Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
may not be accounted for in forecasting. For instance, where a promotion works too
well, it may lead to the necessity to supply product from a lesser standard or dif-
ferent quality tier so as not to fall short (e.g. not satisfactory conditioning potatoes
before packing which can increase waste or using premium potato variety in a lower
tier). When customers over-purchase as a result of being tempted by promotions
then complaints can increase not only because of the pressure to deliver in full,
but also because consumers may store more product at home. Often this product is
kept under sub-optimal storage conditions, and the consumer becomes disappointed
when they attempt to consume the product beyond its inherent home-life. This then
may lead to increased waste in the home and/or depression of future sales due to
customer dissatisfaction.
Promotions are being overused in the current climate such that consumers are
suffering from 'promotion fatigue' and are confused over the basis of some such
offers. The overuse of promotions (e.g. up to 50-80 % for some categories now
sold) is destroying the price structure of the whole fresh produce category and
actually making promotions less effective (Terry et al.
2013
). It was highlighted
by Terry et al. (
2011
) that the impact and mechanics of promotions should be bet-
ter understood from both an industry and consumer perspective and this recom-
mendation still holds. Although the vast majority of promotions are collectively
agreed between retailers and suppliers, there are some which are imposed with
little thought on availability and how postharvest technology might be better uti-
lized. The frequency and timing of some promotions is often governed more by
retailer positioning rather than by being aligned to the biology of the product, to
oversupply/availability or even recognized seasonal demand. Multi-buy promo-
tions and changing pack sizes across a range of categories may be confusing con-
sumers. It is now unclear whether consumers understand promotions and indeed
the true price of different fruit and vegetable lines as they have little to compare
prices with (Terry et al.
2013
).
Even though the choice of fruit types available to the consumer in developed
economies is now vast there is contraction in that varietal choice within many fruit
species can be limited. For example, out of the hundreds of mango cultivars grown
worldwide barely 10 are available through the global market (Table
13.1
) (Araújo
and Garcia
2012
; Anon
2012c
). Most of these preferred cultivars have been se-
lected for their inherently long postharvest life so that they can withstand global
trade. They have rarely been selected for flavor or taste and this problem stands
for many other fruit and vegetables such as avocado [Hass and Fuerte], and ba-
nana [Cavendish]. Thus, despite postharvest technologies being available to extend
storage there is often a trade-off between taste and postharvest life. The industry
often selects cultivars which have longer postharvest life rather than investing in
technologies which might be used to increase the postharvest life of better tasting
types. Concomitant to this, many fruits are still harvested at premature horticultural
stages to ensure extended storage or shelf life even though postharvest technolo-
gies might be available to allow fresh produce to be harvested later and thus ensure
greater consumer appeal. Implementing postharvest technologies is costly so that a
reasonable return must be realized on that investment and financial outlay. If there
