
Hampton Creek’s Entire Board Leaves Except for CEO - coloneltcb
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-17/hampton-creek-s-entire-board-is-said-to-leave-except-for-ceo
======
strictnein
> "Hampton Creek was a young star in Silicon Valley when it began working on
> an eggless mayonnaise product in 2011... raising more than $220 million
> since it was founded"

When the bubble bursts, this is going to be one of those companies we point
back to, right?

~~~
Clanan
I want to see the pitch deck that convinced investors eggless mayo was work a
quarter of a billion bucks.

~~~
benologist
Why couldn't it be?

    
    
        Hellmann’s alone accounted for $401.2 million in sales 
        last year, according to Businessweek — nearly a third of 
        the total $1.3 billion mayo market here.
    

[http://nypost.com/2011/09/17/hellmanns-mayonnaise-
americas-b...](http://nypost.com/2011/09/17/hellmanns-mayonnaise-americas-
best-selling-condiment/)

~~~
ghaff
Because what can be so hard about "disrupting" a 100 year old brand that is
probably the only mayonnaise brand that most Americans could name?

Added: Yes mayo is a big market but the odds of some eggless mayo specialty
product capturing a huge chunk of it is... slim.

~~~
pg_bot
If you want a great mayonnaise try Duke's.

[https://www.dukesmayo.com/](https://www.dukesmayo.com/)

~~~
ghaff
I didn't realize was such a regional thing :-) We also have Cain's in
Massachusetts.

------
Turing_Machine
Given that the name of their flagship product is basically a lie, I guess I'm
not too surprised that they've allegedly been using other questionable
labeling practices.

Mayonnaise is made with eggs. By definition.

Calling an eggless product "Just Mayo" (with a picture of an egg on the label,
no less) is like labeling soyburger as "Just Burger" with a picture of a cow.

The FDA made them use a bigger font for "Egg-Free" and make the picture of the
egg smaller, but it's still deceptive, IMO.

~~~
entee
Full disclosure: 2.5y ago I worked at HC for 8m

You're right that the FDA definition of mayonnaise requires egg. This comes
from depression-era laws where people were passing fraudulent products off as
the real thing. I think those laws still matter, but kind of miss the point
here.

As a different way to look at it, imagine a sort of food Turing Test. If it
looks like the thing, it behaves like the thing in every meaningful way, and
its taste is indistinguishable from the thing, is it not the thing? Maybe,
maybe not, but I think it's an interesting question worth exploring.

~~~
Lazare
> You're right that the FDA definition of mayonnaise requires egg.

Wikipedia says "Mayonnaise is a thick, creamy dressing often used as a
condiment. It is a stable emulsion of oil, _egg yolk_ , and either vinegar or
lemon juice, with many options for embellishment with other herbs and spices."
Random House says "a thick dressing of _egg yolks_ , vinegar or lemon juice,
oil, and seasonings, used for salads, sandwiches, vegetable dishes, etc."
Oxford Learner's Dictionary says "a thick cold white sauce made from _eggs_ ,
oil and vinegar, used to add flavour to sandwiches, salads, etc.". Merriam-
Webster says "a dressing made chiefly of _egg yolks_ , vegetable oils, and
vinegar or lemon juice". Oxford dictionary says "A thick creamy dressing
consisting of _egg yolks_ beaten with oil and vinegar and seasoned."

Who's definition of mayonnaise doesn't involve eggs? How would you even define
it _except_ by mentioning eggs?

~~~
entee
Sure, but you're missing the larger question. If presented 2 dishes, one is
traditional mayonnaise and the other is HC mayonnaise. If you can't tell the
difference in how they behave/taste/whatever, are they not both effectively
mayonnaise?

I'm not arguing that you're wrong about what mayonnaise is, I'm adding a
wrinkle to the concept of defining a food product.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, I personally care that it "does what
it says on the tin" rather than fits a dictionary or other definition. That
said I understand the counterpoint, I just think it's not quite as black-or-
white.

~~~
Frondo
Not if mayonnaise is defined--as it currently seems to be--as a product with
egg in it.

That's sort of the crux of the matter, when we say "mayo" we mean the thing
with egg in it, not anything that resembles the thing with egg in it.

If you'd like to say, "let's stop defining mayo as the thing with egg in it,"
then maybe that's a discussion worth having, but it's a different issue than
just, "can't we call this other thing that isn't mayo, mayo?"

------
Overtonwindow
I think another great issue in this saga is the part played by the National
Egg Board. This is a publicly funded organization whose mission is to promote
the use, sale, and consumption of eggs; i.e. the "incredible edible egg"
campaign. The National Egg Board is supposed to be neutral - after all it's
publicly funded - but instead it was actively trying to thwart Hampton Creek,
and use its position to damage sales.

Checkoff boards can be very interesting when they get involved in approving
one company over another.

Full Disclosure: I love Just Mayo, but don't buy it because it's a bit pricey.

~~~
gnicholas
Yep, just like the dairy lobby fights against "almond milk", "soy milk", "rice
milk", etc.

I understand why these lobbies are doing what they do, but the end result is
that customers may not get full information and products that are better
(defined as healthier, lower environmental impact, or otherwise) may not
survive. I'm certainly not saying that was the case with HC, but as we enter
this period of "food disruption" we have to be cognizant of the possibility.

------
pnathan
I rather liked their mayo (I grabbed it at semi-random off the shelf once).

Was saddened to hear allegations that they were doing weird buyback stuff in
grocery stores.

But this isn't a red flag to me, it's the refs walking off the field. Curious
how others read it.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _it 's the refs walking off the field_

To stay with the sports analogy theme, doesn't that typically indicate game
over?

~~~
freehunter
I guess it would depend on the rules of the sport. In soccer/football, the
game can't continue without the refs, but just because there are no refs
doesn't mean the game is over. Sometimes they'll leave the field in protest of
player or coach behavior. There's nothing a ref can do if a player refuses a
penalty that was assigned to them, so they'll typically leave the field until
the player accepts that he's been penalized.

So in this situation, the board leaving would be a strong indicator that
they're protesting the actions of the company or of the CEO. There's nothing
saying they can't come back if the situation changes, or the company can
forfeit the game and then it's all over.

~~~
wavefunction
At least under FIFA bylaws, once a player refuses to leave the field in a
timely manner it's the obligation of the Referee to gather their associates
and depart the field, ending the match.

~~~
freehunter
There have been at least some situations exactly like I described[1]. I'll
admit I don't know all of the rules of the game so I can't describe what might
have been different in this situation.

[1] [https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/02/21/bayer-
leverkusen...](https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/02/21/bayer-leverkusen-
dortmund-refs-leave-field-video)

------
spcelzrd
I love their products, especially Just Mayo. This is not a good sign.

