UNFOUNDED CRITICISM

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 13 April 1934, Page 3

UNFOUNDED CRITICISM

PUBLICITY m ENGLAND

M'STR'iIiUTION OF NEW ZEALAND

BETTER

A good (K*ii lof criticism regarding the (listi'iljiitinii of New Zealand dairy J ,u) ' (luce in England appears in the New Zealand press from time to time, usually put forward liy New Zealanders retaining from a hoiidav in England. In the majority of eases,'the criticism concerns one ol three things, lack of publicity m England, poor distribution of New Zealand butler in England, or low <|uaiity produce sold there; the suggestion Ireoneiiilv lieiug put-forward that secondgrade flutter should not lie shipped as it a fleets the reputation of New Aealand fmlter generally. So far as publicity is concerned, the amount spent by the board in England varies, but during the season the sum of £37,500 is being spent in advertising in England, the levy having been increased to allow this to be done. The board is fully alive to file value of advertising in England, and would certainly like to spend considerably larger sums, but with prices at present ruinously low levels, it it absolutely impossible to make liuthcr levies iii New Zealand for advertising in England. Every effort is made to spend the money to the best advantage in England, and the "liny New Zealand Blitter weeks that are held in various i eiitres throughout England, give opportunity for securing a- great deal of tree publicity through special I unctions in which notabilities take part. Chyte recently the hoard’s London ofiiee, learning that a. number of vessels ior the New Zealand trade were under construction in Belfast, held a “Buy New Zealand Butter Week” there, securing the enthusiastic co-operation ol Lord Craigavon and other leading North of Ireland people, with the result that for a comparatively modest expenditure they secured hundreds of columns of publicity in newspapers there, and probably laid the foundation of a successful trade for the future. 'J’be board’s London officers are always willing to consider any suggestions for more effective publicity, and the- lines on which they have been working have the full approval of the wholesale and retail trade in England. The lack of distribution idea is purely a myth, for New Zealand butler can be obtained throughout the greater part of England to-day, even in the smallest villages. Where, many visitors go astray is in seeing butter patted with the names of the large chain, stores, and marked “Empire.” This butter in a great many instances is New Zealand, and while it is true that we tire not getting any advertisement by its sale under a chain store brand, wo are at least selling the produce, and that is as much as we can hope to do until such time as the whole of flic New Zealand butter is sold in pats under a. national brand. The hoard fought very hard to have butler sold always under the name of its country of origin, but unfortunately when-the British Government passed the .Merchandise Marks Act it demanded only that produce he marked “Empire’’ or “Foreign.” No second grade butter from New Zealand is now sold in .shops in England. the very small quantity that is shipped going direct into manufacturing channels under the hoard’s supervision. Sometimes low grade butter is sold under the “Empire” brand, and if a buyer asks whether it is New Zealand butter, he may he told that it is, and Ltuis wrongly obtain a prejudice against our butter. There is still hope, that at some later date an amendment of the Merchandise Marks Act may make it compulsory to sell butter under the name of its country of origin, in which case we will certainly benefit. Another criticism sometimes heard in New Zealand is that the board is responsible for all the present ills of the dairy industry, and that it should reorganise the industry to make it truly co-opera-tive in all its branches. The fact is that the Dairy Board has no control whatever over the intern,g| affairs of the industry, the Act merely giving it powers in cDimectiiiii with export.