About EXCESS CAPACITY vs BREAK EVEN POINT
This is not staying within the guide lines Joe wants for discussion of his thread, but I sincerely believe it is impossible to discuss it with Joe's guidelines. So . . . . .
If design labor for a period is covered at the break even point by filling 100% local orders, can't discounted orders be profitable because the labor has already been paid?
The problem is that the break even point is always changing. One really has to look at a period of time, like 1 week, 1 month or 1 year, not 1 order.
We had a fast funeral order a couple weeks ago [I wrote about it on www.fairviewblog.com] that amounted to $1250 and the labor that it took to complete it was less than 3 hours. My labor cost for that day would have been the same without that $1250 sale.
If discounted orders come in and can get filled with labor that has already been covered by local orders, then it is a benefit to get incoming wire orders.
On the contrary, there are days when local orders don't come anywhere near covering the labor factor. Anything would be better than nothing whenthe expense is going to be there anyway. Hence the need to study labor to sales ratios over a period of 1 week, 1 month or 1 year. One certainly cannot look at it on an order-by-order basis.
Said another way:
When sales decline, labor does not decline proportionately at the same time.
When sales increase, employees step up to the plate and labor does not increase propotionately, just like the day I had that $1250 funeral order.
I think that the whole mess comes about because the Wire Services have allowed "Sending Only Members" who feed on rebates. When it was just commissions, the OGs were not around. Either the rebates brought in the OGs or changes in technologies made it easy for them to operate.
Wouldn't the whole WS issue go away if there were no "Sending Only Members"? Now I need to get back to work on getting more sales in the door.
Tom Carlson
Oh, I see Joe,
Accept incoming wire orders during the slow summer months, but reject during all holidays.
I like that plan!
This is not staying within the guide lines Joe wants for discussion of his thread, but I sincerely believe it is impossible to discuss it with Joe's guidelines. So . . . . .
If design labor for a period is covered at the break even point by filling 100% local orders, can't discounted orders be profitable because the labor has already been paid?
The problem is that the break even point is always changing. One really has to look at a period of time, like 1 week, 1 month or 1 year, not 1 order.
We had a fast funeral order a couple weeks ago [I wrote about it on www.fairviewblog.com] that amounted to $1250 and the labor that it took to complete it was less than 3 hours. My labor cost for that day would have been the same without that $1250 sale.
If discounted orders come in and can get filled with labor that has already been covered by local orders, then it is a benefit to get incoming wire orders.
On the contrary, there are days when local orders don't come anywhere near covering the labor factor. Anything would be better than nothing whenthe expense is going to be there anyway. Hence the need to study labor to sales ratios over a period of 1 week, 1 month or 1 year. One certainly cannot look at it on an order-by-order basis.
Said another way:
When sales decline, labor does not decline proportionately at the same time.
When sales increase, employees step up to the plate and labor does not increase propotionately, just like the day I had that $1250 funeral order.
I think that the whole mess comes about because the Wire Services have allowed "Sending Only Members" who feed on rebates. When it was just commissions, the OGs were not around. Either the rebates brought in the OGs or changes in technologies made it easy for them to operate.
Wouldn't the whole WS issue go away if there were no "Sending Only Members"? Now I need to get back to work on getting more sales in the door.
Tom Carlson