With Amazon Purchase, it’s Time For Whole Foods to Bring Affordability Instead...

With Amazon Purchase, it’s Time For Whole Foods to Bring Affordability Instead of Gentrification

10
SHARE

On Friday, Amazon purchased upscale grocery and health food chain Whole Foods for $13.4 billion. Business outlets have praised the deal for both sides by noting that Amazon gains the brick-and-mortar presence that it has long sought while Whole Foods gains a major bump in stagnant stock prices. Squeezed by Costco, Target and Walmart’s increasing forays into the organic produce, Whole Foods was forced on the defensive in recent years, making shareholders unhappy.

Now, with the sale to Amazon, Whole Foods gains a second life as part of the world’s largest internet e-commerce company. Already, speculation has begun regarding how Amazon can leverage its technology to streamline Whole Foods’ operations and how Amazon can leverage the massive network of 460 stores in the US, Canada and UK to extend its relatively recent profitable streak.

But what do these obvious business benefits mean for American consumers?

While it will take time to know for sure, it’s probable that Amazon will add Whole Foods products to its AmazonFresh service, available to Amazon Prime members for an additional $14.99 a month. Competition in the American online grocery delivery service space has been unexpectedly fierce in recent years with companies such as FreshDirect and Instacart holding their own against Amazon and likely slowing AmazonFresh’s expansion into additional cities.

By adding Whole Foods products, Amazon will likely be able to entice more consumers into trying AmazonFresh. Both AmazonFresh and Whole Foods already target a traditionally overlapping customer base of affluent professionals so merging the ease-of-use of Amazon’s platform and logistics with Whole Foods robust brand penetration and food supply chain represents a real chance at achieving the retail ideal – a flexible grocery service with similar products both online and in-store.

But there’s one potential issue with such a strategy – pricing. In recent years, Whole Foods’ growth has stalled due to competition but also saturation among affluent consumers. Colloquially known as “Whole Paycheck”, it’s easy to see why when the grocery giant charges nearly double items like the popular New York bodega staple, a chopped cheese sandwich.

That is why it pivoted last year to attract lower-income consumers – to the delight of financial analysts. Evidence of this strategy can be seen most prominently at the corner of 125th Street and Lenox Avenue in Central Harlem where construction on a new Whole Foods is nearly complete in a traditionally underprivileged area.

But the problem with Whole Foods’ brick-and-mortar approach is that it relies too heavily on the forces of gentrification. Because Whole Foods is perceived to be a premium brand, housing prices around their locations tend to skyrocket. This Whole Foods effect means two things – (1) that Whole Foods never really expands its reach beyond residents who can afford the now inflated rents and (2) that Whole Foods never has the incentive to lower prices.

More brick-and-mortar locations and expanded delivery services will do little to help AmazonFresh and Whole Foods expand its customer base if its pricing isn’t brought back down to earth. With its purchase, Amazon has the opportunity to leverage efficiencies to bring prices down prices on groceries for both services.

Not only will this be good for the business by bringing in more customers, it’s good for America. Cities such as New Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta and Memphis have huge problems with food deserts – areas where communities have little to no access to healthy food such as vegetables, meats and dairy products. Approximately 2.3 million people live in low-income areas which are further than one mile from a supermarket with no access to a vehicle and such limited access to fresh food disproportionately affects African-Americans.

This prevalence of food deserts has a direct effect on Americans’ health. Living in a food desert forces people to fill in gaps in their diet with fast food. This spikes rates of obesity and diabetes in these communities – precisely the ones that can least afford to deal with the consequences given the current and potential state of American healthcare.

While not the entire answer to America’s distribution of healthy food, Amazon has the unique opportunity to provide more communities with access– either in-store or online. No retailer, even Walmart, has had such an opportunity to bring necessary goods directly to people before. While consumers shouldn’t begrudge Amazon for making a profit, this profit will also hopefully mean that more Americans get to enjoy readily available, and accessible, grocery options in their neighborhoods rather than just gentrification.

Jason Chung is currently senior researcher and attorney at NYU SPS Sports and Society, in New York. He tweets at @ChungSports

Leave a Reply

10 Comments on "With Amazon Purchase, it’s Time For Whole Foods to Bring Affordability Instead of Gentrification"


Member
Barry Carol
Jun 20, 2017

The bigger problem with healthy food for low income people isn’t access. It’s cost. I’ve read that on a per calorie basis, healthy food is 12 times more expensive than unhealthy or so-called junk food. When you’re on SNAP benefits (food stamps), that’s a problem even if there were access to healthy food on every street corner.

The Whole Foods business model appeals mainly to upper middle class people who can afford its offerings. Moreover, as more people who can afford the cost embraced healthy eating, especially organic food, the traditional supermarket chains started to pay attention and increase their own participation. Whole Foods once though it could eventually operate 1,200 stores in the U.S. as compared to its current base of 460. I think they grossly underestimated the competition and may well have overestimated the market as well.

As for low income people, it would be hugely expensive to subsidize healthy food to get it to the point where it’s anywhere close to competitive with unhealthy food on a per calorie basis.

Member
Jun 20, 2017

Absolutely agreed, Barry. As my article suggests access should be more widely viewed as cost+accessibility. It’s pointless to bring people to fresh goods they can’t afford. It’d be great for Amazon to apply its massive economies of scale and logisitics to drive down WF prices AND to bring such goods to more communities in the US.

Regarding the low cost of junk food on a per calorie basis, it’s a costly travesty. If the government was serious about preventive care, it would really subsidize healthy food distribution in poorer communities and ban the worst junk food offenders like HFCS either directly or through the elimination of subsidies for corn used for HFCS.

Member
Today 8:10 am

Exactly Jason. Many times the government forgets that in the long run it will be costly for society to have a population that is not able to afford healthy food, and definitely some measures should be taken.
And Whole Foods should also start assuming their responsibility towards society… Let’s see how it goes with Amazon.

Member
Allan
Jun 20, 2017

I note that different chains don’t provide exactly the same foods in each location. Demand and the ability to pay are important aspects of what is sold. Every store can sell the highest quality of food in every location so your question of access shouldn’t be the primary question unless you are talking about safe access. Barry already explained that so the next step to consider is how does one alter demand and ability to pay?

Demand and ability to pay have to some extent been helped by President Trump with higher employment, higher salaries and a push towards a more favorable atmosphere towards the police that keep commercial areas safe helping permit prices to fall.

Member
William Palmer MD
Jun 18, 2017

We shouldn’t cheer too loud when any merger or acquistion occurs that brings beneficence in lower prices or improved access. These can be temporary goodies. Sooner or later, if firms become large enough, they begin to affect prices. This is called market power and is a defining feature of monopolies. One can count on monopolies affecting prices when economic times are slumping. Its much better to have many buyers and many sellers and smaller firms in general, all of whom take prices, rather than make prices. WF fulfills no natural monopoly need, as a utility might, so to be sanguine about its acquisition is a little shortsighted. …but, who knows, the new firm may be virtuous.

Member
Jun 18, 2017

Agreed. Competition is a great thing and should be encouraged in this space.

That being said, I’m hopeful that Amazon recognizes their business and moral opportunity to bring good food to traditionally underserved communities. If they succeed, it may demonstrate to others that being virtuous in terms of food can also be a great business plan.

Member
Jun 18, 2017

Thanks, Jim. Appreciate your thoughts.

For what it’s worth, I also hope that Whole Foods’ corporate culture in terms of being a good place to work and customer satisfaction doesn’t change too much. Especially in light of the fact that Amazon is notoriously viewed as an awful place to work. But pricing more aggressively doesn’t necessarily preclude paying for nice humans because WF has lots of headroom to gain more customers and offset lower margins through increased sales.

Trader Joe’s and, to an extent, Costco are examples of how targeting the middle-class through efficient service and good products leads to strong revenues. In fact, there was nothing wrong with WF’s strategy and their roll-out of supposedly lower-end 365 stores – except for the fact that 365 couldn’t be as efficient as possible because they didn’t want to cannibalize WF sales.

They actually had it backwards. What’s necessary is for the whole company to move to better pricing to help the masses and their own bottom line. And then WF could roll out “premium” shops in zip codes that can handle it (or online generally) with higher end niche products.

Member
Jun 18, 2017

Very interesting Jason. When I first saw the title, I thought: “Oh Gawd, here we go again in our never-ending drive to the lowest common denominator.” I’ve always sort of liked a high end food store populated with really nice people (take that however you’d like). But your article was very thoughtful, and made good sense. It IS important to make it easier for people of lower economic means to find alternatives to junk food. It’s interesting when you read the grocery store ads in newspapers: lots of junk food followed by antacids. In any event, good work.