What the Chocolate Industry Needs is A $100 Bar of Chocolate

Clay

Re: your question, Still the questions remain, what are more of the characteristics that define this $100 bar?

My take on this is similar to Lanes. Among other things I own a marketing company, so from a purely marketing perspective it seems to me that a legitimate $100 chocolate bar requires the same three things as any other product that is priced in the top tier and substantially above the norm:

1) A level of quality that is significantly and unquestionably above the norm.
2) A level of rarity that makes the item prized beyond even the issue of quality.
3) A pool of possible customers who can be identified and reached, and who have both the desire and ability to spend money on this product.

And here in my opinion is where we run into the main problem. When we ask whether or not any chocolate exists that is worth $50/ounce, or what the traits of that chocolate would be, we are asking the wrong questions. The issue is not the product. The issue is the customer. And by that I mean that there is no pool of customers for a $100 chocolate bar. And if there is no customer for a $100 chocolate bar, then there is no $100 chocolate bar. And there are no meaningful traits for a product that cannot be sold.

Im not trying to be cynical for effect. I think that this is an important topic. But I also think that the discussions I see about this nearly always confuse what generates value and therefore pricing. I think its critical to remember that the makers control quality, but the buyers control value.

Lets recall the history of lobster. Until the mid-19th century lobster was considered garbage food. It was only eaten by the very poor, and even then only if nothing else was available. Servants on the east coast even had it written into their contracts that they could not be forced to eat lobster more than twice a week. Suffice it to say that one of the most popular uses for lobster at that time was as fertilizer. It wasnt until well into the 20th century that lobster became a gourmet item. Now imagine a discussion in 1850 about the traits for a $50 lobster roll. It would have been a short conversation, but not for lack of quality. The reason you could not have sold a $50 lobster roll in 1850 was not that the quality was not possible. The reason is that the customer was not possible.

And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the same thing applies to coffee. What are the traits of a $100 pound of coffee? In 2012 we can now delineate those traits. In 1972 we could not have done so because there were no customers for that product then. It took the specialty coffee industry 40 years to get to this point, and there is still much work to be done. Currently, at least in the U.S., it does not appear that craft chocolate is anywhere close to this.

The good news is that Americans love chocolate. The further good news is that the American appreciation of craft (dark, specialty, etc) chocolate is definitely rising. The bad news is that after 100+ years of buying cheap industrial chocolate, most Americans still dont value chocolate very much and simply dont believe it should ever be that expensive. Chocolate, as was the case with coffee until the second wave, is viewed as both inexpensive and common.

Changing that viewpoint and building a pool of customers who understand, accept and value the difference between craft and industrial chocolate is the key, and is directly analogous to the change in consumer viewpoints and buying habits that happened (and is still happening) in the specialty coffee industry. Only when a large enough pool of potential customers understand craft chocolate and are invested in it, will a $100 bar begin to be possible. In other words, the path to a $100 chocolate bar does not begin with the product. It begins with the customer.

The specialty coffee movement had thousands of coffee houses spread across the country with which to evangelize the masses. What does the craft chocolate movement have? That is the question we should be asking. In my view, its only when we have a suitable answer to that question that we can really even begin to start talking about $100 bars.

Here is a $44 bar of chocolate. Forte Fortunato #4 .($20/45g = $44.44/100g.)Made from, and I quote from their website, "the rarest chocolate in the world". I bet the "colorful storybook depicting its amazing discovery" cost a quite a bit to put together too.

I agree with using 100g as a benchmark.

FWIW I paid $34/100g for Domori Chuao 2011. ($8.50 for 25g).

The most expensive chocolate that I have bought was a Soma Hawaii 2011 bar-- $46/100g. ($11.50 for 25g.)

OK, so it would appear that Clay's $100 bar is perhaps closer than we think. My opinion on this is from that of the consumer, not as an industry insider and is thus: "Have you lost your minds? Expensive chocolate, I'm there with you. But 'non-believers' still can't fathom us paying $10 for a good bar. Up it by 10-fold and it starts to look like the consumer, even the elite consumer, is just getting screwed. The actual cost of a $100 bottle of wine may not be greater than that of a $10 bottle of wine, to be sure. And there may be people who will gladly pay $100 for a bar of chocolate. But there are also people who will pay $800 per couple to eat at Per Se in NYC. The question then is, what are you paying for? The same quality meal could be had elsewhere, but there's the view, the cache, etc. A bar may not be able to claim all of that. And wine does get people feeling no pain. Chocolate makesus feelgood and all, but not sure it's the same thing. (Personally, I prefer the effects of chocolate over those of wine, but I may be in the minority.) At the endof the day,a $100 may be good for the industry, but it also may not. If the public rejects it as being toooutrageous, thenit may end up being discounted at some level. That wouldn't help either side of the industry/consumer coin and it would make those few who paid full price look like idiots. People never like thinking they got taken to the cleaners.

Just thoughts fromsomeone who lots of people think spends too much on chocolate.

There is much discussion here over whether chocolate should emulate wine or coffee to raise the profile towards thar $100 bar.

I think that we need to take a little from both. The $100 bar, should I believe be based on a vintage, after all that is how wine has reached such dizzy heights. There are even wines that will probably never be opened because they are the last one or two of a particular year, of a particular grape from a particular vineyard.

On the other hand the coffee model has opened up a wider market for better quality coffees. As has been said coffee is a daily neccessity for many people. Why cant chocolate do the same.

The focus of this discussion has been on chocolate bars. Why not on cacao drinks? Cacao was originally served in cafes as a drink, let us go back to those roots with our current technology. Pure cacao drinks, pure chocolate drinks, and chocolate milk drinks. Such cafes would also be perfectly placed to sell high end chocolate bars.

We have that chocolate bar too. But only 5,50... though without the fancy booklet, so I guess the storybook is half the final price.

I think that with such specialty chocolate it ought to be 50g. 100g always seems more like munching chocolate to me.

Interesting point. As I see it, to get to the $100 bar, the quality would have to be exceptional. It would for wine, and people are already used to paying big for wine. They're not used to paying that much for chocolate though, so it would need to be something exceptional and consumers would have to really be able to taste the difference. It would also have to be something not easily replicated, to minimize the chance of having a "cheap knockoff."

As for chocolate bars, good idea, long overdue. There are the beginnings of such, and the Bittersweet cafe in San Francisco is an example (although they never seem to make hot chocolate hot enough, it's usually tepid for some reason). But if people see a chocolate bar in the same way they see a coffee bar, then the $100 chocolate bar may have some trouble. People won't pay $100 for even a whole pound of coffee, let alone a fantastic cup.

My point regarding the $100 bar is just that -- what's the point? If it's to make totally exceptional quality that is truly noticeable, then great. If it's to get the industry all ginned up, then it's harder to support, but it might still work with certain consumers who get caught up in status. We all know a huge company thathas done a lot of that -- pretty gold boxes, high prices, etc. and personally, I don't think they have a truly superior product. They've even been known to include some vegetable fat for cocoa butter. Ick. And it does nothing to help the industry, even if their bottom line may be good. Again, I'm not in the industry, just a consumer, but it may be good to hear from some of us, too.

I disagree that it would HAVE to be exceptional. Once you get into such rarified areas, very few people can or will have tried it. But the back story has to be good.

As regards Bittersweet, I can only judge from their website, but I see more coffees on offer than chocolate drinks. No range of single origin chocolate drinks.

I have no idea of their method for making hot chocolate, but it will often be cooler than expected, just as good coffee is. But chocolate can be given an extra kick temperature-wise with a few seconds in the microwave.

Another expensive bar... Amedei Le Selezioni Collection. $180 for 6 bars in a fancy wood box. So 1 bar/box of 12 pieces is $30. BUT each box/bar is only 55g ! $30 for 55g = $54.55/100g!

That's paying for presentation packaging, though--fancy outer box, inner boxes, individually-wrapped pieces. Amedei's most expensive bar remains Porcelana, at $16.50 (or $33/100g or $151/lb). It's among the priciest bars in the world (apart from obvious hustles), but still a far cry from a $100 bar.

On the note of porcelana, I doubt that Amedei's porcelana is even pure porcelana! I think it's a blended rip off. I've had it, and here's why I think so:

1 Amedei's porcelana bar is very dark.

2. Porcelana cocoa beans are porcelain white when harvested (hence the name porcelana)

3. Once fermented, they turn to a reddish color on the outside and a tan color on the inside.

4. Once roasted, the beans/nibs turn to a red brick color and have VERY strong fruity notes.

5. I have found NO physical way to make Porcelanachocolate as dark as Amedei's without blending them with another dark bean. Alkalizing doesn't work on that bean to darken it, and who in their right mind would alkalize the holy grail of chocolate just so that it looks like all other chocolate???

In my opinion, Amedei's porcelana is a BLEND, and not a true porcelana. I think you're getting ripped off. Until they prove otherwise I will continue to think that, and express my opinion which is also based on working with porcelana beans daily for 4 yearsfrom a couple of different regions of the world.

Brad

Have you seen Valhrona's El Pedregal Porcelana? It's also dark. They even say it's all "estate-grown". If they're saying it's Porcelana but it's actually a blend, isn't that illegal? Not sure, just asking. I always thought Valrhona was pretty upstanding.

Interesting theory, Brad. Thanks for sharing.

Note: The post has been edited by the moderator because:

And what about Emmaneul Andren Gastronomy's $98 for four pralines? Jeez

As a customer, while I cannot pronounce definitively on Amedei's Porcelana being a blend (I believe there are no strict rules for calling anything Porcelana), I do believe that all Amedei products are priced a little too high for their qualities. In other words, I consider it a ripoff brand and I would not be surprised.

On the other hand, I have not been disappointed in Valrhona.

Taking it from here to the topic of the OP - for anything like 100-dollar bar to get started it needs to start by being genuine article, the price of which connoisseurs would consider justified.

Appealing to Jennifer Aniston (or rather her character in Friends) segment would then follow, just by the virtue of authority of connoisseurs and the desire for exclusivity that is still - barely - affordable.

There are never enough of exclusive-ish treats for the ones who expect things for Valentine's, for Mothers' Day, birthday, wedding anniversary etc ad infinitum.

Dear all,

During my chocolate classes, I always stress to the "students" about the amount of work involved in making chocolate. From the Plantation to the final couverture, bonbon, bar...

Gordon is making a lot of sense here!

$10 for a bar which should include "fair" prices to the farmers as a priority , the transport costs, packaging etc... not much really left...

There is certainly a lot of effort to "educate" the public and Journos that small producers are aiming for something else that a mass produced bar made from cheaply bought beans which is often not so interesting quality wise anyway.

I think journos are the one to lobby to make the public aware of the changes in the chocolate industry.

Thank you Gordon for your work

regards

Love this topic...not sure if anyone is still following but we have a tree to bar single estate chocolate business in Costa Rica. It seems to me that if there is to be a true path to the wine model...the chocolate would need to be made at the location as well. I know the challenges because I have found several tricks to the problem of making chocolate in a warm rainy climate...but it would be nearly impossible to produce a massive amount for worldwide distribution.

The making of chocolate on the farm converts the chocolate from something on your grocery shelf to something you travel for...much like wine country is for winos.. The most expensive bottles of wine are not in the liquer store...they are in the cellars of the winery. You might even have to know the owner to taste some of these wines. The same is true for chocolate if the chocolate is made at the farm.

Much of the flavor developed in the chocolate is set before the chocolate maker even gets the beans...so it seems to me that chocolate made at origin may also find its way into "special" since in that case it is the same farmer who made the chocolate from tree to bar. Story, travel, excellent flavor and the cacao farmer gets the true fame for the excellence of the chocolate...

Since the single farm factory is very small the quantity of this chocolate would be very limited. The future of chocolate needs to include and experience for the consumer. Chocolate travel locations like Hawii and Costa Rica and recently I visited Guatamala have chocolate makers who are setting a new bar by creating these fabulous chocolates in which you must travel to there site in order to taste. Exclusivity and adventure.

Thanks for the forum topic. Very encouraging and informative for me.

Interesting take on this. However, I see one issue and that is that the majority of rich people who could pay a lot for chocolate simply don't live where chocolate grows (obvious exception is Hawaii and perhaps some other places). Wine on the other hand grows where the rich live. I have paid $20 for chocolate bars I can buy here (which is a lot and sometimes not really worth it)but with a wife, kids, mortgage etc I haven't been OS in over 10 years. One other thing is proximity of other bean to bar makers, in a wine region you have 10s if not 100s of big and boutique wineries offering theirown little twist on the local conditions and then there are the varieties and blends in the mix, perhaps again Hawaii is an exception here. The point being that people who go to or holiday in wine regions want this variety and expect to visit 5-10 wineries in a weekend.

I often tell people who wince at what I pay for an 80 gm bar that it will last me longer than the bottle of wine they bought and will drink within a few hours. That said, I can agree with both Tom and Paul: it needs to be a "destination" but also one that people can reach fairly easily. It also needs to be in a region where there are multiple options so people can go on e "cacao crawl" as it were, and sample several in a day or two.

Of course, there was a lot of talk on the news this morning about the huge increases in cocoa prices over the past year, what with India, Russia, China, and other co8untries getting in on the chocolate craze and hiking demand. This could lead to more chocolate planting in the long term (and I hope it's good quality stuff that is planted). That $100 bar may not be as far off as it originally sounded.

This is a really interesting story with Noka

http://dallasfood.org/2006/12/noka-chocolate-part-1/

It reminds me of Chivas Regal, who raised their price above their competitors who sold similar quality, sales rose because of the perceived quality. Or for a chocolate reference, "The best thing about Belgian Chocolate is how good Belgians are at promoting it"

I heard that Noka is no longerin business. Scams don't usually last long.

The non-existence of the $100 chocolate bar tells a lot abou the level of development of the chocolate business.

It is true that marketing/ranking/the press are sometimes the only justification for a wine to sell for several hundred dollars, but I beleive the usual reasons are the offer/demand ratio and the intrinsic difference/characteristics of the wine.

A bottle of say, "Chateau Latour" from the Medoc region of Bordeaux never sells for less tha $300 per bottle "young" because, by law Chateau Latour cannot produce more than a certain volume of wine per hectare and because, yes its tastes unique. The wineyard next door will look like the Chateau Latour, but tastes different and is easily identifiable. So when the rich Chinese who likes the taste wants a bottle, he is competing with the rich Americans, Indians Russian etc.. Add to this the "banking" characterics of quality wine that make it predictably increase in value over the years and the resulst are these astronomical prices.

Now, to cacao. Producers of high quality cacao beans are mostly small owners in hard to get places of the world. They have no organized structure beside a State controled entity that cares more to the volume producers than the fine bean plantor. Even if they find a chocolate producer ready to pay the high price for the beans, they have little recognition because the "Chocolatier" in Europe or the U.S. will promote his name rather than the (small) producer or producers. Then, although growing, the demand for chocolate is not as high as for wine, in part because people are not exposed to the same permament marketing and social pressure that wine enjoys. Add to this teh lack of exposure through magazines, exhibitions etc.. and you have the current price levels.

Clay, I think the $100 chocolate bar will only happen when a global ecosystem has been built. And this will take more than 5 years.

Rogue's 80% Porcelana is an incremental step in the direction of $100 bar. I wonder how it is selling? When standardized to the price per 100g this bar is bar is $30/100g. Rogue has certainly developed the credibility to entice people to pay this much for this bar.

Of course when standardized to the price per 100g, Amedei has already been selling expensive bars for a long time. Amedei Porcelana is currently $39.90/100g (at the Meadow). More than Rogue Porcelana bar at $30/100g. In addition, since Bonnat sells 100g bars, some of theirs already sell for $22-25 too; the cost feels higher when you have to shell out $25 for 1 bar.

I've had so many requests to ship my chocolate that I give up. I'm finally bending to the pressure!

I will now sell ALL of my chocolate bars for $100 each and will package and ship them to wherever you like (except outer space). Packaging and shipping is included.

THERE. Now the industry has a $100 chocolate bar.

Brad (recognizing that there is probably more than a little tongue in cheek in your response) -

Nope. Packaging and shipping can't be included. The chocolate itself has to sell for $100 bar.

You can price it however you want, but the community of people who rate and review the chocolate need to agree with you that it's worth that price. It has to sell at that price. People need to be willing to buy at that price. I've tried your chocolate and, IMO (as a professional taster), it's not at that caliberyet. And not just me, C-Spot agrees.

AND you(as the manufacturer) and the distributor(s) have to spend money to support the marketing and sampling of the bar and support the community of chocolate critics and chocolate sommeliers who educate the consumers.

ANYBODY can price a bar as a stunt (and several have - remember Noka? [and I am not comparing you to them]), but in the end stunts work to the detriment of the community at large.

The point that I am making is that until there is a selection of chocolate bars that command prices an order of magnitude higher than the average prices today ($5-9), then there will be no money in the system to support the chocolate critics and chocolate sommeliers who can then educate people about why it's okay to spend that amount of money.

It's a circular argument, I am aware. But as long as the only marketing budgets belong to mass-market candy makers, the market for gourmet, craft, artisan, chocolate is hindered.

Clay I am glad that you realise that this is a circular argument. And will continue to be nothing more than that until there is an artisan chocolate maker with sufficient funds and foresight to fund at least one group of chocolate sommeliers.

That would be a vast risk, and in honesty I cannot see anyone every being prepared to take that risk... can you?

You're probably right. One thing that would tip the scales (and this is unlikely to happen, but...) is if a particular varietal chocolate was found to have unique benefits. It would have to be something special, such as lowering cholesterol better than a medication, boosting libido, curing XYZ condition, etc. and would have to be unique to that particular chocolate. Taste alone, at least at this point, may not be enough of an impetus.

Yes Clay, I was just joking about the $100 bar.

However when it comes to the quality of my product for the market I'm selling to, that sir is something I don't joke about. Again, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. You aren't my customer, and the recipes aren't designed for you or other self appointed "professional tasters". They are designed for the general public, who, after buying $2 Million worth of my chocolate in the past couple of yearshas a very different palate(and evidently a very different opinion than yours and Marc's)

I'll tell you what though Clay. When you match what my customers buy I promise to care what youthink. How does that sound?

Cheers

Brad

Brad, that is the point that what you are producing and selling to your customers is right for you and them.

But if the general quality is ever going to be uplifted, then it needs something else. Whether we need"professional tasters", can be argued, but so long as the marketing of chocolate iscompletelyin the hands of the mass producers, then things are not going to get muchbetter.

My point is that unless someone such as yourself is prepared to take on that effort, there will be no change, and you are proving me right by saying what you say... a sort of "I am all right Jack".

I am not criticising that I am just stating that that sort of response is what Clay is going to be fighting against, and so his argument becomes circular with no way to break it.

Brad:

This is not a competition. I don't feel the need to prove anything to you. I offer up my observations and advice freely - both actually and figuratively.

You may be right, I am not your customer. And I never will be as you long as you think we're in competition in any way - and continue to frame things in competitive terms.

But what I do think is relevant to your business, albeit in a way that probably has very little actual effect on your sales as your market is pretty much self-limited to Calgary, Alberta and my "market" is a community spanning more than 160 countries. What I do is improve people's awareness and appreciation of fine chocolate, and I do it on a global scale. And I give you the opportunity - at no charge to you (does that make me a bad business person?) - to share your views with my global audience. I invite you in to participate in my business.

You may scoff at that statement, but I have extended global awareness of your brand, your company, and you.

I am sure you have more customers than TheChocolateLife counts members, but we use very different systems to calculate their value to us. We have very different ends, and are pursuing very different means to achieve them.

But what we are not is competitors.

This is really a fascinating conversation, and the idea of a $100 chocolate bar intrigues me. It seems like a bucket-list item - something an average consumer mighthope to one day afford for the thrill of it. Or another kind of status symbol for the diamond-studded Rolex wearer.

Speaking as someone largely oblivious to the deep inner workings of the chocolate industry (I don't make it or sell it, I just appreciate theheck out of it), I'm desperate for more information on what distinguishes one chocolate bar from another. This is what motivated me to start researching chocolate production in the first place - clear and compelling information about origins is just not that available to the average consumer.

I'mhoping to change that very soon.

So maybe a $100 chocolate bar would raise the awareness of the public on their chocolate options. It certainly gets your attention ;o)

We have a 10 pound bar that is over $100 so price shouldn't be the goal. Supply and demand determines price but marketing affects demand. The industry needs to be able to use a grading system like Robert Parker has done for wine.

Diamonds, gold all have ratings. The average consumer needs a guide to help rate the many nuances of cocoa, it is the only way to compete with the chocolate giants that influence demand. Perhaps using a flavor wheel to identify the strengths of each chocolate would help educate consumers.

I have a 0-10 Rating/Grading system. See the ChocoFiles website for details. I would be glad for my rating system to be the new standard.

A 50g bar for $260 (=$520/100g) has arrived. To'ak Chocolate . Their wording on the website makes it sound like this is their first batch to be sold. At this writing 56 of the 574 bars in this harvest have been sold.

It's already happened. To'ak Chocolate has a $260 bar.

https://toakchocolate.com/

Good for them. There mightcome a day when I buy one but today isn't it. There is a certain niche population that will love being part ofan elite group of purchasers (or maybe they're just curious). I'm sure the chocolate is terrific (or word will spread really quickly to the contrary!) and they would have no regrets about the purchase. As for me, I was never one to line up days early to buy the latest iPhone either. Great marketing however and sure to sell out.

I hear you! I live and breathe chocolate, however, $260 for a 50 g bar seems ridiculous to me. I have a few Nacionl bars right beside me that I spent about $12 each for - same beans - different country which of course will make them different in taste. I need to know why it's worth that. They aren't doing a good job on doing that. Plus, as I said in my comment, chocolate gets worse with age, not better. You can't "collect" it for the long run. I do, however, have about 100 bars around to enjoy.