Pundit Interviews

Pundit Letters





Perishable Pundit
P.O. Box 810425
Boca Raton FL 33481

Ph: 561-994-1118
Fax: 561-994-1610


email:
info@PerishablePundit.com

a

Produce Business

Deli Business

American Food & Ag Exporter

Cheese Connoisseur



Global Trade Symposium Keynote Speaker, Professor Tom Reardon, Will Discuss The Rapid Transformation, And Increasing Opportunities, Of Produce Markets In Emerging Countries 

We launched The Global Trade Symposium, co-located with The New York Produce Show and Conference, with an announcement that The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady would Keynote the inaugural event. It was heady stuff, and we spent all year ruminating on who we could get this year who might provide a comparably broad grasp of global trends, but more specifically targeted around retail and the produce industry.

It wasn’t a tough decision.

Tom Reardon is an academic, but of a most unusual kind. One of the joys of Punditry is we get to interact with great centers of learning across the country and around the world. There are many great scholars, many brilliant minds, and interacting with them all is a great privilege. However, there is not a scholar in America who actually does what Tom Reardon does. No heavy reliance on secondary sources here, we have called Tom many times over the past two decades and, rare indeed, is the occasion when he answers his phone in the United States. He is the archetypal researcher and professor, and those who wish to understand the global future for this business ignore him at their peril.

Of course, Tom is no stranger to Pundit readers, he has often contributed to the industry conversations we conduct in these pages, including pieces such as these:

Tom Reardon of Michigan State University Speaks Out: Wither Local?

Pundit’s Mailbag — China, COOL And International Opportunities

Mailbag — Labor Shortages And Globalization Will Soon Lead To Mechanical Harvesting

One of the great honors that this Pundit has received is that Professor Reardon has selected us to guest lecture before his classes at Michigan State University. Indeed, at his behest, we were given the opportunity to deliver the John (Jake) and Maxine Ferris Global Agribusiness Lecture at Michigan State.

So we knew that bringing Tom to New York was a guarantee that we could deliver on our commitment to run world-class programming and deliver on our promise to help industry members to think bigger than they had before. We were thrilled that he was able to accommodate us in light of his frantic schedule.

We asked Pundit Investigator and Special Projects Editor, Mira Slott, to give us a sneak preview of what this gentleman and scholar would unveil at The Global Trade Symposium on December 4, 2012, in New York:

Professor Thomas Reardon, Ph.D.,
Department of Agriculture, Food,
and Resource Economics
Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan

Q: Your reputation precedes you and so the whole industry will doubtless be enthused by word that you will be the keynote speaker at the Global Trade Symposium, co-located at The New York Produce Show and Conference. Your international experience and expertise is far-reaching, intriguing and complex. What are the key points you will make during your keynote address in the headquarters city for the United Nations?

A: I have four sets of points; the general theme of the talk is the rapid transformation of produce markets in emerging countries, especially Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. The key point will be that there’s been a supermarket revolution that has transformed or is beginning to transform the produce market as modern retailers are spreading around the globe, gradually knocking on all sectors along the supply chain.

This is inducing a range of effects, which I will discuss. The third point addresses the wholesale and logistics revolution. Finally, this has implications that open great opportunity in produce markets for exporters and investors in partnerships and changing structures if they are able to adapt.

Q: Could you elaborate on the scope and speed in which this revolution is occurring? What are the drivers upending the structure of the industry and supply chain?

A: This is what excites me -- the fast tracking of change. In some places, it’s still crawling along, but in others it’s not. It’s the unexpected. In short hand, the phenomenon is impacting all various forms of retailing – supermarkets, hypermarkets, convenience stores, neighborhood stores, in addition to the exponential rise of the fast food segment, another story in and of itself.

The whole retail sector is growing extremely rapidly -- four or five times faster than in the U.S., and it is growing the total sales volume rate three to four times faster than GDP growth rates of these countries. For example, the Chinese modern retail sector is growing three times faster than its 10 percent GDP rate, which is the fastest in the world, far outpacing income.

India’s retail growth has been on the fast track, even before the recent direct investment rules took affect. Until a few weeks ago, there were regulations against multi-national brand investments in retail. Wal-Mart couldn’t set up its own stores in India except for partnering with an Indian entity. Foreign direct investment had been limited and is now liberalized, but even before that liberalization, the sales of the modern retail sector were growing about four times as fast as the country’s very fast rate of income growth.

What’s happening also, as a lot of activity starts with the middle classes, which are expanding rapidly, the movement is now spilling over to the poor as well. That’s a big news story. It is not just limited to the luxury market.

Q: Does this surprise people?

A: I’m often told this is cultural that we have supermarkets in the U.S. and push carts selling produce in Asia. In fact, push carts were traditional in the U.S. I have pictures of my mother’s neighborhood in Chicago in the 1920’s and 1930s, with scenes of street vendors selling produce and push carts filled with butter and eggs.

We had exactly the same traditional retail and produce buying habits, going to the corner shop and to push carts down the street. That situation is certainly the tradition in the developing countries and emerging markets we’re talking about. The people I deal with in those countries, my colleagues, say produce is only beginning to penetrate supermarkets.

Produce dominance in U.S. supermarkets took decades to develop. In my experience, I see in Asia and Latin America at a much earlier starting point. Supermarkets are pushing fresh produce utilizing knowledge of produce operations in the U.S. and Western Europe, and modern tools to expand. In my estimation the growth is precocious. It has taken off.

Some of the growth is occurring not in a continuous, steady course, but abruptly. In Mexico, around 2000, the share of fresh produce in supermarkets was zero to one percent. We did a study in 2006, which showed fresh produce accounted for 15 percent to 16 percent. There was this huge jump up.

Q: Would you attribute that spike to Wal-Mart moving in?

A: Part of it was related to the big entrance of Wal-Mart, which had been there since the 1990’s, but the company started putting a huge emphasis on prices and getting quality up, investing in cold chain distribution centers. This was coupled with a large presence of domestic retailers following suit. It started a domino affect of different retailers copying Wal-Mart to stay alive.

This highlights a general point of how these things happen. The produce industry in supermarkets in Mexico was extremely minor until essentially Wal-Mart moved in, building cold chains and large distribution in the 2000’s. When you throw a big stone into the pond, how does everyone adjust to that? Suddenly, everyone has to get their act together really fast. In the U.S., it took 40 years for the produce industry to establish a major role in chain retail supermarkets.

Q: Do you see this competitive dynamic duplicated in other countries? What is the current pace of fresh produce infiltration and its role in this transformative global retail expansion?

A: In many places, there has been small growth for awhile. We see it happening in Hong Kong, where suddenly all eyes will put emphasis on produce. We’re seeing the change in waves. An early entrance in Taiwan, Korea and Brazil already experienced a lot of changes in sales and produce procurement like in the U.S.

Other countries are in the middle of transition. And then there is the third wave more recently taking off, in China and India, where growth of the produce sector is happening fast. It tends to start with fruit. In 2006, our research showed 35 percent of the fruit market penetrated and only 26 percent of vegetables in China, similar to France in the 1970’s, or the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s.

The countries are changing at different paces and are at different parts along the track of a train, but all are going in the same direction and a lot are moving very fast. A lot of students of retail in the 1970’s couldn’t imagine this retail revolution taking off in Delhi.

Q: Why was this so unfathomable? What are some of the misperceptions people have within the industry and outside of the industry regarding these issues?

A: A lot of times, because of high transport costs and traditional structures, people expect to find very slow change in these regions, but often the change has been expedited, linked to leap frogging and fast tracking.

For instance, a company takes over fresh-cut operations of retailers in China, buying small chains there and forming a retail network where retailers were fragmented before. Chains are trying to set up regional hubs where they have sourcing that works across Asia and Central America. Wholesale markets in China are setting up retail chains. Governments are subsidizing investments to make those corridors. There are also changes at the producer level. Cooperatives are forming to handle contract arrangements. A good example of this can be found in the Czech Republic.

Q: How does this effect product development and variety of offerings?

A: Product cycles are impacted. You see little niche products, like kiwi fruit in China, become commodities and spur other products. Alternatively, a cactus leaf in Mexico was important but sidelined by Chilean companies coming in and supplying better alternative products.

Supply chain superiority and fast tracking both improves opportunity and opens doors for new competition, while it shuts doors for traditional players. The change is sweeping, occurring downstream at retail, midstream with logistics, and upstream with producers.

Q: Are new forms of retailing taking root to coincide with cultural shifts?

A: Success doesn’t mean coming in with a cookie cutter big box retailer. There’s an astounding case in Hong Kong. Hypermarkets realized how to take share away from wet markets. They mimicked a wet market inside the hypermarket with freshness and bargains. They simulated the wet market atmosphere. After appealing to the big middle and upper middle class with improved quality and diversity, at the same time they offered cheap, fresh produce for the masses. So consumers coming in for processed food items can pick up cheap melon, or buy golden kiwis from New Zealand, or fancy apples from New York. There’s a dual strategy with room for everyone.

Q: Does the supermarket revolution trigger burgeoning demand for U.S. produce?

A: Often, there is a disproportionate supply of imported fruit in the supermarkets. In Mexico, three percent is foreign, mainly from Chile and the U.S. In places like Indonesia, where there is not good supply, chains carry a lot of Chinese and Thai produce; as much as 70 percent of the fruit aisle and 20 percent of the vegetable aisle are imported.

These countries are getting produce from abroad -- we’re not just talking the U.S. and Western Europe for the high end market, but south to south trade. Mexican markets are depending on Chilean fruit. Supermarkets in China are depending on Thai and Philippine fruit. Indonesia is bringing in beautiful carrots and garlic from China. Orange juice is better quality coming in from China than from their local oranges.

Q: What does this mean for U.S. exporters?

A: There is a story I can relay that gave me pause and may be scary from an American standpoint. In Indonesia, I was in the cold chain room of the largest retailer. I explained to a produce executive that I was a researcher of retail chains. As we walked through the aisles, I noted a recurring theme, Chinese apples, Chinese apples, Chinese apples, Chinese apples, and asked, ‘where are the American apples here? I’m curious.’ Searching them out, he said, ‘here they are,’ and added, ‘we hope overtime to eliminate these.’ He continued, ‘what we found four or five years ago was that Chinese apples were cheaper and lower quality. But now they are cheaper and the same quality as the American apples. What we hold onto are American red globe grapes.’

Q: Should American red globe grape producers be concerned?

A: Let me point to another story in Australia, where I was giving a talk. The metro procurement officer said to the audience after I finished my presentation, ‘you might think Tom Reardon is uninteresting because he’s a professor, but here I am a procurement officer for the whole metro area, and I can concur with his assessment and what this new market share means. It is bringing a lot of competition.’ Then, the procurement officer turned to the red globe grape producers in the room and said, “I take this opportunity to delist you.”

Q: He certainly didn’t hold any punches!

A: In front of the audience he continued, ‘all I see are only two people I can’t delist, among the few New Zealanders that have come to this meeting, because the brand is important and they have established a consumer following. But Australian red globe grape producers have no major brand or volume presence. The Chinese undercut you by 40 percent. At first the quality and packaging wasn’t up to par, but they fixed it.’

It’s a beautiful market expanding so fast, but at the same time, there is competition. It’s not locked up for a luxury niche. Companies are trying to break into new markets.

Q: What are the best strategies to do that?

A: This brings me to the second part of my talk, changing the procurement systems. More and more companies are quickly expanding produce selling to defeat seasonality, just like in the U.S. system, and rapidly building distribution networks. It started with processed goods and then Wal-Mart taking the first steps with cold chain distribution centers being set up, so produce could be shipped directly through the cold chain to win over margins and eliminate the middlemen.

Then there are regional hubs of buying. In Thailand, for example, a company takes bids from buyers around the region. Wal-Mart can use buying facilities in China and coordinate other buying from Asia and bring that product to distribution centers in China.

The fastest trade is growing in Asian countries. A number of produce companies are thinking of joint ventures in Asia to gain leverage into those markets and take advantage of this fast track trade.

In the case of Mexico, Wal-Mart and, separately, Soriana, set up their own fresh retail distribution centers only in the second half of the 2000’s. I also can give examples like this in Asia, but it is a relatively new trend. Before, retailers were just requiring wholesalers to deliver to individual stores, or to bring product to one dry distribution center. Before, they weren’t investing in their own cold chain distribution centers.

Also, there is a rise of specialized dedicated wholesalers of the type of Melissa’s and Frieda’s that have significant cold chain distribution centers working for supermarket chains, or outside of the cold chain they might be doing a lot of repacking. There are operations in Indonesia where they bring in greens or melons and wash and pack them, acting as channel captains for these retailers.

In addition, there are companies that follow sourcing within these procurement systems. Basically you have companies, either in packing or processing, such as a fresh-cut supplier operating in the UK with Tesco that comes into Asia at the chain’s behest and sets up the supply chain for them in Asia.

A beautiful example, while not produce-related, is a European retailer operating in Bangkok and Thailand that feels the supply port is inadequate and that it needs to clean up logistics, so they call their wholesaler from Europe to come there and set up facilities to handle all that is needed, and fast-track their supply chain.

Q: Isn’t what you describe as happening with fresh produce a familiar scenario in other industries?

A: Many in the industry thought the transition would be slow. They didn’t count on the fact you can transplant facilities and suppliers. The automobile industry just did the same thing. Some thought they’d flounder around, try out the locals for a while. Then the strategy became, let’s get our own suppliers, set up our own multinational operation to supply what we need, and get our U.S. operation to buy in, strong arm them a little.

The tire industry had everyone relocating instead of shipping from the U.S.

You see this in the logistics sector as well, where companies relocated with retailers to manage and run new network distribution centers for them. And in India, cold chain logistics firms from Japan offer distribution logistics solutions for India. Or even joint ventures where a Wal-Mart or Tesco depends on its partners to set up logistics operations.

Carrefour comes in and wants a specific melon, so it partners with Syngenta to coordinate with farmer cooperatives. Others go into partnerships with cooperatives and get help from the government.

Q: How prevalent is government subsidization? Does this impact competition and market strategies?

A: Most of this is not government financed. You have exceptions. In the case of China and Vietnam, state-owned enterprises are among the leading retailers. These firms are acting like profit-making private enterprises but getting government help and opening in stock markets. These companies are owned or partially owned by governments.

The government of China has a program to help subsidize farmer to supermarket relations. It provides financing to produce growers in cooperatives selling to Carrefour or Wal-Mart or one of the other metros, such as Star Farm, a wholly owned subsidiary of Metro Group. There are selected supplier groups where the government is stepping in to help subsidize greenhouses and other initiatives.

The third form of government help is tax exoneration like in Korea. The role of government is extremely interesting and bazaar. People have often felt there is some kick against the rise of supermarkets in Thailand, restrictions on hypermarket locations.

Q: Is this comparable to the fights against Wal-Mart supercenters opening in certain U.S. communities?

A: We’ve done studies on laws and regulations in the U.S. of expansion of supermarkets. It turns out that in developing and emerging countries, there are many more pro-modern retail laws against wet markets establishing in various cities. And then with the bird flu, legal restrictions clamped down on selling birds. Governments have taken actions to rapidly increase supermarkets for food safety, and in China, there is an understanding that modernizing the food chain lowers prices and makes it more competitive.

My third set of points addressing wholesalers and logistics are spurred by these government actions. In the 1990s, in China the wholesale market capacity growth skyrocketed by a factor of 10,000 percent. There also has been massive investment in independents in India. In 1946 or so, India had about 50 wholesale markets, and now it has 5,000.

Tremendous rapid modernization in Chinese wholesale markets privatized and liberalized firms very early. They are acting in very dynamic, multinational capacity, forming trade networks.

Q: Did India follow the same pattern?

A: India is sharply different than China. There is still a lot of regulation on the wholesale markets and they are quite limited. I can say the same for Indonesia. It is very far behind the situation in China.

China leads the way in very rapid wholesale modernization. The wholesale market sector has changed a lot, and also finds third-party logistics growing rapidly, with a lot of multinational activity. The same can be said for the fast food chains.

Also, there is large scale investment in small and medium firms, including massive cold chain investment. Nearly all potatoes eaten in Delhi now come from a cold chain. This is not linked to multinational investments in cold chains but to national company investments.

Q: How can industry executives capitalize on all these developments?

A: I will conclude my talk with the implications. A lot of people look askance at getting into emerging markets, or think it is only for the most equipped companies. In some ways this is true but changing rapidly as the produce sector modernizes. With food markets growing seven times faster overall, and four or five times faster for produce, there is huge opportunity.

If you tap into these markets, you can be a national player, not just a local player. A lot of suppliers are jumping in and creating intense competition. The right combination of moves is essential but comes with a clearly high pay off.

Q: Thank you for giving our readers such an extensive and thought-provoking preview of your presentation at The Global Trade Symposium, co-located with The New York Produce Show and Conference. On a personal note, what lead to your in-depth exploration of this retail revolution? Did you begin your research from a certain vantage point?

A: Originally, I was working from the angle of small dairy farms in Latin America, thinking about what was happening to them. A lot of these companies were finding the new situation challenging and being driven out of business. There were a lot of obstacles in a new economy for small farms and other players in the farm and processing sectors back in the 1990s. I had not been focusing on developments in processing and the supermarket industry.

I began to realize a lot of these changes offered opportunity for big firms and multinational firms. In the U.S., the dairy sector was undergoing a transformation. As the procurement sector was adopting private standards like Global GAP and other standards to increase sourcing into global operations, little by little the bar was being raised for local players. I saw changes down stream and midstream, noting the first pains upstream in the farming sector.

I witnessed this happening in Asia and Latin American and my work changed. I did a lot of studies in different areas including Mexico, Asia and Eastern Europe, researching the supermarket industry, and obtaining a reputation for looking at links within the supermarket revolution. In the process of deepening my knowledge in supermarket wholesale and logistics revolutions, I could point to changes in business-direct investment and joint venture partners. I developed contacts and links with American businesses seeing potential to enter emerging markets.

Often I’m confronted with a real set of questions about the markets. People didn’t think there was opportunity because it wasn’t clear what changes were going on, or how to enter, what is the playing field, what are the best strategies… Perhaps least clear is the next wave, how to approach joint ventures with local firms.

You see a lot of partnerships with berry companies developing between the north south corridors to vanquish seasonality in Europe with Serbian partners and South African partners among others. The same attempt to get partner networks is occurring in Asia and already happening and picking up speed in the Americas. Should you be buying land, forming direct partnerships… there are many questions, and I’ll discuss more on this in the procurement section of my talk.

I’m of Irish background, so there is no question I can talk, but there’s a fear of sitting in front of all these experienced, high-level executives and industry experts, and I’ll say something they already know.

Q: Of course, with the wealth of knowledge and esteemed perspectives enveloping the Global Trade Symposium, you will be in good company and that possibility may very well occur. However, rest assured your presence and keynote address will be warmly welcomed and revered and surely guarantee a stimulating and invaluable discussion.

------------------------------------

All too often we attend workshops and conventions and think that we are supposed to come back with actionable ideas. Indeed, all too often, employers insist on it.

Yet, very often, the most valuable lessons are not about techniques; they are about opening one’s mind in a way that makes opportunities visible that others fail to see.

What greater benefit can one draw from a conference than gaining an understanding of how the world is going to be? What a win it is to have settled assumptions challenged, to see the industry and the future through a new prism.

One look at this preview of the keynote address, and many of the sharpest executives in the country will know they need a member of their team present at this event.

Fortunately, they can register for The Global Trade Symposium and the broader New York Produce Show and Conference right here.

Hotel reservations can be made here.

And travel discounts can be found here.

The Spouse/Companion program can be registered for right here.

Tours of retail, wholesale and urban agriculture can be signed up for right here.

And the separate “Ideation Fresh” Foodservice Forum can be registered for right here.

We still have a few excellent booth locations left. To exhibit, send us a note here.

And a number of excellent sponsorship opportunities are available. To find out more, send a note here.

New York is sometimes referred to as the Capital of the World, because the United Nations is headquartered here. Now it is clear that Tom Reardon’s keynote will make The Global Trade Symposium and The New York Produce Show and Conference the capital of the produce world the first week in December, 2012. Make sure you are at the center of things. Make sure you are in New York. Once again, you can register here.




Paramount Citrus And Sun Pacific Imbroglio Over Cuties Sheds Light On How Branding Works In The Produce Industry

When The Wall Street Journal ran a piece this past summer, titled The Big War Over a Small Fruit. It was that rare event — a produce story that broke through to the mainstream media:

From a hillock in the San Joaquin Valley, Berne Evans III recently surveyed a citrus grove that stretches as far as the eye can see. "It's the largest clementine planting in the world," he said, smiling.

The groves make Mr. Evans the king of the Cuties, a brand of seedless, sweet and easy-to-peel mandarin that is storming the nation's fruit aisles and changing eating habits that span generations. The navel orange, after reigning supreme for decades, has a challenger.

The rise of Cuties heralds the arrival of big-money marketing in a tradition-steeped corner of American industry. Techniques once reserved for promoting consumer products have now made their way into the produce section. Just as people have long asked for a "Kleenex" instead of a tissue, they are starting to ask for "Cuties" when they mean mandarins.

"I can't think of any other produce that has done this," says John Ball of San Diego branding firm MiresBall. It's "a name that is the thing."

Cuties reflect a defining reality of the American consumer experience: Convenience sells. It's a simple idea, applied in an unexpected place in the case of Cuties. Few people may have looked at the traditional orange and considered it a candidate for the classic American "new and improved" treatment.

But part of the Cuties marketing message trumpets the fact that children find it easier to peel. "We are a very impatient nation," says Jerry Della Femina, of Della Femina Advertising in New York. "We have always led the way on, 'Isn't this the easiest way to do it?'"

Cuties fit the long-standing pattern of transformative marketing insights that have shaped the U.S. consumer-product landscape. The automatic washing machine changed the nature of the American household. The remote control upended TV advertising. The advent of pre-peeled baby carrots in a bag redefined cubicle snacking at office parks coast to coast.

It's too early, of course, to elevate the seedless mandarin to a place in this pantheon. But in the meantime, the small, glossy, deep-orange fruit is, acre for acre, the most profitable citrus in America. Across California's citrus belt, farmers are ripping out orange, lemon and grapefruit trees to switch to mandarins.

Mr. Evans, 67 years old, built his empire with Stewart and Lynda Resnick, the Beverly Hills billionaire marketers of Fiji Water and Pom Wonderful pomegranate juice. Eight years ago they launched the Cuties brand.

Mr. Evans and his group spent considerable sums to try to capture shoppers' attention. That strategy is spawning a marketing battle as rivals trumpet their own seedless, easy-to-peel brands: Darling Clementines, Delite, Clem'NTina's, Bee Sweet.

Now, the Cuties brain trust is showing some cracks. To fend off the new competition and keep their tangerines on top, the group is pouring money into marketing at the Resnicks' behest. In the latest season it spent $20 million on a national campaign to promote Cuties.

The rising costs are a wedge issue. "We're having an argument," Mr. Evans says. "Are Cuties well-known just because of advertising? My personal view is it's a damn good piece of fruit."

Meantime, Mr. Evans irked the Resnicks by selling a smaller version of the fruit that his company registered under the trademark "Baby Cuties." The Resnicks believe it undermined the Cuties brand's premium image, according to Mr. Evans and other growers.

Shortly after, Paramount Citrus, the Resnicks' company and a unit of their closely held Roll Global LLC, sued Mr. Evans in Los Angeles federal court over use of the Cuties name on a new juice line. The issue is now in private arbitration.

The Resnicks declined to be interviewed. A Roll Global spokesman said the company wouldn't discuss the business relationship and issues in "ongoing arbitration."

Cuties have their origin in a 1990 freeze that badly damaged California's citrus harvest. Mr. Evans, a stockbroker-turned-farmer and already into tomatoes, oranges and kiwi at the time, caught wind of the fact that Spanish clementines were selling well on the East Coast. "Supermarket chains told me, 'If you can grow 'em, they'll sell,'" he recalls.

He hired experts to confirm that the fruit could endure the San Joaquin Valley's weather extremes. He dispatched his oldest son to research clementine groves abroad. "Put my inheritance in clementines," Mr. Evans recalls his son, Barney, telling him over the phone.

Ready to bet big, Mr. Evans signed a deal with a nursery in 1996 to multiply clementine trees and sell them exclusively to him, locking in a head start over rivals. Still, Mr. Evans was worried about a certain set of neighbors — the Resnicks, who ran one of the country's largest fruit and nut operations.

The Resnicks made a fortune marketing coins and collectibles before turning California pomegranate groves into the Pom Wonderful juice brand.

"I thought, 'If Stew [Resnick] hears I'm growing clementines, he's going to compete. He's a big-money guy who can overdo everything,'" says Mr. Evans, who already jointly owned with the Resnicks a corrugated-box plant for packing fruit. In 1997, Mr. Evans approached the Resnicks about cooperating. The Resnicks' Paramount Citrus and Mr. Evans' Sun Pacific agreed to grow and commercialize equal quantities of the fruit under one brand. A smaller grower, Fowler Packing Co., joined them later.

The Cuties moniker was born at a meeting in the Resnick business offices. At the meeting, Mrs. Resnick picked up a clementine, studied it and deemed it "so cute," according to two people who were present. The name "Cuties" was trademarked in 2001.

Paramount Citrus and Sun Pacific jointly own the trademark, a shared arrangement that is "extremely unusual," according to R. Polk Wagner, a professor of trademark law at the University of Pennsylvania.

The agreement stipulated the Resnicks would develop advertising and marketing. Mr. Evans' team would pack, sell and distribute to retailers. Mr. Evans says he spent $65 million to build a state-of-the art facility to sort, clean and pack most of the group's fruit.

…Mr. Evans argues against the Resnicks' marketing strategy. It drove up advertising expenses to 26 cents per box of Cuties in the latest season, up from 8 cents a few years ago, he says.

In response, Mr. Evans in February hired a high-powered consulting firm to help evaluate the group's advertising costs. The consultants concluded that the group was actually losing money on the campaign. Mr. Evans says that a complaint to Paramount that the ad budget was "excessive" fell on deaf ears. The dispute is now in private arbitration. Mr. Evans declined to disclose how much compensation he is seeking. A Roll Global official declined to comment.

Adding to the tension is an idea Mr. Evans hatched after a freeze forced some of the fruit to mature smaller. Mr. Evans devised "Baby Cuties," as a trademark with a logo that mimics the original Cuties (a smiling tangerine with an open zipper on the peel) wearing a bonnet and with a pacifier in its mouth. Selling the fruit exclusively at Wal-Mart Stores, the group made an "extra $2 or $3 million," Mr. Evans says, a better profit than turning them into juice. The Resnicks didn't approve of the Baby Cuties, according to Mr. Evans and other citrus growers, out of concern it would undercut the main brand.

The article contains both more discussion of the dispute and tries to place the product in a long line of American innovation in search of convenience. It ends with Berne Evans III imagining the discovery of a seedless cherry.

The clementine is an amazing story. The Pundit’s family was the first U.S. receiver of Maroc brand clementines, sharing boats that came into New Bedford, Massachusetts, and mostly went to Fisher up in Canada. There is not the slightest doubt that the easy-peeling, seedless nature of the fruit has led to a boom in consumption. Although the market seems to be moving from 5 lb. crates to 3 lb. bags, the bulk sale method has awakened the industry to new possibilities.

Most of The Wall Street Journal story, though, revolved around confidential contractual terms and so its implication for the broader industry was unclear. Then, come mid-September, Sun Pacific sent out a note to its customers:

September 10, 2012

To our valued customers,

The Arbitration Award in the Sun Pack /Paramount arbitration was issued by the Arbitration Panel late last Friday afternoon, September 7, 2012. The Arbitration Panel ruled in favor of Sun Pacific on the crucial issue of who has the exclusive right to sell Cuties, and the Panel ruled in Sun Pacific’s favor on most of the other issues. The Panel ordered that “Paramount shall forthwith cease all sales-related activities,” with respect to Cuties, Clementine’s and Murcotts.’

You are a valued customer. We are pleased to be able to continue to supply your needs for Cuties.

To avoid any confusion in the market place, please contact us if you are approached about the sales of Cuties by a Paramount and/or a Roll representative or marketer.

Again, thank you for your continued support of Sun Pacific.

Sincerely,

Sun Pacific Companies
Berne Evans
Chairman/Owner

Inadvertently, this whole contretemps may lead to a reexamination of the way branding works in the produce industry.

In the short term, it is quite possible that Berne Evans’ position is correct —that the advertising expenditure being made was not producing an immediate positive return. Of course, the Resnecks have a long-term brand-building perspective and the ultimate effect of their expenditures on marketing might well be positive.

Sunkist hasn’t done any major consumer advertising in memory, yet it is still a powerful brand. Why? In the 1920s, when the great mass media was magazines, Sunkist was a big advertisers in the Ladies Home Journal and similar magazines. It is because of those expenditures in the 1920s that, today, there is a market for Sunkist soda, vitamins, etc.

We doubt very much that any “high powered consulting firm” would be able to convincingly prove that a brand-building campaign would or would not result in such powerful long term opportunities.

Though the Resnicks may well have been correct about the efficacy of brand-building expenditure, the irony is that this dispute may wind up showing that in produce, the brand itself can’t hold the value that it can elsewhere.

Normally, we would say that the brand, say Oreo cookies, is more valuable than the factories that produce the cookies or the trucks that bring it to market. We say that because it is the brand that has a call on shelf space in every supermarket in America and many abroad. If you own the brand, you thus own the business and you build or buy new factories and trucks. The factories and trucks would mostly sit idle without the brand.

In this case, although we don’t know the details, if Sun Pacific is the only company that can sell Cuties, but Paramount still can control who markets its production, the value of the brand will be attenuated.

Even if consumers and retailers alike would prefer to buy Cuties, there is simply no way that Sun Pacific would have enough product to meet demand. It also would take too long to plant new trees, and there probably isn’t enough available land to increase production on the scale that is needed.

So having the brand — but not having enough fruit — means that the value of the brand is going to be limited.

Of course, if the bad blood isn’t too much, having invested so much in building the Cuties brand, one logical course would be for the Resnicks to buy 100% ownership and perhaps the Cuties acreage they don’t own to back it up. Or they could buy all of Sun Pacific.

If that is not possible, the Resnicks have a Plan B. Since they have built the POM Wonderful brand from scratch, they have an interest in building the WONDERFUL Trademark as well, and they have trademarked, you guessed it, WONDERFUL CLEMENTINES.




A Special Announcement Regarding The Spouse/Companion Program At The New York Produce Show And Conference From Mrs. Pundit Herself

Please come and join the New York Produce Show’s Spouse/Companion Program high atop the Sheraton New York Hotel’s Duplex Penthouse Suite for breakfast and enjoy meeting new friends, make-up applications, chair massages and mini-manicures. 

Then hop on board our private luxurious (and heated!) tour bus to see the holiday lights and decorations of New York City. 

 

 

Our tour guide hops off the shuttle with us to personally guide us through the holidays the way New Yorkers enjoy them. See the Holiday window displays at several of New York’s top stores, including Saks Fifth Avenue, Lord & Taylor and, of course, Macy’s (home of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade). 

We will pass the famous Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree, Radio City Music Hall, where the Rockettes perform their holiday spectacular, and we will visit the Holiday Market at Bryant Park.

We will have our NYPS tradition of high-tea in the Palm Court of the beautiful Plaza Hotel, and then finish with a walking tour back to the hotel with stops at window and store decorations, including Barney’s Department Store and FAO Schwarz Toy Store (getting a picture with the Toy Solider doorman is a NYC tradition itself!). 

One can participate in any or all of the program’s events. Come and join the New York Produce Show’s Spouse/Companion Program to make new friends and tour the City during the holidays — you will see New York City at its finest!

If you would like to have more information on the spouse program or wish to sign up, just e-mail us here




Pundit’s Mailbag — A Closer Look At Immigration And How Visas Work

Our piece, Immigration, One Of The Hottest Post-Election Issues, Will Be Brought To the Floor Of The New York Produce Show and Conference, highlighted this upcoming industry discussion as perfectly timed for a new national debate on immigration. We found ourselves in a bit of a quandary in trying to understand what, if anything, would incent Americans to take these jobs and what kind of immigration policy would make immigrants want the jobs.

We have often received thoughtful letters from Dan Cohen, including pieces such as these:

Pundit’s Mailbag — Two Windows And Two Issues

A Choice Had To Be Made: Which Was The Top Priority: Buying Cheap, Buying Regional Or Buying Safe?

Pundit’s Mailbag — National Marketing Orders And Agreements

You May Never Look At Spin The Bottle The Same Way Again

Perishable Thoughts — Higgins Boat Story Tells A Tale Of Perseverance

Setting The Record Straight On Fresh Express’ FreshRinse Wash

So we were pleased to receive a thoughtful inquiry on the immigration issue from Dan:

Before the Bakken (oilfield) play changed the North Dakota economy, I used to get invitations to come up to North Dakota and consider agricultural projects there. If I flew in to Fargo, all other expenses would be covered including rooms, meals, fishing and golf.

Now I still get "North Dakota" magazine sent to me. I was surprised to see that they bring in special temporary workers, largely from Eastern Europe, because they cannot find enough Americans to do the work, despite 8% unemployment nationally.

It is a different life working in Canada or North Dakota on mining and petroleum jobs. Mostly men, living together in "man-camps"; in Canada, at least, there are no drugs or alcohol allowed. It's a little like a tour on an offshore oil platform. You do make good money, but it is a different kind of life, with long work tours alternating with returning home. Probably more restrictive than being a sailor on a ship. It is not for everyone.

The same could be said for farm labor, however. When I worked in Georgia many years ago, they were just developing the concept of greatly increased in-state produce production. As it turned out, when Georgia passed tough anti-illegal immigration laws recently, they lost a lot of their work force. You probably have heard more about this than I have.

My question for you is: why are special visas for Europeans to work in oilfields available, at pretty high salaries, but not special visas for immigrants to work harvesting produce?

I was wondering if this would interest you enough to investigate and, if confirmed, to do a story on it. It might fit with the New York Produce Show and Conference topic.

—Dan Cohen
Maccabee Seed Company
Davis, California

We have a friend who works for a company that is building a number of supermarkets in North Dakota and he describes it as the “Wild West.” There are “man camps,” as Dan describes, and if you can stand up, you can get a job at McDonald’s, which will pay $18 per hour.

The $18 an hour wage is another example of allowing wages to reach market-clearing wages. If they couldn’t attract enough workers at $18 an hour, McDonald’s would offer $19. If McDonald’s could staff fully at $10 an hour, that is what the company would pay.

Obviously these wages impact prices and, quite possibly, the viability of the business. There might be many more McDonald’s in North Dakota if labor were available to McDonald’s at $7 an hour.

As Dan points out, not everyone wants every lifestyle, but compensation – broadly considered including vacation time, etc. — powerfully persuades people to look at various options more seriously. Alternatives matter as well. Many a man, who really didn’t want to do so, went off to the oil platform or the “man camp” because that was the only way to support his family. If welfare or generous family support are options, some people won’t go.

We don’t believe there is a special visa for Europeans to work in the oil industry.

There are numerous visas such as H-1B that apply to persons in specialty occupations — everything from fashion models to jobs requiring advanced degrees. The L visa is for intra-company transfers and the H-2B is for seasonal or temporary nonagricultural workers.

Most of these visa types are limited in quantity each year, and so availability runs out before the end of the year.

In some cases — say computer programmers — there may be a genuine shortage of Americans competent to immediately do the work, but in many cases, the work is defined in such a way that Americans won’t do it.

Country clubs in Florida, for example, do a little ballet with the government. They spend a substantial pre-determined amount on advertising for seasonal workers. They get very few responses but offer interviews to all Americans who respond. Very few show up for the interviews, but they offer jobs to every American who shows up for the interview, subject to a drug screening. Very few show up for the drug test and even fewer pass. Fewer still actually show up for work, and most of them quit soon thereafter.

Based on all this, the government allows them to bring in a large group of South Africans to work the restaurants. They are mostly young students, and they have a great time while working a few months in America.

Is it really true that no Americans will be waiters? Of course not, but seasonal work is not what most permanent residents want, and the seasonal wage offered is not sufficient to induce Americans to accept seasonal work.

It is clear that many Republicans will be anxious to not be seen as hostile to Latinos and so will be more than willing to vote favorably on amnesty and, perhaps, expanded legal immigration. But this inclination does not seem to automatically translate into support for a guest-worker program for agriculture.

How the industry plays this hand will likely determine the farm labor situation for many years to come.

Many thanks to Dan Cohen for helping us deal with this most important issue.

 




Pundit’s Mailbag — Nothing Wrong With Booth Babes!

Our piece, Pundit’s Mailbag —Booth Babes And The Disconnect With PMA’s Position On Women’s Careers, brought several responses including this bluntly spoken one:

I like the booth babes!

Really, who has the voice here? The two dissenting voices outnumber the hundreds that like them?

Sounds like jealousy to me. BTW, the Iran trade shows do not have any booth babes either. I don't think anybody is going to stop and talk to the Burka Babes.

Ward Thomas
Owner
Majestic Produce
McAllen, Texas

One has to give credit where credit is due, and Mr. Ward Thomas is, without a doubt, a very brave man.

Of course, more than a few people will read this letter, check out his web site and find delicious irony in the fact that Mr. Thomas has elected to feature a cartoon celebrating the Neanderthals proceeding to carve up their favorite kill — the “woolly watermelon.”

The issue is not as clear as either side would have it.

On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with either sex appreciating beauty. There is substantial research indicating that being attractive is an advantage in life. For an exhibitor to want to make its booth beguiling — with beautiful colors, wonderful graphics, stunning effects and, yes, beautiful people, is not really an evil.

On the other side, it is understandable to hold that people are not objects and they should not be objectified.

The problem is that talents and abilities are not equally distributed.

We find our letter-writer needlessly offensive in alleging jealousy — many women who object to this practice are quite attractive — and clearly Mr. Thomas has never met Lorri or Dan’l. And, truthfully, many men object to the practice as well, especially in the context of a professional event.

Yet there is an issue of devaluing the attributes that some people bring to the table. Some women are brilliant, some are diligent, some are beautiful — and some combine all of these traits. Remember the movie Working Girl, in which Tess McGill (played by Melanie Griffith) explained that she had “A head for business and a bod for sin?” What if a woman doesn’t have the head for business? Is it wrong for a woman to capitalize on what competitive advantages she has to make a living?

Indeed, if men are so stupid — and the recent revelations that General Petraus had an affair reminds us of how often men make decisions based on the flesh — why shouldn’t a woman take full advantage of male stupidity? Do you think Dolly Parton gets outraged when a man looks at her breasts? She knows how to control men and not let them control her.

No, so hiring attractive women as eye candy to hang around a booth is, in this sense, no more objectionable than giving away real candy to attract people to the booth.

Theoretically, a booth could do the same thing with attractive men. At the Fancy Food Shows, there are large Italian pavilions, and it is not uncommon to hear American women get flummoxed at the beautiful dark-haired men making pasta and drinking wine. But whether that really attracts women, we will leave to some other commentator.

The real issue is three-fold:

First, for the men. What are you at the show for? Where is your focus? Getting drawn into booths because you are titillated is likely to make you less focused. Indeed isn’t the whole point of exhibitors promoting sex appeal to distract you from making decisions — such as where to spend time at a trade show — strictly on a business basis?

Second, for the companies that send buyers to the show: Do these companies want this to be a focus? Sending people for business, many of these companies would probably find all this a distraction. That it happens would make them question the motivations of the employees who request to go to these events.

Third, for the organizations that sponsor the events: How do you maintain a professional atmosphere while still having a fun event?

Plus, the larger issue for exhibitors making decisions is to think of marketing in a broader sense. Yes, doing various things can be a short term win. But do these things lead to long-term reputational enhancement? If not, how can they possibly be the right thing to do?

We will say that Mr. Thomas makes a subtle but astute point. This is America. This means we bias toward freedom, even when we don’t like it. We can discuss these issues, but the power, in the end, lies with voluntary choice, not Iran-like bans. If buyers don’t buy because they don’t like a firm’s method of marketing, if buyers don’t attend because they find an event unprofessional, that is the way we produce change here in America.

Many thanks to Ward Thomas for being willing to stand up for what he believes. We have too much political correctness, and more honesty would help us resolve issues sooner and more effectively.

Mail to a Friend

© 2017 Perishable Pundit | Subscribe | Print | Search | Archives | Feedback | Info | Sponsorship | About Jim | Request Speaking Engagement | Contact Us