Marketing Syrup as Reverse Osmosis or Pipeline Free

[ecolbeck]

In my opinion, burning with wood sets any operation apart from using a hydrocarbon. Many of the people on this forum burn oil or gas in their evaporators, but then turn around and complain and are concerned about so called global warming. I don't like using tubing, I use it because if I didn't I couldn't or wouldn't make maple syrup. Same for RO.

I think you have opened a can of worms here where the answer is difficult. I can say that all of the technology has done nothing but put more syrup on the market and drive the price down.

Your argument about tubing and RO could also apply to using oil, it allows some people to make syrup who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't. I would advise caution about lumping oil burners into a group who simultaneously complains about climate change. I seriously doubt that they are that disconnected from reality.

[prairietapper]

Your argument about tubing and RO could also apply to using oil, it allows some people to make syrup who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't. I would advise caution about lumping oil burners into a group who simultaneously complains about climate change. I seriously doubt that they are that disconnected from reality.

actually I am just amused someone thinks burning wood is not burning hydrocarbons.
Touting that the source of the hydrocarbons is the very bush being tapped and it helps in maintaining that bush... that I understand

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[berkshires]

I think the different breed of syrup producer are pretty well classified in Don's post above. The hobbyist, whom doesn't need to rely on Maple Syrup sales and the Maple Syrup business.

While there may be a honorable approach, a better approach one thing is pretty clear: the customers decide with their feet. And I guarantee that 100 years of advertising have proven hat differentiation based on customers fears and worries work better than appealing to customers good feelings.

Ask yourself this:

1 - why do guns sell better when there is a shooting and a government push for gun control.
2 - why does insulation sell better if people are worried that energy prices rise?
3 - why so you believe that Obama is a socialist?
4 - why do you believe that Romney is (more) out of touch than Obama?
5 - why does hoarding happen
6 - why are there scores of people prepping for an economic collapse?
7 - why are there lines in front of gas stations when Bush invaded Iraq in 1990?

Fears! And there are many, many more examples.


The fact is that humans and other animals have primal fears that can be tapped into to influence them. All it takes is one business owner in a market to employ those techniques. It happens every day.

I have many years of experience in this. That is how I make my living. I am a hired gun, and if you hire me your competition is toast. And i don't employ a toaster. It doesn't mean my marketing is sleazy. All I do is use what works best. As long as its legal or ethical for the particular line of business.

I have yet to see a market where positive works better than negative. Not one. Not even marketing of a church.

I found this interesting. None of the above fears/actions apply to me. And it's not that I don't have fears, I have plenty. But I do think that they just don't motivate my decisions in that way. There are different kinds of people in the world, and if you want to use positive marketing, you may not catch as many fish, but I'm sure I'm not the only one like me. I go for the positive, not the negative, every time. The negative just makes me tune you out.

GO

[GeneralStark]

Your bump seems to indicate again anyone trying to differentiate themselves, at least as far as eschewing vac/ro/defoamer, is using a less than ethical approach which is damaging, or has the potential to damage, the industry. Yes?

Yes I think that is a generally accurate view of my opinion on the matter. And my bump is because this has recently come up in some conversations related to a couple markets I participate in. Another maple producer has been suggesting that my product is inferior to theirs as I use an RO.... I am generally curious, as I was when I posted this thread originally, as to why producers would choose to suggest that using an RO makes inferior product just to get a sale.

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[DrTimPerkins]

... anyone trying to differentiate themselves, at least as far as eschewing vac/ro/defoamer, is using a less than ethical approach which is damaging, or has the potential to damage, the industry. Yes?

Differentiating oneself from the competition is not, in and of itself, unethical or damaging to the industry. It comes down to more the WAY in which the differences are made.

For example, you can't advertise your syrup as being "below the lead level of most maple syrup", as it implies that most other syrups have higher lead.

Another example, "no paraformaldehyde used in our maple production." It is not permitted to use paraformaldehyde anywhere in maple production, but this sort of statement implies that others do use it.

Producers need to distinguish their product in a way that doesn't impugn the purity of the product overall or put others in a negative light. It's a fine line.

The type of advertising used in the above examples would, most likely, be illegal and subject to regulatory action.

Several years of research have shown that RO syrup, from the same batch of sap, makes syrup that has a flavor indistinguishable from that made by non-RO sap (or high-RO sap).

The thing I find a bit ironic/amusing in all of this is that some people who claim that syrup made the "old-fashioned" way over a wood fire without RO, is better because it has a nice smoky flavor. Technically that would be an off-flavor and not allowed in maple syrup. You might have gotten accustomed to it and actually like that flavor, but it is not a flavor that is inherent in maple syrup...it is contamination.

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[WESTMAPLES]

Differentiating oneself from the competition is not, in and of itself, unethical or damaging to the industry. It comes down to more the WAY in which the differences are made.

For example, you can't advertise your syrup as being "below the lead level of most maple syrup", as it implies that most other syrups have higher lead.

Another example, "no paraformaldehyde used in our maple production." It is not permitted to use paraformaldehyde anywhere in maple production, but this sort of statement implies that others do use it.

Producers need to distinguish their product in a way that doesn't impugn the purity of the product overall or put others in a negative light. It's a fine line.

The type of advertising used in the above examples would, most likely, be illegal and subject to regulatory action.

thank you dr tim