ENDS REPORT
BLOOMINGTON COOPERATIVE SERVICES
FISCAL YEAR 2016
Bloomingfoods Ends Monitoring Report
Fiscal Year 2016
Submitted by Anthony Alongi, General Manager
September 23, 2015
Bloomingfoods Ends Statement, Articulated by the BCS Board of Directors:
Because of Bloomington Cooperative Services, people in Bloomington and South Central
Indiana will have:
 a market for local, organic and healthy products, meeting the needs of consumers and
producers;
 increased cooperative ownership that strengthens the local economy and community;
 a model of sustainable, profitable business;
 increased understanding of the local food system and its importance.
I believe that by any objective measure, we cannot claim any measure of compliance or success
in achieving progress (as in moving forward from prior years) towards our Ends in 2016. I would
further contend that any perceived compliance over the past year has been nothing more than
happenstance – we achieved some measure of compliance simply by Bloomingfoods’ existence.
That is not enough to justify compliance, in my opinion. I interpret “compliance” to mean progress
– improvement in some way, shape or form over prior years. Finally, in the past, it appears that
“compliance” or lack of compliance was reported on individual components of the Ends. I do not
believe the Ends are “pickable and choosable” so to speak. It read it as a “statement”, not
statements. Each component is inter-related, as written, and, as such, I believe that compliance
(progress) is an all or nothing situation.
pg 1
Executive Summary
As appears to be common in the past few years, new management means a change to the Ends
report. As can be gleaned from the opening paragraphs above, I take a very different (narrower?)
view of Ends and, as I am sure you can anticipate from me by now, a pretty conservative opinion
as to whether we have achieved our Ends or not. In my assessment, in FY2016 we have not.
I think the first and most important change to this report is a global interpretation of “achieving”
the ends. I do not believe that we can ever fully “achieve” them, at least not realistically. We can
only progress towards achieving them. Progress, in my opinion, is measured quite simply
– did we do better at something than we did the year before. I believe that the date presented
below will show that in no way can we conclude that at the end of FY2016 did we progress
towards achieving any of the Ends. I could create an entire report trying to justify what we
accomplished on the Ends – and we did accomplish certain things. But in virtually no
circumstance can I find signs of progress as defined above.
We have an excuse. And that is exactly what it is, an excuse. As is painfully aware to everyone
reading this report, Bloomingfoods has gone through an unprecedented level of hardship over
the past several years, leading us, quite simply, to the brink of non-existence. Current
management, in place since March 1, 2016 has focused almost exclusively on improving
operations in order to insure our survival; a process that actually started mid-2015 with NCG’s
direct involvement in the management of Bloomingfoods. While the Ends are omnipresent, it
would be a fallacy to claim that the Ends have been part and parcel of every decision we have
made. Or is it a fallacy? One of the parts of the Ends Statement is that Bloomingfoods be a model
of sustainable, profitable business. With cumulative losses totaling in excess of $1.7 million over
the past three fiscal years, decisions had/have to be made that may not always encompass the
Ends. Achieving the Ends should not be a luxury, but in some cases that is exactly what they
have become in the severe financial crisis that we find ourselves in.
But they shouldn’t be a luxury. The Ends should be part of all of our decision making. A standard
question that should be asked of every staff member when making a decision is how does this
help us achieve our Ends. We are getting back to that point, and there are simple things we can
do to ensure that the Ends become part of the decision making process again, but we aren’t
there yet.
I view the Ends as my ultimate job description. Yes, I have a job description with more specific
instructions, but if I can report at the end of the year that we have progressed towards achieving
our Ends then I will consider that I have performed my job over the course of the year. As you
will see below, based on my interpretation of FY2016, I believe the bar to be pretty low.
A word about what you will and will not find in the details below. You will find new interpretations
to the four parts of the Ends Statement, hopefully interpretations that simplify reporting. You will
find simple, basic data to show achievement or not, as the case may be. You will also find, small
wins, I believe. What you will not find is a lot of “fluff” trying to prove how well we did to meet our
Ends. You will not find a litany of excuses about new competition and the market (it exists, more
is coming, they sell much of what we sell and that likely isn’t going to change going forward – it
is, indeed, the “new reality” as pitched so heavily by NCG). And you will not find a deep dive into
the Cooperative principles as I take our Ends quite literally.
To reiterate, based on my interpretation of “achievement” we did not make progress across the
pg 2
board from where we were at the end of FY2015 to claim that we have successfully achieved
our Ends in FY2016.
pg 3
1. Global End: Because of BCS, people in Bloomington and South Central Indiana will
have…..
Interpretation
"People in Bloomington and South Central Indiana" means
 Based on USPS zip code, Bloomington means zip codes falling within the USPS zip code
designation for the City of Bloomington. Also based on USPS zip codes, South Central
Indiana is defined as Monroe County and counties contiguous to Monroe County (Brown,
Jackson, Lawrence, Greene, Owen and Morgan)
I found no past interpretation of our defined market area (Bloomington and South Central Indiana)
in previous reports. Here, we establish the definition of our market area. The chart below shows
our ownership percentage broken down into various geographic areas.
Rest of Country
7%
Rest of Indiana
7%
Owners by Location
Outside US
0%
Bloomington
Other South
Central Indiana
13%
Other Monroe
County
2%
Other Monroe County
Other South Central Indiana
Bloomington
71%
Rest of Indiana
Rest of Country
Outside US
As you can see, based on the data available to us, the overwhelming percentage of our
ownership (86.5%) is within our defined market area. Interestingly, a larger percentage of our
owners come from counties contiguous to Monroe than from greater Monroe county outside of
Bloomington. At this point in time we are unable to generate a similar chart showing sales
distribution, which would be a logical follow on analysis. This data will be tracked and added to
future reports.
pg 4
2. a market for local, organic and healthy products, meeting the needs of consumers and
producers.
"Market for local, organic and healthy products"
 Bloomingfoods exists to provide a retail outlet for food that places an emphasis on locally
sourced or finished, USDA certified organic and a range of healthy food choices in the
product lines that we choose to carry.
"Meeting the needs of consumers and producers" means
 Providing customer satisfaction to the co-op’s consumers and earning their loyalty through
positive shopping experiences. Earning the loyalty of producers by maintaining
dependable and professional business practices.
Measures & Data Points
 Co-op Sales Growth (market for products, Meeting the needs of consumers and
producers)
 Customer Visits (Meeting the needs of consumers)
 Average Basket Size (Meeting the needs of consumers)
 Sales of Local Product (Market for local products, Meeting the needs of producers)
 Sales of Organic Product (Market for local products, Meeting the needs of producers)
 A product selection policy that is consistent with the above stated goals (Market for local,
organic and healthy products, Meeting the needs of consumers and producers).
It is difficult with the available data to claim any measure of success in advancing this particular
aspect of our Ends over the past 12 months. While we do provide retail outlets for food that places
an emphasis on locally sourced or finished, USDA certified organic and healthy(er) food choices,
our metrics weakened over the past year in nearly every measurable category that would support
progress on these. This should not be a surprise given the somewhat drastic reduction in
overall sales.
Co-op Sales Growth
Bloomingfoods sales totaled $17.8 million in 2016, which represents a 22.8% drop from 2015
levels ($23 million). This represents the third year in a row of declining sales, although the
2016 drop was exponentially larger than the drop from 2014 to 2015. The reasons for this
drop have been laid out repeatedly as being renewed intense competition, primarily from
renovated local Kroger stores and the new Lucky’s. I do not believe these arguments give
enough credence, however, to member disenchantment (real or perceived) with past decision
making, organization upheaval, changes in product mix, treatment of staff, poor
communication as to the values of the co-op, etc. Of course, none of these factors are
quantifiable. Another unquantifiable factor, I believe, is the increased commoditization of what
were once products available nearly exclusively at cooperatives. For comparison, average
growth rate of large food co-ops (of which Bloomingfoods is considered one of) reporting to
CoMetrics was 3.81% in 2015.
pg 5
BCS Sales
$5,000,000
$0
BCS Sales Growth
10.00%
4.00%
2.50%
6.80%
-5.00%
-16.00%
-22.00%
Customer Visits
As might be expected with a nearly 23% drop in sales, customer visits also dropped for the year – the
first drop in at least the last five years. This drop, combined with the drop in sales and, as shown
below, a drop in basket size indicates that something has changed in our business over the past year
and that, while we are still meeting the needs of many of our customers, a significant number are now
also choosing to do at least a portion of their shopping elsewhere.
pg 6
BCS Customer Visits
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
1,205,702
966,276
1,208,256
990,574
961,944
200,000
Average Basket Size
Again, as might be expected with a nearly 23% drop in sales and a steep decline in the number of
visits to the stores, the average basket size per visit dropped during FY2016 as well, although by less
than the other two metrics above – by 5.5% from the previous year. The accompanying chart shows
a five year history. The drop from 2013 to 2014 was related to the opening of the Elm Heights store
with its significantly lower basket size (convenience store vs. grocery store) than the other two stores.
Again, the current year drop combined with the lower number of visits and lower sales figures indicates
that we have failed to meet the needs of at least a group of former shoppers that we had been meeting
in the past.
BCS Average Transaction Size
$20.87
$20.12
$19.01
$19.38
$18.31
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
pg 7
Local & Organic Sales Growth
The definition of local has, apparently, changed more than once over the past few years. In March
of 2016, it was changed once again to be defined as products originating from or being produced
in the State of Indiana. This makes comparison to prior years difficult. Although last years’ report
stated that a 250 mile radius was being used, I can find no evidence of this actually being the
case for anything other than this report (and even that cannot be proven.) All of the reports below
have been restated to reflect the current definition of local products. A second difficulty is a repeat
from last year in that while it sounds easy to identify something as local it is, in fact, wholly
dependent on a human being correctly flagging the product as local in our point-of-sale (POS)
system. Starting this from scratch is relatively simple, sorting through more than 10,000 sku’s in
a database is not. The process was not started at the time of our “re-definition” but was started
a few months ago when preparations for this report began.
Tracking organic sales is generally an easier task than tracking local products, and likely a more
reliable result. The definition is determined by the USDA and is embedded in the industry
standardized PLU number used to track virtually all products. It still isn’t quite that straightforward,
however. USDA organic labeling standards utilize three primary organic designations, depending
on the percentage of organic ingredients contained in multi-ingredient foods. These designations
include products that are labeled: (1) 100% Organic; (2) Organic, which by USDA definition
includes products with 95-99% organic ingredients (by weight); and
(3) Made with Organic Ingredients, which includes products made with 70-94% organic
ingredients (by weight). Bloomingfoods tracking of organic sales includes products within all
three of the above described organic designations.
Overall, sales of both local and organic products fell during FY2016 on an absolute $ basis.
Given that overall Bloomingfoods sales fell by over $5.2 million for the year, decreases in sales
in both of these categories was inevitable. From a growth perspective, however, both the local
and organic categories fell by less (-19.3% and -17.1%, respectively) that the overall sales
decline of 22%. That means that both represented a higher % of overall sales than the previous
fiscal year. A small win that was not planned.
Also included below is an item level analysis, showing how many unique local and organic items
were sold by Bloomingfoods. Per the sales data analyzed, unique organic items fell by some 470
items from the previous year while local items sold increased (another small win) by 130 items
despite the significant sales downturn. Given the above explanation of organic, the data here
requires a more thorough analysis to determine whether it is accurate or faulty and, if so why. A
drop of that level, given the fairly limited number of overall items in our retail stores seems
suspicious.
pg 8
BCS Sales of Local & Organic Products
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$7,430,392
$6,850,177
$7,219,695
$5,984,890
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
Local Sales
$4,000,000
Organic Sales
$3,000,000
$2,100,349
$2,379,046
$2,409,550
$1,946,297
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
BCS Sales Growth - Local & Organic
15.0%
10.0%
13.3%
8.5%
5.0%
1.3%
0.0%
FY13-14
-5.0%
FY14-15
-2.8%
FY15-16
Local Growth Rate
Organic Growth Rate
-10.0%
-15.0%
-20.0%
-17.1%
-19.3%
-25.0%
pg 9
BCS Sales Item Count - Local & Organic
6,000
5,162
5,133
5,064
5,000
4,594
4,000
Local Items
3,000
Organic Items
2,000
1,076
1,161
1,169
1,296
1,000
0
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
A product selection policy that is consistent with the above stated goals would serve as
evidence of the co-op’s focus on providing a range of healthy food choices to its members
and shoppers. Even with a policy in place however, the definition of “healthy” food will remain
problematic, as there is no single definition that works for all consumers. Bloomingfoods does
not currently have a product selection policy and the author can find no evidence of the
previously indicated process to put one in place. A product selection policy that can be
articulated to the membership would go a long way towards the transparency that many
members seem to seek, but may also eliminate much of the interaction that we have with
members today, much of which is geared towards discussion of various products and
selections that appear on our shelves. While the above metrics show that Bloomingfoods
provides products according to the policy, the metrics do not show any particular progress
or achievement in proving more of them. In addition, a co-op wide product selection policy
will be used as a tool to help Bloomingfoods achieve this Global End, there are some other
metrics which can be developed to demonstrate and measure achievement in this area.
pg 10
3. increased cooperative ownership that strengthens the local economy
and community.
Interpretation
“Increased cooperative ownership"
 As an owner owned organization, Bloomingfoods demonstrates increased cooperative
ownership through increasing the net number of owner-members year-over-year. From
a shopper perspective, increasing cooperative ownership is demonstrated by
increasing the percentage of sales to member owners.
“strengthens the local economy and community”
 By its existence and successful operations, Bloomingfoods will be a net positive
contributor to the local economy.
Measures & Data Points
 Ownership growth
 Local “Multiplier Effect”
 Positive Change Program
Ownership Growth
Ownership and ownership growth as presented in the charts below represents a growing
problem for Bloomingfoods. While the number of owners (defined as fully and partially
paid) continued to increase from FY2015 to FY2016, the growth rate slowed substantially
for the second straight year. For the last several months of FY2016, the ownership growth
rate was essentially 0% with new owners essentially equaling redemptions. New
membership is particularly critical as a Kelley School of Business project showed last year
that over 50% of Bloomingfoods sales come from owners who invested over the past 10
years. With decreasing ownership growth, it is not a surprise that sales are declining.
Efforts to attract new owners were essentially non-existent during much of FY2016 as
there was a serious question as to what the benefit of ownership was that we would be
selling (a valid question in my opinion). Efforts have been renewed to attract new
ownership, including a very positively received new ownership brochure and an early
FY2017 membership drive – an activity that will be repeated at least once more during
FY2017.
pg 11
Owner Members
9,483
12,360
11,493
10,409
12,538
Owner Member Growth Rate
8.0%
6.0%
9.8%
4.0%
10.4%
7.5%
2.0%
1.4%
0.0%
Discussion of the Multiplier Effect as a measure of Impact on the Local Economy
One of the ways in which many co-ops measure impact on the local community is by measuring
the Multiplier Effect, a simple yet plausible and substantiated theory that argues that a local
business contributes more to the local economy than a non-local business (think Bloomingfoods
vs. Best Buy, for example). According to American Independent Business Association (AIBA),
“The multiplier results from the fact that independent locally-owned businesses recirculate a far
greater percentage of revenue locally compared to absentee- owned businesses (or locallyowned franchises). In other words, going local creates more local wealth and jobs.”
(http://www.amiba.net/resources/multiplier-effect/).
pg 12
We know Bloomingfoods has a positive impact on the local economy and community, but
measuring that impact can be problematic.
Multiplier effect takes into account three levels of recirculation of a business’s revenue. The first
is the direct impact, a measure including, (a) procurement for resale (locally sourced cost of
goods); (b) procurement for internal use (local service providers), and (c) Wages and net profits.
The direct impact is then combined with Indirect Impact of dollars spent at local businesses which
are re-circulated again into the local economy, as well as an induced impact where employees
and business-owners consume goods and services and invest in the local economy.
NCG looked at this measure in the co-operative grocery sector most recently in 2012 and found
that, “food co-ops have an economic multiplier of 1.6, and conventional stores 1.36
(http://cooperativegrocer.coop/articles/2012-12-04/numbers). This means that every dollar spent
at food co-ops generates $1.60 into the local economy as opposed to $1.36 for conventional
stores. The charts below uses this information to demonstrate the impact that Bloomingfoods
has in the local economy (a) by being a local business and (b) the incremental impact of being a
local business versus a theoretical non-local business with the same sales.
Impact of Bloomingfoods as a Local
Business
$32,126,173
$34,055,438
$37,586,635
$36,927,840
$28,510,088
$5,000,000
$0
pg 13
Incremental Impact of Bloomingfoods as a
Local Business (vs. non-local equivalent)
$4,818,926
$5,108,316
$5,637,995
$5,539,176
$4,276,513
$1,000,000
$0
The direct impact is a number that Bloomingfoods could capture, but we currently do not. Again,
as time and resources allow and we can begin to focus more on the cooperative side of our
business, these are metrics which can be developed to help guide achievement of the Ends.
Positive Change Program
One of the few very bright spots in terms of strengthening the local economy during FY2016 has
been Bloomingfoods Positive Change program. Introduced in January, 2016 this program lets
customers round-up their purchase to the next nearest whole dollar amount for a designated
local charitable organization. Furthering the sense of community, the 12 organizations to receive
the funds for 2016 were voted on by members at last year’s annual meeting. Although there have
been a few complaints (customers taking offense at being asked each time they shop to round
up, a couple of complaints about one of the monthly recipients) the results have been
overwhelmingly positive. Through the first six months of the calendar year, funds totaling $26,772
were collected from customers on behalf of the chosen organizations. A breakdown of the funds
distribution, by recipient, is below.
pg 14
Positive Change Donations
$5,210
$4,689
$5,323
$4,033
$3,803
Mother
Bloomington
Cupboard
(4/16)
Orchard
(05/16)
Sycamore
Land Trust
(6/16)
$3,712
Boys & Girls Local Growers Community
Club (1/16) Guild (2/16) Kitchen (3/16)
The program has proven popular with potential recipients as well, with a large number
approaching us during the year to be included in the program for calendar year 2017. This led to
the establishment of criteria to narrow down the potential recipient list, namely that the
organization has something to do with food. Once again, members will be asked to vote for the
2017 recipients during this year’s voting period (September 20th – October 19th).
pg 15
4. a model of sustainable, profitable business.
Interpretation
"A model of sustainable, profitable business" means
 A business that has a track record of financial stability, is able to withstand changes in
the marketplace, and will remain attractive to investment by members and outside
stakeholders into the foreseeable future.
Measures & Data Points
 Key profitability indicators as compared to industry benchmarks
• Financial
• Net Profit
• Margin minus Labor (MLM)
• Cash Flow
• Employment
• Labor Turnover Rate
• Employee Length of Service
Net Profit
The most direct measure of a profitable business is the bottom line net profit. As has been the
case for the past two years, Bloomingfoods generated a net loss for FY2016, the third year in a
row that Bloomingfoods has been in a net loss position. Over the course of the past three years,
Bloomingfoods has generated cumulative net losses totaling in excess of $1.69 million. At the
end of FY2016, Bloomingfoods does not qualify as a model of a sustainable, profitable business
by any of these criteria.
BCS Net Profit
$219,952
$326,110
$0
FY2014
($333,847)
($552,368)
($806,140)
Margin minus Labor (MML)
Margin minus Labor (otherwise known as contribution margin in the financial world) is a very
cooperative way to gauge a co-ops ability to control profitability. Generally, the two most
controllable factors in the business are gross margin and labor costs. Margin minus labor can
pg 16
be expressed as either a $ amount or as a percentage of sales and the higher the number the
better. We generally look at this number as a % of sales. After four years of steady decline,
including a sharp drop from 2014 to 2015, Bloomingfoods MML increased in FY2016, the result
of much of the painful work, particularly on labor management that occurred over the past year.
Bloomingfoods needs to be consistently over 15% as a MML to be considered truly efficient in
managing its labor.
Margin minus Labor
8.0%
14.1%
6.0%
4.0%
13.5%
12.8%
8.9%
10.6%
2.0%
0.0%
Cash Flow
Another key indicator of a sustainable business (not necessarily profitable) is cash flow. Is the
business a net generator (good) or a net user (bad) of cash. As has been communicated over
the past few years, Bloomingfoods has been a net user of cash over the past three years,
including using $556,000 more cash in 2016 than it took in. Sustainable businesses generate
cash over time. For the past three years, Bloomingfoods use of cash does not qualify it as a
model of a sustainable business. Cash flow will turn positive when Bloomingfoods either returns
to profitability or reduces its losses to negligible amounts.
pg 17
Net Cash Flow
$0
$50,416
$30
FY2014
-$570,856
-$796,900
Employment
In order to thrive as a sustainable business, Bloomingfoods needs to maintain an experienced
and dedicated workforce. Inexperience and turnover increases costs, although not always in
directly measurable ways. Turnover and longevity (or length of service) are two traditional metrics
that businesses use to measure their efficiency in these areas. Businesses generally seek a low
turnover number and a length of service model that follows a traditional bell curve formula. The
charts below have been newly developed for this report so our ability to demonstrate historical
data or trends is limited, but will improve with time.
Labor Turnover
Turnover is the number of separations (employees leaving the company) in a given period
divided into the average total number of employees during that period. Data for the past three
years was compiled by quarter and is presented as a % of workforce measure. The grocery
industry typically has higher turnover rates than non-retail businesses. 5% turnover would be
considered outstanding while, generally speaking, turnover above 20% would be considered
problematic. In the chart below, the spike in Q3 2015 (measured by calendar quarter, not our
fiscal quarter) corresponds to the layoffs that occurred during July 2015. The second spike in Q2
2016 corresponds to the April – June 2016 period at a time when there was much internal change
happening in our structure. The turnover in this period was nearly 100% through attrition (a
handful of terminations) and given the needed focus on labor levels is not considered a
problematic measure.
pg 18
Turnover
38.97%
10.00%
11.62%
17.19%
12.26%
17.28%
Q12014 Q22014 Q32014 Q42014
27.59%
6.74%
14.13%
Q12015 Q22015
Calendar Quarter
13.66%
14.01%
Q32015 Q42015 Q12016 Q22016
Length of Service
Length of service denotes the longevity of employees. A sustainable business would like to
see a bell curve in the below chart indicating a mix of experience, wage rates, etc. Too young
of a workforce could be an indicator of problems in knowledge and experience while a curve
skewed toward the right could be an indicator of a cost problem (longer tenured employees
general cost more) and a potential problem down in recruiting and replacement if the longer
term employees leave at or near the same time. The chart below shows fairly well for
Bloomingfoods, if a bit on the less experienced side, with approximately 75% of Bloomingfoods
workforce being here five years or less. Ideally, we would have slightly more of our workforce
in the 5-10 year category than we have currently as we have clearly identified some experience
(or expertise) holes in our workforce. Lack of knowledge in certain product areas on the sales
floor (cheese, HABA) leads to customer dissatisfaction which ultimately has a trickle-down
effect on our long-term sustainability.
BCS Staff Length of Service
60
50
40
30
55
20
10
6
Under 6
Months
6
15
3-6 months 6-12 months
18
1-2 years
18
2-5 years
5-10 years
14
10+ years
pg 19
5. Increased understanding of the local food system and its importance
Interpretation
"An increased understanding of the local food system and its importance” means efforts to
engage with co-op members and the community at large around Bloomingfoods role and impact
in the community as a market place for local foods.
Measures & Data Points
 Bloomingfoods partnership with Bloomington Farmers Markets
 Farm Tours
 Other efforts to provide meaningful education around the importance of the local food
system.
In different ways, this statement is both the easier and the most difficult to report on. It is the
easiest because in reviewing FY2016, it is difficult to find any real work that was done
consciously in support of this portion of the Ends statement. Most difficult because crafting a
credible, measurable program around this 10 word statement will prove to be significant
challenge. How do we measure an increased understanding? Perhaps a comprehensive
program could be measured in conjunction with increased sales of local products; or increased
local producers. Measurement will come after we have a program to specifically address the
understanding and importance of the local food system.
Bloomingfoods Partnership with Bloomington Farmers Markets
Bloomingfoods continues to be an active supporter of the local farmers markets, although it
appears that we are significantly less active than we have been. For the better part of FY2016,
our support has been limited to the Tuesday afternoon market on Madison outside the Near
West Side store, where we provide electricity and other utilities for the vendors, as well as
providing space in our parking lot for the east side farmers market on Wednesday and Saturday.
We have not had an active participation (retail presence) in any market this year.
Farm Tours
Since 2008, Bloomingfoods has participated in two local farm tours annually, although this is
through the individual efforts of one staff member, with support from the prepared foods team.
Bloomingfoods is considered a sponsor of the events through our publicity efforts and by
providing a local food menu item for the end of tour dinner.
Provide Meaningful Education Around the Importance of the Local Food System
It is here that my reporting on achievement of this portion of the Ends died. Perhaps I am
unreasonable as to my expectations on this, but try as I might I cannot find evidence of much
that we do to purposefully educate our shoppers around local food at all, let alone its
importance. Clearly, we promote local food – we sign it differently, we promote it monthly, we
put pictures of local growers in our produce department and we have grower profiles on our
website. But I do not believe this rises to the level of education around the importance of the
local food system. I believe that what I listed is, essentially, marketing of local foods and I do
not believe that as a co-op with a specific Ends Statement surrounding this, we should be
satisfied with this. Past reports referenced facebook likes and website hits as support of our
education on this. Again, I feel that this was fluff to try and demonstrate action that really wasn’t
taken. I think my point is clear.
pg 20
To me, meaningful education around the importance of the local food system refers to the
existence of comprehensive programs designed to inform our shoppers as to why we
emphasize local foods, why they should by local foods and, yes, why local foods cost more than
mass produced and in some cases highly processed “food” from elsewhere. Such programs
have been implemented elsewhere, but they come at a cost of time, resources and manpower.
Programs include topics such as food security, the real cost of food, the local ecosystem and
other similar topics. We may have been involved in these programs in the past, but I can find
no hard evidence of anything specific that would satisfy my own criteria for claiming
achievement with this end.
We can provide meaningful education around this topic but, as indicated above, it will take
resources to do so – resources that are currently not in place. It is probably an area that we
need to look at investing in as it can serve as a real differentiator for us – anybody can procure
and sell local food.
pg 21
Conclusion
As should be evident from the above interpretations and data, I do not believe that any progress
can be claimed on the Ends for FY2016. In fact, in many areas, we have gone backwards. That
should neither be a surprise nor unexpected. Over the course of the past 15 months,
Bloomingfoods went through tremendous upheaval in its business. Massive losses caused a
focus on the basic fundamentals of the business and considering how decisions affect the Ends
took a backseat to simply keeping the doors open. In addition, you have an Ends Report that is
written by the third General Manager in three years. Interpretations, criteria and supporting data
are all going to be different making it difficult to compare year-to-year.
As you are aware by now, I take a fairly basic, black and white approach to my interpretations.
I don’t like fluff and I don’t like to pull together a bunch of data claiming that we did something
that I don’t feel we did. Hopefully, we can have a period of stability whereby we have a few ends
reports that again feel similar, look at things in the same way and that can be compared over a
period of time. Having said that, I already have additional metrics in mind for next years’ report
that we are incapable of producing today but that we should be able to develop over the next
year and should improve our scorecard and reporting on ends achievement.
We can make progress on many parts of the Ends just by “being better grocers.” I will add that
“being better business people” goes even further. In fact, the first three sub-statements of the
ends (market for local… increased cooperative ownership and a model of a sustainable,
profitable business) should actually not require extraordinary effort. They should fall out of a
healthy, well-run cooperative grocery business. Not to say that we won’t have to work at it, but
we are already heading in these directions by running the business smarter and trying to
differentiate ourselves from the increasingly homogeneous competition.
Putting together qualitative educations programs to increase the understanding and importance
of the local food system is a bigger challenge both in terms of execution and measurement. We
have some ideas (I think we may need to focus on one or two primary topics) but getting it out
to the shopping population will remain a challenge. In store education? Forums? How to force
feed people the information that we want them to hear and, more critically, how do we measure
their increased understanding.
In short, FY2016 was, in my opinion, a failure in terms of Ends achievement. The bar is low,
we have nowhere to go but to improve.
Respectfully,
Tony Alongi
General Manager
pg 22