I know I'm in the dark, please inlighten me. I heard today that some FTD florists are suing FTD over the fees they want to charge 1800 fillers. Anyone know anything about this?
Florists Sue FTD Over Bloomnet Surcharge
- Thread starter CFD
- Start date
- Status
BOSS
FlowerChat Administrator
First I have heard.... I would not be suprised though...
Would love to hear from someone involved if true...
Would love to hear from someone involved if true...
Mikey the Flower Guy
It's a GREAT DAY to live, and love!
- Nov 10, 2002
- 9,206
- 3,792
- 113
- 72
- State / Prov
- Ontario
You'all know me......
I'm a STAUNCH FTD supporter, but, I HAVE to admit, things are getting a little ridiculous!!
Whatever FTD IS, my belief is that FTD has crossed the line of insanity if it thinks that it can limit who REAL FLORISTS in good standing can fill for!!
I HAVE been told that there are extenuating circumstances regarding this "THREATENED" lawsuit.
I'm a STAUNCH FTD supporter, but, I HAVE to admit, things are getting a little ridiculous!!
Whatever FTD IS, my belief is that FTD has crossed the line of insanity if it thinks that it can limit who REAL FLORISTS in good standing can fill for!!
I HAVE been told that there are extenuating circumstances regarding this "THREATENED" lawsuit.
PhillyPhlorist
Pro Member
- Feb 7, 2004
- 1,766
- 609
- 113
- 55
- State / Prov
- Pennsylvania
Ditto....and, since we no longer fill ANY 1-800 flurs orders, the 2% was easliy removed.dave said:
Also, Agree with Mikey - this is all really petty....
- H.
BOSS
FlowerChat Administrator
But Herb, perhaps not in your case, but this was the wanted outcome of the phone/letter campaign by FTD. Restraining 800's ability to get their orders filled by quality florists.PhillyPhlorist said:
And with that, stopping you from working with who you want to. I'm not saying *you* personally, but florists that work on incoming volume are restrained from filling for both, or they are required to pay a "tax" to do so.
Logic says (and no I don;t concur with any of this) that if you are willing to pay one 9% you should be willing to pay the other the same, for the "privledge"...(not my logic, but WS logic).
PhillyPhlorist
Pro Member
- Feb 7, 2004
- 1,766
- 609
- 113
- 55
- State / Prov
- Pennsylvania
Oh - I hear you BOSS - and we're on the same page. I don't think it is right in any way, shape, or form for FTD to impose the extree 2%. Yes, makes sense in w/s logic, but not ours... I am willing to bet 70% of the florists impacted by this do nothing about it. And, I bet FTD is banking on this too...
Dropping 800 by us should have been done 2 years ago..........V-day was much easier to deal with...And, 2% or no 2% the decision to dump 'em was made long before. Would I have stayed with 800 with the 2% fee from FTD? Depending on the volume, possibly. But, I know that the volume needed to make ANY money with 800 is no longer there...unless you're a LFC, and even THEN you have to watch your stems.
Besides, if you're Bloomnet, you really have no use for FTD unless you want the inbound biz, and are a shop relying on FTD Technology (c-cards, pos, etc). If you're FTD through and through, then why in this day & age would you sign up for Bloomnet? To fill orders for <70 cents on the dollar???
- Herb
Dropping 800 by us should have been done 2 years ago..........V-day was much easier to deal with...And, 2% or no 2% the decision to dump 'em was made long before. Would I have stayed with 800 with the 2% fee from FTD? Depending on the volume, possibly. But, I know that the volume needed to make ANY money with 800 is no longer there...unless you're a LFC, and even THEN you have to watch your stems.
Besides, if you're Bloomnet, you really have no use for FTD unless you want the inbound biz, and are a shop relying on FTD Technology (c-cards, pos, etc). If you're FTD through and through, then why in this day & age would you sign up for Bloomnet? To fill orders for <70 cents on the dollar???
- Herb
And why do you NOT concur?
But BOSS, why would you NOT concur.A WS offers a program to it's membership and part of that program is filling incoming orders at 72% and a second WS offers their program to the same florists for incoming at 71%. Now the first WS realizes that its members are not going to send OUT any more orders when they join the second service and those outgoing orders are needed to support THEIR program and if these florists are now willing to accept incoming at 71% from the second company, why shouldn't the first WS change their rules for those specific members and make the rules consistant for all those members who feel that filling at 71% is OK. Why shouldn't the first WS get everything they can from florists that are willing to fill at 71%???
If there is NO loyality any more, then let's just treat is as a business decision. If we, as a society look down on professional atheletes whose only concern is how much money they can make, then why is it wrong for companies to look at florists the same way?? If you are willing to work for less with one company, why should I pay you more to work for me??
BOSS said:
But BOSS, why would you NOT concur.A WS offers a program to it's membership and part of that program is filling incoming orders at 72% and a second WS offers their program to the same florists for incoming at 71%. Now the first WS realizes that its members are not going to send OUT any more orders when they join the second service and those outgoing orders are needed to support THEIR program and if these florists are now willing to accept incoming at 71% from the second company, why shouldn't the first WS change their rules for those specific members and make the rules consistant for all those members who feel that filling at 71% is OK. Why shouldn't the first WS get everything they can from florists that are willing to fill at 71%???
If there is NO loyality any more, then let's just treat is as a business decision. If we, as a society look down on professional atheletes whose only concern is how much money they can make, then why is it wrong for companies to look at florists the same way?? If you are willing to work for less with one company, why should I pay you more to work for me??
BOSS
FlowerChat Administrator
I agree with you Mr. G, and I must say I am darn glad to see you back around here!!Griff said:
My not "concuring" has more to do with the tactics being used than with the actual implementation of the added taxation based on membership in more than one wire service.
One difference is, 800 charges all their members the 9%, and FTD only charges those that are also members of 800 9% charging everyone else 7%.
But I would assume, too...that this is temporary and they will eventually raise it for everyone, and then Teleflora will follow suit, as has been the case for eons...
And to answer your last point, if you want me to work for you, I'd do it for the free education you have given me over the years....but if you want to boil it down to wire service mentality, then if they want *me* to work for them, they have to pay me more to do so, right now FTD is the company doing just that for me, 800 refused my offer, and TF...well they're still technologically challenged...
Griff,
The point has been made many times before that Bloomnet fees are lower than FTD, except for the 9% vs 7%. Their rebates are higher, too.
I asked my FTD guys if they were going to offer the same OTHER charges as Bloomnet, since they wanted the higher clearing rate. The answer amounted to "have cake, eat it too."
Ryan
The point has been made many times before that Bloomnet fees are lower than FTD, except for the 9% vs 7%. Their rebates are higher, too.
I asked my FTD guys if they were going to offer the same OTHER charges as Bloomnet, since they wanted the higher clearing rate. The answer amounted to "have cake, eat it too."
Ryan
steve
Well-Known Member
Has anyone tried advising FTD of a retroactive membership fee and rebate structure to coincide the the 2% increase? Wonder if FTD would need the usual 3 month notice to sever the relationship?
Seriously, from what I hear, they're rolling shops back to 7% if they grouse.
Seriously, from what I hear, they're rolling shops back to 7% if they grouse.
The major fault
Ever since there has been at least 2 WS, florists have always tried to play one against the other to gain advantage for themselves. Florists have always considered this "just business". Now the WS are doing this in reverse. They are playing one florist against the other. One offers lower monthly rates "for now" and higher rebate numbers, but more money is taken out of every incoming. The other offers higher monthly costs, lower rebate numbers, but WAS offering lower discount on incoming. They now have modified their program to those florists and only those florists that are willing to work at 71% discount. If you happen to be one of those florists, why shouldn't another WS take advantage of you? If they keep sucking the life out of you, you will only be hollow shells anyway!
I'm sorry, but as a florist today, it doesn't make any difference how big you are or how many orders you send out. The WS are no longer interested in being cherry picked concerning their programs. I never cared much about Bob Norton, but this is the heart of his comment - Pick A team!.
If you don't think FTD is fair by doing this, then drop them. If you don't think you can make money with 1-800, then drop them or don't join them. Florists have consistly complained about WS all pitching the same programs. Now you have some different looks. Times have changed, There is no meeting of the larger florists in the back room like the old days and trying to come with counter offers to the WS and threaten them with loss of all your outgoing in an effort to get them to change direction. They don't care. It isn't going to work anymore. These WS are looking for ways to survive and not concerned about if you do or not.
Herb <Philly> put it very well. If the volume is no longer there, then 1-800 isn't offering you much and if you are already a member of Bloomnet, you probably don't need FTD. Just think of it as FTD just trying to make you decision making process easier for you. THEM OR US!!
Ever since there has been at least 2 WS, florists have always tried to play one against the other to gain advantage for themselves. Florists have always considered this "just business". Now the WS are doing this in reverse. They are playing one florist against the other. One offers lower monthly rates "for now" and higher rebate numbers, but more money is taken out of every incoming. The other offers higher monthly costs, lower rebate numbers, but WAS offering lower discount on incoming. They now have modified their program to those florists and only those florists that are willing to work at 71% discount. If you happen to be one of those florists, why shouldn't another WS take advantage of you? If they keep sucking the life out of you, you will only be hollow shells anyway!
I'm sorry, but as a florist today, it doesn't make any difference how big you are or how many orders you send out. The WS are no longer interested in being cherry picked concerning their programs. I never cared much about Bob Norton, but this is the heart of his comment - Pick A team!.
If you don't think FTD is fair by doing this, then drop them. If you don't think you can make money with 1-800, then drop them or don't join them. Florists have consistly complained about WS all pitching the same programs. Now you have some different looks. Times have changed, There is no meeting of the larger florists in the back room like the old days and trying to come with counter offers to the WS and threaten them with loss of all your outgoing in an effort to get them to change direction. They don't care. It isn't going to work anymore. These WS are looking for ways to survive and not concerned about if you do or not.
Herb <Philly> put it very well. If the volume is no longer there, then 1-800 isn't offering you much and if you are already a member of Bloomnet, you probably don't need FTD. Just think of it as FTD just trying to make you decision making process easier for you. THEM OR US!!
Ok - here's a concept just for fun.
Give the senders the extra 2% and they would see orders increase. Sad to say perhaps, but the senders control the orders. At least when they approached me, they were looking for orders not fillers.
Give the senders the extra 2% and they would see orders increase. Sad to say perhaps, but the senders control the orders. At least when they approached me, they were looking for orders not fillers.
BOSS
FlowerChat Administrator
Same here, but then again, they flat out said "No we will NOT take our 4 ads out of your phone book"...bloomz said:
Sorry, not gonna fight that fight here...operating at a good profit, and intend to continue to do so!
bloomz said:
You're exactly right.
But it would add more tilt to a ship that's already loaded way off balance and very much in danger of getting one side under water and sinking. 2% more in favor of senders AT THE EXPENSE OF FILLERS would make a decision for a few more fillers, I'd suspect. Kinda like it seems to be doing for a few that have just decided they no longer need FTD.
Question is . . . how long can the "out of balance" situation continue and expand before coverage issues kill the "golden goose"?
Time will tell.
You Know
Your post, HCflorist, got me thinking. The idea that things have to change in favor of the fillers is something that will not change unless a lot of florists go out of business, and I mean close their doors and leave the industry.
Why, because the argument about needing fillers is the same as a consumer walking into a your flower shop, wanting you to create something for them and then walk out because they don't like your price. And the sad part about the consumer walking out is that they will go florist to florist and will find a florist to create the item at the price they want to pay.
It's the same with the wire services. They have more florists mad at them for not getting them more wire in orders, then there is florists mad at them for charging so much.
Had a example yesterday. A young lady came in and started inquiring about names of certain roses. My question to her was, "am I going to be ordering these roses for you?" Her answer was that she was getting married and she had to give the comapny the name of the flowers she wanted. Here is a person who cuts the florist out of the loop , but want a florist to provide services the cut-rate company will not. The sad part of this is she will probably get a florist, tie up theri time, and get all the help for free.
Your post, HCflorist, got me thinking. The idea that things have to change in favor of the fillers is something that will not change unless a lot of florists go out of business, and I mean close their doors and leave the industry.
Why, because the argument about needing fillers is the same as a consumer walking into a your flower shop, wanting you to create something for them and then walk out because they don't like your price. And the sad part about the consumer walking out is that they will go florist to florist and will find a florist to create the item at the price they want to pay.
It's the same with the wire services. They have more florists mad at them for not getting them more wire in orders, then there is florists mad at them for charging so much.
Had a example yesterday. A young lady came in and started inquiring about names of certain roses. My question to her was, "am I going to be ordering these roses for you?" Her answer was that she was getting married and she had to give the comapny the name of the flowers she wanted. Here is a person who cuts the florist out of the loop , but want a florist to provide services the cut-rate company will not. The sad part of this is she will probably get a florist, tie up theri time, and get all the help for free.
Maybe waiting too long is not the answer
There seems to be a on going attitiude that if anyone just stands around and waits for all these florists to go out of business it will be better for the survivors. So in the mean time many accept the fact that consumers will find a florist eventually that will do something for them for next to nothing or the WS will always find someone who is willing to fill orders for them. If these same florists continue to accept rising dues and fees, they merely raise their cost of operation to the consumer in higher prices. when the consumer treand is is the other direction. If the discount continues to enlarge on incoming orders, the florist either "shaves" the order further until it becomes a full value order for the receiving florist or fills to value and most likely loses money. If they shave orders, their arrangements are going to be smaller than anyone elses and hense they lose local customers. If they fill to value and lose money, they have no way today to offset those loses. If any florist drops one WS for another because of higher rebates or because of lower fees, it is just a very temporary business fix. Programs change and dues and fees change.
One of the biggest problems with making any changes in this industry seems to be the idea that if I don't accept these orders someone else will. Well, if you aren't making any money at it, why would you want to do it?? The whole idea of an additonal 2% on incoming translates to $1 on a $50 order. If you are not making money at 73%, what difference is another $1. In case anyone hasn't noticed, what all these changes by the WS is doing is raising your cost of operation and therefore ultimately your pricing. To most consumers today it is very expensive to deal with florists when buying flowers. As Mr Fox indicated, the consumer will ask for advise on flowers, but buy the flowers somewhere else. But once the florists have completely separated themselves from the budgets of the average consumer and the "sending flower network" is completely destroyed because of lack of florists in most areas of the country, please look around and tell me who is left - The large florists who will have trouble finding any florists to send flower orders to and 1-800, FTD.com and Proflowers who will have no trouble and have ways to continue sending flowers and gifts without florists. On this current course, florists are destroying their own future lively hood and paying the WS to help them do it.
Charlie says, "how long can the out of balance situation continue and expand before coverage issues kill the golden goose". The answer is, not long Charlie. The better question is what can florists do after the golden goose IS DEAD!
sfox said:
There seems to be a on going attitiude that if anyone just stands around and waits for all these florists to go out of business it will be better for the survivors. So in the mean time many accept the fact that consumers will find a florist eventually that will do something for them for next to nothing or the WS will always find someone who is willing to fill orders for them. If these same florists continue to accept rising dues and fees, they merely raise their cost of operation to the consumer in higher prices. when the consumer treand is is the other direction. If the discount continues to enlarge on incoming orders, the florist either "shaves" the order further until it becomes a full value order for the receiving florist or fills to value and most likely loses money. If they shave orders, their arrangements are going to be smaller than anyone elses and hense they lose local customers. If they fill to value and lose money, they have no way today to offset those loses. If any florist drops one WS for another because of higher rebates or because of lower fees, it is just a very temporary business fix. Programs change and dues and fees change.
One of the biggest problems with making any changes in this industry seems to be the idea that if I don't accept these orders someone else will. Well, if you aren't making any money at it, why would you want to do it?? The whole idea of an additonal 2% on incoming translates to $1 on a $50 order. If you are not making money at 73%, what difference is another $1. In case anyone hasn't noticed, what all these changes by the WS is doing is raising your cost of operation and therefore ultimately your pricing. To most consumers today it is very expensive to deal with florists when buying flowers. As Mr Fox indicated, the consumer will ask for advise on flowers, but buy the flowers somewhere else. But once the florists have completely separated themselves from the budgets of the average consumer and the "sending flower network" is completely destroyed because of lack of florists in most areas of the country, please look around and tell me who is left - The large florists who will have trouble finding any florists to send flower orders to and 1-800, FTD.com and Proflowers who will have no trouble and have ways to continue sending flowers and gifts without florists. On this current course, florists are destroying their own future lively hood and paying the WS to help them do it.
Charlie says, "how long can the out of balance situation continue and expand before coverage issues kill the golden goose". The answer is, not long Charlie. The better question is what can florists do after the golden goose IS DEAD!
griff
Griff, if I'm reading you right, your premise is that fillers are needed. And by fillers, I mean florists who rely heavily in incoming orders as a good part of their business. You also mention that if fillers go out of business who are large florists going to send to.
First, florists who rely on filling incoming orders should be out of business. Their business plan is totally flawed. Filling large numbers of incoming wires and for that matter sending out large numbers of wire orders should really be only a small part of florists business. And by that I mean as a percentage. So that means many florists could send out and fill thousands of orders a year, but those numbers still only represent a small part of their total business. Their main focus is still their own customers.
Secondly, when you talk about large florists will not have anyone to send to, I think the word large should be defined. In many metro areas, large can mean florists doing a million dollars or close to it. But in small towns, I think the largest of those florists will be the ones to survive. Large chould be used to describe who is doing volume given the local market conditions.
And lastly, since the beginning of floral computer systems, one of the first features was the ability to mark and track who orders are sent to. I think today, as you say, large florists, are sending to large florists. That means the largest of small town florists are sending orders to the largest of other small town florists as well as large florists in metro areas. And this is happening because those larger florists, usually have access to large inventory of flowers and have larger delivery capibilities thereby making the likelyhood of satisfing the sending consumer more likely.
Griff, if I'm reading you right, your premise is that fillers are needed. And by fillers, I mean florists who rely heavily in incoming orders as a good part of their business. You also mention that if fillers go out of business who are large florists going to send to.
First, florists who rely on filling incoming orders should be out of business. Their business plan is totally flawed. Filling large numbers of incoming wires and for that matter sending out large numbers of wire orders should really be only a small part of florists business. And by that I mean as a percentage. So that means many florists could send out and fill thousands of orders a year, but those numbers still only represent a small part of their total business. Their main focus is still their own customers.
Secondly, when you talk about large florists will not have anyone to send to, I think the word large should be defined. In many metro areas, large can mean florists doing a million dollars or close to it. But in small towns, I think the largest of those florists will be the ones to survive. Large chould be used to describe who is doing volume given the local market conditions.
And lastly, since the beginning of floral computer systems, one of the first features was the ability to mark and track who orders are sent to. I think today, as you say, large florists, are sending to large florists. That means the largest of small town florists are sending orders to the largest of other small town florists as well as large florists in metro areas. And this is happening because those larger florists, usually have access to large inventory of flowers and have larger delivery capibilities thereby making the likelyhood of satisfing the sending consumer more likely.
PhillyPhlorist
Pro Member
- Feb 7, 2004
- 1,766
- 609
- 113
- 55
- State / Prov
- Pennsylvania
sfox said:
YES! This does indeed happen. BUT, there's a golden opportunity here to INTERCEPT the order! You have the customer RIGHT THERE! Don't beat around the bush - ask 'em how much they are paying? What are they getting? Can you MATCH the price - possibly sacrifice a % of your profit to GET the customer? When do they need it? Do you WANT the customer or her biz - after hearing what she wants? (is she/he a pain in the arse or is heading in that general direction?!?!)
I had the SAME thing happen just before V-day, SFOX. And, I did the above. She was going to go to Costco for her bouquets, but wanted to actually SEE for real what certain flowers looked like, hence into the shop she came. I was able to BOOK the wedding. Matched Costco's price, MADE money on a Delivery charge - and GAINED A CUSTOMER! Not saying this can be done on all levels, but in my book, ya' gotta try!
- Herb
- Status