A Little Rant on New Plant Development
Pardon this rant on the business of new plant development. A recent conversation on Facebook about the performance of a new, yellow shasta daisy called ‘Banana Cream’ led my wanderlust-prone mind to think about the how our green industry develops, promotes, and sells new products. This whole post really has nothing to do specifically with that aforementioned daisy, which although I’m not giddy about, shows some promise in a market brimming in just the last year with several new cultivars of Shasta daisy.
One commenter retorted in response to my comment about “not getting Shasta daisies” (I don’t see what all the fuss is about frankly) that if I worked in a garden center, I’d understand why breeders (and apparently customers) are giddy about Shasta daisies. A slew of other comments followed in reference to said variety–some glowing, some mixed. But another commenter was careful to point out that as a landscaper, he didn’t really care what something looked like in a pot on a bench somewhere. If it failed to perform in the garden and live up to the hype, why bother with it at all?
And that’s what got me thinking. The analogy posed by the first commenter evinces a bothersome perception within our industry about the development of plants. Basically, if it looks good at the point of sale, we’ve done our job simply because we’re satisfying a need, urge, or desire of our target public. Sound fishy? It should. That’s like saying that as car buyers, we only expect our automobiles to look good on the showroom floor. Wrong. So why the double standard for our plants? Who wants a landscape of sorry looking, poorly performing, and underachieving plants?
As a plant breeder, I demand ambition of my progenies. I want “wow” plants (read: compelling)–specimens that make you stop and look, grab your attention and hold it. People buy plants for any number of different rational and subjective reasons, and it would be false and incomplete of me to attempt to list those here. But I do believe our vast, diverse buying public shares a common interest in the value of the product in their shopping cart (isn’t that a basic tenet of retail science?) If we don’t value our own products by demanding and expecting the best from our work, why should our clients? The most magical moment for me as a nursery owner is not when I can simply answer and fulfill a client’s questions and immediate needs, but rather when I can inspire them to want something they had no idea they really needed. Call it savvy salesmanship if you like. But I think it’s just the way we’ve got to do business. I want to inspire people to grow more, better plants.
For purposes of full disclosure: This post isn’t a subliminal message aimed at ‘Banana Cream’ Shasta daisy. There’s any number of reason why my few plants in one spot in my display garden don’t look good. When asked to opine, I simply suggested that I wasn’t flattered with them this year. Next year could be different. Maybe the spot isn’t just to its liking (I know I’ve not always thrived if my “spot” wasn’t just so). We shouldn’t immediately jump to conclusions about why plants do or do not perform without a little evidence, some smart intuition, and half a clue about the plant(s) in question. The biology of a living thing isn’t so straightforward. Who knows, I might even end up liking this thing someday…when I get around to “getting” Shasta daisies.
 | Published on August 3rd, 2010 | Posted by Kelly Norris |
August 3rd, 2010 at 5:29 am
Just to play devil’s advocate, sometimes a plant or a car is so beautiful, the buyer is willing to fuss over it more than they would normally. Heck, I have a phone that drops calls whenever I hold it in a particular spot because the rest of the phone is so awesome.
August 3rd, 2010 at 5:38 am
Like I said, people buy plants for sundry reasons. But to your point, that doesn’t mean we as producers should cater to that denominator (an auto company develops a car they hope people will fuss over?) Plus, smartphones come with all sorts of bonuses. It’s perfectly reasonable that their *first* use as a phone may get trumped by the whole other lot of outlandishly insane features (spoken like a proud smartphone owner). But a plant with crappy flowers, ugly foliage, and lackluster growth habits (not citing anything in particular mind you), doesn’t have a whole lot else to offer–especially if I have to coddle it and then some.
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:21 am
I seriously doubt that plant/car/smart phone producers are catering to that denominator. Don’t you think plant producers are trying to produce a plant with gorgeous flowers, interesting foliage, and an appropriate growth habit, but try as they might, they can’t get all three in one plant? So they end up with a plant that has stunning flowers, mediocre foliage and needs absurd amounts of fertilizing or pruning, and they send it on down to the garden centers because consumers are dying for a new color of shasta daisy. Plus, they need to start seeing a return on their investment of time and money developing those shasta daisies so that they can continue to work on improving the foliage and growth habit.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:34 am
It’s all about trialing plants all over and in drastic climes. If companies introducing plants only see them growing in their perfectly manicured trial garden in a cushy climate, how can anyone expect the plants to grow well all over. Remember, perennials especially are usually grown and sold all over the US. It’s imperative to have many, many trial sites all over. If it does well in all places- then you know you really have a winner!!!
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I completely agree with you (I actually wrote a post very very similar to this a while ago after visiting the pack trials in California) — The focus has been so overwhelmingly on what a plant looks like on the garden center bench that we’ve lost a lot of great garden performance. The problem is compounded by the fact that so much breeding happens on the West coast — where they have little notion what real conditions are in the rest of the country.
I do think there is a place for whimpy but lovely varieties, but they shouldn’t be mass marketed, rather, they should be sold be specialty nurseries whose customers know what they are doing. Selling plants that look gorgeous on the bench but collapse in the garden to novice gardeners just reinforces their idea that they don’t have a ‘green thumb’ and keeps them from coming back for more.
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:37 pm
To Fern’s point….no I don’t honestly believe that most breeders consciously cater to that mindset (I only suggested earlier that we shouldn’t). Some are just poor breeders/developers who don’t know better and end up releasing lackluster plants because they don’t “got it”.
Facts of life there. But to go one further, would it be effective for that car producer to release a car with poor navigation or braking systems only to tout a small achievement in fuel economy? I suppose we could argue those merits in cars (and plants and smartphones) all day. You’re right. At some point something has to go to release–you can’t keep investing in something as a breeder forever without getting some return. Believe me, I understand that too!
Perfect opportunity to plug Malcom Gladwell’s book Blink–superb read for anyone in new plant development that addresses how to develop solid, smart, instantaneous “gut” decisions as a result of highly derived life experiences. Highly recommended for all plant breeders!
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Joseph–spot on. A lot of folks get disagreeable with me on this subject because they see me as unfriendly to the ways that the business “just works.” But the point I’m trying to make is macro. The impact (or lack of impact depending on your perspective) that poor product development has on our market is overwhelmingly bad. I think most smart professionals in our industry would agree that overall we seriously undervalue our products and services (one of the reason people don’t think they can “make enough” in the hort industry), which really strikes me as ironic. When we don’t value our work enough as breeders and designers or whomever, why would we expect our clients to value it any differently? If we don’t care about the end merits of the plant in question enough to merit extensive trialing or evaluation, we clearly send the message that “we’d just like you to keep on buying this stuff year after year because we want your money.” Why not cultivate a sustainable business philosophy built on hardworking, thriving plants that merit attention (and sales) because they a) help the environment, b) look f-ing fabulous, and c) hug people as they walk by (okay maybe I’m being hyperbolic now.
August 3rd, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Kelly, I was tweaked/flattered to find myself somewhat quoted. I find the comments about the breeders actually making money, having their development costs reimbursed, to be an amusing thing. It is only in my lifetime that plant plant breeding, with the expectation of the hybridizer making money on his product has actually become a reality. And I will expand upon this, but find my time line has collapsed and my appointments looming. Glad to discover your page.
August 4th, 2010 at 12:43 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wildlife Garden, BA Pintozzi. BA Pintozzi said: Thought provoking rant by a plant breeder on new plant development. http://tinyurl.com/2a7ccm9 [...]
August 4th, 2010 at 11:28 am
As an end user of plants, I can’t resist chiming in (the professor in me is equally responsible). I have many species of plants in my garden. I don’t mind a few that need special treatment if the rest are behaving themselves (Hort-a-holic anyone?). I’m just as excited over new cultivars and varieties as others and want to see them perform well in garden settings. However, after trying many, many new introductions in the past few years, I have come to the conclusion that breeders (or many breeders) must not be trying their plants under tough conditions. Most of the new Echinacea I’ve tried are now on to bigger and better things in my compost pile, not having survived their first winter. The new Coreopsis have been no match for the staying power of my 10 year old Moonbeam. And while the new Baptisia are quite nice, their color has NOT been what I’ve seen in pictures from growers. So what’s a gardener to do? As a professor, I’m aware of the challenges of growers, retailers, landscapers and gardeners. I get that money needs to be made (anyone go into business NOT to make money?!). As a home gardener I will tell you I’ve become jaded. I want to see research from trial gardens all over the country, under all kinds of conditions so we can really honestly say that a plant has the ability to perform under ‘X’ conditions, but will not do well under ‘Y’ conditions. So we know what the ‘real’ height of plants are, so we know what insects and diseases they can acquire and so we know what kind of maintenance should be performed. I have many cultivars that are great plants, but are NOT the mature size stated on the tag. If my ‘dwarf’ Helenium is really 5′ tall, what in the world did the original look like?! Oh and Phlox ‘David’ gets powdery mildew so badly in my garden that it won’t flower this year. It’s coming out. Whose ‘fault’ are these issues? The grower who didn’t test the plants, the tag manufacturer who used Photoshop to ‘color-correct’ the image on the tag, the pathogen for possibly mutating and adapting, the retailer who might have mis-labeled the tag, or me, the gardener who didn’t know until it happened?
We will never convince non-plant people that our plants are good, if we know nothing about them and haven’t tested them. Agreed that money needs to be made, investments need to be covered. They need to perform at all stages: retailers won’t buy them if they don’t look good from wholesalers. Landscapers won’t buy them if they don’t look good on the lot AND in the ground. Designers don’t want them if the color isn’t what they thought. And non-plant people really don’t want fussy prima donnas in their gardens.
Keep up the good work reminding all of us about the different areas of horticulture that need to come together to get plants from breeders into gardens!
August 5th, 2010 at 4:56 am
Kudos to your Dr. (Laura) Deeter (I just love saying Dr. Deeter)! Also kudos to Angela…sorry I missed your comment from the other day. Both excellent additional points–trialing is supreme. And seriously, in this hyperconnected age, why would it be so difficult to setup comprehensive trials all over the country that could easily communicate results to each other, breeders, and ultimately end users. Too bad poor funding prohibits the best places for this kind of stuff (public universities with hort programs) from doing this….