Unique Oregon Law on Wire Service Commissions

[Knife's Wife]

I would much rather see this control coming from the wire services setting the rules for membership then seeing the government get involved. Certainly makes sense that it would originate in a state like Oregon the most liberal among them who seem to like the governments hands in everything. This is another step in the wrong direction of socialism and government control. I hate deceptive order gathering but the government capping what a business can earn is just wrong.... when and where will it end if we allow it to happen.

 

[CHR]

Joan, (and/or Peter) good to see you post here. The Oregon proposed law is a blowback to price controls enforced by WSs. You remember when WSs allowed dialogue between sending and filling entity?

Those days are gone.

No more negotiation. Take it or leave it. (The order, I mean.)

IMO the crux is that there's no negotiation in fees for local florists these days. The WSs asked for this. Maybe they'll wake up and pay more attention to the very loud messages from their members and former members (and complaining consumers, too.)

 

[Knife's Wife]

Well certainly my hope is that something good comes out of this for the florist...I pray it does not end up hurting more that helping. Time will tell.

Do you think there will be a law suit filed by weeks end?

 

[anytimeflowers]

Do you think there will be a law suit filed by weeks end?

I foresee a lot of Quacking if indeed the governor does not veto this and signs it into law.

Oregon recently passed a law (I think it was Oregon) about internet sales tax. Amazon simply decided to not do business in that state. There are plenty of businesses who still want or need to do business in Oregon so they will simply toe the line.

There was a post on facebook that was very interesting. A florist in Oregon got a phone call from another florist to fill an order. The calling florist had to call directly because no florists were accepting orders through the wire services or no longer belonged. It seems all of the florists, in that area anyway, have made some sort of pact to band together in these measures. Whether the governor signs or vetoes may not have any bearing on the outcome.

I get a very uncomfortable feeling when government steps in to mandate how much a company can charge for their product or service. That still doesn't stop the almost maniacal giddiness I feel about this particular measure.

 

[pdxdoug]

Oregon recently passed a law (I think it was Oregon) about internet sales tax. Amazon simply decided to not do business in that state.

No sales tax here in Oregon. Amazon is fighting with many states regarding the collection of sales taxes. Here's a link to a story about Amazon (and others) that fail to collect and forward sales taxes to the states:http://www.thestreet.com/story/11052898/1/amazon-sales-tax-the-battle-state-by-state.html. BTW, Minnesota is on the list of states where Amazon may cease doing business.

As for the Oregon bill, call it Consumer Protection. Right or wrong, I applaud Cindy Wurdinger-Kelly for championing this bill (and the deceptive advertising bill) through the Oregon Legislature. It's about time someone stood up and did something rather than talking an issue to death.

Regards,
Doug

 

[CHR]

According to this news article, Floral Source (FSI) is threatening to move out of Oregon if the bill is signed by the governor. The Oregon florists better get on top of this issue right away.

According to my reading of the bill, FSI would still earn 7% on orders (like they do now). Don't they present themselves as 'not competing with florists'? Wouldn't the bill effect orders within Oregon whether FSI were in the state or moved elsewhere? AFAICT, orders being sent out-of-state would retain the traditional commissions/fees.

 

[anytimeflowers]

This is just what I imagined. The outcome is going to depend upon whether or not florists really have the guts to finally run their businesses and fight for it or continue to have somebody else "source" their orders.

 

[Simon Says]

If in doubt, resort to emotional blackmail FSI. You apparently have no mightier argument

On second thoughts, if the Oregonian florists resorted to the employment matter, it might work better for them than for FSI as, maybe, the more this goes on, the florists will lay-off more staff than those employees cut at FSI

 

[bootcampguy]

According to this news article, Floral Source (FSI) is threatening to move out of Oregon if the bill is signed by the governor. The Oregon florists better get on top of this issue right away........

This is a classic examply of the "squeaky wheel" gets the oil. Yes, 46 people may lose their jobs (I personally think it's a boo game) but even if they do, the livelyhoods of hundres of florists can be affected in a positive light. I think the law would help preserve alot more jobs than 46. Typical politician..............vote yes, then no when someone squeels. Rick shaking head like Boss does..............

 

[anytimeflowers]

Remember, it's not just a squeaky wheel, but use of the favorite buzz-word ~ JOBS. IMO, the florists in Oregon need to get their numbers together ~ FAST ~ on how many jobs have already been lost, and how many MORE could be created. Both sides of an issue can play the buzzword game.

 

[keith]

Please do not use untrue assertions as fact

As to your uncomfortable feeling.... if the sate does not do then who would? Do you really believe that the WS's will willingly give up their order gathering you are too new or too naive.

The incredible thing is that the WS's will actually be better off, they will have good shops asking for their orders and filling them, especially at holidays!

Who loses? The cream of profit now will go to the Real Local Florist filling the order, the OG will have to raise their "Handling" fee and may face tougher competition from the real shops.

Bottom line is this is good for 99% of retail florists.

Keith

 

[CHR]

The article on SAF's e-Brief tonight was very thorough in explaining the issue. Nice to see your quotes in there, Keith.

I DO hope florists contest the assertions made about job losses in the state. What about the millions of dollars and job losses suffered by local florists at the hands of deceptive order gatherers and mis-labeled fees? What about the millions of dollars lost in consumer value of product purchased to your state?

Any idea then the 5-day clock for the governor's signature begins?

 

[anytimeflowers]

Way to go Keith and Doug!

Keith, I'm certainly not new (LOL) although I can sometimes be naive. I will admit that for a long time I really thought the wire services would police themselves ~ clearly I was wrong.
I then, just as naively I guess, thought surely the florists would quit doing such damage to themselves and THAT would stop the bleed. Sadly, they just won't. I don't know why.

That is why I applaud this measure and deeply hope that, if nothing else, the governor simply lets the clock run out. It's going to drive me crazy wondering when it starts/started ticking.

 

[keith]

The law has been vetoed by the Governor but he is aware of the issue and is appointing a task force to rewrite the bill in a much stronger manner.

It will be back next year and hopefully with more involvement of the florists. The issue is NOT going away. Retail florists are getting killed by a OLD established fee structure that no single florist can change, and no wire service will change, and the OG's are profiting from.

MacArthur,

Keith

 

[anytimeflowers]

Keith.

I felt disappointed at first, but on the other hand it sounds like it didn't address all of the issues and a weak law is no law. I am SO glad that he is appointing the task force, this is probably something that every state should be taking a serious look at.

Do you know if it addressed orders coming in from other states? It started sounding like perhaps it only applied to orders generated within Oregon. With the most prolific of the ogs being based on the East and West coasts, I was feeling that perhaps it wasn't going to make much difference.

I would strongly hope that the task force will take a wider-range view of the problem in order for the law to really benefit Oregon florists.

Please keep us posted.

 

[keith]

One of the problems with having to approach this from a state level is that no state can enact a law that restricts any business outside that state. It is a solution that affects the individual state but the hope is that there will be other states that follow and eventually nationwide when the sycophants at the wire services figure out the right thing to do.

The florist - wire service- florist model is a unique and difficult issue to explain to the lawyers who write the bills, we hope to spend more time getting it right next time.

Keith

 

[Doug Munro]

I have serious mixed feelings about this one. As as individual I cringe anytime the government talks about stepping in to regulate business margins or profits. The biggest fear I have is that government never knows when to stop and patting them on the back for passing a law such as this only encourages. Politicians (regardless of the country) are driven by public perception , not facts. Anytime they can jump on a bandwagon that appears to have support they fight over who gets there first, this one is especially tempting because it pits the little local business against the evil nationals.

So now the government is going to dictate how sales margins are broken down amongst the parties involved, in the interest of small business and the consumer. Lets take it a step further, say I am a politician who likes buying flowers and I find our that my florist pays $1.00 (or less) for rose and then sells it to me and other consumers for $5.00. This is outrageous! Obviously the consumer is being taken advantage of and as a politician (looking for votes) it is my sworn duty to protect the voter, even though i know little if anything about the costs of running a business. So I better table some legislation to protect the consumer from unreasonable markups, we need a cap on margins a business can make. With my extensive political knowledge of garnering votes and knowing absolutely nothing about business I suggest that a maximum of a 50% Gross margin on a retail price is more than adequate for any business.

No one wants this can of worms opened.

 

[keith]

I differ on one very major point, there is a real and present danger to the small shops who are forced to rely on incoming $$ because of the increasing encroachment into "local" internet searches the OG's who have found an easy pickings niche to make a profit on that are actively competing for the orders going to small towns. If you think the system works fine why not be that go to incoming shop for your town? It's easy to say everytings fine when you are a big sender, money rolls in. If you see how many towns no longer have a florist or one that accepts orders in at anything less that 100% you will see why this problem requires a fix. I am not a big fan of more government ever, but if you can tell me a way to change this industry....say on.

Our state and several others enacted restrictions on pay day loans, this law affects a fairly small population who typically have no voice and are not in a situation to bargain, they were simply being screwed by vultures. Was it OK to have the state regulate them? I say Yes, the effected did not have the money or connections to change this, but someone stepped forward and made a difference. How is the florist in this country able to negotiate with the wire services for a better and more equitable commission? They simply drop the wire service and go it alone in their town. Membership is at a low point and still they resist.

Someone will come along and realize that there is a potential in simply just a small send and receiving fee and the florists will flock to it. No extortion fees like Quality assurance, and all the other asinine fees the wire services impose ONLY on the filling shop!

If we don't try in our state then who will? Do you have a better solution? It seems many are quick to crap all over our attempt in Oregon but are quiet as a church mouse when it comes to real ideas or answers to a pressing problem.

Keith

 

[CHR]

Keith -

Bottom line. There is no transparency.

OG's claim 'florist in 'any town'', never disclose their real location, never let consumers know the 'service fee' is not a 'delivery fee', never disclose that $X of their order 'includes the cost of local delivery' and then they take their commissions & fees (service, same-day, expidited, AM, etc...) and & WS rewards (rebates) and hope the sender never sees what was sent.

If their 'service charge' can fool even an Associated Press (AP) reporter into believing it pays for delivery, how do you think everyday consumers see it? From an AP Mother's Day article this year:

As you begin browsing floral arrangements, keep in mind that 1-800-Flowers, FTD and Teleflora all charge a service fee, which includes the cost of delivery.

I applaud all your efforts and can see these issues finally gaining some traction.

 

[sandytf]

Someone will come along and realize that there is a potential in simply just a small send and receiving fee and the florists will flock to it. No extortion fees like Quality assurance, and all the other asinine fees the wire services impose ONLY on the filling shop!

Keith

In my opinion, that's what FlowerShop Network does. I'm surprised that more florists don't use it. So many times I've read: "if only there was another option" and there is. I know it's not perfect, but it really brings the wire service model back to what it used to be.