The Sourcing Theater Problem: Why "Direct Trade" Doesn't Mean What You Think

I went to Colombia in February for a sourcing trip with a roaster I respect — call him R., to keep the relationship intact. R. has been buying coffee directly from a network of producers in Huila for nine years. He pays meaningfully above the C-market price, has a quality bonus structure, and has built actual long-term relationships with three families whose names appear on the bags he sells back in the United States.

We sat with one of those producers, José, on the second day. José pulled out a folder of records — a sequence of contracts and payment records going back six years. R. had increased his per-pound price to José by 40% over that period. José had used the money to expand his washing station, send his daughter to university in Neiva, and acquire a half-hectare of additional land with a partner.

This is direct trade as it was meant to function. It is also, R. told me on the truck ride back to Pitalito, increasingly the exception in the industry rather than the rule.

What direct trade meant, originally

The term "direct trade" emerged in the early 2000s, championed by Counter Culture and Intelligentsia, as a deliberate alternative to commodity coffee economics. The model was simple and morally clear: instead of buying coffee through commodity exchanges (where producers receive whatever the C-market price is in any given week, with no quality premium), roasters would establish direct relationships with specific farms, pay quality-based premiums above commodity, and document the relationship publicly.

The implicit promise was three things: traceability (you know whose coffee you're drinking), price (the producer gets paid more than commodity), and partnership (the relationship is multi-year, not transactional).

For roughly a decade, direct trade did all three things. The roasters who pioneered the model — Counter Culture, Intelligentsia, Stumptown, Heart, La Cabra, Tim Wendelboe — were genuinely buying directly, paying genuinely above-commodity, and reinvesting in producer relationships year over year. Producers in countries like Colombia, Ethiopia, and Kenya saw real income gains as a result.

What changed

Three things, roughly simultaneously:

The term became unprotected and ubiquitous. Direct trade was never a certified label like Fair Trade or organic. It was a practice that some roasters described themselves as engaging in. By 2015, every specialty roaster claimed to be doing direct trade — including ones who were buying through importers, layering one or two transactions away from the farm, and paying premiums that, while above commodity, were modest.

The economics tightened. Specialty coffee margins compressed in the late 2010s as the cafe market saturated. Roasters under pressure to grow began lengthening their menus and shortening their relationships — buying spot lots from importers rather than committing to multi-year purchase agreements. The marketing language stayed; the sourcing practice changed.

Importers absorbed the function. Specialty importers (Cafe Imports, Royal NY, Olam Specialty, Sucafina) became increasingly sophisticated at pre-screening lots, building producer relationships on roasters' behalf, and offering "transparency packages" that included farm-level documentation. This was an improvement over commodity buying. It was also, functionally, a step removed from direct trade.

The result by 2022 was an industry where most "direct trade" roasters were buying mostly through importers, with occasional symbolic origin trips, paying quality premiums that varied widely. Some roasters still did direct trade in the traditional sense. Many described themselves as doing direct trade while functionally operating somewhere between direct and importer-mediated.

This is not necessarily bad. Importer-mediated buying with documented prices and farm names is a substantial improvement over commodity buying. But it is not what most consumers think they're buying when they pay $24 for a bag of "direct trade" coffee.

The price question

Let's talk about money for a moment, because it's the part most people don't have a clear picture of.

The C-market price for arabica in early 2026 is hovering around $1.85/lb. This is the price a producer receives, in cents, for raw green coffee delivered to the export point, before quality differentials. Most commodity-grade Brazilian or Vietnamese arabica trades at or near this level.

A specialty-grade Colombia, scoring 84+ on the SCA cupping scale, typically clears $3.00–$4.50/lb at FOB (free on board, the export-point price). This is the importer's purchase price; there's an additional markup before it reaches the roaster.

A "direct trade" Colombia, marketed by a US roaster as such, typically arrives at the roaster's warehouse at $5.50–$7.00/lb. The roaster then roasts, packages, and sells it for $20–$25 per 250g bag, which is roughly $36–$45/lb retail.

In R.'s case, with José, the price he pays at FOB is closer to $7.50/lb — meaningfully above what an importer-mediated direct trade transaction yields. R. then sells José's coffee at $24 per 250g bag, or about $43/lb retail. The producer captures a higher share of the retail price than the industry average.

The takeaway: a $24 bag of "direct trade" coffee from a high-integrity small roaster pays the producer meaningfully more than commodity. The same bag from a roaster using "direct trade" as a marketing term while sourcing through importers pays the producer somewhat more than commodity, but less than the consumer probably imagines.

The dollar difference between these two cases — at retail, both bags cost the consumer the same $24 — gets absorbed into the roaster's margin or distribution costs.

How to tell which kind you're buying

Read the bag. Specifically, look for these things:

Producer name. A roaster doing high-integrity sourcing will name the producer or the producer cooperative on the bag. Not a region, a specific name. "Finca La Esperanza, José Aguilar, Huila" is direct trade. "Colombia, Huila" is regional sourcing.

Lot information. Lot number, harvest date, processing details, screen size — these are easy to publish if you actually have them. A roaster who has only "Colombia" on the bag has nothing more specific to share.

Price transparency. Some roasters publish their FOB prices for each lot — what they paid the producer. Heart Roasters, La Cabra, and Tim Wendelboe have done this for years. Others have started. A bag with the FOB price printed on it is a strong signal of substantive direct trade. A bag without one might still be direct trade; might also be importer-mediated.

Origin trip documentation. Roasters who genuinely visit producers tend to write about it. Read the roaster's blog. Look for trip reports, photos, conversations with farmers. A roaster claiming direct trade who has never written about a sourcing trip might still be doing it; might also be using the term aspirationally.

Repeat lots. Direct trade is a multi-year relationship. A roaster who features the same producer year after year — same farm, same family, evolving lots — is doing direct trade. A roaster whose Colombia changes every season, with different producers each time, is buying the best lots they can find through importers, which is fine but isn't the same thing.

What I'd actually buy

If direct trade matters to you — and there are good reasons it might, including better cup quality and meaningful producer income — narrow your purchases to a few roasters who do it substantively. The list is shorter than the marketing implies.

Heart Roasters (Portland), La Cabra (Aarhus, distributing in the US), Tim Wendelboe (Oslo, distributing in the US), Onyx Coffee Lab (Arkansas), Coffee Collective (Copenhagen), and a small handful of others publish FOB prices, document their sourcing trips substantively, and feature producers across multiple harvests. Their coffee is more expensive — typically $26–$34 per 250g bag — but the producer gets a higher share of that.

If you're buying $20 "direct trade" bags from a chain or larger specialty roaster, you're getting a probably-good cup with probably-decent sourcing that's marketed harder than it's practiced. There's nothing wrong with this — the coffee is still good — but understand that the relationship you're paying a premium for might be a relationship the importer has, not the roaster.

Commodity-grade coffee, in turn, is mostly drinkable, frequently delicious, and pays the producer C-market prices. It's not direct trade. It's also not actively bad. The supermarket shelves have improved enormously in the last decade.

Why this matters

Direct trade as a marketing term isn't fraud. The roasters using it loosely are still doing some version of conscientious sourcing, and the coffee is generally good. The problem is more subtle: the consumer thinking they're paying a premium for producer income is sometimes paying a premium for a roaster's brand positioning, and the producer's share of that premium is smaller than the bag's prose suggests.

The fix isn't to denounce the industry. The fix is to be a better-informed consumer. Read the bag. Notice what's documented and what isn't. Know which roasters publish prices and which don't. Recognize that "direct trade" without specificity is a vibe, not a contract.

R. and José's relationship is the real version of this. Six years of records. A specific price progression. Concrete reinvestment in the farm. The bags I brought back from that trip will, when I drink them, taste like what direct trade was supposed to be. They cost more than the average $24 bag — closer to $30 — and that delta is the difference between buying a story and buying the practice.

---

The cup is the same regardless. The ledger isn't. If the producer's name is on the bag and the FOB price is published next to it, you're buying the practice. If neither is, you're probably buying the marketing.