Could you be eating local and not realize it?

A recent study commissioned here at Charleston|Orwig found that 58% of consumers and 45% of restaurant operators surveyed believe a national brand can be considered “locally sourced” when local sources are used as ingredients.

National companies are using the local angle as a marketing strategy, albeit at different levels of transparency, including:

Culvers – Franchises are centralized in the Midwest, but stretch as far as Arizona, Texas and South Carolina. The company is clear  it uses “real Wisconsin cheese,” “fresh Wisconsin dairy” and “100% Midwest beef” for its cheeseburgers and custard.

WalMart – According to its website, 10% of all produce sold in Wal-Mart stores is locally sourced, with a future goal of selling   “$1 billion in food sourced from 1 million small- and medium-sized farmers.”

Panera Bread – You may have seen Panera’s new commercials and advertisements that focus heavily on “fresh from the farm” messages, giving the impression of a close rapport between Panera and its producers.

After learning that 82% of consumers are at least somewhat likely to purchase something if it’s identified as locally sourced, it’s no wonder these companies are providing insight into where their products come from, even without regulations requiring them to do so.

Do you consider these national brands or others to be “locally sourced?” How much information do you need to make the decision? 

For the fourth year in a row, Charleston|Orwig has been named one of the top places to work in Wisconsin. This year the agency ranked 8th of 70 in our category. The rankings, published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, were based on ratings by employees of their own employers in surveys gathered from tens of thousands of workers across the region.

And that’s only one of the things we’re excited about.

At the awards ceremony this morning, Lyle Orwig was also recognized as the Outstanding Leader among those in our category.  Specifically, Lyle was honored for establishing “a culture of mutual respect and collaboration which has flourished for 20 years.”

Everyone at the agency is excited to hear all the news–and that includes Cheeto, Bella, Sophie, Watson and several other canine friends walking the halls on this Dog Day Friday.

Whether recalling the devastation of the Irish Potato famine of 1845 or reading the alarming fact that today 925 million people do not have enough to eat, hunger has been and continues to be a problem we as a society are trying to solve.  The latest weapon suggested by the UN involves a fix whose benefits include not just fighting hunger, but boosting nutrition and reducing pollution.  This environmentally friendly source of food feeds on human and food waste, compost and animal slurry.  It’s found worldwide and reproduces quickly, all while leaving a low environmental footprint. Is it the answer to our prayers?  Well, only if our prayers involve the creepy, crawly and slimy.  The suggested high protein, low fat, inexpensive solution to hunger lies under rocks, in trees and fluttering among us—bugs.  Beetles, wasps and caterpillars are among the most common insects to be suggested for consumption with their mouthwatering flavors comparable to apples, pine nuts and fried bacon.

Yesterday’s launch of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations book Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security gives readers an inside look at the nutritional and environmental value of insects as a common food source. There are even suggestions on how insects could be powdered and incorporated into other foods while adding nutritional value and protein.   While I may be one of the last ones in line to order the debut entrée of Cicada Scampi, I wouldn’t have been caught dead eating raw fish 20 years ago.  And while the idea of consuming insects’ gives me, let’s say, butterflies in my stomach, insects may become the new food fad in the fight against famine.

Because society decided to call yesterday “Mother’s Day,” it accounted for 24 percent of all holiday floral purchases. AboutFlowers.com tells us that.

If a restaurant or other food service operation calls a menu item “locally sourced,” more than 8 in 10 consumers say they’re somewhat likely to buy it. C|O’s latest research tells us that.

Words matter. Numbers prove it.

Over lunch yesterday I came across a program called Live Below the Line, which encouraged people to eat for five days for $1.50/day or less. Why $1.50? Because that’s the current equivalent used to define extreme poverty.

At that point in my reading I became fully aware of my lunch—a salad from the grocery store salad bar, which cost $2.78. That’s almost two times the allowed $1.50 per day on just one meal.

So what can you get for $1.50 a day?

To answer this question a few members of the C|O team took the challenge of putting together the healthiest day of meals possible for one dollar and fifty cents. Participants were instructed to plan three meals—breakfast, lunch and dinner—for one person.

Here were some of the meals the team constructed:

The group agreed the challenge wasn’t easy, and what added up to $1.50 wasn’t all that healthy. While we all wanted to provide more protein and fresh foods, the dollar-and-a-half just didn’t stretch far enough.

“My kids immediately noticed that there was no dairy,” said one shopper. “When I showed them how much a cup of milk, or the cheapest yogurt was, they also saw how that would be hard to fit into a daily allowance of $1.50.”

Another shared, “It’s just not possible to provide three healthy, balanced meals for $1.50 per day. I realized quickly the items I could afford were starch-based with little or no fresh food or protein.”

The $1.50/day challenge was just that—a real test to pull together a healthy day of eating. But it’s not an experiment for many every day who face the challenge of hunger every day.

Now it’s your turn. We encourage everyone on their next trip to the grocery store to spend a few minutes figuring out what $1.50 a day could buy for meals. And when you do, let us know how it goes. Can you make a better meal with $1.50?

People are taking an interest in where their food comes from these days. That’s a good thing. Particularly for those of us who market and communicate about brands that provide value within the food system.

The burgeoning interest in where our fruits, meats, eggs, vegetables and dairy products are produced or grown creates a meaningful opportunity. We have an active, engaged audience where once only a passive one (at best) existed. Pardon the pun, but the time is ripe for telling our brand stories.

“Locally sourced” food has emerged as one of the more dominant conversation points. The virtues of locally sourced food—real or perceived—are being advocated in every form of consumer media and popular culture. Travel Channel food man Adam Richman (of Man vs. Food fame) is talking about it. Chefs are promoting that their menu items are prepared with it. Food bloggers and restaurant critics are writing about it.

So how widespread is the interest in “local” food? What does it mean for local and national brands? What opportunities does it create from a communications strategy standpoint?

Keeping our fingers on the pulse of food trends is critical for those of us who help businesses operating in agriculture and the food system. Charleston|Orwig recently commissioned research to explore attitudes, opinions and perceptions about locally sourced food.

Our survey compared priorities between locally sourced food and brand, convenience, availability and cost. Responses come from more than 2,700 consumers and 300-plus restaurant and food-service operators.

The results are compelling and reveal both opportunity and challenge. We’ll be writing about them frequently on Field Assignment in the months ahead. In the meantime, download a summary of the drivers and disconnects firing the locally sourced food trend.