You’ll remember that in Episode 15 I used the banana to illustrate the concept of strategically aligned supply chains. Well, this is exactly the same phenomenon that people tried to replicate with the pineapple.
In fact, it was mainly the very same companies already operating successfully with the banana that set out to repeat the trick with this new product on the world market.
And here we arrive at the heart of our fresh produce analysis: if the pineapple enjoyed such historic prestige, why is less commercially successful than the banana?
Both are tropical fruits, both were grown on similar plantations, both reached global markets by comparable routes. And yet the banana dominates, absolutely.
What are the differences? What happened? Why aren’t their successes comparable? Is it all just down to consumer preference?
But before we run into conclusions, I need you to imagine that we travel in time to the eighteenth-century in England. You’ve been invited to a gala dinner at an aristocratic mansion.
As you walk into the dining room, your eyes are drawn to the centre of the table: there, gleaming and exotic, sits a tropical pineapple.
But here’s something you don’t know: that pineapple probably won’t be eaten tonight. In fact, it might not even belong to the host. It may be… rented.
Welcome to the fascinating history of the pineapple. A fruit that went from being the ultimate symbol of status and hospitality to a mass-market commodity. A product that, for a brief moment, looked as though it might fight the banana for the crown of the global fruit trade.
It’s a fresh produce story that speaks to us about economics as much as about imperialism, and about how value and popular taste evolve in a global market.
Welcome to a new episode of Freshconomics Podcast.
Enjoy this episode on your favourite platform
📙 And get your copy of the book Freshconomics here: Paperback, Ebook
