I think the sweet spot is going to be a Trader Joe's-like online brand. Good quality, organic options, low prices, curated selection. Instacart, GoodEggs and others are missing the mark.
Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs
51–60 of 71 posts
Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to know that organic vs. Monsanto is a hot button to push, so throwing that into your initial comment is a sure way to derail the conversation into arguments. If you really just want to talk about the "tech" label, then you should just stick to that point.
It's a hot topic, yes, but an important one. We are in an age where policy is decided by a scientifically illiterate public, with potentially devastating consequences for people outside the developed world. That needs to be confronted head on, not shied away from. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/18/pew-vaccine... Not being willing to talk about these issues is what allows fearmongers to win the day.
One of the problems is this idea that opposition to GMOs and growth in demand for organic food is fueled by scientific illiteracy.
There an oft-repeated lament of "I can't believe people think GMOs are unsafe!", but why not instead start by asking why purchases of organic food increase alongside increased education level?
Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that were true, I'd be proud to work there. Food innovation is of critical importance for mankind, in the same realm as space exploration or improved information accessibility. Certainly a lot more important selling ads, or providing an internet-based service to pick up your laundry. But it isn't true. Maybe someday.
It sounds like you're unfamiliar with both what Monsanto does, and with what I do.
I am familiar with what Monsanto does and have pretty much agreed with GP. I am also familiar with the anti-science youtube documentary watching, "do-your-own-research" conspiracy junky crowd accusing strangers of being shills on public forums. Your profile is blank so that is all I have to go on as far as "what you do".
Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a hot topic, yes, but an important one. We are in an age where policy is decided by a scientifically illiterate public, with potentially devastating consequences for people outside the developed world. That needs to be confronted head on, not shied away from. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/18/pew-vaccine... Not being willing to talk about these issues is what allows fearmongers to win the day.
One of the problems is this idea that opposition to GMOs and growth in demand for organic food is fueled by scientific illiteracy. There an oft-repeated lament of "I can't believe people think GMOs are unsafe!", but why not instead start by asking why purchases of organic food increase alongside increased education level?
Having gone to college is not evidence that your opinion is any more important than anyone else's.
What matters is: what does the data say about GMO safety? Are your views informed by the consensus of scientific studies?
If not, then the position is still scientifically illiterate, even if the individual has a Masters degree.
Resisting vaccinations is also quite common among educated, affluent people.
http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/March-2014/Why-Is-Vaccin...
The issue is precisely that we have an "educated" public (based on credentials) that is also scientifically illiterate.
Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs
#55"The single biggest mistake we made was growing too quickly, to multiple cities, before fully figuring out the challenges of building an entirely new food supply chain." This is a repeat of Webvan. Webvan had a good idea, but tried to "scale" fast. They had about 3% market share in 30 cities, and needed 30% market share in 3 cities.
There's a reason webvan was tempted into scaling too fast.
For mass market groceries, there are two virtuous cycles a retailer needs to trigger. The first is:
1. Get higher customer density
2. more deliveries per driver shift
3. reduced delivery costs
4. attract more customers with lower delivery prices
5. go to 1
The second is:
1. Get more customers
2. better economies of scale and more negotiating leverage with suppliers
3. reduced grocery costs
4. attract more customers with lower item prices
5. go to 1
Now, the first virtuous cycle only works at the city level - operating in two cities doesn't improve your customer density. But for the second virtuous cycle you need overall market share, not just local market share. To get Wal-Mart market share (~30%) and prices you need Wal-Mart buying power.
Of course, that's no excuse for building loads of warehouses full of tech that can't achieve the performance you need and to 'iterate' costs a few hundred million per warehouse! But it's understandable why the business plan would call for national expansion at some time - and I can also understand why people immersed in the SV community would find it hard to slow down and not break things :)
Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention that food itself does not elicit rational behavior. If we were remotely logical about how we consume food, we'd all be voluntarily eating a nutrition paste out of a tube every morning. Eating food is an animal need, and therefore we have instinctual animal behaviors around supplying it and consuming it that just can't fit into any sort of rational mental model. There are functions around food behavior…
Are you suggesting human dietary behaviors have not changed since the inception of agriculture thousands of years ago? Because they have, and that clearly demonstrates that how and what people eat is driven by complex cultural processes. But the only source of behavior you identify is in-born and determined by genetics. Our genetics have been influenced by agriculture, already. I don't know what it means to 'move bey…
Sorry for making such a "boring" point that was apparently also worth committing several paragraphs to debunking.
Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting human dietary behaviors have not changed since the inception of agriculture thousands of years ago? Because they have, and that clearly demonstrates that how and what people eat is driven by complex cultural processes. But the only source of behavior you identify is in-born and determined by genetics. Our genetics have been influenced by agriculture, already. I don't know what it means to 'move bey…
Sorry for making such a "boring" point that was apparently also worth committing several paragraphs to debunking.
Of course it was worth it. You're worth it. <3
Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GMO crops are banned in Europe No, they aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modi...
They are 'effectively' banned in Europe though. As you can see from this infographic[1] approval of a GMO requires a political vote in the European Commission. This takes place after a very expensive risk assessment, and you can't get that money back. It's a tough business case to spend a ton of money on the risk assessment and then be at the whim of politicians who are publicly against the technology and know they w…
> They are 'effectively' banned in Europe though.
There quite a number specifically approved, which is inconsistent with an "effective" ban.
> My company makes GMO plants and until the situation changes there's no way we'd considered trying to get approval.
Demonstrably -- that is, from the list of products that are approved -- that's not true of the major players in the industry (e.g., Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta) and even some smaller players.
Your company not having the resources to compete in a given market doesn't mean that that market has banned GMOs.
Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there are other aspects to agricultural science and technology. However, there is nothing in this company that indicates they are advancing technology in any sense. This is not to say they are not providing a worthwhile service. Even my local farmer's market provides a worthwhile service to me, but I don't call it a "tech market" just because some of the vendors have an online presence.
I see where you're coming from, but I think there are still a lot of possibilities for innovation here. We waste 50% of food, with a big portion of that waste happening at the retail level. Food distribution services like Good Eggs have a pretty good shot at eliminating that waste. Just to give an idea of the potential, attacking only food waste, without any other improvments to our food system, would comfortably all…
Right, but that still doesn't mean there is innovative technology involved. Can I call a tailor a technology company because they have a website?
Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a hot topic, yes, but an important one. We are in an age where policy is decided by a scientifically illiterate public, with potentially devastating consequences for people outside the developed world. That needs to be confronted head on, not shied away from. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/18/pew-vaccine... Not being willing to talk about these issues is what allows fearmongers to win the day.
One of the problems is this idea that opposition to GMOs and growth in demand for organic food is fueled by scientific illiteracy. There an oft-repeated lament of "I can't believe people think GMOs are unsafe!", but why not instead start by asking why purchases of organic food increase alongside increased education level?
start by asking why purchases of organic food increase alongside increased education level?
Is that true even if you control for income levels? Because it's not really a major mystery why the poor uneducated classes don't buy the (typically) more expensive organic food.
(Yes, I know there are wealthy uneducated people, and poor but educated people, but wealth and education are known to be correlated)