While there is general agreement in the UK on the principle of generic promotion, the trade feels less confident of its specific benefits, resulting in reluctance to provide the reality of proper and continuous funding. Is this caution borne out by the experiences of other timber traders around the world?
In Japan, research is under way into centralised timber promotion. Miyoko Kitagawa, editor of the Japan Lumber Journal, said: “The Japanese government’s forestry ministry is promoting timber to end user customers through fairs, seminars and websites. The market here is split between domestic producers of timber and the importers, both of which have different ideas and agendas. It is necessary for these two groups to find an agreeable strategy for promoting timber and wood products, but it is not easy.
“Any such promotion would also need a very Japanese approach: what works elsewhere in the world might not work here because our market is so different.”
On the other side of the globe, the reverse is true. Kelly McCloskey, president and CEO of the cross-border Canadian/US Wood Promotion Network, said that even though there are major trade disputes between Canadians and Americans, both sides are willing to work together in the Wood Promotion Network to grow the markets.
“Companies’ reasons for joining are mainly the collective protection of their interests and the promotion of growth in their markets,” said Mr McCloskey. “You will always have committed organisations who can see the long-term benefits of a generic campaign and there will always be those who participate very little: it’s a challenge to get everyone on board.”
Australia’s generic timber promotion campaigns centre on two strategic issues: defence of timber frame building against competing materials, and sustainability of native eucalypt hardwoods. Nick Livanes, market development manager with Australia’s Timber Development Association (ATDA), said that political, environmental and sales pressures have combined to make companies accept the need for ongoing generic campaigns that change public perceptions and promote timber sales. “The intensity of the competition, particularly from steel in the building market, has seen the industry contributing to research costs through a levy for around eight years. The possibility of a promotional levy is now being discussed,” he said.
“We’ve found that industry funding for generic promotion goes up and down in cycles. Support for generic promotion is currently around 70% by volume of the timber framing sector; a lesser percentage of the hardwood industry is involved with the native hardwoods campaign.”
Jan Söderlind, managing director of the Nordic Timber Council in Stockholm, has been helping to focus the European wood industries on co-operating to increase their domestic and export markets. “The NTC’s role is that of catalyst and a contributor, helping generic wood promotion campaigns to get off the ground around Europe and further afield,” said Mr Söderlind. “There is also strong interest within the EU to promote forest industry products as they contribute to sustainability.
“Campaigns are funded in different ways. The campaign in France, ‘Le bois, c’est essentiel’, receives finance from government through the Comité National pour le Développement du Bois. In Austria, as in the Nordic countries, companies are highly committed to growing their home markets for timber. They pay a membership fee to their national generic wood promotion campaign.
“However they are funded, these campaigns share fundamental aims – to promote better business and the recognition of timber as a sustainable material.” ATDA’s Nick Livanes said there’s only one way to view the funding of timber promotion: “Timber companies should regard contributing to generic promotion as part of their normal business lives. Convincing potential customers of the environment-friendly, sustainable nature of wood products can only be beneficial to everyday sales.”
