Florist To Florist

[theRKF]

Recently one of the Facebook florist groups ran a poll (sponsored by a vendor) asking for input on three Florist to Florist sending questions, much like what Florists For Change has been doing. Interestingly, the Facebook poll showed a strong preference for retaining the status quo in 20% commission, paying commission on delivery fee and having the receiving florist bear the burden of transmission fees. The Florists For Change meetings showed a different preference, as alluded to by some of the Facebook comments.

When I suggested that the Facebook group might be a "different sample set" from the active and involved Florists For Change group, the gauntlet was thrown: Have FlowerChat run a poll.

So, here it is: Pick one from each section.

 

[anytimeflowers]

I'm going to tell how I voted because I want to influence others.

This is a far more complex issue than many florists seem to realize. My wager is on those votes from the other poll coming from florists who are comfortable with the status quo, and think that the only thing wrong with the ws model is the order-gatherers. They could not be more wrong. More and more people will do their shopping on line, and the dOG is already and will continue to circumvent florist to florist only options. They most assuredly, (as 1800 is already attempting), will create their own fulfillment centers across the continent.

One of the first rules of being successful as an affiliate is to steer clear of the non-profitable part. The non-profitable part in our new industry is the actual fulfillment. That's why 1800 bought the Flowerama franchise. Their franchisees will take all of the burden while 1800 will take all of the profit, Jim McCann is far from stupid. In addition, Flowerama employees already are pre-trained to do fast, full designs for cheap. The perfect combination.

That whole diatribe was simply to tell anybody wearing rose-colored glasses that unless the federal government gets involved and sees dOGs as doing business in detriment to the consumer, the dOGs will continue to thrive, they will not simply close up and go away.

However ~ if they are required to pay the florist a full, SANE delivery fee on top of a lower commission, they just might stop offering some of the really low-ball price-points that they do now. A higher sale means a higher commission.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE DOGS ARE NOT INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN A FLORIST TO FLORIST NETWORK.

I voted for zero commission on delivery fee. Florists typically don't make nearly enough of a profit, if any, on delivery as it is. To further take money away from it is crazy and not at all fair to the fulfilling florist. There should be a separate item for delivery, and it should be a standard $10. What's more, when that becomes a separate line item, those who are now charging a "service/delivery" fee will either have to charge a separate service fee and hope the consumer bites, or, they can be satisfied with the 10% commission they will already be getting.

I voted for a 10% sending commission - Enough remuneration for a florist to get something for their efforts, not enough to motivate anybody to gather. If there is not commission, I'm afraid a lot of florists would not be interested in joining.

I voted that the transmission fee should be paid by the sending florist. This will do two things. It will discourage order gathering, and it will encourage fulfilling florists to fill to value.

The only thing missing is a clearinghouse of some sort and perhaps that is included in the transmission fee. I absolutely refuse to open a bunch of new accounts for florists including getting their tax numbers on file and then hoping they pay me.

 

[Mikey the Flower Guy]

Linda...you're complicating things.....
1) 10% commission on the WHOLE order.....filling shop NEEDS to draw out whatever it "needs' to deliver
2) to "re-balance" and enable shop to shop "responsibilities" BOTH need to share the costs of transmission, and when the "shop" is SEND ONLY and CANNOT ALSO receive and fill orders, the ONUS MUST lay with the sending shop alone.
3) Commission-less orders WILL defeat the purpose of shop to shop sending, and would FAR rather see the SHOP that GETS the order GET a "standardized" finders fee for putting the customer DIRECTLY in touch with the fill shop, thus TOTALLY removing the need for ANY commissions, thus, death to the wire services of ANY kind!
4) 'Standard" deliveries would be great IF you serviced a local area, in which the parameters are distance based, NOT area based...we "service" OVER 1000 square kilometeres...many times 10 bux WON'T make accepting the order the LEAST bit "inviting"
5) One of Direct2Florists greatest weakness is ONE PRICE websites, many shops are "forced" to raise the web prices beyond the customer's perceived value, ESPECIALLY when we state that we 'service" that area, BUT, it's a fringe area, and the sender is NOT familiar with the delivery distances.

 

[jamie]

I just want a list of florists I can trust not to screw my customer because "She is all the way across the country. She won't be at the funeral"

 

[BOSS]

Hmmm... I was going to suggest a flat $12.95 delivery, no commission on delivery.

I did, and still do support 100/0% with the sender keeping their "service charge", and split the transmirrion cost like MASDirect does at $1.00 each...

 

[KABERS]

i just want a list of florists i can trust not to screw my customer because "she is all the way across the country. She won't be at the funeral"

amen!!!!!!!

 

[CHR]

I saw that FB poll and chuckled a bit. Wanna bet the percentages would have been wildly different if the question was posed about how much receiving florists should be paid?

My guess is the same florists who selected 20% outgoing commissions also want no commissions withheld from delivery and want to receive 80% of the order value.

To really have a clearer picture, incoming percentages for filling florists should have been included.

 

[anytimeflowers]

Linda...you're complicating things.....
1) 10% commission on the WHOLE order.....filling shop NEEDS to draw out whatever it "needs' to deliver
2) to "re-balance" and enable shop to shop "responsibilities" BOTH need to share the costs of transmission, and when the "shop" is SEND ONLY and CANNOT ALSO receive and fill orders, the ONUS MUST lay with the sending shop alone.
3) Commission-less orders WILL defeat the purpose of shop to shop sending, and would FAR rather see the SHOP that GETS the order GET a "standardized" finders fee for putting the customer DIRECTLY in touch with the fill shop, thus TOTALLY removing the need for ANY commissions, thus, death to the wire services of ANY kind!
4) 'Standard" deliveries would be great IF you serviced a local area, in which the parameters are distance based, NOT area based...we "service" OVER 1000 square kilometeres...many times 10 bux WON'T make accepting the order the LEAST bit "inviting"
5) One of Direct2Florists greatest weakness is ONE PRICE websites, many shops are "forced" to raise the web prices beyond the customer's perceived value, ESPECIALLY when we state that we 'service" that area, BUT, it's a fringe area, and the sender is NOT familiar with the delivery distances.

I understand the difference in delivery, Mikey. My delivery area is vast, 7 counties,almost 200 zip codes. My delivery charges vary from $8.00-$20.00 for standard delivery, no specified time. I just was trying to make the point that I think delivery charge should be a separate item, so that skimming is easier to detect.

I disagree about the standardized finder's fee UNLESS the consumer is sent directly to the filling shop. If senders were allowed a basic fee, they would not care what they were selling, they would get the same amount for a $30 order as they would for a $150 order and of course it's much easier to sell five $30 orders for five times the finder's fee.

As far as sharing of the transmission fee, or not, depending on whether the "shop" is send only or not, that seems like it would be more complicated. What about the hOGs like Kremps? I feel like they should pay full transmission fee since they are jumping in front of the consumer and getting in the middle.

 

[BOSS]

What about the hOGs like Kremps? I feel like they should pay full transmission fee since they are jumping in front of the consumer and getting in the middle.

I think their doorway pages should be eliminated or they should be cut off from the network...

 

[bootcampguy]

I think their doorway pages should be eliminated or they should be cut off from the network...

I think this is the biggest problem and needs to addressed first...............

 

[jamie]

I think this is the biggest problem and needs to addressed first...............

The only way to address that problem is litigation or convincing every florist in every town to stop filling orders for those shops. Which one do you think is going to be easier?

 

[bootcampguy]

Peace in the Middle east would be easier than any of those two......

 

[BOSS]

The only way to address that problem is litigation or convincing every florist in every town to stop filling orders for those shops. Which one do you think is going to be easier?

I'm not so sure it would be that hard. *IF* for instance, Florists For Change actually becomes a legal entity, with membership dues, voting rights and such, 'others' could be convinced to drop their deceptive ways in favor of moving forward ethically and in the best interest of both consumers and florists alike. Otherwise they may not have access to the new entity.

 

[BBJ (Big Bad John)]

I can't believe some of the numbers in the poll......
Why should the sending (transmission fee) be split? Most florists and OG's collect a service (sending handling fee) from their customer, and if they do the sending fee should come out of that income.
Also the delivery fee, it's part of the sale and the seller should get commission on it........having said that, the sellers should collect the going rate of 10 to 11 dollars per order and not like FTD and Teleflora 7 dollars.

 

[Hollywood]

Call us @ 1-800-676-9681, ask for Sherry or Henry.........we are the only one here.
We own, we buy, we take orders, we design, we deliver, either Sherry or Henry do it all.
We will be nice to you, because we want to be nice to you, your/our customers and ultimately doing this we will please ourselves too.
Check us out.................www.countryflorist.net
Satisfaction guaranteed to you, your customers, the receiving customer and us.
What more can you expect ?
A "win win" situation.
Because we want to be called "florists" and we want to stay in business we will please everybody all the time
Henry/Hollywood :jester

 

[Lizi]

1. Transmission fee is kept by sending florists.
2. Delivery charge is separate from floral order, receiver get entire amount.
3. Sending florists gets 10 % of order, receiving shop 90%.

Since transmission and delivery fees are separate, the flowers would be the only commissioned based item.

Its really simple, why does it have to be so complicated?

 

[keith]

One concern is the vast difference in the results from this poll and the one found online advertised by FR and SAF

 

[anytimeflowers]

Keith,

There is supposed to have been a new one sent out. I know for a fact neither Ryan nor I got the email with the survey, only the email saying that EZBloomers had sent one and saying Florist Review did not always share the same views. Supposedly FR sent out another several hours ago, I have not seen it yet but BigA says he got his. Florist's Review says they changed email providers and are blaming the snafu on them.

My point though is that it more than likely didn't come even close to hitting 8000 florists as purported, maybe not even any of them and only those who saw it on facebook participated.

 

[bootcampguy]

1. Transmission fee is kept by sending florists.
2. Delivery charge is separate from floral order, receiver get entire amount.
3. Sending florists gets 10 % of order, receiving shop 90%.

Since transmission and delivery fees are separate, the flowers would be the only commissioned based item.

Its really simple, why does it have to be so complicated?

Lizi, that's my vote!

 

[Mikey the Flower Guy]

I can't believe some of the numbers in the poll......
Why should the sending (transmission fee) be split? Most florists and OG's collect a service (sending handling fee) from their customer, and if they do the sending fee should come out of that income.
Also the delivery fee, it's part of the sale and the seller should get commission on it........having said that, the sellers should collect the going rate of 10 to 11 dollars per order and not like FTD and Teleflora 7 dollars.

IF both "pay" both are "engaged".....IF ONLY ONE pays, on EITHER side, then either BOTH are at fault, or NEITHER is at fault!! 90% commission to the seller, TOTAL.....we'll NEVER agree on "appropriate" delivery standards, so make 10.95, or 11.95, or 12.95 the "standard" and quit dicking around!
The "service fee" IF you charge one, is between THE SELLER and THE CUSTOMER at the order origins!
You're allowed 3 STRIKES and OUT a year.......wipes out ANY participation by OG's...and crappy fill shops!!
You cannot jump in and out like many shops have done in the past...you SIGN a contract, you HONOUR the contract...no more whining about "I didn't know, or didn't read it!!"
WE have ONE CHANCE to "professionalize", or, it's over, we're done....NOBODY'S opinion will matter if many more shops evaporate......we CAN do this, or WE CAN'T....two simple possibilities.....