06.14.2007

“HartBeat” is The Hartman Group's FREE online newsletter, providing insight, analysis, information and strategy to give business leaders the knowledge and vision to build sustainable brands.

Archives »
Click here for an archive of past HartBeat articles

FOLLOW US

Comment »

Print »

E-mail »

Subscribe »

Share »

• digg
• del.icio.us
• facebook
• Linked in
• newsvine
• reddit
• twitter
• friendfeed
• StumbleUpon

E-mail:

Message:

Please write the image text in the given input box:

[ Different Image ]

Comic Books, Food And The FTC

A Tinderbox Commentary

We at The Hartman Group have long admired the work of Daniel Clowes, a graphic artist and novelist who releases much of his work on the Fantagraphics Books. Clowes's handiwork reveals an uncanny ability to accurately depict contemporary social life - especially when it makes us flinch so nervously. Maybe that's why we have found ourselves reminded of his masterwork Ghost World as we follow the ongoing saga of the pending sale of Wild Oats.

Originally serialized in issues #11 through 18 of Clowes's comic book series Eightball - and eventually adapted to a feature length film by Terry Zwigoff - Ghost World examines the daily life of two cynical teenage girls as they idle away their lives in a mixture of equal parts pathos, depression and lethargy. But the key takeaway here is the insinuation that because we all become so wrapped up in our own little worlds, the "other world" out there - the "objective" world existing outside our own interpretive frames - exists in a detached, ethereal state.

In other words, the so-called "objective" world that lies beyond our own clouded lens is something of a ghost world; a place we can't truly inhabit or understand because we are so immersed in our own perceptions and imaginations.

And as it happens, we believe this is the perfect metaphor to explain the odd contradictions apparent in the FTC's decision to oppose the proposed sale of Wild Oats. To quote from last week's (6.5.07) FTC decision:

"In defining the relevant markets, the Commission found that premium natural and organic supermarkets, such as Wild Oats, are differentiated from conventional retail supermarkets in several critical respects. These include the breadth and quality of their perishables - produce, meats, fish, bakery items, and prepared foods - and the wide array of natural and organic products and services and amenities they offer. In addition, premium natural and organic supermarkets seek a different customer than do traditional grocery stores. Wild Oats' customers are buying something more than just the food product - they are seeking a shopping "experience," where environment can matter as much as price."

The FTC, you see, is just as confused and clueless as Clowes's whiny, angst-filled characters in Ghost World.

Unable to move beyond the clouded lens of judgment that appears to believe such statements as "...premium natural and organic supermarkets seek a different customer than do traditional grocery stores," the FTC proves once again that they are like many other governmental agencies these days - far out of touch with objective reality. Sadly, consumers are left adrift to fend for themselves in a ghost world whose reality is simply incomprehensible by those in the very positions whose job it is to (allegedly) understand them.

Those familiar with our work understand that we have been carefully documenting this "ghost world" for our clients for many years now. In serene, quiet spaces far a field from the cataract-marred vision of industry insiders, market pundits and governmental agencies, we spend many hours living and talking with ordinary consumers about their "real lives."

Upon our journeys through the homes and communities comprising this ghost world, we uncover all manner of interesting details and facts, such as:

• The word "natural" no longer means anything to consumers. In fact, the word has become so diluted that many actively avoid products bearing this word out of fear that they could be "imposters."

• There is little, if any, correlation between consumer interest in organic products and the decision to shop at so-called "natural and organic" specialty grocers. Organic products are available everywhere these days - from convenience stores to Costco - so there is little reason to expect organic-inclined consumers to always seek out specialists.

• In fact, most consumers who do patronize specialty retailers do so for reasons having nothing to do with ideas regarding natural or designations such as organic. Quite to the contrary, consumers seek out specialty retailers because of their ability to deliver higher-quality food experiences.

• The consumers we engage in these "ghost worlds" are nearly unanimous in their desire for retailers offering a "breadth and quality of...perishables - produce, meats, fish, bakery items and prepared foods..." In other words, consumers increasingly demand these attributes of any and all food retailers.

• And finally, with regard to experience, we find ourselves wondering just how out of touch the FTC must be because we have yet to encounter more than a tiny fraction of consumers who do not desire a compelling, engaging experience when shopping for food. While it's certainly true that most contemporary grocery store share more in common with prisons, warehouses or post offices than they do immersive experiences, that reality should not be taken as a measure of actual consumer interest. The sad fact remains that the grocery retail industry has been consistently letting consumers down for the better part of 50 years.

Those who know our work also know that we are tireless advocates for the citizenry of these ghost worlds - the consumer. Be it in the case of obesity, the desire for more robust wellness experiences or, as evidenced here, the simple desire for higher quality food experiences, we will always champion the cause for the humble consumer. In this we remain absolutely bewildered that the FTC could, when supposedly acting out of the public's interest, believe they were somehow taking a position that would better serve consumers?

But despite the obvious tone of frustration here, we remain remarkably optimistic. Much like the end of Clowes's Ghost World - in which one of the main characters decides to begin looking beyond her myopic vision to rediscover the passion and enjoyment to be found in the "ghost world," believing there is a better place, a better way if you will. But to get there we've got to somehow find a way of bringing this world to life for the marketers, analysts and policymakers of tomorrow.

Until then, consumers will continue to be misunderstood and neglected.

Afterthoughts: It would appear "specialty" and "luxury" are now among our inalienable rights

The more I chewed on this news yesterday, the more I began to realize how absurd the FTC's logic appears in this case. It's one thing to suggest that Microsoft be closely monitored because at various times they have possessed a near monopoly on consumer-grade computer operating systems. And we surely do not want all of the nation's cable television products in the hands of one or two providers. But this is something very different because this is a concern not with the market dominance of food retailing broadly stated, but with a certain niche, specialty food experience.

This is like suggesting that Starbucks must be monitored because they currently dominate the market in the "sophisticated" or "specialty" coffee experience, as if this were somehow an inherent right guaranteed to all. Never mind that Dunkin' Donuts sells a heck of a lot of coffee, should Starbucks ever offer to buy out Tully's we can presume what the FTC's answer would be.

Most ironic of all, though, are the symbolic implications of the FTC's actions. For when we begin thinking about things this way, what we realize is that the FTC is casting a clear signal that luxury consumption is a permanent, long-standing feature of the American way of life - something to be expected and enjoyed by all. For analysts who have long commented on the seeming unyielding sway of luxury consumption opportunities across all socio-economic strata, what the FTC seems to be suggesting is that such interest is so foundational it must be protected at all costs - including the cost of economic growth.

Comment »