Latest Poll
Loading ...TX-Coffee Flickr Group
Indirectly
Hi Aaron. Welcome back from Guatemala. i know. i’m sorry i’ve been a flake since my return from guatemala and my visit with edwin at his family’s finca vista hermosa. in my defense, i haven’t been doing much blogging on any of my sites since returning. maybe that’s a sign of increased business keeping me away from the monitor. or maybe i’m just lazy.
at any rate, i wanted to toss a topic into the texas realm that are on my plate of late. it’s a little “discussion” going on over at coffeed over this so called phenomenon of “Direct Trade.” if you’re not familiar with the basic arguments of it, swing over here first for a primer. now, don’t get me wrong, i am a huge proponent of the concept of purchasing coffee as close to the source as possible, as i clearly stated in my posts in the first linked discussion. but i have a couple of issues that stick a bit in my craw. (i can use that term in a texas blogpost, right?)
first is the notion of trademarking the term “direct trade” as has been done by a certain specialty coffee roaster a bit north of us all here in texas. what’s up with that? does anyone hope to profit from that name? or if not, does anyone believe that by trademarking it the name will somehow help coffee producers in any way, shape or form? i don’t get the point of trademarking a name just to be the ones with the rights to it if there is really no inherent benefit to it from a cup quality standpoint. maybe it’s just money.
second, there’s the idea of transparency that comes hand in glove with this phenomenon. while some of the companies that are doing a lot of direct work with coffee farmers are doing phenomenal work in the area of giving out tons of great stories and information that is both romantic and educational, there are, as i have tried to point out in my coffeed posts, some gaps in the record, if you will that need more clarification than the leading d.t. proponents seem willing to share with the general buying public. the strategy seems to be one of writing up so much information that some of the key pieces that should be baldly clear get–in my opinion–conspicuously lost in the shuffle.
here’s the great example. i began to inquire about a segment of d.t. that needs some clarification because i couldn’t find any real information perusing the websites of two (and the other, here) of the industry’s stalwarts in the d.t. area. (for the record, both are organizations i respect greatly.) the subject has to do with marketing and creating names for blends of coffees a roaster/retailer carries. the topic first came up while i was in guatemala at the dinner table, where a couple was in an animated discussion with jaime about what they were calling a “mark of origin.” i sat down with my plate and started to listen to these groups discuss how one of these companies above had created a fictitious name for a coffee they were selling that was actually a blend of many different coffees from around a particular country. no big deal, right? well, the issue was that the marketing behind the coffee (they had a t-shirt made up for it and lots of webinfo) made it appear, at least to the people at the table, that the company was marketing a coffee from what looked like a single farm, or at the very least, from a single co-op. there was nothing anywhere on the packaging and labeling of the coffee that indicated that this bag was indeed comprised of coffees from over three dozen farms scattered across a country the size of, well, colombia. we had some long discussions about it that evening; voices were raised on both sides about a company’s right to do what they please with their products; about deceptive marketing practices; about how it’s cool to perhaps not label the bags as a blend for space’s sake but that why in the ocean of information that can be put on the website was the fact that this was a blend not mentioned online and how in fact the word “blend” didn’t even appear anywhere in the info pages for this coffee. and so forth.
so, being ever the instigator i am, i decided to bring it up on coffeed. why do we find very little if any indication that this coffee is actually a blend? what is the idea behind a fictitiously fabricated name for a blend of coffees known as a “mark of origin” (which the two companies above prefer to call “I-marks” and “Roaster’s Marks,” respectively)? why create a fake name? why not say it’s a blend? how does this square with the idea of transparency? aren’t we risking obfuscating instead of educating the masses? is it really that hard to identify these coffees differently that honestly captures what is happening but that is still done in a marketable way? and what of the farmers who toiled hard on these coffees (and were,to be sure, compensated well for their labors), only to have them slip behind the anonymity of a false name created by the roaster just to sell more coffee? didn’t that fly in the face of the whole direct trade ethos?
these were questions i floated to the forum and got many lengthy and educational responses in return about the history of the roaster’s mark, the greatness of all the web information about how these companies went to this country to get coffee, how so many other names we label our coffees are also not precise (as though this were some justification), why it’s not evil and the like. what i didn’t get was a direct answer on why it was necessary to create a fake name when we’re trying to be precise and direct. why is a fake name, not an imprecise or outdated name, mind you, but a fake, fabricated name, created by a wealthy north american company to sell more coffee from a not wealthy group of latin american farmers, is necessary and beneficial to any of the farmers under whose banner they reside.
part of the response was that there is some recognition for the farmers who provide exceptional coffees to the group by getting “micro lot” status under the roaster’s mark. but i think from a theoretical perspective this is an even worse and insensitive offense to these hard working farmers, who are struggling to break the cycle of anonymity that keeps coffee prices low and ensures the greatest profits go to the retailers. to create a false name, let’s say it’s called, “Perro Grande,” under which you gather all these coffees, then decide to “honor” one of the best of the blend by giving that farmer “Perro Grande Especial” status is gratuitous at best and seems to me to smack of slapping a north american band-aid (the one where we think money solves everything) on a latin american problem (the one where they know that getting name recognition for themselves solves everything). the farmer’s name is not Perro Grande. his farm is not called Perro Grande, nor is his co-op, dry mill, coyote’s business, the exporter’s, the shipyard or anything at all. IT’S A FAKE NAME WITH NO CONNECTION TO THE PEOPLE OR THE COFFEE! it’s like being called the juan valdez of el salvador or something. he doesn’t even exist! so then what? the whole world buys this Perro Grande coffee and the farmers (including the micro lot farmer) gets what? recognition that will bring more buyers bidding with higher prices to his door? even if you mention his name and his farm’s name, he will now forever be associated with Perro Grande, which in turn will ever be associated with the company that created this marketing phenomenon, ensuring the farmers will ever be in the thrall of…the sole company that decided to trade directly with him in the first place.
so i’ve preached a seriously long missive that risks me sounding like i hate the direct trade concept and two of the companies i respect who practice it well. but i wanted to get that out there and off my chest and i’m hoping we can spark some discussion here on txcp.
i guess the only thing that really got me, after reviewing all the posts that have been posted so far is that no one really defending their practices bothered to acknowledge what i was saying about labeling it fairly as a blend or that they perhaps could have some culpability for creating confusion among the buying public. they mostly just wanted to share with everyone how much they were doing and not back down. but that’s okay. it’s been informative, at least.
LET ME ALSO SAY FOR THE RECORD that brown is not perfect and does not practice direct trade enough (yet) or have all its so called ducks in a row with regards to imprecise labeling designations…i still use size grades like “AA” and people groups (not actual geographic indicators) such as “Mandheling.” but i think it’s still worthy of discussion.
super long post. i’m done. discuss, texas.
Comments
18 Responses to “Indirectly”
Leave a Reply
-
TX-Coffee Partners
EspressoTrainer.com
Direct Trade is either honest, or a facade.
Direct Trade is either honest, or don’t bother at all.
The purpose for trademarking the name “Direct Trade”, I think, has a lot to do with the “look at me!” approach. Yes, the practice is a good thing, but without purity of intentions, does it matter?
I say yes. Yes it does. Even if the “roaster up there” is gaining recognition out of the whole deal.. so what. The practice is still in effect, and coffee’s future is benefiting.
In regards to the faux names, see the initial comment in this reply.
well, i’m conflicted about the whole thing, to be honest. surely there’s nothing to be conflicted about with regards to the great, great things that are happening with the farmers at the hands of the roaster retailers such as the ones discussed in the post. they do great work.
obviously, though, there is some room for improvement, from my humble point of view at least.
i’m definitely not trying to “speak truth to power” in that dumb way that causes goodness and rightness to have to answer to petty trifles (read: cindy sheehan, et al). i guess it’s mostly just the way that the language is set out that seemed (to me, anyway) to deliberately avoid the use of the “b” word while talking everywhere directly around it. it was everywhere implied but never said. and then defended when asked about it.
anyways, i’m babbling.
Aaron,
you say that you respect the two companies doing these programs. That said, do you think that their intentions are honest?
also, did they also admit that the system wasn’t perfect and they were still improving it?
Do you think that Direct Trade is better or worse for farmers then the standard buying methods?
I agree that dancing around the B word is pretty ridiculous. It’s almost as though they may be afraid of being labeled as “non-third wave” if they were to offer a blend.
I think that a blend in that stance, and labeling as such, would actually be ahead of the curve.. it would be braving new territory and saying, in a sense, that blending is actually *gasp* acceptable!
Dan,
I think it’s a good thing, but it’s not the only good thing out there. On a detailed level, I personally feel that auction coffees are better for the long haul. Sort of like good hands-off social practices in government are better for the long haul, but a hands-on approach might get the ball rolling. If only both sides could agree to let the system stumble a bit while it learns to walk, we’d be in business. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
Similarly, I don’t think DT and auction coffees will ever really become related, despite the notion that I think it might be best if DT were eventually released and auctions allowed to take over. DT is a form of welfare, and auction coffees are an avenue for self sustenance. I could be way off, but that’s the impression I get.
I don’t know anymore. I think eddie summed it up in his last post in that thread and nobody answered that at all.
I just want a better cup of coffee and sometimes all the semantical nonsense really gets in the way.
I just don’t get the purpose of romanticizing a blend to sound like an estate. If it’s a quality blend, it will stand on it’s own but call it a blend.
I think what irked me is that I was fooled by it until someone came along with more details.
Pretty much. Too much Roastismo (is there such a word?) going on with that one.
I was fooled at first as well.
i think in some sense dt stands in the way of auctions. companies buy the exclusives for particular farms, giving them good contracts, for sure; but perhaps they could get better on the auction circuit if they’re really that great?
competition is a good thing, even if it means i get knocked in the dirt occasionally and have to dust myself off as i watch another guy ride away with “my girl” (as in, another company getting the coffee i wanted). you can bet one thing’s for sure: next time i’ll be ready. and so the healthy competition raises the chances the farmers get the best possible.
(sorry for my vengeful tone…i just finished watching “munich.”)
dt as welfare? ouch. you’re worse than me, jason! this is like the thread where people are actually coming BACK from bottomless portafilters! texas ahead of the curve? keep ‘em comin’ fellas.
dan: for sure their intentions are honest. from what i can tell, both companies play honestly and do amazing work. i have a bit more experience–though not a lot–with peter and counter culture. he seems a true stand up guy. intelligentsia…i hear mixed things and some not very nice things at all in the mix. but their track record is definitely solid. i can make no direct judgments as i’ve never met any of them. but yes, i am convinced their intentions and their deeds are miles ahead of almost everyone else in the field. they’ve both probably forgotten more about how to take care of farmers than most roaster retailers will ever know.
this is a tiny issue, the one of blends. but i think it does stand at the heart of what dt is or can be. it goes directly to transparency. and what i see from the responses i got–and from those i didn’t–is that the transparent truth is that this is bottom line about big money for great coffee. nothing wrong with that, i guess. just say it. “i created a blend for money.” see? it’s pretty simple, really.
RE: texas ahead of the curve
Quick! Give us a market before it’s too late!
Guys,
I wanted to let you all know that the good folks at Intelligentsia (of which I am one) are definitely reading your posts and are interested in what you have to say. No one wants to hear the Marketing Guy yak (yep, that’s what I do), and I am going to ask Geoff Watts, Intelligentsia’s Vice President of Coffee, to respond to the questions and concerns that you have. He would post immediately, but he is currently away from his computer, desk, and office here in Chicago and is instead working in Latin and South America collaborating directly with our farmer/partners. He definitely will get back to you.
If you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to contact me directly.
Thanks and keep drinking great coffee!
MPJ
+++++
Marc P. Johnson
Director of Marketing
Intelligentsia Coffee
mjohnson@intelligentsiacoffee.com
312-521-7965
marc: welcome south! hey, we’re keenly interested in what you as a marketing director for intelligentsia have to say on this. in fact, i would say that’s EXACTLY what many here would be very interested in hearing, as this is an element of the dt system that falls squarely under the purveyance of marketing (among many other things, obviously).
so please, feel free to jump in with more perspectives. the more the merrier.
’tis true.
I’m more curious about the motives behind it, the thought that brought this concept to fruition, more than anything else. That, and what the intended benefit would be, for any party involved, including consumers.
Jason,
why do you feel that auctions are more sustainable then the “relationship” based models that CC and Intelly are using?
also, how much $10+ per lb green coffee do you think that the market will support right now? or even $5/lb green coffee…
Aaron,
I honestly don’t understand how you can say “their intentions are honest” and yet continue to try and deconstruct this whole thing. We all are in pursuit of better coffee, why can’t we encourage each others efforts while encouraging each other to try and do more. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding you, but I personally don’t get a positive vibe from your comments about Direct Trade, even though you have made statements commending both companies.
good intentions do not constitute good actions. i recall the old adage that small deeds are better than grand intentions. but old grandma sayings aside, i can think of some huge examples where people (coffee people, even) intended good but where the end result or the reality on the ground was something obviously very different.
i think about fair trade. a good start, everyone will agree. but it hasn’t moved an inch since getting to the starting line. why hasn’t the premium budged upward even one penny in all these years fair trade has been in place? and why is it that the fair trade system’s minimum premium the exact same as the maximum premium? or that single farms are ineligible for fair trade minimums? or that there is absolutely no system in place under the fair trade scheme to account for actual taste? or that there are reports that surface occasionally about how fair trade/transfair cannot guarantee their premiums are even being paid out by the coops to the individual farmers, let alone to the workers in the fields. i’m not down on fair trade necessarily, or direct trade, as i’ve been at pains to stress repeatedly. but sometimes even if it’s not broken, it CAN be fixed. i just want people to acknowledge that yes, more can still be done. i’m really glad for geoff watts’ and peter giuliano’s (and others’) willingness to allow a coffee peon like me to publicly subject these systems they’ve spent a lot of blood, sweat and tears setting up and running to pokings, proddings, looking for chinks in the armor.
i LOVE the idea of Direct Trade (TM). so much so that it took me just a year for my tiny little company to scrape up the budget for me to get my bahoonkas down to a farm i buy my coffee from (with visits to other farms along the way). because i believe in the very stuff dt espouses. does brown practice business perfectly? absolutely not. but will i keep going to farms to try to source coffees? absolutely.
fortunately/unfortunately, i am not a big enough company to have to deal with such issues as wading through hundreds of samples to come up with a blend of 12 to represent a brown roaster’s mark. for me, it is just that simple as trying to get a few bags of a micro lot and calling it by its micro lot name.
sorry to sound like a shirt of hair.
dan: the other reason i guess it is so easy for me to seem to sort of argue out of both sides of my mouth (praising them one minute then deconstructing it the next) is that i can easily see more than one side to it. ironically, i was VEHEMENTLY arguing FOR the roaster’s mark in the lengthy and sometimes heated argument we were having at the guatemala table.
Rewarding quality seems like the best thing for everyone. Fair Trade and the like reward … what exactly? And that’s probably why they’re stuck.
Some of the most coveted and high-priced wines (and spirits, for that matter) are blends. The marketing trend toward single vineyard, single plot, single barrel, etc., is definitely not correlated to better products. More character, perhaps, but one really loud note is rarely as satisfying as actual music. Sadly, to use one of my favorite examples from the food world, people find it easier to sell pork that’s labeled with a pastoral name, like White Marble Farms (http://www.ethicurean.com/2006/10/18/white-marble-farms/). Seth Godin writes about this phenomenon well in “All Marketers are Liars.” But why established, rock star roasters don’t think their customers trust them enough to try a blend based on the fact that they made it is beyond me. I look forward to reading Geoff’s comments.
Andy Beckstoffer is a big California grape grower who reviews the wines made with his grapes. If he doesn’t like them, you don’t get his grapes anymore. If you want his grapes you contract for the crop, whatever that year’s yield. He attempts to link grape prices to bottle prices. He wants to be rewarded for quality rather than quantity (the old model). His model spreads the risk between the farmer and the winemaker, and leads to better wine and more consistent cash flow for the farmer. Is something similar possible in the coffee world? I don’t know enough about it to say, but I will say that I’ve been disappointed in far too many coffees that have the right words, but not the right stuff.
Considering the volume of coffee produced across the globe, I’m not sure such a model is possible just yet. Maybe eventually, but these days, on an overall level, significantly lower prices for a slightly lower quality product will more often than not be chosen by the average green coffee buyer.
There are exceptions… naturally. I’m just not sure that there are enough exceptions to match what may be required for such a model to thrive.
There’s a huge amount of grapes grown, and very little of it goes into the high-end bottlings. I’m really talking about the equivalent very high end of coffee, not the commodity market. I may be misunderstanding your comment, but volume seems irrelevant. I still have no idea if the model translates, but it does seem to this outsider like the coffee world is very focussed on marketing words (even, sadly, among the good people doing the right things) and that quality is not rewarded as much as it might be. I don’t know enough about coffee agriculture to know if a roaster could ask a grower to do certain things to improve quality and promise a certain amount of money no matter the yield. Most winemakers can go to the vineyard regularly and check on the grapes–might not be so easy for the roaster.