Out Of Curiosity...

[goldfish]

OK,,,same as in Charlotte.

It sounds like they have decided to comply with the law in NC and the H*** with ethical standards everywhere else.

I wonder if this decision might come back to haunt them at some later time?

The SHADOW knows! Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh Hehnnnnn

Bil

Bill, why do you think the disclosure of their address (I mean FTD and Blooms Today) will affect their sale? They aren't even pretending to be a local florist to begin with.

I know this will upset many, but the thing is... so-called Internet ethics laws won't have the effect local florists are hoping.

What it does (or actually has done) is that many of us have wasted a lot of time and envegy on making a law that doesn't help us much, the same amount of time/energy that could have been used to do something more productive.

I know I'm annoying a lot of people, but we REALLY have to wake up.

What many of us are doing is unproductive at best, counter-productive at worst. The effort should not be wasted on trying to hurt what many of us consider "enemies." The effort has to be focused on making the market bigger.

But hey, what I say doesn't matter. Just saying.

 

[CHR]

If Blooms Today removed the ads for American Blooms and Lauren's Flowers, then the law did indeed have an affect. Three ads all with 'Haymarket, VA,' all in a row would be much more noticable.

Lauren's ad was especially designed to look like it came from a local flower shop, right down to the 'family owned and operated' and a pciture of a pretty girl folks would assume to be 'Lauren'.

I say NC took a big step in the right direction.

Any chance NC will take on AdWords ads titles that say 'Charlotte' Florist?

 

[goldfish]

Five years from now, if any of us are still here, we may want to look back at this thread. If you are right, which I doubt (but who knows), florists in NC would be flourishing.

But if I am right (which you doubt), we would be reading this thread and realize what a colossal waste of resources this anti-deceptive ad must have been.

Until then, all we can do is to try to survive in our own way. With all the differences we have, we are still sitting in the same boat.

 

[kt4ye]

Bill, why do you think the disclosure of their address (I mean FTD and Blooms Today) will affect their sale? They aren't even pretending to be a local florist to begin with.

I have had many consumers tell me that they thought FTD was a franchise with local stores. (When we were FTD, we were forever more getting calls and walkins from customers with FTD coupons that were only valid online or via fone to FTD. "But you're FTD," they would tell me.) AND many have told me they thought Blooms Today was a LOCAL shop. "After all," they say, "this is a LOCAL telephone directory. I expect to see nothing but LOCAL companies advertising in it."

I know this will upset many, but the thing is... so-called Internet ethics laws won't have the effect local florists are hoping.

I cannot speak for what OTHER local florists are hoping. But my hope is to level the playing field so that customers will know ahead of time if they are doing business with a local business or one that is out-of-town.

What it does (or actually has done) is that many of us have wasted a lot of time and envegy on making a law that doesn't help us much, the same amount of time/energy that could have been used to do something more productive.

Such as?

I know I'm annoying a lot of people, but we REALLY have to wake up.

What many of us are doing is unproductive at best, counter-productive at worst. The effort should not be wasted on trying to hurt what many of us consider "enemies." The effort has to be focused on making the market bigger.

And we accomplish this how?

If Blooms Today removed the ads for American Blooms and Lauren's Flowers, then the law did indeed have an affect. Three ads all with 'Haymarket, VA,' all in a row would be much more noticable.

Excellent point.

Lauren's ad was especially designed to look like it came from a local flower shop, right down to the 'family owned and operated' and a pciture of a pretty girl folks would assume to be 'Lauren'.

I say NC took a big step in the right direction.

That's why it is aimed at DECEPTIVE advertisements.

Any chance NC will take on AdWords ads titles that say 'Charlotte' Florist?

The law explicitly includes these types of ads, but I/we have not yet hit those with complaints.

Simply eliminating the deceptiveness in these ads will not solve all our problems. We are still faced with competitors that advertise (deceptively or not) in our states but do not charge nor pay state SALES TAX. <I wonder if this was on the Job Creation Summit agenda?>:tongue:

AND we will ALWAYS be faced with an economic disadvantage since the OGs buy in quantity, so they buy advertising nationally at rates that are much lower than those of a local florist.

All the best,

Bill