In Part 1 of this series I characterized that the market is fragile and gave some arguments in support of that position. In Part 2 I took a look at the growth of craft chocolate since 1997, calculating growth rates based on available information, and asked what it would take to double sales and consumption of beans—assuming a compound annual growth rate on par with what’s been experienced in the past five years—and proposed a list of actions that could help this happen.
I decided to wait to write this final part until after the semi-annual FCIA meeting and Fancy Food Show in San Francisco in mid-January then attending ISM/ProSweets in Cologne, Germany at the end of January to see if anything I learned there could inform what I had to say. I have also been preparing to present at the Roots of Cacao symposium at the Institute of Culinary Education and will be moderating several sessions at Chocoa in late-February so the topics are front of mind. As a result I have collapsed the points in the second article into groups for brevity and clarity.
Clarity of Voice and Messaging
It is hardly surprising that consumers are confused about what “craft” chocolate is and the value proposition it can deliver - because the small maker (a term I prefer over most definitions for craft) community cannot itself agree on a definition that makes sense. I will add one other criterion to the task of creating and agreeing upon definitions:
A good definition must also be one that Big Chocolate cannot co-opt, as they have done with bean-to-bar.
How is what small makers do different from what industrial makers do? What is craft chocolate? What is artisan chocolate? What is bean-to-bar chocolate?
Is there any meaningful difference between craft and artisan? Bean-to-bar is now essentially meaningless as a differentiator because many industrial-scale producers are, in fact, bean-to-bar chocolate makers.
In order to grow the market, the small maker community needs to:
- Come up with an easily understandable definition for craft that clearly differentiates the value proposition in contrast with industrial chocolate.
- Get all (or a large majority of) makers to agree to use the definition(s) in the same way.
- Aggregate some resources to market the term to consumers effectively.
- Stop marketing using phrases like, “Our chocolate is so good you don’t need to eat very much of it to feel satisfied.” It makes zero business sense to tell consumers they need to buy less of your product.
- Increase transparency about the farm gate price of the beans being used.
- Clearly articulate how many farmers are having their lives materially improved through their efforts. If a small maker is only buying 1 bag of beans from a farmer or co-op per year at a premium of $1000/MT over what others pay then the value of the impact is, in concrete terms, meaningless.
- Address the gap between the purpose and promises of awards programs and the way they are negatively skewing markets.
I think it’s also important for the two-ingredient school of the craft chocolate “movement” to admit to itself and everyone else that nothing about it is actually revolutionary. Rather, it’s a return to a pre-industrial - specifically pre-1847 - style of making chocolate.
I have two ideas that I think the small maker community should work on that would help grow the market. If there is interest I am happy to help promote via TheChocolateLife.
- Expand the use of geographical indicators (or GI; e.g., AOC, DOC, PDO, DO). One way to increase consumer confidence in a scalable way that can be controlled locally (in-country) is to develop effective denominations of origin. The depiction of a GI on a package can carry as much weight as a social certification label and could be more meaningful and useful - to everyone - as a marketing tool in the long run.
- Create the craft chocolate equivalent of home brewer guilds. These groups would meet on a regular basis for the purpose of learning to make chocolate, sharing what they make, and learn, and educate themselves about chocolate in general. Imagine if 20% of the people who attended the NW Chocolate Festival purchased small equipment and purchased 2kg beans each month to make chocolate in the home. Now imagine chocolate guilds in every town and city where there is one or more craft brewery. Not only could these guilds more than double the global market for beans from small farmers, the members would be more appreciative of what goes into making a good bar and be more willing to pay for it.
What size does a small chocolate maker have to be to be sustainable as a business?
One of the reasons many small makers get into chocolate in the first place is they want to improve cacao farmer lives and livelihoods. This is a long-term commitment, so it makes sense that, first and foremost, makers take a close look at their businesses to see how sustainable they are.
However, most makers I have spoken with have only a vague idea of what their true cost of production is. And they don’t really have a clear idea about how to calculate their cost of production. They don’t know what the key drivers of cost are and they don’t know how to price their products properly. This means they don’t know what parts of the process are costing them the most and should be the focus of improving efficiency.
- The price of cocoa beans is not a key driver of the retail price of a chocolate bar.
- The price of labor is a key driver.
- Batch and bar size are key drivers; small batches cost more; bigger bars might be more profitable than smaller ones.
- The cost of distribution is a key driver.
- And we haven’t even talked about the cost of packaging, the cost of equipment, and the cost of overhead.
Layered into all of the above points is a discussion of scale. How many tonnes of beans does a small chocolate maker need to produce in order to be consistently profitable? 4MT/year? 6MT/year? 12? 25? 50?
The answer, of course depends up on the cost structure of the business, and in particular the distribution of labor costs across the entire manufacturing process from reception of beans through cleaning to wrapping and packing.
But I will argue that more important to the discussion is product mix. There is a tendency for makers who self-identify as bean-to-bar makers to make nothing but bars. Chocolate bars, and especially two-ingredient single-origin/varietal bars, is an increasingly competitive marketplace with many distribution infrastructure challenges. Makers would be well served to consider the question, ‘I make chocolate, now what can I make with it?” There are many things that can be made with chocolate that have higher profit margins than bars and that are kid-friendly (70% two-ingredient chocolates are not kid-friendly). And if a maker is not offering up something with salted caramel in it they are leaving tons of money on the table.
- The world does not need another partially conched 70+% two-ingredient Madagascar made with under-roasted Akesson Estate beans processed in a wet grinder made in India. There are literally hundreds already and consumers are having a hard time differentiating between existing ones.
- Big chocolate is paying attention … but small makers have no control over what is co-opted or how. They will make products that echo every single successful initiation small chocolate tries, making it harder for small chocolate to distinguish what it does and grow its audience and market.
- Expect every one of the messages that small chocolate uses to be used by Big Chocolate, if they think it can be used successfully. Bean-to-bar is no longer a meaningful differentiator. At ISM I saw the phrase, “Made in an artisanal way” on one stand. What does that even mean, other than to reinforce that unclear definitions of artisan cannot be a meaningful differentiator.