WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you should refer to the pdf version of this document. CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY Paper 1 Annex 2 11/02/05 CRITERIA FOR USE OF BRAND: SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK Meetings were held with a variety of stakeholder groups in November and December 2004 to discuss possible criteria for use of the brand. Three potential routes were outlined as a basis for discussion: Option 1 - The brand would be widely available for use subject only to design guidelines and geographical criteria. Option 2 - Criteria for use of the brand would be based on appropriate existing accreditation schemes in a variety of sectors. Option 3 - A bespoke accreditation scheme would be developed. A summary of the discussions is detailed below: Association of Cairngorms Community Councils Option 1 Individual Opinions Might be better to allow free use, and then remove right to use if there are complaints. Would allow a Park for All. What about piracy? General Conclusions ‘Free for all’ approach would be better for small business, such as B&Bs, who do not want to be quality assured. Support for this option, possibly with the right to remove if used wrongly. Option 2 Individual Opinions This could put people off using and be divisive. Would be a better way of ensuring the brand means something – to safeguard brand values. Better to roll out slowly according to rules than to do so quickly and make mistakes. Better to look for quality standards from the beginning. Using existing criteria – such as Visit Scotland – could be detrimental to the take up of the brand. What about sectors where there is no accreditation? General Conclusions Some criteria will be necessary at some point, even if we go for a ‘negative’ approach of allowing anyone to use the brand but then withdrawing it. Moderate support for this option. Option 3 Individual Opinions This could be costly, slow, and mean duplication. General Conclusions Not much support for this option. General comments on criteria Individual Opinions No consensus. Many felt that the brand should be open to everyone. Others that they would much rather be associated with an exclusive quality brand. General Conclusion CNPA Staff Option 1 Individual Opinions General Conclusion Very little support. Option 2 Individual Opinions Important to ensure that brand is only used in ways that support aims of the Park. So choice of existing schemes that we make use of needs to be carefully managed. General Conclusions Option 3 Individual Opinions This could be the best way to ensure that the brand really supports the Park. Very bureaucratic and expensive, and not necessarily enabling. General Conclusion General comments on criteria Individual Opinions General Conclusion Opinions divided between options 2 and 3. Consensus that great care should be taken in roll out to ensure that the brand supports the aims of the Park. ABSC Marketing Option 1 Individual Opinions Businesses that care about their marketing will not use a brand over which there is no control. General Conclusions Option 2 Individual Opinions This makes most sense. General Conclusions Option 3 Individual Opinions Don’t need a new scheme. Don’t want another level of bureaucracy. General Conclusions General comments on criteria Individual Opinions We will have to work quite hard to get operators to use the brand at all. There could be demand to use the lettering separate from the graphic. General Conclusions Some version of option 2, perhaps with add ons for industries with no QA schemes, would be best. CNPA Food Marketing Group Option 1 Individual Opinions Simplest option. Does not reflect quality. General Conclusions Probably not appropriate. Option 2 Individual Opinions Should standards vary from industry to industry (Food has more stringent standards anyway)? What criteria should be used? Would it ensure consistency and eating quality? General Conclusions Could work, but may need to be supplemented with bespoke criteria. Option 3 Individual Opinions Wanted costings for the scheme. Could this include ‘green’ credentials. General Conclusions Too time-consuming and costly. Need to make things simple for users. General comments on criteria Individual Opinions General Conclusions Discussion focused on criteria for food marketing, specifically beef and lamb. Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce Option 1 Individual Opinions ‘Free for all’ could undermine brand. Might be better for some smaller businesses. General Conclusions Option 2 Individual Opinions Would make sense to use existing criteria. Some way needs to be found to ensure that the brand values are maintained. General Conclusions Need to be very careful in choice of schemes to be used. For sectors without QA schemes, bespoke criteria may be necessary (‘option 2 plus’) Option 3 Individual Opinions Would be expensive, and businesses may not welcome ‘yet another’ quality assurance scheme. General Conclusions General comments on criteria Individual Opinions General Conclusions Meeting was divided between options 1 and 2. Offered to set up a small working group to assist with devising a workable scheme.