Elizabeth responds

I had left Elizabeth Pivonka a voice mail with a question about their consumer Web site and also with a query about feedback she was getting on the issue of how the foundation was responding to concerns raised by some about their alliance with Imagination Farms.

She passed on this email:

From: Elizabeth Pivonka Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:11 PM
Subject: PBH & Imagination Farms

TO: PBH Board of Trustees

Many of you have expressed concern about a recent alliance that was announced between PBH and Imagination Farms. I appreciate those of you who contacted PBH directly to express your concern. I’d like to frame the issue for you and update you on what we’re doing about it.

Imagination Farms, through a brainstorming session we had with them in January, agreed to develop -- at their expense -- some fun, educational materials for children on our website using Disney characters, with PBH involvement and approval. At no time was it considered that Imagination Farms would show their products or mention their Disney Garden brand on the PBH website. We saw this as an opportunity to provide excitement (value) to moms and her children and help drive traffic to the new Fruits & Veggies—More Matters web site. That is the most immediate tangible piece from our initial discussions with Imagination Farms, but there was potential for more, thus my approval of the words “strategic alliance” in their press release.

Last week some of you raised the concern that any use of the Disney characters by PBH provided some trustees with a competitive advantage, at the expense of other trustees who are not themselves aligned with Disney. I confess that I was initially surprised by this reaction, although now I certainly understand it.

My concern at this point is the development of parameters to guide us with collaborations, alliances, or partnerships in the future. If there were issues with Imagination Farms, then some of our past activities should have also been called into question. It would be inefficient to have you approve everything that we do; that is why we have a Board Positions, Policies & Procedures Manual and an executive committee to act in place of the board when the board is not in session. This particular case brought to our attention the need for more extensive parameters – beyond what has already been requested by our health partners -- in PBH collaborations.

So, yesterday your PBH executive committee had a very lengthy conference call about this issue, with extensive dialog both before and after the call. They’ve taken this very seriously and are working on a policy that will provide guidance in such situations in the future; guidance that will prevent an unfair competitive advantage to some at the expense of others, but will still allow for collaborations that will benefit our collective effort to increase fruit and vegetable consumption.

Suffice it to say that we will not be placing Disney characters on our website. I think Imagination Farms deserves credit for trying to do more to support our cause of increasing consumption. In fact, in further conversations with Imagination Farms this week, they have expressed their continued commitment to support in-kind PBH web development within the final policy parameters that are set forth, despite the dialog of the past week. They share our commitment to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. They happened to be the “lightening rod” example that brought to light some parameters that needed more extensive discussion.

The PBH executive committee is planning a follow-up phone call to discuss this early next week, after which I’ll update you again. In the meantime, let me know if you have any questions and I welcome your continued comments.

Finally, I remain convinced that our new Fruits & Veggies—More Matters initiative will have a lasting impact on consumers. As many of you heard at our recent board meeting, Moms need help in translating their positive attitudes and intentions about fruits and vegetables into action. With your help, we can make that happen!

Thank you for your ongoing support!

Respectfully,

Elizabeth



Elizabeth Pivonka, Ph.D., R.D.
President & CEO
Produce for Better Health Foundation


TK: This is a well written letter and speaks for itself. In my conversation later in the day with Elizabeth, she spoke of development of parameters by the executive committee to address the issue of alliances. She pointed out that PBH public health partners exert a kind of pressure to influence alliances on one hand and of course, members of the board from the industry have their own set of concerns, often rooted in their competitive positions. All viewpoints are defensible, but don't make the job of creating innovative promotions and alliances any easier.

An episode like this makes me think how great it would be if PBH were funded with $25 million or $50 million from the farm bill, rather than $10,000 contributions from 120 different board members. With a mandatory promotion order or farm bill funding, PBH would have the autonomy to cut a marketing swath that would cast a long shadow for the entire industry. Yet the large board of directors - while arguably a hindrance to PBH executives - also provides the feedback and ownership of the message that the industry values.