JustFlowers

[bloomz]

Ryan's contrary opinion makes a lot of sense. As does Mikey's. Some of the rest of this sounds like unbridled hysteria.

Those charges are clearly marked, and consumers choose to buy more flowers from JF than probably from all of we flowerchatters combined - and that's the rub. So now we complain if they don't explain it, and we complain if they do explain it, or better yet, we just complain.

Since we're talking "intents" and "consumers shouldn't have to read the fine print" ...How about a breakdown of the charges on the "all inclusive pricing" sites? You know who they are...This recent example is just an extension of that - the arrangement price seems to include their "handling fee". Those other "all inclusives" have higher fees than this that are retained by those other companies.

That said - we also forward all orders from JF - even tho it says "do not forward this order". we do nothing to help facilitate the way they choose to do business, and I do understand that consumers possibly "think* (and rightfully so) that all of their money goes into the flower arrangement. Yet it's clearly explained that it doesn't.

I've long said - if an arrangement costs $50 + 9.95 relay - I don't care what or how many times or how you explain it to the sender how the fees, delivery, etc gets sliced and diced - the fact remains that they spent $59.95 on that arrangement, or - "I paid $60 for this?"

Fraid I can't really see how they are breaking the rules based upon this example - I'm actually disappointed cuz I thought they were just flat skimming it without explaining it - but it looks like they have found a completely legal way around it, and the fine print really isn't even that darn fine. I can't see FTD doing anything about this, or really why they should tell JF how they can do business.

Very good catch, Goldfish.

But the fact remains - That consumer chose to order thru them. Why?

That's the real dilemma here.

But boy howdy do -

opinions vary

 

[theRKF]

1) The seller purposely chose to not fully convey what was presented to the customer as her purchased product.

...

FTD is more than a vendor. They buy JF's orders via rebate dollars to pass on to local florists . FTD is a marketing partner, providing JF with proprietary product images and the granting of access to a proprietary network. I understand they also give JF access to network data not available to 99.9% of FTD's members.

How is it now fully conveyed? Seems to me the charges were fully outlined, even if we may not like the manner in which it was done.

It still don't see how FTD is any different than a wholesaler who gives me discounts (rebates) based the volume I purchase from them, and supplies product images I can use to sell more of their products. FTD is hardly unique in this aspect. The access to a proprietary network is just a part of being a customer of this vendor.

Ryan's contrary opinion makes a lot of sense. As does Mikey's. Some of the rest of this sounds like unbridled hysteria.

Those charges are clearly marked, and consumers choose to buy more flowers from JF than probably from all of we flowerchatters combined - and that's the rub. So now we complain if they don't explain it, and we complain if they do explain it, or better yet, we just complain.

Since we're talking "intents" and "consumers shouldn't have to read the fine print" ...How about a breakdown of the charges on the "all inclusive pricing" sites? You know who they are...This recent example is just an extension of that - the arrangement price seems to include their "handling fee". Those other "all inclusives" have higher fees than this that are retained by those other companies.

That said - we also forward all orders from JF - even tho it says "do not forward this order". we do nothing to help facilitate the way they choose to do business, and I do understand that consumers possibly "think* (and rightfully so) that all of their money goes into the flower arrangement. Yet it's clearly explained that it doesn't.

I've long said - if an arrangement costs $50 + 9.95 relay - I don't care what or how many times or how you explain it to the sender how the fees, delivery, etc gets sliced and diced - the fact remains that they spent $59.95 on that arrangement, or - "I paid $60 for this?"

Fraid I can't really see how they are breaking the rules based upon this example - I'm actually disappointed cuz I thought they were just flat skimming it without explaining it - but it looks like they have found a completely legal way around it, and the fine print really isn't even that darn fine. I can't see FTD doing anything about this, or really why they should tell JF how they can do business.

Very good catch, Goldfish.

But the fact remains - That consumer chose to order thru them. Why?

That's the real dilemma here.

But boy howdy do -

opinions vary

Nicely summed up, JB.

 

[goldfish]

Fraid I can't really see how they are breaking the rules based upon this example - I'm actually disappointed cuz I thought they were just flat skimming it without explaining it - but it looks like they have found a completely legal way around it, and the fine print really isn't even that darn fine. I can't see FTD doing anything about this, or really why they should tell JF how they can do business.

They (FTD) might, although I don't expect they will. There are actually two separate issues they need to consider.

(1) The first issue deals with JF's pricing info (see attachment), especially the actual language used in the info. Here's what the info says....

The first paragraph: "Prices shown below product images do not include our shipping and service fees, but may include a handling fee on florist delivered items." (emphasis mine)​

Note the differential use of "our" and "a". They didn't say it may include "our" handling fee. They said it doe NOT include "our" service fee. This sentence can be easily interpretted to mean that the "handling fee" is actually charged by the filling florist.

To further make sure that a consumer would be led to believe that way, the next sentence says...

The third paragraph: "Shown prices for florist delivered products may include a handling fee depending on the product, market conditions, and delivery area." (emphasis mine)​

Note they mention that this fee depends on delivery area. They don't deliver, you know. Clearly (at least to me), this sentence is written in such a way that leads a consumer into believing that this "handling fee" is a fee charged by the florist who delivers.

Repeated use of the phrase "florist delivered products" also enforces this misunderstanding. There's no reason for JF to use this phrase, because everything they sell is "florist delivered."

In brief, this "pricing info" would almost certainly mislead a consumer into thinking that "our service fee" is for JF and the "handling fee" comes from the florist who delivers. At least that's the writer's intention. It is cleverly written, really.

(2) The second issue they (FTD) need to consider is the impact on PR (public relationship).

If the buzz is limitted to just us, small number of florists, they don't care. Why should they? But they will care if a rumor started to swirl around the Internet and/or media, saying that FTD is keeping a deceptive flower skimmer like JF. It will affect their stock price, which is about the only thing any CEO cares about.

I think, here, that there's something even a small florist like us might be able to make a difference. I am sending this skimmer info to several local media and Consumer Report, hoping that someone up there might be inetrested in this issue. Well, not quite expecting that will happen, but hey, there's nothing to lose in trying.

I wonder though if many other florists can do similar investigations of JF (it will cost you some $$$), keep the documentations, and send them out to the media. If 100's of florists did exactly that, I'm sure someone somewhere will take up the issue. And then, only then, FTD might act.

 

[12BucksFor2Dozon]

I can't help but see the parallels with the MPAA and the Napster issue...even though Napster v1.0 was shut down by lawyers, the programmers and file-sharers quickly developed new systems and "routed around" the damage.

JF would do the same, even if shut down...they would quickly notify their existing customer base using email that they have a *new*, improved site, and continue on under another name, so what is the point of a "media" outrage?

Like I said before, you CANNOT condemn the practices of a particular OG, and then praise the WS as a "moneymaker" for you. They are intrinsically linked.

 

[BOSS]

If the buzz is limitted to just us, small number of florists, they don't care. Why should they? But they will care if a rumor started to swirl around the Internet and/or media, saying that FTD is keeping a deceptive flower skimmer like JF. It will affect their stock price, which is about the only thing any CEO cares about.

I agree.... I also believe it will happen...sooner than anyone else thinks it will. Nothing will change until unbearable preassure is brought to bear, and it will not be the florists bringing it...it will be a new entry into the mix, that has alreay begun the battle...all be it covertly.

JF would do the same, even if shut down...they would quickly notify their existing customer base using email that they have a *new*, improved site, and continue on under another name, so what is the point of a "media" outrage?

Agree again, however the information age has allowed many to keep tabs onothers, just like Urban being shut down by FTD, only to rebirth itself as www.e-florist-inc.com under the TF banner... and they were found out within 5 weeks of going back live... too bad TF does not give a rip, and in fact have said they do not care... "It's all about order volume".

 

[goldfish]

We don't know how the shopper found JF or why she chose to trust it's site. Could it have been a "$10 off" or 'local florist delivers' ad or the FTD logo with "Top Member" on the home page? (BTW, that logo comes and goes depending on cookies AFAICT.)

I asked her. She said the site had already been bookmarked by her husband. She didn't "choose" it. She said this was the first time to buy flowers over the Internet (she is a HS teacher by the way).

I'm imagining her case is typical of flower buyers on the Internet. Except for those who specifically look for a local florist and then gets trapped by a dOG, the majority of flower buyers on the Internet do not seem to care which site they go to. Every site looks similar anyway, so why bother.

 

[bloomz]

Like I said before, you CANNOT condemn the practices of a particular OG, and then praise the WS as a "moneymaker" for you. They are intrinsically linked.

Yes I can and no they are not. They're not the only service provider I wish I could say who they can and can't do business with - but if I want to use their services to make money - I take what goes along with it.

I'm imagining her case is typical of flower buyers on the Internet. Except for those who specifically look for a local florist and then gets trapped by a dOG, the majority of flower buyers on the Internet do not seem to care which site they go to. Every site looks similar anyway, so why bother.

What part of buyer beware doesn't apply to our industry? Fine print is famous, tho this isn't even fine print.

Nobody gets "trapped" by anyone, especially on the internet where you don't even have to start the car to go to a different shop.

Those charges are clearly delineated. We're milking mice again, and trying to tell a company that is kicking our marketing asses why "it isn't fair".

Again - it's a good catch and I am disappointed they have found a perfect way around it all.

 

[goldfish]

I also believe it will happen...sooner than anyone else thinks it will. Nothing will change until unbearable preassure is brought to bear, and it will not be the florists bringing it...it will be a new entry into the mix, that has alreay begun the battle...all be it covertly.

Actually, I now believe that there's a good chance that FTD will act on this. I don't think FTD will kick JF out, but chances that they will try to block the skimming practice.

No, it has nothing to do with ethics, but everything to do with $$$.

I came to realize that FTD.com and JustFlowers.com are competitors, too. If I was a CEO of FTD, I wouldn't allow my competitor, JF, to earn extra $$$, which JF can and will use to finance their marketing campaigm to better compete against FTD.com.

It is also possible that, once you allowed this practice, many other OGs will eventually copy the JF-style "legal" skimming and use the skimmed money to launch potent ad campaigm. Can of worms will open. FTD.com's revenue would suffer as the result.

Once FTD management concluded that allowing JF to skim orders would hurt the bottom line of FTD.com, then they will act.

FTD has several options.

1) Increase the monthly membership fee (or other fees) for JF to offset the possible revenue decrease from FTD.com.

2) Kick out JF and pound the chest.

3) Do the same thing (skimming) by themselves to compete against JF.

4) Write a new rule banning the JF-style skimming, such as "The price shown in a product page must be transferred to a filling florist in full amount."

Now, which option do you think is most profittable for FTD? I think the answer is either 3) or 4). I believe they will choose 4) over 3), because option 3) would eventually invite a bad publicity.

 

[12BucksFor2Dozon]

It is also possible that, once you allowed this practice, many other OGs will eventually copy the JF-style "legal" skimming and use the skimmed money to launch potent ad campaigm. Can of worms will open.
You don't think many others are already doing this? Naive you are.

 

[CHR]

The small print skimming is already being done by one of TF's biggest dOgs - 11flowers.com/77flowers.com/flowershopping.com et al. From http://www.flowershopping.com/popups/deliverypolicy.asp?VID=4292

Due to the increased costs needed to secure and transfer orders, there is an additional relay fee that has been added into the net cost of the products on our website and will be deducted from the product amount to offset these additional costs. This fee will in no way affect the quality, size or quantity of the item you purchase. We apologize for the need to deduct this fee but your order will still be delivered as pictured on our website and handled with professional care.

Does anyone believe dollars taken skimmed off the retail price do no affect the size of an order?

I've been saying for more than a year that the onus for quality control has been completely dumped on the filling florist. Send an 'ask' for every under-valued order because 'fill to value' as a second choice invites the scammers to continue the abuse of consumers.

Yes, TF is aware of the skimming clause. I think they may actually do something about it - but I've been wrong before.

Added: So what say you, defenders of the small print? Do you applaud the clever moves to thwart and exploit the spirit of terms that were created to protect consumers and filling florists? Do you adopt similar tactics to get yours while you can? Or do you write a letter expressing concern that consumers are not getting the products they were sold due to these practices?

Call me hysterical if you like. JF's 'legal' tactics aren't anything I admire or plan to emulate.

 

[bloomz]

Added: So what say you, defenders of the small print? Do you applaud the clever moves to thwart and exploit the spirit of terms that were created to protect consumers and filling florists? Do you adopt similar tactics to get yours while you can? Or do you write a letter expressing concern that consumers are not getting the products they were sold due to these practices?

Call me hysterical if you like. JF's 'legal' tactics aren't anything I admire or plan to emulate.

Please note above where I stated I am actually disappointed they have found a way to clearly explain their extra charges.

But then again - people shopping there are not really victims - they choose to shop there.

And someone please address the other "all fees included - the price you see is the price you get" sites. It's the same thing by respected industry icons, IMHO. Place a test order there and see how much gets transmitted as my understanding is all those orders are transmitted at $12-15 less than it "looked like", without clear statements of funds withheld.

And while on the topic - the TF "storefronts" where the orders have no guarantee of even going to the shop whose name was used in the advertising.

But maybe that's another battle for another day...

blessings

 

[Bigted]

Interesting thread. A lot of anger but no action. Justflowers would change the policy in one minute if no one filled his orders. We're doing our part. Flowers sent today is next.

 

[12BucksFor2Dozon]

Interesting thread. A lot of anger but no action. Justflowers would change the policy in one minute if no one filled his orders. We're doing our part. Flowers sent today is next.

What possibly makes you think that 98% of florist would not bend over backwards to be JF's "goto" florist in their area? Just because a couple of us wacks here on FC notice this crap doesn't mean there isn't host of filling fools out there salivating over the idea of filling this junk.

 

[bloomz]

What possibly makes you think that 98% of florist would not bend over backwards to be JF's "goto" florist in their area? Just because a couple of us wacks here on FC notice this crap doesn't mean there isn't host of filling fools out there salivating over the idea of filling this junk.

and that's the truth, Ruth.

could be 99% :hammer:

 

[goldfish]

Interesting thread. A lot of anger but no action. Justflowers would change the policy in one minute if no one filled his orders. We're doing our part. Flowers sent today is next.

I second that. We do our part, too. It's just not right to skim a customer like that, and we want no part in it.

 

[CHR]

Welcome to the refuse-to-be-abused club, goldfish and Ted. :> You'll know you've 'really made it' when you get an anonymous letter like some of us here did last year.

 

[BOSS]

Interesting thread. A lot of anger but no action. Justflowers would change the policy in one minute if no one filled his orders. We're doing our part. Flowers sent today is next.

Oh I don't know about that

You are right tho... sad thing is we are the MINORITY and most have no clue as to what really happens to an order before it spits outa the MerDuck

 

[bloomz]

Teeny weenie minority - I heard there were only 3 of us that complained to FSI about Urban using them for their orders.

Count them - ONE, TWO, THREE

Lunatic fringe much? I qualify

opinions vary tho...

 

[Connie]

Just talked to one of the 98 or 99% yesterday. She went on and on about how, in her small town, she could not survive without her wire serviceS. She said that as long as she received enough from the WS to pay for the flowers , she was satisfied. I tried to explain how nice our bottom line is now that we are WS free, but her eyes just seemed to glaze over. Some folks simply do not want to know the truth.

 

[BOSS]

BOSS's Quote of the day!!

her eyes just seemed to glaze over. Some folks simply do not want to know the truth.

There ya have it!