Comments on: The Rise of Yuppie Foods http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/ Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:49:29 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Rodney North http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/#comment-76 Rodney North Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:44:40 +0000 http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/#comment-76 This admittedly touches upon only a sliver of an broad, interesting post, but so be it. I can understand why people would assume that "the poor don't consume organic" but, in fact, they do. As someone who has worked in marketing organic food (for Equal Exchange) for 10 years this came as a surprise to me, too. The studies were by the Natural Foods Marketing Institute (a market research firm) and, I think, by the Hartman group (another market research firm in our field). They found that, in fact, there seemed to be little to no correlation between household income and the consumption of organic foods. Maybe that's why Wal-Mart (by far the largest food retailer in the US) is adding more & more organic items to their shelves. All the other supermarkets are doing likewise. And if you broaden "yuppie food" to include other surging "hip" categories like farmers markets and CSA's (community supported agriculture) I bet you'll find no income (or "yuppie") correlation there either. Just another factor to consider. This admittedly touches upon only a sliver of an broad, interesting post, but so be it.
I can understand why people would assume that “the poor don’t consume organic” but, in fact, they do. As someone who has worked in marketing organic food (for Equal Exchange) for 10 years this came as a surprise to me, too. The studies were by the Natural Foods Marketing Institute (a market research firm) and, I think, by the Hartman group (another market research firm in our field). They found that, in fact, there seemed to be little to no correlation between household income and the consumption of organic foods. Maybe that’s why Wal-Mart (by far the largest food retailer in the US) is adding more & more organic items to their shelves. All the other supermarkets are doing likewise.
And if you broaden “yuppie food” to include other surging “hip” categories like farmers markets and CSA’s (community supported agriculture) I bet you’ll find no income (or “yuppie”) correlation there either.
Just another factor to consider.

]]> By: Silverbrow http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/#comment-72 Silverbrow Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:51:36 +0000 http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/#comment-72 I think you're spot-on. I reckon that taste has very little to do with the success of the recent 'gourmet' (a word I hate too, thus the quotation marks) movement. In my opinion perception and guilt drive much of this. There is the perception that buying local is the right thing to do, there is the perception that Fairtrade does what it says on the tin, there is the percetion that Starbucks is high quality, there is the perception that Whole Foods is significantly different from Tescos. As you say, by buying into the exclusivity of these perceptions, consumers innure themselves from the masses - or so they think. Then the guilt kicks in and they feel that they can mitigate that through what they eat and where they buy their food. If it says its organic and fairtrade, brilliant. They're too lazy to ask the questions that matter: What does Fairtrade mean? Is that labourer on the coffee plantation really any wealthier? Is it sustainable. Once again, it goes back into buying into the perception. I think you’re spot-on. I reckon that taste has very little to do with the success of the recent ‘gourmet’ (a word I hate too, thus the quotation marks) movement. In my opinion perception and guilt drive much of this.

There is the perception that buying local is the right thing to do, there is the perception that Fairtrade does what it says on the tin, there is the percetion that Starbucks is high quality, there is the perception that Whole Foods is significantly different from Tescos.

As you say, by buying into the exclusivity of these perceptions, consumers innure themselves from the masses – or so they think. Then the guilt kicks in and they feel that they can mitigate that through what they eat and where they buy their food. If it says its organic and fairtrade, brilliant. They’re too lazy to ask the questions that matter: What does Fairtrade mean? Is that labourer on the coffee plantation really any wealthier? Is it sustainable. Once again, it goes back into buying into the perception.

]]> By: Espresso News and Reviews - TheShot.coffeeratings.com » The Rise of Yuppie Foods http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/#comment-71 Espresso News and Reviews - TheShot.coffeeratings.com » The Rise of Yuppie Foods Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:07:28 +0000 http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/#comment-71 [...] Props to the blog wcuk for one of the more thought-provoking posts I’ve read in a while: The Rise of Yuppie Foods « wcuk. It concerns the question of whether the diversification and specialization of common consumable [...] [...] Props to the blog wcuk for one of the more thought-provoking posts I’ve read in a while: The Rise of Yuppie Foods « wcuk. It concerns the question of whether the diversification and specialization of common consumable [...]

]]> By: Jay http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/#comment-70 Jay Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:14:00 +0000 http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/#comment-70 Greg Sherwin said it right when he mentioned spent on food. For further reading, try "The Omnivore's Dilemma". Michael Pollan does some good Whole Foods trashing. Jay P.S. When did the word protein become a substitute for meat or poultry? Greg Sherwin said it right when he mentioned spent on food. For further reading, try “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”. Michael Pollan does some good Whole Foods trashing.

Jay

P.S. When did the word protein become a substitute for meat or poultry?

]]> By: Greg Sherwin http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/#comment-69 Greg Sherwin Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:30:16 +0000 http://wcuk.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-rise-of-yuppie-foods/#comment-69 A great, though-provoking post. I am most definitely going to read up on the referenced article. It's also particularly interesting since it was written in 1996. I have been obsessively driven by flavor and taste in my pursuits of good espresso, at home and in the local café scene in San Francisco. And I've always been a bigger fan of dark chocolate. I occasionally shop at Whole Foods, but "worse" perhaps -- I prefer my local neighborhood market over the grand supermarkets nearby. But I do not exclusively buy Fair Trade and organic beans necessarily (and I find those that do to often be really annoying and myopic). And in the past decade I've come to regard the word "gourmet" as a desperate labeling ploy to make something sound better than it really is. On the one hand, we as a society have had our taste buds deadened by the industrial commoditization of food. Our produce is less ripe, less flavorful, and more the product of chemical and genetic additives than ever before. We've forgotten that people used to roast their own coffee at home, for example, and got lost in the 1950s technology world of instant convenience -- choosing the perception of modernism and supposed futurism over the stodgy, old world ways of our grandparents. We were blinded that the cost of a lot of this convenience was flavor. Kraft and Heinz now represent what comes out of distasteful plastic packets and unbreakable 46-oz bottles. There's a very big reaction to that these days. But I would suspect, as you do, that a bigger piece of what's going on is marketing the expression of individual choice and identity through consumption. As horribly ostentatious as that may seem, I know a lot of that is going on. Though given how the average American lifespan is on the decline -- and much of that can be contributed to diet and a lack of exercise -- spending more on our food, for better food, is not exactly an unwise decision. But let's not also forget that people in the U.S. pay about 8% of their income on food today. In 1970, the percentage was more like 20%. Food has become cheaper to produce, and perhaps there's more disposable income, but more likely we as a society have been spending more on the crap that fills up our lives and landfills. A great, though-provoking post. I am most definitely going to read up on the referenced article. It’s also particularly interesting since it was written in 1996.

I have been obsessively driven by flavor and taste in my pursuits of good espresso, at home and in the local café scene in San Francisco. And I’ve always been a bigger fan of dark chocolate. I occasionally shop at Whole Foods, but “worse” perhaps — I prefer my local neighborhood market over the grand supermarkets nearby.

But I do not exclusively buy Fair Trade and organic beans necessarily (and I find those that do to often be really annoying and myopic). And in the past decade I’ve come to regard the word “gourmet” as a desperate labeling ploy to make something sound better than it really is.

On the one hand, we as a society have had our taste buds deadened by the industrial commoditization of food. Our produce is less ripe, less flavorful, and more the product of chemical and genetic additives than ever before. We’ve forgotten that people used to roast their own coffee at home, for example, and got lost in the 1950s technology world of instant convenience — choosing the perception of modernism and supposed futurism over the stodgy, old world ways of our grandparents. We were blinded that the cost of a lot of this convenience was flavor. Kraft and Heinz now represent what comes out of distasteful plastic packets and unbreakable 46-oz bottles.

There’s a very big reaction to that these days. But I would suspect, as you do, that a bigger piece of what’s going on is marketing the expression of individual choice and identity through consumption. As horribly ostentatious as that may seem, I know a lot of that is going on. Though given how the average American lifespan is on the decline — and much of that can be contributed to diet and a lack of exercise — spending more on our food, for better food, is not exactly an unwise decision.

But let’s not also forget that people in the U.S. pay about 8% of their income on food today. In 1970, the percentage was more like 20%. Food has become cheaper to produce, and perhaps there’s more disposable income, but more likely we as a society have been spending more on the crap that fills up our lives and landfills.

]]>