I think that it does in fact appeal to quality requirements. These products come in cheaper than Nike or Addidas.. and are arguably of the same quality.
Some consumers are indeed concerned with the conditions under which the products that they consume are produced.
Of course.
it's a niche market as I said before.
There's nothing wrong with a niche market.
But doesn't it strike you odd that the company relies on unpaid college kid advocate to promote their product? And they profit off of that free labor?
Did you ask about the union situation in the SC distribution center? Certainly, since they are pro-union in VAG they must be unionized in SC, right? I mean, choosing SC was by coincidence, right, being a low wage, non-union, low tax state. I'm sure it was an oversight not planting corporate and distribution roots in pro-union, high-tax NJ or NY.
"Fair Trade" isn't naive. It just rarely ever works. The flaw in "Fair Trade" is by eliminating intermediaries, the producers have to finance and operate those functions formerly performed efficiently by the intermediaries. Producers are producers; they aren't distributors. Therefore what they gain in supposedly higher prices they lose from inefficient distribution. In fact, often the producers end up making even less than before and because of the higher costs of export, a lot produced with the hope of "Fair Trade" ends up in the local market. It is what it is.
Additionally, "Fair Trade" outlets are rare and many go into hiding during hard economic times (Starbucks, for instance.) And at the producer level, there are more producers who want the higher prices than customers willing to pay the higher price (charity, in essence.) That means that the local "Fair Trade" associations have to choose the "winner" producers. Those not chosen (politics?) end up selling their crops at the local level and are disaffected. Thinbk Animal Farm: "All pigs are equal; however, some pigs are more equal than others."
I'm working with a group of Dominican coffee growers who came asking for help in establishing direct marketing to Europe and NA because they wanted to get the additional $90 per cwt the world market pays vs. what their long-term intermediary/processor paid them (coffee prices are at an all time high.) They were disappointed when I laid out a cost model that showed, yes, they
COULD get higher world market prices...and all they'd have to do is invest US$2,300,000 in land and capital equipment and support/guarantee a US$210,000 annual payroll to get that price. Oh, they'd net maybe $5 per cwt AFTER the plant cost was amortized over 5 years, although each member would enjoy a proportionate share of the profits.
Good, kind ideas don't always pan out the way folks "feel" they should. There's nothing wrong with *wanting* those things to work. But cold, hard facts often paint another picture.
