NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat in Finland Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä Abstract This study aims to analyse the different cultural meanings attached to horsemeat consumption in the context of the Finnish market. We take the “meat paradox” as a theoretical starting point and investigate the underlying cultural structures that guide consumers’ meaning-making and consumption decisions in regard to horsemeat. The data were generated after the horsemeat scandal, drawing on a wide variety of media texts about horse- meat consumption. The data were analysed through qualitative content analysis and the findings reveal five horsemeat paradoxes. Each paradox contains meanings that reflect both the justifications for and avoidance of eating horsemeat. The findings show how horsemeat consumption holds various and even contradictory meanings, elucidating how it may be difficult for consumers to take a stand towards eating horsemeat. Thereby, the study provides novel ideas for marketing that are grounded in our deep-rooted and ingrained cultural understandings. Keywords: horsemeat, meat consumption, cultural meanings, marketing Minna-Maarit Jaskari is a University Teacher of Marketing at the University of Vaasa, Finland Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Vaasa, Finland Henna Syrjälä is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Vaasa, Finland 86 NJB Vol. 64, No.2 (Summer 2015) Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat... 1 Introduction ship between humans and food is not unanimous The current paper examines a particular marke- (Mennell 1996; Levi-Strauss 1997) and that people ting and consumption context, namely that of the are particularly ambivalent about eating meat (e.g. market for horsemeat in Finland. There are untap- Berndsen & van der Pligt 2004; Holm & Mohl 2000; ped opportunities in this market, as the supply Ruby & Heine 2012; Schröder & McEachern 2004). and demand simply do not match. This poses mar- To illustrate this, Buscemi (2014) has addressed keting challenges that are grounded in the varied how the idea of a living animal is often detached and contradictory culturally constructed and sha- from the situation in which meat is eaten. To pin- red meaning structures relating to horsemeat that point the contradictory nature of eating meat, guide consumers’ decisions on whether to eat it or Loughnan, Haslam and Bastian (2010) present the not. For instance, one of the meanings attached to concept of “the meat paradox”, referring to situ- horses in Finnish cultural history is that of a heroic ations where consumers simultaneously dislike warhorse. Furthermore, contemporary horse ent- hurting animals and like eating meat. However, husiasts have attachment-based pros and cons for it remains to be studied how a horse as a special eating horsemeat. This multiplicity of meanings kind of creature – one which oscillates between poses a challenge to horsemeat producers and the extremes of edible food and pet-like animal marketers; it may be difficult or even impossible to – and the meanings attached to it could be un- break these cultural norms and structures. There- derstood through the lenses of these discussions. fore it is important to acknowledge them in order Accordingly, the present study aims to grasp the to determine how to design marketing strategies underlying cultural structures that guide consum- that do not offend consumers, but instead corres- ers’ meaning-making and consumption decisions pond with their norms. in regard to horsemeat. Besides the multifarious traditional and his- The challenges of horsemeat marketing have torical meanings related to horsemeat, marketers been highlighted on many forums in Finland. For must also face a number of more recent chal- example, the Finnish trotting and breeding asso- lenges. Horsemeat consumption hit the news all ciation (Suomen Hippos), which promotes the around Europe in 2013 as a result of the so-called marketing and consumption of horsemeat in Fin- horsemeat scandal. At that time, horsemeat was land, has given suggestions on how to develop its discovered in several meat products that were promotion. The association reports that attitudes labelled as beef (Gerrard 2013; O’Mahony 2013; towards eating horsemeat are becoming more Yamoah & Yawson 2014). The main products in positive. The group that has the most negative at- Finland were Findus Lasagne, IKEA meatballs and titudes towards eating horsemeat comprises teen sausage, and Karelian Lihajaloste’s frozen kebab. girls who have horses as their hobby. The associ- Consumers were furious for two different reasons. ation suggests two main streams to advance the First, they felt betrayed because they had not been Finnish horsemeat market. First, there is a need told the truth about what they had eaten. Second, to ensure the continuous availability of horses they were angered by the fact that it was horse- for butchers. The second challenge is marketing meat; the very nature of horsemeat seemed to for consumers. (Suomen Hippos 2010.) However, evoke strong emotional reactions. despite the marketing efforts of Hippos, such as The scandal demonstrated how horsemeat con- publishing a recipe book for horsemeat, the mar- sumption involves more than meets the eye. The keting of horsemeat has not been successful in strong reactions among consumers and the media enhancing its consumption on a larger scale, and illustrate how many different, overlapping and its consumption has remained small compared even contradictory cultural meanings are associ- to beef, pork and poultry (MMMTike 2014). It is ated with horses, horsemeat and its consumption. evident that the producers and marketers need to It is indeed well acknowledged that the relation- understand the variety of these different mean- 87 NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä ings and how they affect beliefs, attitudes and be- sions; firstly, we lean on the vast amount of studies haviour towards horsemeat and its consumption. deliberating on the meanings related to eating Therefore, the current study aims to analyse the meat, and secondly, we draw on prior studies on different cultural meanings attached to eating horse- the various roles and meanings people attach to meat in the context of the Finnish market. To this domestic and companion animals. The choice end, we strive to reveal so-called horsemeat para- of these two debates is based on a profound jux- doxes in order to gain a novel understanding of taposition that is labelled as the “meat paradox”, the challenges faced in marketing horsemeat. We signifying people’s simultaneous love for animals conceptualise horsemeat paradoxes as consumers’ and love of eating them (Loughnan, Haslam & Bas- simultaneous dislike and like of eating horsemeat tian 2010; Rothberger & Mican 2014). The origins (cf. Loughnan, Haslam and Bastian 2010). The of the concept of the meat paradox can be linked paradoxes are deeply entwined in our cultural to postmodern consumer scholars in whose view meaning structures that create boundaries not consumption is characterised by paradoxes and only for how something constructs as an edible contradictions (Brown 1995; Firat & Venkatesh food and how certain foods are regarded as inedi- 1995). Mick and Fournier (1998, 124) have further ble (Levi-Strauss 1997) but also on social and more elaborated how a paradox centres on the idea that situational meanings that surround for example “polar opposite conditions can simultaneously moral viewpoints on eating meat (e.g. Berndsen & exist or at least can be potentiated in the same van der Pligt 2004; Bratanova, Loughnan & Bastian thing”. In the context of food, Leipämaa-Leskinen 2011). Thus, it is crucial for marketing practitioners (2009) has examined how daily food consump- to comprehend these underlying, and somewhat tion situations involve multiple contradictory unrecognised, paradoxes that guide consumers’ meanings. Leaning on these views, we focus on everyday meaning-making and consumption de- those situations where the meanings related to cisions in order to create ways to market and sell both the justifications for and avoidance of eating horsemeat. horsemeat are negotiated. Below, we first discuss This article proceeds as follows. First, we discuss what kinds of concerns consumers attach to meat the prior research on meanings related to meat consumption in general and after that we focus consumption, highlighting also the viewpoints on on the relationship between humans and animals human-animal relations. Second, we contextualise to shed further light on the meanings of eating the study by examining horsemeat markets and (horse) meat. marketing, especially in Finland but also world- It is acknowledged that humans, especially in wide. After that we motivate the use of media texts Western Europe, separate the thought of the living as a data source and describe our method of anal- animal from meat (Mennell 1996) and plenty of ysis. We then identify five horsemeat paradoxes food consumption discussions have explored the that illustrate the variety and contradictory nature moral concerns related to eating meat as well as of the meanings associated with horsemeat con- the ways of resolving the conflicts of meat con- sumption. Each of the paradoxes