Mobilising resources and recruiting members

Setting up a community supermarket that reflected these principles in the heart of London demanded substantial financial and human capital. The founders, through their professional and personal networks and through active campaigning, had pulled in a number of experts to help them with their project. These experts advised on aspects such as creation of business plans, architectural and interior design and planning, project and co-operative management, as well as finance and accounting. Arthur estimated that the co-op must have saved at least a £100,000 in business consultancy fees due to the skilled human resources they could tap into free of cost. Above all, however, the biggest backer Ñ both financially and in terms of organisational management Ñ was the TV production company, Wall to Wall Television. Wall to Wall Television was obviously interested in the commercial value of the media content this

projectÕs story would generate. Nevertheless, their involvement also injected creative ideas for reaching out to people and provided a tight focus on project management.

During the planning phase, the TV production company arranged an educational visit for the chef to a successful American co-op Ñ Park Slope in Brooklyn, New York Ñ which became the model for TPS. The idea of reducing operating costs by asking members to volunteer their time was borrowed from Park Slope, for example. The TV production company also offered critical financial help to the co-op to secure the rent of the retail space. They lent a sum of £130,000 when no other bank or financial institution was prepared to extend credit to what was seen as a commercially risky enterprise. Once the co-op finally opened in June 2010, there were still enormous financial pressures of making payments for rent (ca. £80,000 per annum), business rates (ca. £50,000 per annum) and ordering produce and supplies. Although some other private and public organisations had stepped up to provide small amounts of startup funding, there was not enough money to pay all the expenses. The documentary series was hurriedly aired on Channel 4 to prevent the project from going under. The four-part television series subsequently managed to draw generous public support for the co-op. According to the founders, the co-op increased its membership from 340 to 960 within three months of the documentary series appearing on television. Thus, the television deal turned out to be a great resource both for launching the project and recruiting members in the initial phase.

However, recruiting the first 340 members was not easy. One of the main targets for membership were the low-income residents of some of the big housing estates that surrounded TPS. Leaflets were distributed door-to-door and where possible TPS organisers explained the concept and the ethical principles behind the initiative personally to some of the residents. To demonstrate that a good meal can be prepared by buying ingredients from the co-op store, Arthur and some volunteers even set up a food stall at three of the estates, where they cooked and distributed free meals. Unfortunately for them, the results were disappointing. Arthur recalled that at one estate they gave out 320 meals and talked to people there about the co-op, but only one person got convinced to sign up. ÔThey just donÕt get itÕ, he said, shaking his head. When he approached the representatives of the housing association at the nearest estate, he was told that low prices of groceries was the key concern for most of the residents. They

would prefer one of the mainstream supermarkets like Tesco opening up in their locality instead of an Ôarty-fartyÕ store like TPS. The representatives made it clear that in order for TPS to attract low-income residents, it would have to show savings in weekly shopping bills. Moreover, they were quite dismissive of the membership requirement to volunteer four hours a month at the shop. Even those residents who liked the ethics and community-minded spirit of the co-op were pessimistic about the co-opÕs ability to be an alternative to a low price supermarket. In the end, only a very small number of people from the neighbouring housing estates signed up as members.

Not everyone was looking the other way, however. Some locals did appreciate the independent, community-based character and sustainability ideals of the co-op. Nearly a hundred of them signed up as members on the first day of membership recruitment at the store and agreed to work a certain number of hours every month at the co-op in return for a membership discount offered on their purchases. Some of them had learnt about the co-op through flyers distributed in the streets, local parks, and local shops and businesses. TPS founders had spoken at a couple of local resident associations and at a few student residence halls in the area. That brought in some locals and students as well. A few people had visited the stalls that TPS set up at local events and others had simply been intrigued by the signs and posters they had seen when they were passing by the TPS store. The store opened with about a hundred members. As the word spread about the co-opÕs somewhat unique identity, friends of existing members and some of the professionals working in the neighbourhood also joined. Targeting flyer distributions at the doors of competing supermarket stores nearby, creating a buzz in social media networks like Twitter and Facebook, and hosting food tasting events outside the shop to draw people in, were some of the other marketing tactics that were employed to drive up membership. By the time the documentary was shown on the television on February 6, 2011, 340 members had signed up. The membership, thereafter, increased significantly. However, it stabilised around 1000 members three months after the documentary was aired and remained around that figure for the rest of the year 2011.

Figure 4.1 gives an indication of some of the key reasons that motivated members to join TPS. In response to an online survey question, members expressed a strong sentiment against the large supermarkets. They wanted an alternative that supported local suppliers, practiced sustainability and was run with the participation of its

consumer members along with opportunities to develop social relationships with other members. Most of the members felt that the co-op met their expectations (see Figure 4.2). However, when asked about how the co-op could interest them more, they suggested a number of improvement areas. These suggestions could be broadly categorised into issues related to product choice and price, operational processes, participation in management and cultivation of a social community of members. I will discuss membersÕ feedback in each of these categories in the relevant sections of this chapter.

I became the 543rd member of the co-op on the 26th of February, 2011. Following is a brief excerpt from my field diary of the membersÕ orientation meeting I attended on my first visit:

The orientation started with a presentation of the co-op's history and its business ethics focused on community ownership, environmental responsibility and fairness to local producers. The presenters pointed out, however, that membersÕ views were divided about the kind of produce that should be made available in the co-op. The products ranged from the local and organic types to cheap and basic brands so that poorer members from the housing estates could also participate in the initiative. In the question and answer session at the end of the presentation, one member who Figure 4.1 TPS memberÕs survey: motivations to join

divided among other shops in the community. She felt that TPS may be taking away some business from other small shops in the area and may even be seen to be doing so with help from the local council that unfairly advantaged them over other businesses. Specifically, she mentioned that there was a rumour that TPS was paying a lower business rate or that their rates had been frozen. TPS presenters protested that they had not been given any such advantage by the local council. They assured the concerned member that they were not there to be ruthlessly competing with other local businesses, but to create a new model for consumer run supermarket which need not necessarily threaten other businesses. They felt that there was enough room in the market for everyone to play a role. In fact, they pointed out a case where TPS had gone out of its way to not compete with the local butcher by keeping its meat section small. A couple of other newly inducted members, however, were more blunt in their response to the concerns of other local businesses. One of the members asserted that there was no reason to occupy ourselves with such concerns as this was a market economy and not a planned one and other businesses need to deal with a competitor with an innovative and ethical approach just as TPS had to deal with their competition. Another member, who had come from Greenwich borough to join the co-op, expressed that instead of spreading rumours and back-biting, the other local shop owners should learn from the ethical practice of TPS.