Or, why the term ‘organic’ has failed to make an impact so far
I often receive courtesy books in the mail. I was leafing through one on organic poultry feeding and nutrition, and I kept asking myself the same question again and again: What is organic?
The answer is why the term organic has failed to make any significant impact as a brand or trend worldwide: Organic is the opposite of inorganic. That is what we all learned at high school. And, people will always unconsciously try to associate new trends and brands with what they already know in order to understand, even before accepting something unconventional.
So, are all the rest of the chickens that are not organic actually inorganic? Of course not. But, try to explain that to your customers when there are so many different definitions of organic. Some will call organic feeding without hormones (but who feeds hormones to chickens anymore?), others will call organic as feeding with organic raw materials (really?), whereas others will even call organic corn-fed chicken. Now, corn-fed chickens are a success as a brand because most people associate corn with good and soybeans, vitamins and minerals as bad. Remember, you are not talking to a nutritionist, feed professional, veterinarian, or anyone remotely associated with biology. You are talking to everybody else who has no idea what any of these things mean and have been influenced by “fake” marketing to accept false claims as truths. This is the same as accepting organic as good, whereas “inorganic” chicken is less so. Get the drift?
I am not trying to argue whether organic is better, preferable, or even the opposite of non-organic (see, I can understand the difference). I am trying to say that the term “organic” for chicken, milk, fruits and vegetables is a failure as a brand identity term. Do I have a better idea? No, but this is what marketing people are for.