Bbrookes second tier membership?

[theflowershop]

I have been a member now for close to a year. They are very nice to deal with and the florist that are members are awsome. The money you get for orders makes for a beautiful arrangement. No carns, no fillers they want more focal flowers designed together. Low Lush arrangements. Love em!!

 

[CheBella]

We've been bbrooks members for 6 years and we love them. Always great to deal with and the member florists are the best - both in style and quality, as well as, expectation. And the fees are minimal - if you tired of getting gouged by the big boys - i suggest you pay them a visit.

www.bbrooks.com

Cheers

 

[Joe Mioux]

I just re-read this thread and no one ever answered my question.

The title of this thread is BBrooks second tier membership program.

Are the commissions charged the same as traditional WS commissions, i.e. 80/20-7pct?

what are the member fees with this secondary tier.

and why is their a second tier?

thanks joe

 

[Mark Anderson]

Hey Joe,

I don't know much about the fees but I do know a little bit about the "why a second tier" part.

Calling it a second tier is a bit of a disservice because it implies that the shops included are not as good as the shops in the original service. That is not the intent - shops in the offshoot service still must be very good shops that go through an approval process. More are turned away than are accepted.

The offshoot service was created in recognition of the fact that there are many, many good shops in smaller and/or less affluent markets that could not meet the minimum order value standards of the original service. It was also not practical for these shops to carry the minimum inventory of expensive exotics that members of the original incarnation are expected to have on hand at all times.

So the new offshoot service allows shops in smaller towns and with lower average order values enjoy the benefits of belonging to the service without having to tie up a fortune in expensive exotics.

Thanks!

 

[Joe Mioux]

thanks mark,

i can understand and appreciate those issues.

joe

 

[CHR]

Joe -

These numbers have been published here at least a couple times in the past, but here goes again.

Monthly membership - $0 for shops that send a minimum of 10 orders valued at an average of $100 each. Otherwise, the monthly fee is $50. Period.

Send shop earns 16% of outgoing flower order value, 0% on delivery charge value when a florist uses the BBrooks online interface to place an order. 10% if it's called in or faxed in.

Receiving shop gets paid 72% of flower order value and 100% of delivery charge value (which is a higher net than any of the Big 3 WSs).

No monthly sending system technology fees.
No receiving fees.
No reporting fees.
No membership directory fees.
No also-served-by fees.
No zip code listing fees.
No Quality Assurance fees.

Shops can appear in the directory for all the zips they serve and display their minimum & local delivery charges by each zip.

I agree with Mark, calling the BB too shops '2nd tier' isn't accurate. In looking at the members in our area, they all do very, very nice work.

 

[CHR]

IMO, one of the very best parts of being in B Brooks is that none of the company dollars go to reward dOGs that prey on the general public by pretending to be placed they aren't and showing things they know they can't get delivered 'as shown' at the prices sent to local florists.

The incentives are all geared toward selling & delivering high quality in-stock flowers - and not recreating recipes or using deceptive product images in hopes the senders never see what's delivered.

 

[Mark Anderson]

IMO, one of the very best parts of being in B Brooks is that none of the company dollars go to reward dOGs that prey on the general public by pretending to be placed they aren't and showing things they know they can't get delivered 'as shown' at the prices sent to local florists.

The incentives are all geared toward selling & delivering high quality in-stock flowers - and not recreating recipes or using deceptive product images in hopes the senders never see what's delivered.

Exactly! And if you're interested in sending you have access to complete coverage. You probably won't get a ton of incoming orders but what you do get will be...

a. ...from a real florist (and a good one)
b. ...of decent value

 

[Joe Mioux]

Joe -

These numbers have been published here at least a couple times in the past, but here goes again.

I have never seen anything posted about the small market BB commission schedule. This is why I asked.

Monthly membership - $0 for shops that send a minimum of 10 orders valued at an average of $100 each. Otherwise, the monthly fee is $50. Period.

Send shop earns 16% of outgoing flower order value, 0% on delivery charge value when a florist uses the BBrooks online interface to place an order. 10% if it's called in or faxed in.

Receiving shop gets paid 72% of flower order value and 100% of delivery charge value (which is a higher net than any of the Big 3 WSs).

Cathy, i hope you don't mind me using an example, but I am trying to see how BBrooks is a better alternative from what florists use now. Please bare with me.

Say you have a $100 order and you need it sent to me. You order via BBrooks which in turn will use Teleflora to contact me. For the example lets say my delivery fee is $10.

You get $14.40 in commissions (16 pct of $90), now BBrooks retransmits the order to me via TF. I get $73 ($100/20-7pct split).
I received an order from them last week and there was no breaking out the commission on the delivery and the product. My order was a straight $85 order so TF commissions apply, not BBrooks rules.

Let's look at BBrooks revenue. You keep $14.40, BB gets $5.60 net commissions ($20 TFcoms- $14.40 BB coms), the delivery gets folded back into the $100 order when BB transmits the order to me via TF.

Now, I would imagine BB rebates are a lot larger than mine, so what would they be? $6-$8 per order--- I don't know - just guessing.

So my question is I don't really see any incentive for you to send via BB if you are going to receive a smaller commission.

Wouldn't it be better to just go F2F?

No monthly sending system technology fees.
No receiving fees.
No reporting fees.
No membership directory fees.
No also-served-by fees.
No zip code listing fees.
No Quality Assurance fees.

Shops can appear in the directory for all the zips they serve and display their minimum & local delivery charges by each zip.

Those are good points, and something that needs to be considered. However, if BB is getting a $50 month membership fee from a small shop that can not make the min 10 order $1000 minmum )and collecting up to an extra $56 (minmum $1000 per month sending) some of those traditional WS costs are offset by BB's in/out commission differential.

It seems that BB is making up for some of their costs with the rebates from TF. Y/N?


joe

 

[Mark Anderson]

Hey Joe,

I think you're right that there probably is some rebate revenue for them but the funny thing is that in their eyes they would probably rather have none of it and keep 100% of orders within their own network.

This is just my opinion but I believe that for most florists chasing a lot of incoming wires is a mistake. I know there are shops that can make it work but in general I really do believe that most shops have little to gain by seeking out incoming.

But there are many shops that wish to be able to relay orders as a service for their customers. Direct sending is definitely an option, but many shops feel it's cumbersome. There is also the concern that there is little if any quality control - you don't always know who you are sending too and if they mess it up there is little recourse.

For a shop like this bbrooks is a great fit - they get to deal with goods shops and their is a quality control mechanism. They also get easy relay and a commission. As we have seen here many florists who send direct and ask for a commission are likely to get refused and quite possibly abused!

So in my way of looking at things you're getting the benefit of convenient sending, quality control, sending commission and total coverage for a maximum fixed cost of $50 a month. As a side benefit you might get some decent incoming wires - it's funny but sometimes shops who have given up on incoming get interested again when the value is decent and the design is interesting.

I think a lot of it depends on your philosophy towards wire services and sending. I read all you posts and think I know a little about how you feel about the services and I'm glad they are working for you. And it's safe to say that bbrooks doesn't really fit in with that philosophy. But for shops that have a different approach to order relay it can be a great fit.

I know I'm sounding like a shill for them but I really like what they and some of the other newer alternative services are doing.


P.S. I'm just asking because I get fuzzy on this stuff but wouldn't the kind of small shop that you mentioned also be subject to low-sending charges and/or ineligible for rebates anyway?

 

[Joe Mioux]

Mark, the only thing that I might disagree with you on is that whenever BB needs to send an order out to a non BB -TF shop, the quality advantage that is promoted by BB is potentially compromised.

joe

 

[Joe Mioux]

and you are correct.

The WS business is a balancing act between too many orders and too few orders.

it is a balancing act: receiving enough oder but not letting the fixed costs and variable costs associated with wire order offset the profit and receiving too few orders where the member costs erode the profit.

 

[Mark Anderson]

Mark, the only thing that I might disagree with you on is that whenever BB needs to send an order out to a non BB -TF shop, the quality advantage that is promoted by BB is potentially compromised.

joe

Agreed! Which is why I think that they would gladly forego any rebate revenue in favor of having complete coverage by their own member shops.

But - it's still more quality control than a shop would get by blindly going direct and as good as what they would get with a wire service membership.

 

[Mark Anderson]

and you are correct.

The WS business is a balancing act between too many orders and too few orders.

it is a balancing act: receiving enough oder but not letting the fixed costs and variable costs associated with wire order offset the profit and receiving too few orders where the member costs erode the profit.

Hey Joe,

I know you have figured out how to make it work. The ones that break my heart (and we have seen them on here) are the ones that say:

"Retail sales are down so I'm going to join service X, service Y and service Z."

and/or

"Outgoing wires are bad! If I'm writing a check to the wire service then something is broken."

I hear both of these kinds of statements on a regular basis. It's hard not to worry about those shops.

BTW - this is why these ws discussions make me uncomfortable. I worry that people who are not in a position to make ws memberships work read posts by shops that can and do (established reciprocal relationships, good outgoing volume, smart buying, etc.) and think "hey, if it works for them it will work for me! And if one service is good then two must be better and with three I'll be laughing all the way to the bank!"

 

[Joe Mioux]

BTW - this is why these ws discussions make me uncomfortable. I worry that people who are not in a position to make ws memberships work read posts by shops that can and do (established reciprocal relationships, good outgoing volume, smart buying, etc.) and think "hey, if it works for them it will work for me! And if one service is good then two must be better and with three I'll be laughing all the way to the bank!"

And that is why, i speak out so much about this part of the business.

The conventional wisdom has been WS are money losers for florists.

That isn't necessarily true and that is why I am so vocal about showing shops that WS can - sometimes - make a shop more money.

joe

 

[Rhonda]

I am one of those (whose financials show wire services are a losing proposition and has had ws reps repeat that same phrase) which is why I am chosing to go ws free for now but looking into other ways to network with florists and be able to choose a florist who will do a good job for my customers who wish to send out! If it is through bbrooks whose members are "screened" by a portfolio of their work, so be it. I take horrible pictures but my work is well, I do good work. I'm well schooled. I keep options open with IFA and ClearRoot too.

 

[CHR]

I have never seen anything posted about the small market BB commission schedule. This is why I asked.

Sorry. The BB too fees are the same as the B Brooks fees AFAIK.

Wouldn't it be better to just go F2F?

Then we would miss out on the
1) convenience of being able to place orders 24/7
2) the ease of not dealing with sales tax with florists we don't know
3) B Brooks member site which has a small portfolio from each shop and a link to their website to see what they really do and what how their general prices ranges fall.

if BB is getting a $50 month membership fee from a small shop that can not make the min 10 order $1000 minmum )and collecting up to an extra $56 (minmum $1000 per month sending) some of those traditional WS costs are offset by BB's in/out commission differential.

TF's published minimum monthly fees add up to around $300 (Dues, Dove, QA) for an approx. cost of $3600 annually. For a shop with an average outgoing order of $50 and a $3/order rebate, they would need to send 277 orders annually to break even.

For a shop receiving an average incoming order from TF of $50, and netting appox. $10 to overhead, the store needs to make and deliver 360 orders - $18,000 - to break even on just the fees.

For B Brooks' monthly fee of $50 ($600 anually) a shop with an average outgoing order of just $50 (and that would be a very low average for BB) would need to send just 75 orders the entire year to break even.

It should be really clear that the receiving side is far, far more advantageous, too.

It seems that BB is making up for some of their costs with the rebates from TF.

Quite possibly.

Mark, the only thing that I might disagree with you on is that whenever BB needs to send an order out to a non BB -TF shop, the quality advantage that is promoted by BB is potentially compromised.
joe

Hasn't been an issue for us. They have a preferred list of non-BB members. We were on it and received orders from them via TF for years - until we joined.

 

[Joe Mioux]

Cathy,

WS fees are negotiable.

Small market fees are different from large market fees.

I don't pay more than $99 per month, if it goes up and "they" don't negotiate with me, I will leave.

I did it with FTD and I will do it with TF.

FTD total cost with Merc, no reciprocity, no low sending fees, no quality assurance fees, no any other ancillary fees.... $84.95 per month.

joe

 

[Joe Mioux]

Rhetorical question: Will BB ever become the size of TF?

If not, then it will be a small network of florists - what maybe 2000-3000 shops. If the network is that size, then its members will be dependent on a large WS such as TF.

I really don't want my next sentence to come across the wrong way. Please consider the sincerity and honest curiosity that I have for this discussion.

If BB needs TF, the same way 800 needed FTD and TF to fill orders, then how is BB different from the early days of 800?

The only difference I see is that the orders are being funneled through flower shops rather than being directly marketed to the consumer the way 800 did back in the 1980's.

thank you
joe

 

[CHR]

FTD total cost with Merc, no reciprocity, no low sending fees, no quality assurance fees, no any other ancillary fees.... $84.95 per month.

No per order receiving fees?

At any rate, not having to triage the sending system output to filter out the undersold, over-promised orders, especially from dOGs is a sheer joy, too.

If not, then it will be a small network of florists - what maybe 2000-3000 shops. If the network is that size, then its members will be dependent on a large WS such as TF.

1-800 uses TF right now for areas where it has no coverage. FTD skims the orders in areas where they have no coverage. No WS has 100% coverage of the US.

If BB needs TF, the same way 800 needed FTD and TF to fill orders, then how is BB different from the early days of 800?

BB has been around for more than a decade and the only similarity I see is both 1-800 & BB offer flower delivery to consumers via affiliates. After that, there's little similarity in marketing, niches & treatment of and respect for local florist affiliates.