Spam

Spam...no, not the email kind, the sort-of-meat kind. Disclaimer: I actually like Spam, the canned meat product that earned fame feeding our troops in World War II.

This isn’t a paean to Spam, though, it’s rather a commentary on silliness in shopping, or journalism, or both.

This was the headline in the Arizona Republic’s business section this morning: Sales of Spam rise as consumers try to cut food costs. The article was written by Emily Fredrix, dateline Milwaukee, distributed by the Associated Press.

“Love it, hate it or laugh at it – at least it’s inexpensive,” is the lead. Later, “The price of Spam is up, too, with the average 12-ounce can costing about $2.62.” Later still, this “expert” summary statement, “Consumers are quick to realize that meats like Span and other processed foods can be substituted for costlier cuts as a way of controlling costs, said Marcia Mogelonsky, senior research analyst with Mintel International in Chicago.” (“Senior research analysts” are becoming as ubiquitous as “democratic strategists.”)

Whew! Where to start? Inexpensive? Only for the math challenged – or perhaps the very, very lazy. Hey, shoppers, $2.62 for 12 ounces is $3.49 a pound!

There are five full-service groceries within a mile and a half of me. (Don’t get me started on the cretins who frequent “convenience stores” for staples like milk. By using my freezer for something other than Pop Tarts, I’ve lately become accustomed to paying $1 for a half gallon.) Here are the meat, poultry, and seafood items I can buy this week for less than the price of Spam: chuck roast, center cut loin pork chops, ground beef (up to 90% lean), chicken (various, including boneless, skinless breasts), lamb chops, Hillshire Farms smoked sausage, spare ribs, boneless pork top loin chops, eye of round roast, Johnsonville brats, country style ribs, beef brisket, cod and catfish fillets.

It’s good I like Spam, otherwise I’d never buy it – too expensive.

So is it good reporting to find a consumer who thinks she’s saving by buying Spam? “Kimberly Quan, a stay-at-home mom of three...has been feeding her family more Spam in the past six months as she tries to make her food budget go further.” At least Ms. Quan has something of a rationale for the apparent contradiction, “Pulling Spam from the shelf prevents last-minute grocery trips and overspending, said Quan.” Ok, I get it. We can’t be bothered to plan ahead far enough to keep from running out of center cut loin port chops, can we?

What’s the rationale for the AP story, though? It’s got no basis in fact, except for the fact that Spam sales have been on the rise lately. But isn’t the real story that – whatever consumers who continue to buy big pick em up trucks and gripe about fuel costs think – there really is no cost-saving reason to put Spam in your meat budget. Perhaps there’s a clue in the story, though. It’s full of sales data provided by Hormel, Spam’s maker. I suspect this is another press release masquerading as news. Much of what we read and see on television these days is exactly that. Most of it makes more sense than this one, of course.

As for the shoppers, it’s probably true that there are enough of them who believe Spam is a low-cost processed alternative to fresh meat to move the sales curve upward for Hormel. After all, the busiest of those five groceries near me is the most expensive, too. It’s not because of Safeway’s wide isles, good lighting and attractive displays, either; that would be Bashas’. Habit, I think. Or inability to perform the most rudimentary mental functions.

In Safeway yesterday, (preying on the sales and specials) I watched a woman ignore the $1-a-dozen large eggs (coupons required, but provided at checkout and elsewhere in the store) in favor of a carton costing $2.19 (no, they weren’t organic). You explain it. I can’t.