I have for a long time believed that substitution was one of the leading causes of consumer dissatisfaction. The fact that tightening up on it would not resolve all issues is not a valid reason for keeping it in its present form. Substitution was developed and still exists for the convenience of the the sending and filling florist's, not for the benefit of the consumer. The reality is that many of our industry standard practices were developed originally for the convenience of the florist, substitution is just one case in point.
Another great example of this is "fill to value", talk about a moving target. FTD as an example has 13,000+ members in North America, all of whom individually set pricing and determine value. Never once in this equation is the consumer's interpretation of value considered to any degree. Send a $50 "fill to value" order to 10 different filling shops and you get 10 totally different finished products typically ranging from "great value" all the way to "over priced". Someplace in the middle you may actually find a product that serves both the consumer and the filling shop by providing decent value while still maintaining a reasonable margin.
Yet at the end of the day the average filling florist will fight to the death to maintain their right to substitute and determine their own "fill to value".
It's no wonder the consumer is confused, angry, and seeking alternatives. Say what you want about direct shippers, but the fact remains that at least what they deliver is generally closer to what was actually sold than we can say about a lot of traditional wire orders filled by florists.Sure their advertised price is inflated through the order process by service and delivery fee's however the consumer is aware of this at each step.
Again, the bottom line here is that our industry in some areas needs an overhaul from top to bottom to catch up with today's consumer.
The issue of substitutions and "fill to value" are both valid areas of abuse by florists (and, arguably, the WS).
However, "fill to value" is an arena, when the cost of product, labor and distribution to the consumer are considered, the theoretically same designer in NYC on 5th Ave or Peoria, IL, or Honolulu, HI or St. John's, Newfoundland, would turn out a different finished item if, for example, all had an order from a WS for US$50.
The WS are attempting to take a national restaurant chain approach: selling the "same soup", the "same steak" and the "same dessert" at an average price and quality across the geographical vastness of the USA and Canada. In reality though, BK, McD, KFC et cetera do not have a common, nationwide, approach. The price of a cheeseburger in McD is different in San Fran from what it is in Anchorage and from what it is in Orlando. It is different because of localized costs and what the market will carry. Look at the alternative to the nationals, stand alone restaurants. Here price, quality and presentation of the "same soup", "same steak" et cetera will vary from one stand alone restaurant in the same street or town never mind across 3,000 miles. What is more, many of the national chains are also franchises and have, in the same region, varying menus between one another - hence the exclusionary terms and clauses in the radio, television and print advertising such as "At participating restaurants only" or "Prices May Vary".
The cost of product - be it flora or if in the restaurants, ground beef, for example - varies. Cut orchids for the florist cost less in Miami than they do in the Philadelphia region where I am and, I am sure, the price in Las Vegas will be different again for reasons of supply, demand and distribution costs.
Those are valid reasons why the "fill to value" will be different, ignoring even the design skill, style and taste levels, and these are also reasons why the consumer will appreciate different value for money across the country. Some-one living on 5th Ave in NYC would, I imagine, have a different perception and appreciation of what you get for US$50 from a florist than some-one in Prince Edward Island in British Columbia versus a person in Baton Rogue, LA.
In my opinion, these are yet further reasons why the WS structure is rotting away and the staff are the WS companies are unable to repair the crumbling structures they work for. You are right, the industry does need an overhaul and the antiquated ideas that the WS help to keep alive - substitutions and "fill to value" amongst them - will help to bring the WS down as part of that overhaul.
The WS kill originality and the myriad of tastes around North America. What florists who are
not associated with a WS should see themselves as is similar to the stand alone restaurant. Some of these restaurants fail...some of these restaurants florish...some of these restaurants muddle through to the general satisfaction of their owners. These stand alone restaurants do "fill to value" the plate of their diners in their establishment. These stand alone restaurants do not substitute because they are not asked to stock an inventory of 200+ different perishable ingredients 310 days of the year on the off-chance that the consumers will consume all these items 52 weeks of the year (assuming, of course, that the ingredient is available in the market place from any supplier each of those 52 weeks in the quantity you think you will need).
I have to agree with
Bootcamp. Florists need - including myself - to learn to be better ranchers with the public.
