![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bigger isn't always better
Jul. 29th, 2005 11:36 amI heard recently that Scharffen Berger Chocolate Maker has agreed to be bought by Hershey. I'm very saddened by this for several reasons.
First off, I worry that this will mean that their quality will go down -- that big corporate "short term profits first" mentality will take over. Yes, I know that they say that they'll be doing the same things the same way, and that Hershey says that they want a good quality dark chocolate to round out their offerings. But, I don't really believe that.
Even if that were true, however, I'm not sure that I like the idea of Scharffen Berger getting "bigger". How will they get the increased production of cocoa beans? Will this result in more land being put under cultivation that was previously just left alone? Sure, cocoa is a better crop than clearing the rain forests for beef, but it still affects the local (and global) environment.
Besides, what is wrong with being small? Why does "more market share" or "bigger" have to be the goal?
On the other hand, maybe Scharffen Berger wasn't really able to make it and would have gone out of business.
Am I just being a selfish yuppie? After all, I can afford to pay for premium chocolate. And, in fact, I'm willing to pay for quality (unlike many Americans who look only at the cheap price tag and don't realize that Wal*Mart is using inexpensive foreign-made goods, thereby hurting the US). But, I do understand that some people just can't afford certain things. In some ways, it really isn't "fair" if they never get a chance to have decent chocolate.
I wish that I could take the long term view that capitalism requires -- that over the long term, companies that provide good products will succeed. The only problem is that in the short term, we're all potentially screwed.
First off, I worry that this will mean that their quality will go down -- that big corporate "short term profits first" mentality will take over. Yes, I know that they say that they'll be doing the same things the same way, and that Hershey says that they want a good quality dark chocolate to round out their offerings. But, I don't really believe that.
Even if that were true, however, I'm not sure that I like the idea of Scharffen Berger getting "bigger". How will they get the increased production of cocoa beans? Will this result in more land being put under cultivation that was previously just left alone? Sure, cocoa is a better crop than clearing the rain forests for beef, but it still affects the local (and global) environment.
Besides, what is wrong with being small? Why does "more market share" or "bigger" have to be the goal?
On the other hand, maybe Scharffen Berger wasn't really able to make it and would have gone out of business.
Am I just being a selfish yuppie? After all, I can afford to pay for premium chocolate. And, in fact, I'm willing to pay for quality (unlike many Americans who look only at the cheap price tag and don't realize that Wal*Mart is using inexpensive foreign-made goods, thereby hurting the US). But, I do understand that some people just can't afford certain things. In some ways, it really isn't "fair" if they never get a chance to have decent chocolate.
I wish that I could take the long term view that capitalism requires -- that over the long term, companies that provide good products will succeed. The only problem is that in the short term, we're all potentially screwed.