Bill Overview
Title: Seafood Marketing Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides for the reestablishment of the National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council until December 31, 2027. It also modifies qualifications for voting members of the council. Additionally, the bill also provides statutory authority for a definition of seafood to include finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, seaweed, and all other forms of aquatic life used for human consumption.
Sponsors: Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
Target Audience
Population: Consumers and industry participants in the global seafood industry
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council's work can potentially affect all players in the seafood supply chain, from fishers and aquaculture farms to processors, distributors, marketing firms, and retailers.
- Consumers of seafood worldwide will likely be influenced through changes in marketing strategies aiming to promote seafood consumption.
- Seafood industry workers, including those in fishing, aquaculture, processing, distribution, and retail, may have their livelihoods impacted by changes in demand influenced by marketing.
- The expansion of the definition of 'seafood' to include seaweed and all other forms of aquatic life potentially broadens the scope of products being marketed and can impact producers of these goods.
- Given that the bill pertains to seafood, individuals in countries with significant seafood consumption and export industries may see more pronounced impacts.
Reasoning
- The National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council's activities in marketing will predominantly affect those in the seafood supply chain: fishers, aquaculture, processors, and distributors.
- Consumers might feel a change in perception and consumption habits if the marketing efforts are successful, potentially improving their self-reported wellbeing related to dietary satisfaction.
- The policy is likely to have a 'low' to 'medium' impact on individual consumers as seafood becomes more marketed and potentially more accessible, but it may be 'high' on workers in the seafood industry depending on their position within the supply chain.
- Those not directly involved in seafood or its consumption are expected to see no impact from this policy.
- Overall, the perceived success and reach of the marketing campaigns drive the changes in wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Shrimp Fisher (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this act will increase demand for shrimp, benefiting our business.
- The marketing efforts might bring more awareness to sustainable fishing practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Chef (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More diverse seafood options would be great for our menu.
- Hope it makes some seafood more affordable for our customers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Aquaculture Manager (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased marketing could boost interest in our products.
- I'm cautious but hopeful for seaweed becoming more mainstream.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Seafood Importer (Boston, MA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act should stabilize the demand for imported seafood.
- Hopeful that marketing helps improve overall seafood consumption.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retail Grocery Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased marketing might mean better sales for us.
- Would like to see more customer interest in diverse seafood products.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Consumer (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It would be great to see a price drop in seafood.
- Hoping for better quality and more variety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Seaweed Producer (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The recognition and marketing of seaweed could help elevate my business.
- It's a chance for growth if the marketing reaches the right audience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Seafood Restaurant Owner (Boston, MA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased public interest could help maintain our business.
- Hope any seafood promotions don't drive prices too high for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Portland, OR)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Promotions might make seafood more available in local stores.
- Curious about whether there will be any noticeable quality changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Detroit, MI)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It would be nice if seafood becomes more affordable and accessible.
- Marketing could mean trying new recipes and ingredients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the promotional campaigns in changing seafood consumption habits is uncertain.
- Integration of expanded definitions might require more extensive marketing strategies.
- Potential environmental impacts due to increased demand for certain types of seafood may need to be monitored.