Florist To Florist

[duanermb]

I still maintain that the fault of the system lies in filling to value on an order that is gathered and priced at a remote location. The sending florist should be required to SELL the customer on what they are going to do for them. It's far too easy to just take an order and send it out for a known commission.

1. Sending florist takes an order for flowers for X dollars plus, or including delivery, it really doesn't matter.
2. They had better have allowed for profit for themselves and a reasonable amount for filling and delivery.
3. The order is being placed with the sending florist for sub-contracting to another florist to fill.
4. Whatever the filling florist is willing to do for the sender is what defines the final outcome.
5. X-Y=Fill to Value
6. If the sending florist (OG/dOG, whatever) is greedy, then Y is going to get them something unacceptable to THEIR customer.
7. It's the responsibility of the sender to make sure that the order is filled to value, not the filler.

X-Y=Z

If Z=a dollar amount that is correct for the filler/sender/customer then everybody wins.

In this scenario, it really doesn't matter what the numbers are. Its just good business.

If I can sell my customer a dozen vased roses for $100 and can call out to get that filled nicely for $70 delivered, I am going to keep the $30, because I made the sale. (30%) If I can only get that done for $90 delivered, then I keep $10. (10%) It's a much more controlled way to deal with your own customer. Maybe you take $0 on an order to please a good client.

The florist who fills is getting their 100% and the customer should be happy if I chose a good florist, which is MY problem, not theirs.

So I vote:

0% commission for the sender for product or delivery

The transmission fee should be paid by the filling florist. Orders don't just grow on trees and the sender has done their part in gathering the order for you. Small price to pay for a nice order.

Do I think this will ever happen on a widespread basis, no. But, if you have received an order from me personally over the phone on a holiday this is what happened.

 

[CHR]

Duane -

That is one of the best explanations of the WS issue I've ever read. THANK YOU.

Not sure I agree with zero commission to the seller, but the key points about top-down pricing are right on.

The costs of flowers, costs of staff, costs of delivery and costs of overhead varies so greatly across North America, offering a single price for an item delivered 'anywhere' is a ridiculous expectation.

 

[duanermb]

Not sure I agree with zero commission to the seller, but the key points about top-down pricing are right on.

I know, most don't. And thanks! But,

What the commission crew isn't understanding is that as in other markets where actual SELLING occurs, you can demand greater $ for your work than 10, 20 or even 30% while still providing the same value for your customer. The reasons I hate commissions are based on the above statements and mostly the fact that without commissions, the order is between me and my customer ONLY!

I have complete control over what I do for my shop without commissions. You are my sub-contractor, work for me and if I make poor decisions that is my fault.

You do realize what commission means. It means you have gathered an order for someone else and are paid a finders fee, and then on this basis you are putting your customer in the hands of someone else.

We all say, "I provide that service for my customer". Well, then do that. Take the order on a buy and fill basis, have it filled using another florist and get the job done right, with money in it for all and happy customers.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

 

[BOSS]

Spot on Duane!

 

[conchandler]

Duane, I wish we could all live in this FAIREST of worlds that you describe.
Since I relay orders, for the most part, through FSN, I receive a 20% commission and pay a relay fee of $3.99. In this world, I do not collect a service fee from my customer, because I believe I am amply paid for my service with the commission I will receive.
As I read this thread, I think some are confusing the transmission (or relay) fee with the service fee that they may or may not charge their customer on top of the item price + delivery.
I like Duane's scenario, and in that world, I would make sure I was compensated for my time.

 

[GlendaleFlowers]

I like the idea of no commission on the delivery charge, except that makes the whole thing more complicated. The sending florist does bear some cost in obtaining the order including ridiculous CC fees and charges if the customer pays with a card. That alone can run about 4% of the sale. If we limit the commission splits to 90/10 the sending florist will earn only 6 to 7% on the order if the customer uses a card. Something to think about there. And...when the customer pays with a CC, the CC companies do not omit their fees on delivery charges.

As for a wire transfer fee or fulfillment fee - why??? Why do we still need them at all? Does it really cost money to use a transmission service in this modern age? Beyond whatever we pay in our monthly fees? If so, then the sending florist should pay and should be able to charge his/her customer whatever the actual cost to transmit the order might be. The poor filling florist never has a chance to ask for that fee nor to decide to waive it. Just saying...the power to secure the order at full value lies with the sending florist. They control the order and should be responsible for collecting any valid associated fees. IMHO

 

[PhillyPhlorist]

My first post and login on FC in - oh about - 2 years, as this is SUCH a hot-button topic.

Looks like I'm thinking along the lines of many of you, with the exception of the transmission fee. Chances are the sender is collecting some sort of wire out fee, service charge, etc. and should fork up the total $$$ for the transmission fee. By ALL means, it should NOT come out of the filler. I've hated FTO ever since it was introduced as I could see it moving all the cost to the filler waaay back when. Here we are today.

Unfortunately, I do not see any of this doing any good with regards to the big 3 wire services. They are for-profit companies, and will do as they please. Sure - if they don't have member florists to fill their order, they're done. But too many (florists) are reluctant to drop a wire service just because they don't agree with their commission, fees, what have you. They need that incremental biz to keep afloat. (me - as stated multiple times here on FC, I use a w/s as a business tool, not to be a "filler")
However......if a movement like FFC makes a dent, then maybe - just maybe - someone will take notice at the big 3 and something MIGHT change. No matter how you look at it, it will be a "majority of florists participate or nothing will happen" result to all of this...and all of this could take years to complete. But, we have to start somewhere. The real challenge will to keep the movement going.

- Herb Rothe 3rd.
Philadelphia

 

[bootcampguy]

My first post and login on FC in - oh about - 2 years, as this is SUCH a hot-button topic.

Looks like I'm thinking along the lines of many of you, with the exception of the transmission fee. Chances are the sender is collecting some sort of wire out fee, service charge, etc. and should fork up the total $$$ for the transmission fee. By ALL means, it should NOT come out of the filler. I've hated FTO ever since it was introduced as I could see it moving all the cost to the filler waaay back when. Here we are today.

Unfortunately, I do not see any of this doing any good with regards to the big 3 wire services. They are for-profit companies, and will do as they please. Sure - if they don't have member florists to fill their order, they're done. But too many (florists) are reluctant to drop a wire service just because they don't agree with their commission, fees, what have you. They need that incremental biz to keep afloat. (me - as stated multiple times here on FC, I use a w/s as a business tool, not to be a "filler")
However......if a movement like FFC makes a dent, then maybe - just maybe - someone will take notice at the big 3 and something MIGHT change. No matter how you look at it, it will be a "majority of florists participate or nothing will happen" result to all of this...and all of this could take years to complete. But, we have to start somewhere. The real challenge will to keep the movement going.

- Herb Rothe 3rd.
Philadelphia

Herb, Very true, they are for profit companies and the 15K independent florist are also for profit companies. I see coverage getting the best of them by next year, so that could change the game a little and require some tweaking. as florists sharpen their pencils and start "smart pricing", they will need to cut down on what they fill and who for, they become "cherry pickers" and that's the next crack down from the WS. I believe 2012 will be one of the best years for florists in a very long time.

 

[Simon Says]

Herb, Very true, they are for profit companies and the 15K independent florist are also for profit companies. I see coverage getting the best of them by next year, so that could change the game a little and require some tweaking. as florists sharpen their pencils and start "smart pricing", they will need to cut down on what they fill and who for, they become "cherry pickers" and that's the next crack down from the WS. I believe 2012 will be one of the best years for florists in a very long time.

Aren't florists already penalized by FTD with the tranmission fee if they reject an order they receive? Yes, I know you could 'phone FTD each month after getting your statement to hold a discussion - Edith was always the most constructive - about claiming back that fee, reject order by reject order. So "cherry pickers", beware....get out NOW...before it's too late and you're in for Valentine's Day attempting to fill orders from Just Flowers or other of that ilk.

(Or is it already too late to get out of FTD and avoid Val Day?)

 

[bootcampguy]

That was one of the reasons along with a few others for getting out now. I see a "cherry picker fees" coming down the road for about $2 - $3 per. order. These people aren't dumb, they know what they have to do (not agreeing with them) to maintain the levels of profit for the shareholders. My shareholders voted and it was unanimous, "run Forrest run"...........

Another main reason was the ratio of problems per. order versus incoming orders. About a year ago we started to track the time associated with the ws orders and the handling of problems associated with them. For every $50 worth of replacements that you do based on the average of $1500 a month in sales, you are losing another .5 on the dollars for each replacement, so if you replace 3 arrangements you could drop from .67 on the dollar to .52 on the dollar. Out of the 70 logged complaints last year, 50% we're design related and 90% of them we're, well you already guess who they we're from.

LCV used to make up for the difference, you had 5 times more orders coming in to off-set the variables, but times have changed, order volume way down. Even with a strong LCV you would need to capture over 50% of the order volume as permanent customers, numbers just don't support that.

 

[valentina]

I agree with you even though I voted for both florists paying transmission fee, but now that I read your reason I agree with that also. thanks

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.

 

[BOSS]

In today's global economy, working at anything less than 100% (maybe 90%) is counterproductive to keeping local florists doors open. However, that said, if there was a shift within the industry, whereby only florists were involved with orders, and companies that only gather including FTD etc were removed from te mix, local florists would see better margins and be able to work at a bigger discount on incoming as they couls balance that with outgoing as it used to be.

Too much money is being removed from not only filler florists, but the industry as a whole and unless that is changed, the small part of the industry that involves order transfer will never again be profitable for the majority of mom and pop slob florists....

Oh and Herb... welcome back buddy...

 

[lori042499]

My opinion is that there are way to many ifs, ands and buts to vote...to many effects from each individual change to be considered and way too mnay pipedreams to rely on to make the way we want to vote exist in the real world....I do agree that change needs to happen, and I think many changes will need to take place before the final rendition is a work of art....all of this is just semantics and dreams...and I am in no way being negative, just realistic...

In the real world, where dogs and sending only florists have been dealt with and eliminated and the WS went back to being just that a clearing house for orders, the 73-20-7 split worked for everyone....all the other made up incentives have muddied the waters of this working rpograms and any changes to this program will certainly affect the ebb and flow of orders which will affect membership and other programs(that we may not like even more than the programs now) to be made to counter the affects, this is the nature of business...we all do it every day, gas goes up and stays up we change our delivery prices, customers start leaving we change policies to better serve them, this is self preservation and not wanting to lose current market share, if any of us think the ws is willing to lose their market share after building it for 20 years, we might all be crazy...The large sending shops that are well balanced with local orders are willing to lose a small percent simply because it might be a 15-20% protion of their business, not the majority and will serve their customers better, the wire services have way too much to lose with the affects of the changes set forth, any of them...and I whole heartedly believe that if florists do not think through the results of changes and be one step ahead of the ws and think out how they will counter, we will just be digging the hole deeper for all florists just the same way as we have in the past...Simple solutions for complicated issues never fully thought out never ever work!

 

[concord]

My opinion is that there are way to many ifs, ands and buts to vote...to many effects from each individual change to be considered and way too mnay pipedreams to rely on to make the way we want to vote exist in the real world....I do agree that change needs to happen, and I think many changes will need to take place before the final rendition is a work of art....all of this is just semantics and dreams...and I am in no way being negative, just realistic...

In the real world, where dogs and sending only florists have been dealt with and eliminated and the WS went back to being just that a clearing house for orders, the 73-20-7 split worked for everyone....all the other made up incentives have muddied the waters of this working rpograms and any changes to this program will certainly affect the ebb and flow of orders which will affect membership and other programs(that we may not like even more than the programs now) to be made to counter the affects, this is the nature of business...we all do it every day, gas goes up and stays up we change our delivery prices, customers start leaving we change policies to better serve them, this is self preservation and not wanting to lose current market share, if any of us think the ws is willing to lose their market share after building it for 20 years, we might all be crazy...The large sending shops that are well balanced with local orders are willing to lose a small percent simply because it might be a 15-20% protion of their business, not the majority and will serve their customers better, the wire services have way too much to lose with the affects of the changes set forth, any of them...and I whole heartedly believe that if florists do not think through the results of changes and be one step ahead of the ws and think out how they will counter, we will just be digging the hole deeper for all florists just the same way as we have in the past...Simple solutions for complicated issues never fully thought out never ever work!

Except for the simplest solution of all. Quit wire services. Best thing I ever did! I support Florist for Change, but I have already changed everything about my business including the location. Each of us has to change in order to affect change industry wide.

 

[KABERS]

Except for the simplest solution of all. Quit wire services. Best thing I ever did! I support Florist for Change, but I have already changed everything about my business including the location. Each of us has to change in order to affect change industry wide.

I agree completely Helen. But FFC could have a great marketing impact and even to have a list of REAL florists that pledge 100% satisfaction would help our industry. I would love to send out an order and know the florist on the other end cares as much as I do.

 

[anytimeflowers]

I agree completely Helen. But FFC could have a great marketing impact and even to have a list of REAL florists that pledge 100% satisfaction would help our industry. I would love to send out an order and know the florist on the other end cares as much as I do.

Jenifer, you said it all, especially the high-lighted.

 

[Hal Conklin]

.if a movement like FFC makes a dent, then maybe - just maybe - someone will take notice at the big 3 and something MIGHT change. No matter how you look at it, it will be a "majority of florists participate or nothing will happen" result to all of this...and all of this could take years to complete. But, we have to start somewhere. The real challenge will to keep the movement going.

- Herb Rothe 3rd.
Philadelphia

With that said Herb get involved MAKE A DIFFERENCE...

 

[Doug Munro]

My opinion is that there are way to many ifs, ands and buts to vote...to many effects from each individual change to be considered and way too many pipe-dreams to rely on to make the way we want to vote exist in the real world....I do agree that change needs to happen, and I think many changes will need to take place before the final rendition is a work of art....all of this is just semantics and dreams...and I am in no way being negative, just realistic...

I have to agree, voting on pie in the sky simplistic solutions is moving no one forward. Worse yet it's hard to be taken serious by any party sitting on the other side of the fence (wire services).

any changes to this program will certainly affect the ebb and flow of orders which will affect membership and other programs(that we may not like even more than the programs now) to be made to counter the affects, this is the nature of business...we all do it every day, gas goes up and stays up we change our delivery prices, customers start leaving we change policies to better serve them, this is self preservation and not wanting to lose current market share, if any of us think the ws is willing to lose their market share after building it for 20 years, we might all be crazy.

Again, I have to agree, I commented early on at the audacity of those few that felt that they could simply travel to Vegas and dictate to a third party business how they would be "allowed" to operate. The Wire Services are "big business" whether publicly or privately owned they all have a lot at stake and will not willingly make ANY changes that will negatively impact their bottom line. Their current models are all very similar and provide them with the revenue required to operate their businesses. As we all are aware this the bulk of this revenue is derived from a number of areas in the order process (purchase to fulfillment) and eliminating one area will simply mean they have to derive more from another existing one or create a brand new one. How will it shake out, I don't know. However if history is any indicator it might do well to remember that florists themselves were the original driving force behind the now much hated order rebate.

I would suggest that any changes need to be very well thought out and have all parties involved in discussions.

 

[anytimeflowers]

Pie in the sky questions aside. The reality is that shops have closed left and right, and there will be another round of that before the end of 2012. That leaves big coverage problems and that is why I believe that everybody will eventually come to some sort of consensus.

 

[Doug Munro]

Pie in the sky questions aside. The reality is that shops have closed left and right, and there will be another round of that before the end of 2012. That leaves big coverage problems and that is why I believe that everybody will eventually come to some sort of consensus.

I agree that change is required, however I don't necessarily agree that any changes the wire service industry can make would have saved shops that have closed or will do so in the future. Our industry as a whole is going through a lot of change, our product at one time was a specialty item, now it is simply a commodity available at grocery stores, big box stores, or shipped directly to a consumers home via an online site at a far lower price that from a retail florist. As Bob Dylan would say .... the times they are a changing.

Unfortunately too many in our industry at the retail level have a difficult time accepting that or making the changes required to survive. I find it interesting how many times on this board someone will talk about bringing back the good old days, or argue in defense of a position that the facts simply will not support.

Sure the wire service side has changed from 25 years ago and impacted the florist, but so has the amount of flowers sold to the consumer thorough supermarkets and big box stores (for Valentines 2011 these outlets accounted for over 50% of flower sales).

The bottom line is that the retail floral industry is facing many of the same challenges that other retail sectors have gone through and unfortunately some will fall by the wayside.