Are you saying BBrooks should sacrifice their own self-interest in order to satisfy your self-interest?
Here's my understanding. Your interest is to maximize your profit. BBrooks' interest is the same; to maximize their profit.
Yet you are demanding BBrooks to remove one of their revenue source, i.e., asking them to reduce their profit. You are asking this, so that you would be able to earn more.
What I was saying is, if you say you are for the florists, then be for them, meaning 100%, not 90%.
You're talking about something very starnge here. BBrooks is a for-profit company, not a co-op of its member florists.
If they said they are "for the florists", it's probably just a figure of speech. It's like a florist saying we are "for" the customers, while trying to maximize the money we take from them.
You accuse BBrooks of being not on your side, because they gather orders on their site. But is it financially possible for BBrooks to keep providing sevices to YOU, without getting some kind of revenue in addition to the meager membership fees they are collecting?
Seriously, wth are you talking about??? She does make revenue off me. You love putting words and ideas into other people's mouths. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE MEMBERSHIP FEES!!!
I didn't know that they don't even have a membership fee. That's a refreshing concept. I should have researched more before I posted it, sorry.
My point wasn't clear the first time, so I will try it again (without shouting).
Most BBrook florists are there to make money off the membership (or save the money, same thing). At least that's my understanding. In turn, BBrook needs to provide the services attractive to these members, so that they (BBrooks), too, can make money off the members.
If the entire cost of providing these services can be covered by a % cut of orders sent/received, BBrooks does not need to gather orders to raise additional money. But if it's not enough, and if raising the % cut is not a viable option, they would need to gather orders.
Running a network of 100 florists is costly enough. If the number grows from 100 to, say, 500, the cost won't be simply 5-fold. It tends to become much more than that, because the complexity of a network grows exponentially with the size.
I have no idea what that has to do with what I said about her competing against her florists, so , ummmm thank you for letting us know that more overhead = most costs. /sigh
The point was not that "more overhead = most costs"; the point was that the expense of running a network grows
exponentially, not
linearly, with the size of the network. Expense for running a 500-member network is more than 5-times of that for a 100-member network.
On the other hand, revenue tends to grow
linearly, not
exponentially, with the size of a network. At the result, after a network reaches to a certain size, their expense becomes so massive that they can't sustain its own weight. Their revenue can't support it.
I was just guessing that, as BBrooks grew, they might have hit this level.