Who owns what?

[FabulousFoodBabe]

If a big corporation can back someone and make them all more profitable (and make the product available), good.

←

...and when they run the little guys out of business, is this also good? When they discover cheaper ways to produce what were once artisan products, like adding preservatives, transfats, etc, is this also good?

Ummm .. no. I didn't say that. I said (look up there and see .. ) I also think everyone here can name a small business that was not "run out" by the BBCs (big bad corps.), and not only pizza places.

Do you remember when Bruce Aidell sausages tasted like something? Do you believe Scharfenberger will benefit as a quality product now that Hershey's has bought them? When the groovy chain insists your product be produced for less or they drop you and you look to China, making California more of a giant suburb than an ag state that actually produces something, how good is that?

No. Maybe not. I dunno. What's a groovy chain?

The current model of food production in our country is in quite a state and I'd just encourage us to look at it a little deeper than being satisfied with cheaper prices and being impressed with business smarts.

←

Ehh, I can't get mad at anyone for taking years of hard work and selling to a big corporation. In some instances, it's the only way the name can be preserved, and it helps to have a *living* testimony to all the sacrifice.

I think what bugs me most about this thread is the tone that corporations are gobbling up little artisan cheese makers and bakeries, and forcing them to product Velveeta and Wonder Bread. No one is forcing anyone to sell. They could just as easily fold up and leave the market completely.

Every time a Scharffen Berger sells to a Hershey's, that opens the market for another Scharffen Berger.

[rancho_gordo]

I'm not saying the people who sell (or sellout) are forced to do it. Hell, you may be able to print out this thread and shove it my face in five years when I sell out to Kraft! But I think it's naive to think any consumer benefits from this kind of a buyout.

I would argue further but there's a clear guideline here about not discussing politics. And it's normally food politics that get me in trouble here on eG!

[phaelon56]

Question: When these small companies that make these artisanal products grow as big as they could & then, the big corporations want to buy them out, won't the products eventually decrease in quality as they increase in quantity? Would it be better for the small company to quit their business instead of selling the business to a corporation?

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic ...

←

I don't think it's that far off topic.

To address a primary question in the starting post I'll state that I don't automatically choose to buy food related products that appear to be made by smaller independent companies unless I know for a fact that they are what they appear to be (and I rarely know that.

I don't believe big corporations are inherently evil any more than I believe that small independent outfits can be assumed to always be ethical and quality driven.

For me it's a balance of quality, value and convenience that drives many of my food related purchasing decisions.

I think Starbucks is a good example of a company that appears to be a good corporate citizen, is widely regarded as a beneficent employer and has done much to raise awareness about better quality coffee. But the bigger they get the more their product quality declines.

I've never ever cared for their "signature roast style" (it's no accident that people call them Charbucks!) but their massive growth has caused some tangible changes in practice that affect quality.

1) Most stores now use superauto "push the button" espresso machines rather than the traditional grind, tamp and conventional machine. They've accepted a mediocre level of quality that's consistent in place of the better quality but less predictable shots that can be achieved by a dedicated and trained barista using traditonal methods (in their defense - with 5,000 or 10,000 stores worldwide it's tough to find enough dedicated people and keep them properly trained and supervised).

2) They no longer grind coffee in the store from whole bean in order to make each batch of brewed coffee. They have instead gone to using factory pre-ground stock for making brewed coffee. Big freshness sacrifice.

3) I don't know what "best used by" dating scheme they used in the past but their prebagged coffee - both whole bean and ground - now has an expiration date that is six months after date of roasting. Can someone say "coffee gets stale starting about two weeks after roast date even in a factory sealed bag"?

My food related purchasing decisions, when I have the option, are driven by the choice between local and national. If I have the opportunity to buy from a local producer who is part of the economy in my local area or region I will do so even at a slightly higher price than I'd pay to buy product produced elsewhere - but the quality has to be there.

To address the issue of the small producer selling out to the bigger producer....

1) I agree that the quality of "artisanal" products (a horribly misused term - Arby's is now advertising "artisinal" bread for their newest sandwich) usually declines when a bigger company takes over. Often there are conscious choices to cut quality for profit or more advantageous market price point but there are also products that just don't scale well to mass production.

2) Many if not most "artisanal" producers struggle to make ends meet for years, pour their heart, soul and financial resources into their companies and often have no fall back position for their later years unless they keeep working or sell the company. I don't begrudge them the right to cash in when the time is right.

The Boston Globe had an excellent article on this recently - sparked by the discussion occurring when toothpaste company Tom's of Maine sold to a much larger firm. There's some good food related merger/buyout discussion in the article as well.

Selling Out or Buying In?

[MarketStEl]

I think that either Ben or Jerry--or perhaps both--have been quoted in the press about why they sold to Unilever.

I think part of the problem stems from a common and longstanding idea, namely, that profits and morality don't mix.

That isn't true, but it is true that the business of maximizing profit is amoral, and that is discomfiting to just about anyone who believes that other values should govern how one maximizes profit. Our great religious texts all touch on this subject, be it the Koranic injunction against charging interest or the similar tale in the New Testament of Jesus driving the money-changers from the temple.

Our suspicion of large companies stems largely from this perceived amorality--they are merely looking for opportunities to make money and aren't much concerned about anything else, except when lack of concern for something else has the potential to hurt the bottom line.

But the truth is, even most of the little guys are looking to "win big," so to speak, and the way our economy has evolved, once one reaches a certain size, the easiest--and sometimes maybe the only--way a small business owner can expand, or kick back and enjoy the fruits of success, is to sell (out) to someone big.

An astute large company will understand that if part of what made the company successful is a certain image and/or operating philosophy that would suffer if it became part of a larger corporate culture perceived as different, the company will take as hands-off an attitude as possible towards its new acquisition, maybe even going so far as to leave its management structure intact. I believe that is pretty close to what Unilever did when it acquired Ben & Jerry's.

If Kellogg's purchasing Kashi means I can now find GoLean Crunch! at an attractive price at a supermarket near me, I'd say it's a net plus. (And I must confess that I like the current Kashi TV ad campaign: "Seven whole grains on a mission.")

Most large corporations IMO aren't out to screw the world, though I think their executives taken as a group are grossly overpaid relative to their actual contribution to the company's value. They're just out to make a buck, or as many of them as they can. I think they can be taught about the other things that matter.

[MarketStEl]

One more thing:

ISTR that Trader Joe's was acquired a few years ago by the German company Aldi, which also operates one of the leading chains of no-frills supermarkets in the US under the parent company's name.

Trader Joe's operating philosophy is essentially the Aldi concept applied to high-end products, so it was a natural fit for the company.

And if you go to either company's Web site, you will find no mention of the other anywhere. This is what I mean by "hands off".

(I read about the Aldi acquisition in a New York Times Magazine feature on Whole Foods Market about a year or so ago. They focused on TJ's in the course of trying to explain WFM.)