Wire Services Are Buying Your Customer
- Thread starter safeguy
- Start date
- Status
TOTO
New Member
Ah YES, ethanol SUBSIDIES.....
And as we both already know JOE, our Government has NO MONEY of its own.
It's all OUR MONEY Joe and so, GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES for the GOVERNMENT'S ETHANOL ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEBACLE, or any other so called RENEWABLE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCE, and instead of petroleum products, is just another TAXPAYER SCAM.
Might call it; ROBBING PETER to PAY PAUL!
Just another case of COST SHIFTING and much like the same game that the WSs play on their willing victims.
The best you can hope for, and when you buy into ETHANOL FUTURES or POSITIONS, would be an attempt on your part to try and reduce the additional costs to you at the pumps in addition to, the costs to you in TAXES which go to subsidize the SUBSIDIES which those producers are privy too, and despite the reality of the overall losses to the consumers.
Your right pocket is filled with the dollars from the PROFITS you gleaned from your OUTGOING ORDERS to include your 20% commissions, your shops' wire $ervice charges, and the REBATES you've earned form the WSs you sent your orders through.
Your left pocket is filled with the nickels and dimes you think you've gleaned from INCOMING ORDERS.
Now, and once each month, you are required to PAY YOUR PARTNERS anywhere from $300 to $500 for your membership.
Since the nickels and dimes in your left pocket isn't enough, you're then forced to reach into your right pocket (where your real profits were made) and use some of that money to PAY THEIR BILL.
That's the meaning of COST SHIFTING in the SHELL GAME which the FEDS and their ETHANOL and the WSs with their WAMPUM, try and play out on all of us, each and everyday.
Just another example of OUR TAX DOLLARS and WS FEES at work, albeit, AGAINST US!
Good to know your family owns farm ground. Might come a time when, they'll need it to grow their own sustaining food crops for the family.
Let's both hope, it doesn't come to that.
And as we both already know JOE, our Government has NO MONEY of its own.
It's all OUR MONEY Joe and so, GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES for the GOVERNMENT'S ETHANOL ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEBACLE, or any other so called RENEWABLE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCE, and instead of petroleum products, is just another TAXPAYER SCAM.
Might call it; ROBBING PETER to PAY PAUL!
Just another case of COST SHIFTING and much like the same game that the WSs play on their willing victims.
The best you can hope for, and when you buy into ETHANOL FUTURES or POSITIONS, would be an attempt on your part to try and reduce the additional costs to you at the pumps in addition to, the costs to you in TAXES which go to subsidize the SUBSIDIES which those producers are privy too, and despite the reality of the overall losses to the consumers.
Your right pocket is filled with the dollars from the PROFITS you gleaned from your OUTGOING ORDERS to include your 20% commissions, your shops' wire $ervice charges, and the REBATES you've earned form the WSs you sent your orders through.
Your left pocket is filled with the nickels and dimes you think you've gleaned from INCOMING ORDERS.
Now, and once each month, you are required to PAY YOUR PARTNERS anywhere from $300 to $500 for your membership.
Since the nickels and dimes in your left pocket isn't enough, you're then forced to reach into your right pocket (where your real profits were made) and use some of that money to PAY THEIR BILL.
That's the meaning of COST SHIFTING in the SHELL GAME which the FEDS and their ETHANOL and the WSs with their WAMPUM, try and play out on all of us, each and everyday.
Just another example of OUR TAX DOLLARS and WS FEES at work, albeit, AGAINST US!
Good to know your family owns farm ground. Might come a time when, they'll need it to grow their own sustaining food crops for the family.
Let's both hope, it doesn't come to that.
TOTO
New Member
Looks like $8 a POP to MEE Joe!
Looks to me as if, inferno63 has a total monthly WS liability of $131.00 for eight incoming ws orders plus the cost of the WS counter selection guide, magazines, and any other ancillary dues and fees they can lay upon her.
Ya really have to take the TOTAL ANNUAL WS COSTS into perspective and before you can get a true tally for your additional incoming order acquisition costs. Once that's determined, you can look at your GROSS total of your incoming orders, and come up with the additional percentage of discount.
In this case, and should her annual orders amount to $3,840.00 GROSS, and her total annual cost of membership is $1572.00 plus the counter selection guide at $300.00, that's a grand total of $1872.00 in REAL DOLLARS.
Since her net on the incoming gross is only $2,803.20 less her incoming order transmission charges of another $168.00, the net net is $2635.20.
In fact, her additional incoming order acquisition costs average another $19.50.
Using her COGS, COL, and COD, her total costs to fill $3,840.00 worth of incoming at GROSS (96 orders) is $844.80 (cogs) $384.00 (col) and $768.00 (cod) for a total of cost to her of $1996.80.
She nets $2803.20 (-27%) less her total order costs of $1996.80, thus leaving her $806.40 in GROSS profits.
When she deducts her total annual costs of $1,872.00 to belong to that WS, she now winds up with a NET LOSS of (-$1065.60) per year or (-$11.10) per incoming order, or in this case, an additional order discount of (-27.75%).
By adding the ON THE SURFACE per order discount of (-27%) plus the additional per order losses she incurs due to her WS annual costs of (-27.75%), her total per order discount is now at (-54.75%).
In this case, she winds up filling incoming WS orders at forty-five cents from their dollar while they are costing her fifty-two cents from her dollar, just to DOO THEM. Add to that, the incoming per order acquisition costs of $19.50 (due to the annual WS costs of membership), and the REAL COSTS for filling each of those orders is now at $1.01, or an additional fifty-six cents from her wallet.
In my opinion, not even the taxpayer paid subsidies, due to the ETHANOL DEBACLE, come close to this WINDFALL PROFIT ponzi scheme developed by the WSs as being perpetrated on their small mom and pops shop members.
My cogs (cost of goods) averages 30% and my col (cost of labor) averages 25%, so in that department, she's doing really great as opposed to others.
Then again, we're in New York, labeled as having the most DYSFUNCTIONAL STATE LEGISLATURE in this Country, not to mention our former and current Governors. Add to that, their current 4.5 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT, along with the third highest CUMULATIVE TAXES in the country, and it's no wonder why, our cogs, col, and cod have always been higher too.
Back in 1998, Jim Jordan with FTDA ran the numbers on the average florist's costs per delivery. Back then, he came up with $7.50 in real dollars.
Since it's ten years later, and the price of gasoline being what it is, I'm going to suggest that, it's more like $10 per delivery now IN REAL DOLLARS, and not in WS WAMPUM. ($10-30%=$7)
Since most of their DOT.CON orders were residential or business and not funeral Homes, we never had any situation when, we had more than one of their DOT.CON orders going to a funeral home, EVER! And so, no per delivery cost savings there, from our former experience.
inferno63 said:
Looks to me as if, inferno63 has a total monthly WS liability of $131.00 for eight incoming ws orders plus the cost of the WS counter selection guide, magazines, and any other ancillary dues and fees they can lay upon her.
Ya really have to take the TOTAL ANNUAL WS COSTS into perspective and before you can get a true tally for your additional incoming order acquisition costs. Once that's determined, you can look at your GROSS total of your incoming orders, and come up with the additional percentage of discount.
In this case, and should her annual orders amount to $3,840.00 GROSS, and her total annual cost of membership is $1572.00 plus the counter selection guide at $300.00, that's a grand total of $1872.00 in REAL DOLLARS.
Since her net on the incoming gross is only $2,803.20 less her incoming order transmission charges of another $168.00, the net net is $2635.20.
In fact, her additional incoming order acquisition costs average another $19.50.
Using her COGS, COL, and COD, her total costs to fill $3,840.00 worth of incoming at GROSS (96 orders) is $844.80 (cogs) $384.00 (col) and $768.00 (cod) for a total of cost to her of $1996.80.
She nets $2803.20 (-27%) less her total order costs of $1996.80, thus leaving her $806.40 in GROSS profits.
When she deducts her total annual costs of $1,872.00 to belong to that WS, she now winds up with a NET LOSS of (-$1065.60) per year or (-$11.10) per incoming order, or in this case, an additional order discount of (-27.75%).
By adding the ON THE SURFACE per order discount of (-27%) plus the additional per order losses she incurs due to her WS annual costs of (-27.75%), her total per order discount is now at (-54.75%).
In this case, she winds up filling incoming WS orders at forty-five cents from their dollar while they are costing her fifty-two cents from her dollar, just to DOO THEM. Add to that, the incoming per order acquisition costs of $19.50 (due to the annual WS costs of membership), and the REAL COSTS for filling each of those orders is now at $1.01, or an additional fifty-six cents from her wallet.
In my opinion, not even the taxpayer paid subsidies, due to the ETHANOL DEBACLE, come close to this WINDFALL PROFIT ponzi scheme developed by the WSs as being perpetrated on their small mom and pops shop members.
My cogs (cost of goods) averages 30% and my col (cost of labor) averages 25%, so in that department, she's doing really great as opposed to others.
Then again, we're in New York, labeled as having the most DYSFUNCTIONAL STATE LEGISLATURE in this Country, not to mention our former and current Governors. Add to that, their current 4.5 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT, along with the third highest CUMULATIVE TAXES in the country, and it's no wonder why, our cogs, col, and cod have always been higher too.
Back in 1998, Jim Jordan with FTDA ran the numbers on the average florist's costs per delivery. Back then, he came up with $7.50 in real dollars.
Since it's ten years later, and the price of gasoline being what it is, I'm going to suggest that, it's more like $10 per delivery now IN REAL DOLLARS, and not in WS WAMPUM. ($10-30%=$7)
Since most of their DOT.CON orders were residential or business and not funeral Homes, we never had any situation when, we had more than one of their DOT.CON orders going to a funeral home, EVER! And so, no per delivery cost savings there, from our former experience.
Been reading this wire thread now since I've joined(1 day or so ago) and I'm wondering now. Since my ultimate goal is to own a shop as well as design....is it possible to open a shop without a wire service? Or is that a surefire way to closing within the first year? I really would love to know if it is feasible to do that.
Thoughts on this are most appreciated!
Thoughts on this are most appreciated!
Joe Mioux
Well-Known Member
I was having some fun with your post. I am on the same political side as you.
Here is where you and I differ. I treat the my WS business as a whole department, not two seperate departments. Incoming business plus outgoing commissions all get lumped together. Departmental accounting. It doesn't have to, I know both sides' profitabilty.
It's nothing different from other departments in your store. Say you have candles that occupy a certain amount of space, gift cards in another space, candles in another, silks in another, fresh in another, plush in another and balloons in another.
Each one can be considered a different department. Each one will have a different cost, a different markup and a different profitiablity.
Some of these departments might actually be costing you money because they do not turn over as fast as some other product in the store. In the end all the money goes into the bank.
Toto I don't give a hoot if you think the incoming money is in my left pocket and the outgoing is in my right pocket.
The same analogy could be made for fresh flowers. Sometimes a florist will buy in an expensive flower but only mark it up maybe 2 times, while other times a florist will consistently markup a flower 5 times. Using your logic, you would never ever buy that expensive flower because it isn't as profitable as the more common flower that gets a 5 times markup.
At the end of the day, it all goes in the bank. You are so hung up on the emotional side of this business that you forget to think about the total.
ONe other thing, nothing you have typed is news to me re: wireservice profitabilty. I have analyzed this stuff backwards forwards and inside out.
I know what I'm doing.
Joe Mioux
Well-Known Member
I misread the delivery fees. I was thinking that the $64 was a per delivery fee.
thanks toto for clarifying.
joe
thanks toto for clarifying.
joe
First, my thanks to Toto for his accessment of WS costs. I agree wholeheartedly. Any evaluation of costs has to be on the whole picture. WS is NOT just about ins and outs. It's all about the incidentials that add up. I also understand why Joe feels his wire services still provide him profit. I do find it somewhat ironic, however, that after all the years we have "banged" this subject around, it now comes down to "WS can be profitable". What happened to the good old days when just before a floral holiday the major topic was, which WS had the best containers or which WS has the best CC program or which WS is the lesser of two evils. Now you want florists to tackle the question of profitability with a WS. Profit can be defined as buying something for a dollar and reselling it for $2,then you made a profit. However, if you had to invest some form of time or money into the selling of that item, it is now questionable as to how profitable the sale really was. And that's what it really comes down to when discussing profitability and WS.
My comments on this subject have always been that what works for Joe is not necessarily going to work for many other florists. Here's some general observations. Joe's located in a rural town of appox, 4,000 and is the only florist in town. Inferno is located in a town of approx 1,000 and is also the only florist. Joe has 2 locations and belongs to 2 WS and indicated that he has a postive ratio of outgoing to incoming and the rebates actually pay for his membership. Inferno only belonged to one and had a negative ratio of 1 to 8. Toto just confirmed what she already figured out - WS was profitable for her. Jerry (Jeremiah's in Geneo, Il) has posted on here some time back with his real numbers as to why it wasn't profitable for him and the population of his town is about 3,000. I was a florist in a town that was about 5,000 when I opened and well over 12,000 when I closed. I started with 1 WS, then had 2, then went back to 1 and then for the last 5 years had none for the same reason. My company actually made more profit on less sales because the WS numbers were no longer in the mix.
I think is very diffiicult for most to understand when we hear florists telling other florists that you only need one WS when anyone that OG's is connected to all the WS. It's also very difficult to comprehend when florists tell other florists that they may be in too small of a town to belong to a WS when the whole concept of order transfer is based on being able to get orders delivered into these small towns.
The fact of the matter is the entire WS game is based on numbers. The problem is that most of the numbers are uncontrollable and unpredictable. No one can predict how many orders they're going to send out every month and no one can predict how many incoming or the dollar amounts of each. The one thing that any florist has to understand is that if you don't have a positive ratio of outgoing to incoming, you stand no chance of making any profit in this game. In fact there was a discussion on positive ratios sometime back and I think that in some cases florists were able to show that based on their WS costs that they needed almost a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of outgoing to break even.
I want to make another thing very clear. Alot of this profitability talk is done through accounting methods. It's not illegal. It's not deceptive. It's how you put what numbers in what columns. Like many florists, Joe has full time designers. Joe classifies these designers as a fixed expense because it doesn't vary from week to week except for holidays. Because labor is fixed, some florists don't charge labor against incoming wire orders, only COG's. As Joe says, the incoming wire business is just "blended in" and they look at the numbers as a percent of overall sales. This is very difficult to understand when you are the only designer for you company and you're the one filling orders for free. I've never been a big fan of this philosophy because you can also take it one step further and say that if the driver is a full time employee and therefore a fixed expense, then delivery for incoming orders is nothing more than addtional gas expense and all other expenses of the vehicle are merely a percentage of sales.
Unfortuantely this debate will continue to go on and on and on. The people who currently have very large positive ratios don't want anything to change and the ones that have negitive ones realize that there is nothing they can do to change it. One only has to read all the comments on the various subjects posted on this board to realize that it is not the lack of business savy or lack of marketing skills or effort that have place so many florists in financial jeopardy. It is about the distribution of business and how an industry openly promotes order gathering from others which distorts normal distribution and creates artificial competition for self profit.
Some opinions may vary - mine don't.
My comments on this subject have always been that what works for Joe is not necessarily going to work for many other florists. Here's some general observations. Joe's located in a rural town of appox, 4,000 and is the only florist in town. Inferno is located in a town of approx 1,000 and is also the only florist. Joe has 2 locations and belongs to 2 WS and indicated that he has a postive ratio of outgoing to incoming and the rebates actually pay for his membership. Inferno only belonged to one and had a negative ratio of 1 to 8. Toto just confirmed what she already figured out - WS was profitable for her. Jerry (Jeremiah's in Geneo, Il) has posted on here some time back with his real numbers as to why it wasn't profitable for him and the population of his town is about 3,000. I was a florist in a town that was about 5,000 when I opened and well over 12,000 when I closed. I started with 1 WS, then had 2, then went back to 1 and then for the last 5 years had none for the same reason. My company actually made more profit on less sales because the WS numbers were no longer in the mix.
I think is very diffiicult for most to understand when we hear florists telling other florists that you only need one WS when anyone that OG's is connected to all the WS. It's also very difficult to comprehend when florists tell other florists that they may be in too small of a town to belong to a WS when the whole concept of order transfer is based on being able to get orders delivered into these small towns.
The fact of the matter is the entire WS game is based on numbers. The problem is that most of the numbers are uncontrollable and unpredictable. No one can predict how many orders they're going to send out every month and no one can predict how many incoming or the dollar amounts of each. The one thing that any florist has to understand is that if you don't have a positive ratio of outgoing to incoming, you stand no chance of making any profit in this game. In fact there was a discussion on positive ratios sometime back and I think that in some cases florists were able to show that based on their WS costs that they needed almost a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of outgoing to break even.
I want to make another thing very clear. Alot of this profitability talk is done through accounting methods. It's not illegal. It's not deceptive. It's how you put what numbers in what columns. Like many florists, Joe has full time designers. Joe classifies these designers as a fixed expense because it doesn't vary from week to week except for holidays. Because labor is fixed, some florists don't charge labor against incoming wire orders, only COG's. As Joe says, the incoming wire business is just "blended in" and they look at the numbers as a percent of overall sales. This is very difficult to understand when you are the only designer for you company and you're the one filling orders for free. I've never been a big fan of this philosophy because you can also take it one step further and say that if the driver is a full time employee and therefore a fixed expense, then delivery for incoming orders is nothing more than addtional gas expense and all other expenses of the vehicle are merely a percentage of sales.
Unfortuantely this debate will continue to go on and on and on. The people who currently have very large positive ratios don't want anything to change and the ones that have negitive ones realize that there is nothing they can do to change it. One only has to read all the comments on the various subjects posted on this board to realize that it is not the lack of business savy or lack of marketing skills or effort that have place so many florists in financial jeopardy. It is about the distribution of business and how an industry openly promotes order gathering from others which distorts normal distribution and creates artificial competition for self profit.
Some opinions may vary - mine don't.
TOTO
New Member
Yes, and that's where we DOO DISAGREE Joe
I never made an issue over thinking that, you didn't know what you're doing.
My only point is to inform some other NEWBIES over the false reality of thinking that, a WS is the BEE ALL, END ALL, in helping them build their business. And based on them thinking that, filling highly discounted incoming orders are profitable enough to help them build their new business.
As to DEPARTMENTS within one's store, I agree that, each department can produce different results regarding profits.
However, each department MUST PRODUCE A PROFIT, otherwise those items must be eliminated to make room for a new line which WILL PRODUCE A PROFIT.
Going one step further, and even when only looking at ONE DEPARTMENT having a few items which only take up space without contributing to the BOTTOM LINE, those items in that department would be eliminated. And the only exception to that rule would be in such rare cases as those items are HOOKS which bring in DA SHOPPERS who will make a purchase in that department or in the rest of one's store.
Having said all of that, each item we sell MUST PRODUCE A PROFIT, even if it's only a SMALL ONE.
All of them must stand on their own and none of them can be allowed to produce a loss which takes real dollars from the other areas of our business producing profits.
I simply will NOT SUBSIDIZE any item, department, or outside partner, just for the sake of putting it all in one pot and stirring it up to see what we end up with.
When I'm making SOUP it just can't be watered down.
And TOTO DOO make a D-A-M-N GOOD homemade pot of soup!:rofl:
I never made an issue over thinking that, you didn't know what you're doing.
My only point is to inform some other NEWBIES over the false reality of thinking that, a WS is the BEE ALL, END ALL, in helping them build their business. And based on them thinking that, filling highly discounted incoming orders are profitable enough to help them build their new business.
As to DEPARTMENTS within one's store, I agree that, each department can produce different results regarding profits.
However, each department MUST PRODUCE A PROFIT, otherwise those items must be eliminated to make room for a new line which WILL PRODUCE A PROFIT.
Going one step further, and even when only looking at ONE DEPARTMENT having a few items which only take up space without contributing to the BOTTOM LINE, those items in that department would be eliminated. And the only exception to that rule would be in such rare cases as those items are HOOKS which bring in DA SHOPPERS who will make a purchase in that department or in the rest of one's store.
Having said all of that, each item we sell MUST PRODUCE A PROFIT, even if it's only a SMALL ONE.
All of them must stand on their own and none of them can be allowed to produce a loss which takes real dollars from the other areas of our business producing profits.
I simply will NOT SUBSIDIZE any item, department, or outside partner, just for the sake of putting it all in one pot and stirring it up to see what we end up with.
When I'm making SOUP it just can't be watered down.
And TOTO DOO make a D-A-M-N GOOD homemade pot of soup!:rofl:
coastieflowers
Active Member
I just got around to reading your post. Is it legal to do that with a delivery to a customer you got from a ws? i have thought of doing that before I quit the ws. We always get the ones way out in the country for 39.99. Couldn't make a profit on that even if it was next door.
It's equally as important for newbies to realize that our floral businesses (and corresponding departments) are a combination of ingredents.
If a department can make you any kind of contribution margin, it should not ever necessarily be shunned because people on chat boards tell you it should.
It will never be the end all, but the examples and numbers Joe gives can be a great help to keeping it under control and thereby profitable.
Our sage, good friend, and historian Toto has quite a history with wire services, but also, I know he feels badly burned seeing one he loved turn back and bite him in the ass and become one of our worst competitors, and I fear his history of that blinds him just a bit to the ways they can be USED to help your business out add to their bottom line.
Many here will try to tell you that you can't make any money on an incoming wire order - I know I used to be one. I found out thru hiring a consultant that I was wrong, and what I was was prejudiced (pre-judge)
Don't turn your back on any department that can add to your bottom line, or you just may not make it in this floral business. They're going to be out there competing with us whether we use them or not - I choose to milk whatever money I can out of my relationship with them.
And, many here advocate doing this as a service for their customers - at no or very little profit, so what's the diff?
Up in here...
opinions vary
but often the loudest and most purported one when it comes to wire services is don't use hem no matter what ("I quit TFTD" - "HURRAY - right on")
To some of us that means "I never figured out how to use them to my benefit"
Again someone please point out to me a large successful florist without a wire service?
RC in Dayton and Cincinnati
New Member
Bloomz,
I believe wire service membership is a losing proposition for nearly all florists (at least 90%). In my opinion multiple memberships for these florists is downright crazy. There is no hidden agenda in my position. In fact, the wire services have been very good to me.
My position is based on common sense and fact. Common sense says being paid 30, 40, 50, 60 cents on the dollar to receive an incoming wire order is a bad deal. Common sense says allowing vendors dictating and controlling your business is a bad idea.
I believe the facts are on my side as well if looked at logically, but saying an incoming wire order doesn't have to fully contribute to labor, rent, insurance, utilities, etc. because the local customers will take up the slack just doesn't make much common sense, does it?
One final point and question. Has anyone wondered where most of the industry's consultants got their early training and influence? FTD, Teleflora, and AFS. Is it any wonder why they think so highly of the wire services and preach their business model? If their advice is so good in today's environment why do florists need to continue going back? for tune ups?
RC
I believe wire service membership is a losing proposition for nearly all florists (at least 90%). In my opinion multiple memberships for these florists is downright crazy. There is no hidden agenda in my position. In fact, the wire services have been very good to me.
My position is based on common sense and fact. Common sense says being paid 30, 40, 50, 60 cents on the dollar to receive an incoming wire order is a bad deal. Common sense says allowing vendors dictating and controlling your business is a bad idea.
I believe the facts are on my side as well if looked at logically, but saying an incoming wire order doesn't have to fully contribute to labor, rent, insurance, utilities, etc. because the local customers will take up the slack just doesn't make much common sense, does it?
One final point and question. Has anyone wondered where most of the industry's consultants got their early training and influence? FTD, Teleflora, and AFS. Is it any wonder why they think so highly of the wire services and preach their business model? If their advice is so good in today's environment why do florists need to continue going back? for tune ups?
RC
Joe Mioux
Well-Known Member
toto,
this is where you error.
Ideally all departments should produce a NET Profit.
However, they don't necesssarily have to produce a net profit in order to contribute to the co.s. Net Profit.
It's called Contribution Margins.
As long as the department is covering all of its departmental costs, plus contributing money to the overall Overhead of the business, that department doesn't have to produce a Net Profit for the company in order for it to contribute to its overall profitablity.
It needs to provide Contribution money over and above its departmental expeneses in order for that business to realize a better Net Profit.
If anyone doesn't understand this type of accounting Please call me.
this is basic - fundamental - managerial accounting.
joe
Joe Mioux
Well-Known Member
You assume too much.
First, I do have another flower shop competitor in my Main Store's town. You don't know that because you must have been looking in a wire service directory.
Twenty years ago she mismanaged her wire service business and was booted out of FTD, TF and AFS.
OT. It takes some managerial skill to understand and profit from the wire service business, she didn't have it and apparently there are many more as well.
She is cash only CASH ONLY! with the local wholesaler.
The other wholesalers don't do business with her and I do know for a fact from the old AFS that there were issues.
OT, how old are you and why did you get out of retail flowers?
joe
one other thing, hopefully to ease your mind a bit. The WS is dying, it won't be around as we know it sometime in the future. Individual websites will be the long distance flower port.
TOTO
New Member
I was once BLIND and now, I CAN SEE!
Highlighted in RED are your own MAGIC WORDS JB!
And the only issue (fore mee) is over BUSINESS and the question of; Why would anyone send their hard earned dollars to any of their worst competitors? (aye eee u) :grovel:
As to departments and/or items in those departments which do not produce a profit but may help to contribute marginally to offset one's operating expenses?
I guess opinions, and since they always vary, will continue to be varying opinions.
As a SHOPPER MYSELF, and when visiting my local SAM'S CLUB (Walmart), I had to learn NOT to get too dependent on any specific items.
Such things as Frozen Fried Clams, Jif Peanut Butter, Member's Mark Dish Washer Powder, and Crab Rangoons, were available six months ago, and now gone.
I located the store manager and asked her, why some of my favorite products had suddenly DISAPPEARED?
Her answer was: Well, they probably weren't moving fast enough and when that becomes the case, the SAM'S CLUB POLICY is to discontinue carrying them in our store.
But I LIKED THEM, I told her. She apologized and only added that, she had no control over those decisions.
What I also know is that, Walmart tells their suppliers exactly how much they will pay them for those products if they want the privilege of selling them in their stores.
I remember someone suggesting the price to Walmart (incoming) is based on the manufacturer's cost plus a MARGINAL PERCENTAGE of profit and much lower than they sell to other stores for.
And so, in this case, those manufacturers agree since, as Joe and JB have stated, it becomes a MARGINAL CONTRIBUTION to offset their TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES.
However, and on the flip side, the store's policy (outgoing) is A HORSE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR
I'll add this thought as COROBERATING TESTIMONY to our case study. lol
Highlighted in RED are your own MAGIC WORDS JB!
And the only issue (fore mee) is over BUSINESS and the question of; Why would anyone send their hard earned dollars to any of their worst competitors? (aye eee u) :grovel:
As to departments and/or items in those departments which do not produce a profit but may help to contribute marginally to offset one's operating expenses?
I guess opinions, and since they always vary, will continue to be varying opinions.
As a SHOPPER MYSELF, and when visiting my local SAM'S CLUB (Walmart), I had to learn NOT to get too dependent on any specific items.
Such things as Frozen Fried Clams, Jif Peanut Butter, Member's Mark Dish Washer Powder, and Crab Rangoons, were available six months ago, and now gone.
I located the store manager and asked her, why some of my favorite products had suddenly DISAPPEARED?
Her answer was: Well, they probably weren't moving fast enough and when that becomes the case, the SAM'S CLUB POLICY is to discontinue carrying them in our store.
But I LIKED THEM, I told her. She apologized and only added that, she had no control over those decisions.
What I also know is that, Walmart tells their suppliers exactly how much they will pay them for those products if they want the privilege of selling them in their stores.
I remember someone suggesting the price to Walmart (incoming) is based on the manufacturer's cost plus a MARGINAL PERCENTAGE of profit and much lower than they sell to other stores for.
And so, in this case, those manufacturers agree since, as Joe and JB have stated, it becomes a MARGINAL CONTRIBUTION to offset their TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES.
However, and on the flip side, the store's policy (outgoing) is A HORSE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR
I'll add this thought as COROBERATING TESTIMONY to our case study. lol
Hollywood
Active Member
Individual websites will be the long distance flower port. Joe Mioux,
Right on, Joe,:yourock:
Our website is busy and responding real well, we made it ourselves.
No prices, because size differences.
This is only to give our toll free # and show people what kind of stuff we are doing here @ www.countryflorist.net
Check it out and turn your speakers on.
Warm regards and lots of respect.........Hollywood!!:jester
Right on, Joe,:yourock:
Our website is busy and responding real well, we made it ourselves.
No prices, because size differences.
This is only to give our toll free # and show people what kind of stuff we are doing here @ www.countryflorist.net
Check it out and turn your speakers on.
Warm regards and lots of respect.........Hollywood!!:jester
Joe, I'm a month short of 68. I have a business degree from Bradley University, I had 25 years of business experience primarily in manufacturing companies before I opened the flower shop. I started it from sratch and had no previous knowledge of the flower business. I used my life savings to start the business.
After I turned 65, I realized that in a couple of months the business would be 20 yrs old and I wasn't getting any younger. My daughter and oldest granddaugther have always voluntered to work at the shop during holidays, but had no interest in doing it full time. I never considered the idea to see how long I could go, but rather could I do something else and still enjoy what I was doing. Once I answered that question, it took only thirty days for me to close the shop, pay all the bills and turn out the lights.
I guess one can look at the other florist in your town from different view points. I, for one, think that anyone that has survived for 20 years after getting rid of all WS for whatever reason, without any lines of credit and having to pay as you go is really quite amazing. You, obviouly get 99% of all orders coming into that area and probably about the same percentage of outgoing too. The net result is the other florist is still there. And twenty years is a long time and I know. It just goes to prove that businesses can survive without WS.
Bloomzie made an interesting comment earlier. He asked if anyone had every seen a large, successful flower shop that wasn't attached to a wire service. He's right, but any flower shop isn't large and successful because of a WS, but rather inspite of it. Has anyone ever heard of any WS telling the world that they made this or that flower shop successful. Can you imagine the sales pitch they could use with new florists when they tell them all the successful programs and the specific companies that have benefited from their programs. They can't point to any company and say THEY are the reason for their success. It's just not true. Florists make their own success inspite of the WS. The WS doesn't create orders, they don't arrange floral orders, they don't grow plants and they don't make any product for you to sell. They're just a middleman.
Another observation.The floral business is highly labor intensive these days. All the items that florists used to sell that required little or no labor are all gone. The labor skill that is within the industry is it's biggest advantage and at the same time it's biggest disadvantage. The consumer is looking for lower prices and saving nickles and dimes on stems of flowers isn't going to bring the consumer back. Florists have to find a way to lower their labor cost. That's why I disagree about not charging labor on incoming wire business. I know that some business do this, but it's not a great idea in the floral business. Everyone has to pay their fair share and that includes incoming wire orders. If you give someone a break, eventually someone else has to pay more and the only one left is you local customer.
And lastly, WS are not going to die away until florists figure out they really don't need them. As long as florists continue to chase sending commissions and rebates to prop up their business, WS will continue to take the florists' money and use it against them. The whole wire service program is based on subsidy philosophy. The 20% commission is a subsidy, the rebate is a subsidy, the CC program is based on subsidy and the small town dues and fee program is a subsidy. Member florists are all paying these subsidies to keep the system afloat. None of this money comes out of the WS pocket. And websites will only become a effective tool for local florists when commissions and rebates are gone. Until then, websites will continue to promote false competition for the local flower shop.
TOTO
New Member
AH, a MAN of WISDOM based on YEARS of EXPERIENCE!
You got TOTO's vote OLDTIMER!
In fact, and based on what you say, it could describe our very own Government and how they run their business, albeit on OUR TAX DOLLARS.
What continues to AMAZE MEE is just how many florists get duped into actuallly believing THE WS MYTH.
I have always understood why the OGs, DOGs, NON-LOCAL PHONIES, BIG SENDERS, WANNA BEES, and WSs want to perpetuate THE MYTH.
But, I still don't understand why, the small mom and pops still get suckered into the WS ponzi scheme, thinking that, by filling all of that HIGHLY DISCOUNTED INCOMING JUNK, it will help their business grow?
OH WELL, as PT BARNUM SAID: " A SUCKER IS BORN EVERY MINUTE! "
You got TOTO's vote OLDTIMER!
In fact, and based on what you say, it could describe our very own Government and how they run their business, albeit on OUR TAX DOLLARS.
What continues to AMAZE MEE is just how many florists get duped into actuallly believing THE WS MYTH.
I have always understood why the OGs, DOGs, NON-LOCAL PHONIES, BIG SENDERS, WANNA BEES, and WSs want to perpetuate THE MYTH.
But, I still don't understand why, the small mom and pops still get suckered into the WS ponzi scheme, thinking that, by filling all of that HIGHLY DISCOUNTED INCOMING JUNK, it will help their business grow?
OH WELL, as PT BARNUM SAID: " A SUCKER IS BORN EVERY MINUTE! "
Joe Mioux
Well-Known Member
Dang lost an entire post, due to being timed out.
so I will give a short version.
OT. thanks for providing me some of your background. it helps me understand your positions better.
My competitor? she does a lot of weddings.
She lost the privelege to charge on account.
Your labor analysis as it relates to discounted business is flawed.
Labor is a fixed cost on a daily or weekly basis. I am not advocating that any flower shop hire additional labor in order to fill ws orders. My argument has never been that.
Flower shops can easily accept two or three additional orders per designer per day. As long as those orders cover all the variable costs of that order. Accepting additional business, even if it doesn't cover all the fixed costs will make that shop more profitable.
joe
so I will give a short version.
OT. thanks for providing me some of your background. it helps me understand your positions better.
My competitor? she does a lot of weddings.
She lost the privelege to charge on account.
Your labor analysis as it relates to discounted business is flawed.
Labor is a fixed cost on a daily or weekly basis. I am not advocating that any flower shop hire additional labor in order to fill ws orders. My argument has never been that.
Flower shops can easily accept two or three additional orders per designer per day. As long as those orders cover all the variable costs of that order. Accepting additional business, even if it doesn't cover all the fixed costs will make that shop more profitable.
joe
I am soooooo guilty of this. FTD convinced me that I could promote my own business and get my name out there with them sending me orders. Even after I ran the numbers and complained to them, they once again convinced me that it would benefit me to fill orders. I have never taken out a loan in this business but was to the point of broke from FTD that I almost took out a line of credit.....instead I immediately dropped FTD and slowly watched my cash flow and profit margin problems get soooooo much better.
I discussed this with a vendor rep who once had a floral shop himself who told me that he knew of several businesses that wire services put out of business but the owners didn't even know that it was the WS that did it to them until afterwards when the numbers landed. I survived the punch and onward I go!
~Sucker in Recovery!
TOTO
New Member
You're NOT ALONE in this!
No need to feel quilty since, all of us have been there, did that too, at one time or another. It was a LEARNING CURVE.
Sadly, too many mom and pops are STILL THERE!
I remember all too well, of many shops which either went under by filling too many HIGHLY DISCOUNTED incoming orders or had to DOWNSIZE overnight when their SKIMMER PARTNER cut a better deal with another FILLER FOOL.
At least YOU found out where you were HEMORRHAGING from and managed to STOP THE BLEEDING before it killed ya!
GOOD FOR YOU!
No need to feel quilty since, all of us have been there, did that too, at one time or another. It was a LEARNING CURVE.
Sadly, too many mom and pops are STILL THERE!
I remember all too well, of many shops which either went under by filling too many HIGHLY DISCOUNTED incoming orders or had to DOWNSIZE overnight when their SKIMMER PARTNER cut a better deal with another FILLER FOOL.
At least YOU found out where you were HEMORRHAGING from and managed to STOP THE BLEEDING before it killed ya!
GOOD FOR YOU!
- Status