Are WS-free florists really more profitable?
- Thread starter Joe Mioux
- Start date
- Status
hollyflr
Well-Known Member
Estelle,
I am using my husband's pilfered Canon PowerShot S400, sometimes natural, sometimes halogen lighting, and Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0. I am not a photographer!!!!
Susan
I am using my husband's pilfered Canon PowerShot S400, sometimes natural, sometimes halogen lighting, and Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0. I am not a photographer!!!!
Susan
Thank you to you both for your replies
Susan you might not be but well done!!
Randy you said
natural lighting, a canon digital rebel and Adobe Photoshop 7.0
I think thats the Canon EOS400d over here a digital SLR.
I ve just invested in a Nikon D80 SLR which is similar to the eos400d.
Just looked at your web site very nice!!.
thanks again.
Sorry, but how did you do that??? For 12 pages you have a discussion concerning or questioning profitability and then without any notice you start talking about photo quality and then tulips and then prices of tulips. Maybe you should talk about FOCUSING the camera next because you sure have trouble focusing on any ONE subject.
Yes, 100% agree! Randy, with out any doubt, has the BEST photography. Can't imagine why florists haven't been willing to have him take the pictures and have florists buy them from him rather than paying a WS for less quality.
jUST A QUICK MINUTE to talk about profitability again and you guys can take this thread anywhere you wish.
Joe asked for a "real world" example of profitabilty for florists without WS and it is unlikely you can find REAL examples as the vast majority of florists on these boards are still connected to WS. I can say from personnal experience that there isn't any magic formula or computer program that I know of that will tell you in advance of leaving a WS just how much more profit you will experience after the fact. However, people like Jerry or the gentleman from Florida are not whistling in the wind when they contend that their business is more healthier without the WS. I can't do this without numbers so please bear with me.
From all the discussions on this subject, most seem to think that they can't afford to be without a WS because of the profitability of the sending side. However, some of the comments on this thread point out that in some cases the commission earned may or may not be sufficient to even offset the monthly dues and fees anymore. Instead, let's focus on the receiving side for a minute and yes, here comes the numbers.
As an example, a florist buys $600 worth of flowers, supplies and containers and then arranges 48 different floral arrangements. They are all priced at $50 each. This translates to $600 worth of flowers and supplies with a 3 time mark up ($1800 selling) plus $600 in labor to arrange and all 48 arrangements were delivered locally at $10 delivery charge. Total sales comes to $2880.
Another florist tries to do the same thing but with ONE exception. He buys the same $600 worth of product with the same labor and same delivery charge, but 43 orders are full value like the first florist and 5 orders are wire ins. This florist will also be able to show on his books a total sales of $2880. However, he will also have to pay out approx. $81.20 in commissions. This second florist in now $81.20 LESS profitability than the first!
I suspect the reason why florists can't really pin point why they are more profitable after leaving a WS is because no two days, weeks or months are the same to compare to. A florist without a WS will send OUT the same number of orders as before, but most likely without the 20% commission and rebates. Your profit on outbound orders is the sending fee. As anyone can also tell you, once you have left the WS, your incoming will be almost non-existent. That's fine. This translates to less flowers purchased, less designer and delivery labor , less gas and less wear and tear on the vehicles. YES, your annual sales will be less based on lack of incoming, but as the above example shows, you should be more profitable.
Now you guys can high jack this thread in any direction you wish. I doubt if Joe will ever be convinced, but I didn't get involved in the subject to try and convince him. Any florist has to decide for themselves and I really dislike the same old myths being used time and time again to convince florists that they can't survive without a BIG BROTHER!
Yes, 100% agree! Randy, with out any doubt, has the BEST photography. Can't imagine why florists haven't been willing to have him take the pictures and have florists buy them from him rather than paying a WS for less quality.
jUST A QUICK MINUTE to talk about profitability again and you guys can take this thread anywhere you wish.
Joe asked for a "real world" example of profitabilty for florists without WS and it is unlikely you can find REAL examples as the vast majority of florists on these boards are still connected to WS. I can say from personnal experience that there isn't any magic formula or computer program that I know of that will tell you in advance of leaving a WS just how much more profit you will experience after the fact. However, people like Jerry or the gentleman from Florida are not whistling in the wind when they contend that their business is more healthier without the WS. I can't do this without numbers so please bear with me.
From all the discussions on this subject, most seem to think that they can't afford to be without a WS because of the profitability of the sending side. However, some of the comments on this thread point out that in some cases the commission earned may or may not be sufficient to even offset the monthly dues and fees anymore. Instead, let's focus on the receiving side for a minute and yes, here comes the numbers.
As an example, a florist buys $600 worth of flowers, supplies and containers and then arranges 48 different floral arrangements. They are all priced at $50 each. This translates to $600 worth of flowers and supplies with a 3 time mark up ($1800 selling) plus $600 in labor to arrange and all 48 arrangements were delivered locally at $10 delivery charge. Total sales comes to $2880.
Another florist tries to do the same thing but with ONE exception. He buys the same $600 worth of product with the same labor and same delivery charge, but 43 orders are full value like the first florist and 5 orders are wire ins. This florist will also be able to show on his books a total sales of $2880. However, he will also have to pay out approx. $81.20 in commissions. This second florist in now $81.20 LESS profitability than the first!
I suspect the reason why florists can't really pin point why they are more profitable after leaving a WS is because no two days, weeks or months are the same to compare to. A florist without a WS will send OUT the same number of orders as before, but most likely without the 20% commission and rebates. Your profit on outbound orders is the sending fee. As anyone can also tell you, once you have left the WS, your incoming will be almost non-existent. That's fine. This translates to less flowers purchased, less designer and delivery labor , less gas and less wear and tear on the vehicles. YES, your annual sales will be less based on lack of incoming, but as the above example shows, you should be more profitable.
Now you guys can high jack this thread in any direction you wish. I doubt if Joe will ever be convinced, but I didn't get involved in the subject to try and convince him. Any florist has to decide for themselves and I really dislike the same old myths being used time and time again to convince florists that they can't survive without a BIG BROTHER!
Hi Griff.
thanks for the post.
Here is one point that I want to make. In your first example there are 48 orders, in your second there is 43 direct and 5 WS.
However, if you are non WS, you will onlye receive 43. so does those 5 extra discounted orders add to or take away from overall profitability.
I am dog-dead tired and I don't want to think to much on this one, but I just finished reading your post and wanted to throw my thoughts out there.
Again, thanks for posting
Joe
P.S. I just looked at my Visual Ticket yearly graphs and for the first three months of '07 I am a whopping 100pct down on inbound wires.
Outbounds are the same as the previous years.
thanks for the post.
Here is one point that I want to make. In your first example there are 48 orders, in your second there is 43 direct and 5 WS.
However, if you are non WS, you will onlye receive 43. so does those 5 extra discounted orders add to or take away from overall profitability.
I am dog-dead tired and I don't want to think to much on this one, but I just finished reading your post and wanted to throw my thoughts out there.
Again, thanks for posting
Joe
P.S. I just looked at my Visual Ticket yearly graphs and for the first three months of '07 I am a whopping 100pct down on inbound wires.
Outbounds are the same as the previous years.
RC in Dayton and Cincinnati
New Member
Joe,
If you are down 100% on incoming wires for the first three months of 07, you've filled zero wire orders.
If you are down 100% on incoming wires for the first three months of 07, you've filled zero wire orders.
AAAA.....hhhhhhhhhh...............
how about a 50 pct decrease in inbounds.....
I stand corrected!
I have had a massive Easter Lily Pollen headache for the past two weeks.
so for my penance, a math lesson.
Here is as an example for percentage growth and reduction. Say you earn $20 one year and $10 the next. take the difference between the 2 numbers which is 10 and divide it by the original earnings of $20 to equal a 50 pct reduction.
Conversely, say in year one, you earn $10 and year 2, $20. Now the difference is still $10, but you must divide by the original number of $10. so in thise example, one experiences a 100 pct rate of growth.
I got it backwards.
thanks randy for keeping me honest.
Joe
Frank
New Member
Randy, I like Griff's idea! Your photos are so professional, some of the very best I have seen on flower shop websites. You see, one of the BIGGEST detriments to we retail florists putting our own pictures on our webpages is the lack of professional quality photos. It is terribly difficult to shoot, then use software to re-do the images so that they look half as good as Oberer's photos. Do you have a professional photographer on staff? We would be willing to buy some of your photos. I am sure many others would to.
What do you think? Maybe you are the "White Knight" our industry has been looking for?
RC in Dayton and Cincinnati
New Member
Frank,
Thanks for the kind words.
My plate is pretty full already, but maybe this summer after the holidays are over I'll take you up on your offer.
Thanks for the kind words.
My plate is pretty full already, but maybe this summer after the holidays are over I'll take you up on your offer.
You know this is a good idea. There are alot of professional florists that have strengths and weaknesses.
Photography, website development, wrapping pot, etc.
During the Summer months, maybe we all ought to put our collaborative thinking caps on and maybe do some sort website development program for us website developmentally challenged.
Joe
Eric S
Demoted Webmaster
BOSS
FlowerChat Administrator
Regarding Images... I think there is good interest, and a GREAT NEED to do something that would generate images for use that are non-WS related.
What works for one set of shop, not always works for another set, but the ability to pick and choose what represents your shop is the way to go.
It appears right now that John Henry will not have an everyday catalog available for some time, not sure, just my gut feeling, as there was no response to my recent inquiry regarding the same.
One key I feel is that those who *take* images should be *required* to contribute images.
More on this after the Mother of all Days!
What works for one set of shop, not always works for another set, but the ability to pick and choose what represents your shop is the way to go.
It appears right now that John Henry will not have an everyday catalog available for some time, not sure, just my gut feeling, as there was no response to my recent inquiry regarding the same.
One key I feel is that those who *take* images should be *required* to contribute images.
More on this after the Mother of all Days!
- Status