WS Standardize Comparison

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eric S

Demoted Webmaster
Jul 12, 2005
2,944
2,096
113
Tustin
www.everydayflowers.net
State / Prov
CA
Lets come up with a way to standardize the way we share wire service numbers. Using just percentages/

June 2009 Comparison June 2008

Numbers Direct From Statements No Changes.

Incoming +3.92%
Outgoing +93.30%
Membership 0%
Technology +7.98%
Other Member Services +6.04%

And we can add a few other numbers as well.

Number of incoming orders -28.57%
Number of outgoing orders +90%

This way we can follow one format and see exactly how our numbers are fairing to each other.

This Year - Last year / Last year.
 
So I went ahead and tried out Cathy's Wire Service Overhead Calculator.

http://www.flowerchat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4289&highlight=wire+service+form


For the month of June 2009 I show a Net Profit of $14.20 on incoming and $110.53 Net Profit for Outgoing.

Now if I had just one more order to send I would of recieved my rebate and wavied low sending fee which would of changed our profits to 24.20 for incoming and $205.78 for outgoing.

I just wished I could of caught the fact that i was one order short this month so I will need to start looking at a better way to track my sending. At least I thought I had a way to track it and must of missed a few orders. Looks like a few of our hone out orders were not reported and that really sucks. I think i need to figure out a way to remind those phone out orders to report their orders on time!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: duanermb and CHR
Lets come up with a way to standardize the way we share wire service numbers. Using just percentages/

June 2009 Comparison June 2008

Number of outgoing orders +90%
This way we can follow one format and see exactly how our numbers are fairing to each other.

This Year - Last year / Last year.

Now if I had just one more order to send I would of recieved my rebate and wavied low sending fee which would of changed our profits to 24.20 for incoming and $205.78 for outgoing.

Just to clarify, Eric.

Your outgoing orders increased by 90%, but you were still short one order from receiving your rebate?

This is why percentages can be so deceiving...
 
Eric, do you only belong to one wire service? If so, (it doesn't matter if you only have 5 or 6 orders a month to send) you should not be paying a low send fee AT ALL, no matter how many orders you send each month.

If you belong to multiple wire services, as long as you send an equal number of orders through each one, and DO NOT favor one wire service only by sending all thru them, you should not be paying a low send fee either. It doesn't matter if you only send, say 6 orders out a month, if you split those up, 3 orders to one, 3 orders to the other, no low send fee should be charged.

You will have to show your rep the other w/s statement to prove that you are not sending more orders through them.
 
I only have TF for sending orders. As far as the low sending fee its usually only 19.99 and only happens a couple of times a year.

As far as I know there is nothing to do to stop the low sending fine.

When I look at this service its very nickel and dime and find it so hard to believe that so many people feel that it is worth keeping it. I have the minimum of everything that TF offers to send orders. No advertising what so ever and no Codified items at all. But can you imagine if I did?

I looked at our average orders through Cathy’s spreadsheet and its around $85 for sending and receiving. I could probably increase my sending if I had more products to choose from on our website.

As far as percentages go your right. I increased our outgoing by almost double compared to last year. Whoopi from 10 to 19. I figured using the percentages would be more inline for showing the increase cost that so many people complain about from one year to another. Forget about incoming and outgoing and look at just the cost of offering this service that includes 0% increase in membership but increase in Technology +7.9% and 6.04% in other membership cost which included the low sending fee this year and not last year.

I think of some of the current threads here that say something is better then nothing at all. I just don't believe it. In my opionon it still needs to be worth it and filling 5 orders for $14.20 profit regardless of the fact that I moved a few extra items is just not good business.

I did discover something a little disturbing. I did not recieve my credit on processing credit cards for outgoing orders. So it looks like I need to make a call tomorrow.
 
I think of some of the current threads here that say something is better then nothing at all. I just don't believe it. In my opinion it still needs to be worth it and filling 5 orders for $14.20 profit regardless of the fact that I moved a few extra items is just not good business.
Just did not want this point to get lost... I agree with you Eric....
 
I only have TF for sending orders. As far as the low sending fee its usually only 19.99 and only happens a couple of times a year.

As far as I know there is nothing to do to stop the low sending fine.


Please DO check this out with the rep or Regional VP. Wire services will waive the low send fee if you belong only to them. $19.99 a couple of times a year is still money you are paying them that they should not be getting from you.

The reason the low send fee and reciprocity fees were instituted years ago was because a wire service "ASSUMED" that if member florists were not sending orders through them, that they were sending them through one of their competitors. They left it up to the florists to contact them to tell them that they either: (1) only belonged to one wire service, and that they simply did not have the orders to send, or (2) would agree to split evenly whatever orders they had to send, whether it was 2 or 200 between/among the wire services they belonged to, and then the fees would be waived.

When I was repping, I encountered this many, many, many times, and was able to get the florist's fees waived each and every time based on (1) or (2) above.

Please pursue this, it's so unethical IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHR
Well acording to TF the fee is only charged when you don't send the required number of orders.

So if you do not send at least 20 orders you lose the rebate, 0% credit on outgoing orders and you get charged the $19.95 optional sending fee.

Whew I lost my a*ss on the wire service part of our business this month.

But just so you know the TF people did wave the sending fee and are sending the rebate for those orders anyways. Aww shoot now I have to pay them ontime!!!
 
Well acording to TF the fee is only charged when you don't send the required number of orders.

So if you do not send at least 20 orders you lose the rebate, 0% credit on outgoing orders and you get charged the $19.95 optional sending fee.

Whew I lost my a*ss on the wire service part of our business this month.

But just so you know the TF people did wave the sending fee and are sending the rebate for those orders anyways. Aww shoot now I have to pay them ontime!!!

That's the way I always interpreted the rules.
 
Just an FYI. The field rep or his/her superior (Regional VP) are the ones to talk to about low send fees and reciprocity charges. It has always been their responsibility to waive those for you, because they know which w/s the florists in their territory belong to, and have a better handle on which shops have orders to send and those that do not.

If you call customer service at HQ, they will just quote the rule and not do anything to help get these charges waived.

Gotta talk to the right people, all's I'm sayin...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bloomz
Thanks Dior

I believe what your saying. I think its fair that they do this since I did not send enough orders. On the other hand they went ahead and gave me the rebates and wave the fee since I usually send much more. February and June are usually the hardest months for sending unless you OG orders for Vday.

Hey thanks everyone because I would not of called at all if you didn't mentioned what you said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.