Good article linked at the end on Vermont’s market saturation from someone who has been a vendor at some of these markets. There is no question that these very real concerns from vendors must be addressed and soon. However, I think that more attention could be paid to the details and challenges of building new food systems by this author in this piece. The “new” market idea works best when a market is not organized as just another purely consumer activity but instead designed and actively managed as a community activity that reactivates the town square vibe and rewards its ecological mindset. (And that means everyone must honor the town square role, including competing market vendors.) Let me elaborate:
First, I hope most of us really don’t think we have reached saturation and cannot find a way to bring the 95% of those who don’t yet shop for local food regularly, and don’t think we can’t encourage more producers to provide it even if it means some different organizing tactics. I can certainly see how existing vendors and some long time organizers may have that opinion but as advocates, I say let’s dig a little deeper. This also includes longtime vendors of markets, many of whom have become comfortable in their spot and with their regular shoppers and spend less time than they should thinking about newer visitors to markets (notice the lack of prices or details on the farm’s story at many booths as possible indicators) or in assisting in the growth of the market organization once market sales arrive at a sustained level.
A few years back, I did some early analysis of the VT SNAP token system and found that the less-than-robust numbers for SNAP use at markets at that point seemed closely related to the extreme low capacity of their market organizations (people are always surprised to hear how there are no year round full-time market managers in the state and low, LOW pay for seasonal managers*) as well as the need for a suite of market technology and scrip set ups and outreach strategies, depending on the market situation. (What I wrote then about technology was that some markets needed only a EBT machine as their small town had the ATM available right next to the market location. Others could have best used a dedicated phone line and plug in as wi-fi connectivity is sparse. Still others could have used anchor vendors to have the EBT machine if they are the only ones with SNAP-eligible goods in a micro market and so on. Some of the situation around EBT is changing since that report was written, but the need for nuanced technology and outreach answers for markets and vendors is still vital.) As far as capacity, the added work of these permanent programs requires training and relationship-building with a kaleidoscope of agencies and entities around the market; that training should be invested in both the organization and in the person of manager. In other words, systems to strategically build these and other programs must be created at the market level and at the network level.
Included in that is the necessary redesign of the market manager job, which in the last decade has seen the need for a whole bunch of new skills and to-dos for the market day that keeps them from the deep customer service and the spot analysis that previous generations could do. Yet:
* In 2011, Vermont market operators reported an average budget line item of less than $1500.00 to pay for market management with most markets reporting between $3,000- $5,000 as a stipend for the manager and no Vermont market reported having a full-time market manager on staff in 2011. In 2010, 59% (37) of reporting markets paid their manager/coordinator, with amounts ranging from $348 to $14,600, with the funds coming primarily from vendors’ stall fees. Of the 37 reporting markets, only 16 markets paid managers/coordinators more than $2,000 for the year.
Once established, those systems would free managers and overworked vendor board members from the stressful work of recreating the same market structure each season and instead, encourage them to plan mid and long term and spend more time with their community which will lead to better outreach and more intuitive interactions. One of the most obvious indicators of this lack of planning time is the reduction in time in working with or visiting farms or farm leaders. I believe that the move away from markets by some farmers is directly related to their suspicion that some markets see them now only as a tent and a table and are unable or unwilling to assist them with their development as a small business. Another indicator to me of the need for more professional development is the lack of alignment between food hubs and farmers markets that should share the development of vendors businesses even if they have different goals. Another is the mission drift that I often see with older markets that makes it difficult for them to plan for the future, or the lack of effort to update the outdated bylaws that don’t respond to the issues that their managers currently face.
Back to the vendors: the capacity of current market vendors has certainly become a storm cloud looming: to understand this issue, data on the number of competing outlets that market vendors now use should be gathered and analyzed. It may be that the issue is not too many markets but too many other outlet types that tax the current vendors. In that case, it may mean that new markets should align their strategy with those outlets to at least set up the market to maximize the 4 hours for a smaller group of vendors, knowing that the vendors have other outlets to sell to as well. Really, just knowing what each vendor is about and who and how they sell is the goal.
An example of the type of information that could help a market manager is a discussion I once had with a vendor who had stopped selling to chefs after being a favorite for many years. When I came behind the table and sat down at a quiet moment to have him tell me what was up, this is what he said:
You see, what happens is at the Saturday market, Chef (from fancy restaurant; supportive guy) comes by and asks me if I can sell him some of my crop this week; he wants to do a big dinner and give me some publicity. So he tells me to call him first thing Monday morning. I go out to harvest, come in around 10 and call him. They answer and tell me he is running late, but to call back in an hour. In the meantime, the deadline for the Tuesday market is coming and so I call you and tell you I am not sure if I am coming tomorrow but will confirm before the afternoon. (As you know, that market has been a little slow lately as it is this time of year so if I can sell it all to one place quickly I’d prefer it this week.) I wait an hour and call the chef back; they tell me I just missed him and he is in a waiters meeting but told them to tell me he will call me immediately after. You call me back, I have no answer so I don’t answer when you call. Finally, he calls me, still enthusiastic about the crop but tells me regretfully the numbers for the dinner are lower than expected so he can only buy 1/2 of what he thought. That means I have to drop off 1/2 and could bring a little to the market now. Or should I call another chef to sell the rest? I still haven’t called you to confirm one way or another, so I finally decide to call you to tell you I am not coming even though I’d have a little to sell; you are not pleased of course.
I finally decided the stress compared to the sales were not worth it.
Now this is only one vendor’s story and there are differing situations of every hue to uncover about each market. The point is to know exactly how each of your small businesses are doing, with which shoppers and with which outlets. And to know the demographics of your area to know how you can add shoppers to that group. That takes time and support from your board and vendors.
Data on number of visitors per market, average sale, length of time the average shopper remains at market, # of vendors they visit, and the number of shoppers per anchor vendor for example should be examined by each established market suffering with a slowdown in sales. Some tendency may be revealed, such as an abundance of longtime shoppers who purchase from a small number of vendors first thing in the morning with too few newer shoppers who roam the market later trying an abundance of items. Or, it may be that events that look robust and fun are actually not helping sales but impairing them and should be curtailed during the busy season. Or, products are not displayed with prices and details in all cases, driving away those uncertain about the protocol at a market to find out the information shoppers need. And in some cases, the number of products has decreased, especially in number of new products offered each year. Like it or not, shoppers grow tired of making the same items every night and look for inspiration.
At the state level, the passive approach to the design of direct marketing outlets from some states’ leaders seems an issue. (This seems to be more prevalent in states with a strong farmer/activist core but limited state associations). To increase the chance of success, it seems necessary for leaders to become more involved in exploring and understanding the typology of markets and programs in order to help markets use limited resources extremely efficiently. By doing that work, they will develop a spectrum of interventions that offer local organizers realistic outcomes for those market types and allow for appropriate and attainable growth to be likely.
Of course, I have great faith in the wisdom and earnestness of the Vermont folks and expect that articles like the one below will keep the conversation going on how to strengthen the fabric of their esteemed direct marketing tapestry.
An excerpt from the story:
What would make things easier? How can we improve? These are questions that farmers market boards and individual vendors grapple with as they reconsider nearly every aspect of the market model. Although many farmers are resigned to markets being less moneymaker and more marketing tool, it would be better if they were both. For the farmers markets of Vermont to be sustainable, and lucrative, most of them will need to change.
Overall, it is the consumers — those who have the least at stake and so much to gain — who have the most power over the fate of farmers markets. Consumers decide whether to show up with cash in hand, ready to shell out for their weekly supply of local goods, or merely hang out eating dumplings or cookies made with nonlocal ingredients. They’re the ones who may not show up when it’s raining … unless there’s a Pokémon to find.
Source: What Works, and Doesn’t, About Farmers Markets? | Food + Drink Features | Seven Days | Vermont’s Independent Voice