associates Qualitative research into how differing press treatments affect attitudes to salmon, April 2004, Ockwell Associates 18 Sion Road, Bath, BA1 5SG, p. 14.
82.  Ibid, p. 17.
83.  Ibid, p. 20
84.  Ibid. p. 33
85.  Ibid. p. 33 We should remember that the ‘facts’ as given by the industry were wholly misleading.
86.  Ibid., p. 34

87. SQS powerpoint presentation printout to the Crown Estate on the Salmon Marketing campaign, undated, probably presented at meeting held on 9 June 2004.
88. Chrome Consulting, Scottish Quality Salmon: The Facts, Entry 204, IPRA Golden World Awards for Excellence 2005 Category 7:   Recover from crisis Entrant:  Chrome Consulting Ltd Client: Scottish Quality Salmon http://www.spinprofiles.org/images/4/45/ChromeEntry204.pdf
89. FSA minute of ‘FSA Scotland Meeting with Scottish Quality Salmon (SQS)’ Monday 5th April 2004.
90.  Ibid.
91.  Food Standards Agency ‘Oily fish advice: your questions answered’ Thursday 24 June 2004 http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2004/jun/oilyfishfaq#h_5
92.  Chrome Consulting, Ibid.
93.  Rowell, A. Don’t worry, it’s safe to eat, London: Earthscan, 2003, p190-198.
94.  http://www.sirc.org/publik/cop_guidelines_m.html
95.  Sankey was a board member 2000-2003 http://www.sirc.org/about/jeya.shtml
96. http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/aboutus/ourboard/boardmem/richardayre ; http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/aboutus/ourboard/boardmem/graememillar ; http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/aboutus/ourboard/boardmem/maureenedmondson ; http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/aboutus/ourboard/boardmem/alangardner_bm
97. http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/aboutus/ourboard/boardmem/dierdrehutton/
98.  Brian Simpson, Chief Executive of SQS, SQS media release (4 October 2004) http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/media/releases/041004.htm l
99.  SQS media release (4 October 2004) http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/media/releases/041004.html
100. The Crown Estate http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/02_about_us_04_02_17.htm
101.  Annette Stuart email to Marianne Cook, ‘FW: Quote in Allan Wilson’s name on Salmon’, 9 January 2004, 17.55. Released under the Freedom of Information Act.
102.  http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/media/releases/080104.htm
103.  Edwards, R. ‘Exposed: Scotland’s filthiest companies: Polluters in ‘roll of shame’’ Sunday Herald, 24 July 2005 http://www.sundayherald.com/50953
104.  ‘Scotland’s first minister visits Mallaig’ West Word, May 2004. http://www.road-to-the-isles.org.uk/westword/may2004.html ; Registered as a gift with the Scottish Executive on 20 April 2004, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1066/0008094.pdf
105.  Simon Pia’s Diary, ‘Brown returns for pasta and prosciutto’ The Scotsman, 11 October 2004 http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1005&id=1180992004