Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

For Businesses, Small Is the New Big

By Jay Walljasper, Ode. Posted July 24, 2007.


A growing number of businesses are discovering that getting big is not the best measure of accomplishment. Which are the ones setting the trend?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jay Walljasper

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In April 17, 2000, Gary Erickson was about to fulfill the wildest hopes of any business entrepreneur. That morning he drove to the Berkeley office of Clif Bar, a company he'd founded eight years earlier, and got ready to sign papers selling it to food giant Quaker Oats for $120 million. Erickson would take home half that: a cool $60 million.

It was a remarkable rags-to-riches story for a guy who at age 33 was living in his parents' garage and making less than $10,000 a year when he envisioned a more wholesome energy snack. An avid outdoors enthusiast, he hit upon the idea on the last stretch of a one-day, 175-mile bike ride as he realized he couldn't stomach another bite of energy bars that tasted like cardboard. His initial investment was $1,000, and R&D was done in his mom's kitchen. He named the product for his dad. But rather than feeling on top of the world about this dream deal, Erickson was uneasy. "I stood in the office waiting to go out and sign the contract," he recounts in his book Raising the Bar. "Out of nowhere, I started to shake and couldn't breathe." He told his business partner that he needed to get some air. Outside in the parking lot, he broke down in tears. And then it hit him as he began to walk around the block: "I don't have to do this.

"I began to laugh, feeling free," he writes. "I turned around, went back to the office and told my partner, 'Send them home. I can't sell the company.'"

What possessed Gary Erickson to turn his back on millions of dollars and throw away a golden opportunity for his company to get big? He was bucking all the business trends. Many of the outspoken champions of socially responsible business, such as Ben & Jerry's, The Body Shop, Stonyfield Farms, Green and Black's chocolate, Tom's of Maine and Aveda eventually sold to corporate conglomerates. And even the brash young Internet companies, which trumpet their independence as a badge of hipness, are conceived with the intention of being gobbled up soon by Google or another huge firm.

***

Erickson stubbornly clung to the idea of guiding Clif Bar according to his own vision, not the business-as-usual paradigm of rapid expansion fueled by massive outside investment.

"If we had sold to Quaker Oats, we would just be another bar on the shelf," Erickson explains, sitting at a small desk in his surprisingly modest office that looks out on the sidewalk where he made the fateful decision. "We would not have an environmental program; we would not have given $1.2 million last year to charity in money and products. We would not have gone organic. No one working here would even be here now."

Saying no to conventional-style growth has made Clif Bar a stronger brand, showing that small is not only beautiful but successful. The company now features numerous new energy snacks and has grown 20 percent in each of the last two years. But that is not what Erickson likes to brag about. He shows more excitement talking about Clif Bar's shift to mostly organic ingredients; the Lunafest women's film festival they sponsor in 120 U.S. cities; company vehicles that run on biofuels; the cutting-edge sustainable architecture at the headquarters they are set to build; public-education efforts to address global warming; ample opportunities for staff to volunteer at favourite charities on company time and a work environment that includes a lavish on-site gym, personal trainers, massages and-since the Clif Bar wrapper features a mountaineer-a climbing wall. Mo Siegel, founder of Celestial Seasonings, who sold his tea company to Kraft at a huge profit, once heard Erickson telling the story of Clif Bar's aborted sale and asked, "Can we switch places?"

Clif Bar is not the only thriving company choosing to grow its own way rather than follow the "get big or get out" ideology of global business that has led to Wal-Mart accounting for almost 10 percent of U.S. retail sales and some corporations accumulating economic output higher than that of some nations. Even if you don't read about them in the business press, most companies today measure success in some way other than ever-increasing sales and profits. They don't reject growth per se, but simply decide that the usual tools to achieve it-bringing in big-time investors, selling publicly traded shares or franchising the business-don't fit with their missions and values.

Even in the booming, turbo-charged Internet sector, there are companies that refuse to play by the usual rules. Facebook, a hot social-networking site launched in 2004 by a Harvard sophomore and now based in Silicon Valley, has reputedly turned down a $750 million offer from Viacom and a billion from Yahoo. "I am here to build something for the long term," founder Mark Zuckerberg has declared. "Anything else is a distraction."

Some companies have been doing business this way for centuries. Bob de Kuyper, chairman of the internationally known distillery that bears his name, meets regularly with private equity firms that are interested in buying him out. "Such discussions are always useful in terms of contacts," De Kuyper says. But he knows the outcome in advance. The gin distiller and liqueur producer located in the Dutch city of Schiedam has been in the same family since 1695. "And our strategy aims to keep it that way," he adds. His family business produces some 80 different alcoholic beverages that are exported all over the world. With around 100 employees, the company reports annual turnover of 60 million euros ($80 million ) "and a substantial return we're proud of." De Kuyper questions the alleged advantages of getting big through acquisitions or capital injections from outside investors. "Growth is nice and important, but constant fast growth is nonsense," he says, pointing out that benefits of scale can also be achieved without mergers and acquisitions-such as the joint venture De Kuyper entered into with other drink producers to invest jointly in a bottling plant.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: growth, business

Jay Walljasper is the executive editor of Ode Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wait... huh?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 24, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mean to tell me that someone actually came to the realization that... gasp... you don't ALWAYS have to go for more money when you already have a decent amount????? That there actually is a concept of "enough"???? That we aren't going to find the solution to all (or even many) of our problems by just getting lots and lots of money?????

Nah... this is america.. and even though most of the money is owned by a miniscule percentage of the populace.. money is the only thing that has, does, or ever should matter. After all.. money isn't the root of all evil.. its the root of all good, happiness, fulfillment, respect, health, and wellbeing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "$$ Bottom Line" isn't always the botom line!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jul 24, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article - and one that reflects a growing trend among entrepreneurs - personal satisfaction and impact over money.

Being big is not necessarily a bad thing – how you get big is often the problem.. a business with conscience is better than a business with a big bottom line.

‘’ "to be great instead of big.”” - I gave a talk to a high school group last year "Young Business leaders of America" on starting a business. Having switched from a pretty successful career as a CFO to being self employed really peaked their interest, at that young age. They wanted to know why I’d give up a good career, that many of them saw as their path, for self employment and less income at first. Personal satisfaction, and the ability to have a positive impact, and be known for that, was an eye opener for them.

Small business is the backbone of this country and it's good to see an appreciation for that still exists.

This is one article that I will share with others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I don't know what's more remarkable: Posted by: hurricane hugo
» Keep in mind... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Keep in mind... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Let me put it this way... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need. Khalil Gibran
Posted by: pzzp on Jul 24, 2007 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What seems to evade a lot of people, as the first poster says, is the concept of "enough".

Is it $1M in the bank?
Is it $2M?
Is it $100M?
How much can a person need? You can't take it with you.

Gibran says further:
"All you have shall some day be given"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BIGGER IS ALWAYS WORSE
Posted by: HistArch on Jul 24, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some people applaude large corporations stating that if they have a good product at a good price then they are a good company. The only problem is that once they become a big company, the product starts to get worse and worse until the smaller competitors have the better product. Think Ford, Microsoft, Motorola ect.

I live in the Pacific Northwest and, fortunately, we still have a lot of small local vendors for all types of products, even biodisel. I drink beers and eat foods made in each neighborhood rather than ones made in town. I try and buy whatever produce is local, which is a large variety. I think this kind of thing is spreading because when I lived in Virginia (home of the beltway suburban wastelands) I was able to get a lot of food at local farmers' markets and found a couple of breweries in town as well.

Basically, I never buy nationally or internationally if I can and I don't go broke either. I'm not a millionaire just someone who cares about their town and neighborhood.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This guy sound great - how come there aren't any like this in the media?
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 24, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most media organisations are run by scum buckets. staffed by scum buckets. We need a new generation of media organisations that respect the truth, have enlightened owners, and are staffed by journalists who don't spend 24/7 with their lips fixed to the sewer pipe of bilge spewed forth by Britney Spears etc.

When has there ever been a media organisation with a climbing wall, or a nice gym, or respect for their staff?

We need more and more medium sized companies like this run by enlightened and intelligent people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a big part of the problem
Posted by: NaomiC on Jul 24, 2007 6:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Money is nothing more than Monopoly$$$, markers for the bloated fat-cats of commerce. Ergo, who has the most markers is the winner... I blame the men, for whom everything is a pissing contest, and every day is "WAR!".

It wasn't that long ago when CEOs made four-times the average employee. Today, it isn't far from from 400-times (for the BigOil, BigPharma, BigHealth, BigRetail).

I'm happy to say I've enjoyed many an Anchor Steam, without knowing any of that. And saddened to find that my Ben&Jerry's pleasure is now almost ruined.

I know it's almost impossible - but our country needs to return to sanity, where money/profit/fortune is concerned. We need fewer billionaires and more companies that care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FINALLY!
Posted by: BenjamminH on Jul 25, 2007 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An article that celebrates what is great about this country and its practice of captialism! We will never be rid of the major corporations, but thankfully we will never run out entrpreneurs like these! Bravo Alternet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Jul 26, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm old and can remember when corporations didn't yet rule the nation. It used to be that things were made to please customers---well made, in fact. Now, it's "take it or leave it" from corporate America. Women's clothing used to acknowledge the female form, which meant sewing darts among other things. That extra bit of labor has been eliminated. Shoes used to come in many lasts (for the generations who know nothing but schlock, "lasts" are the shape and proportions of a shoe, according to foot type). My mother wore a double A shoe with a quadruple A heel. It was taken for granted that she could buy such shoes at most shoe stores. This, in the Great Depression. Socks came sized like shoes and didn't have to be bunched up at the heel. They fit. Household appliances could be repaired. Things lasted and were even passed down to the next generation. Excess packaging was unheard of when stores actually provided jobs for clerks instead of self-service, which facilitates shop-lifting. (In Oregon, self-service gas stations are outlawed in order to provide jobs. How unAmerican--by corporate standards--is that?) )The legal charter for corporations requires them the maximize profits for their shareholders; this has been widely interpreted to mean exploiting both their workers and their customers. New laws are needed, powerful ones, but our lawmakers are firmly in the pockets of corporations. Until we get another Crash, accompanied this time by critical shortages and a climate running berserk--scary--corporate globalization (fascism, in actual fact) will continue unabated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]