bags was "competition would do these things if we didn't." Yet such things 

 unquestionably add to the cost of distribution, though the cost is spread 

 over all customers with the charge to the recipient small. It would be rather 

 difficult to justify an "inconvenience" charge, particularly if auxiliary equip- 

 ment could be had at a minimum cost which would alleviate the situation. 

 Some further discussion of these problems is contained in a later section. 

 Minimizing the cost effects of inconveniences to the delivery personnel and 

 of excessive wear-and-tear on delivery equipment might most expeditiously 

 come about through an informal "gentlemen's agreement" or a legally bind- 

 ing fair trade practices agreement entered into by feed companies and/or 

 dealers. True, progress has been made in working with producers to correct 

 difficult situations, and some companies have been known to drop customers 

 or to lose them over some of these points. In the final analysis, however, a 

 few non-cooperative producers, or one company wishing to secure advantage 

 in a given situation, could stand in the way of general improvement in the 

 absence of an agreement among all companies and/or dealers operating in 

 the State. 



Such an agreement might, or might not be broadened to include 

 standard charges for delivery, credit, and quantity, and discounts for cash. 

 These are more determinate areas, though there is considerable variability 

 in values assigned to them by retail outlets. In a number of instances, 

 values observed in the study were obsolete (low) when measured against 

 the charges made by most companies, or without sufficient breakdowns (ex- 

 ample: some quantitative discounts did not start until purchases reached 

 5 tons). It is extremely doubtful, however, if breakdowns could become 

 very numerous without becoming a burden and a significant additional 

 bookkeeping and billing cost. 



Credit vs. Cash 



Data were not collected in this study which would enable a precise 

 appraisal of the costs of handling "credit" and "cash" accounts. Hence, no 

 exact values, charges, or discounts are suggested. Data were obtained on 

 collecting time on routes, but in order to make a numerical analysis, addi- 

 tional data would be needed on office time and carrying charges. However, 

 it is probably reasonable to assume that there should be little difference 

 in time collecting the bill at the farm or at the office where both are done 

 efficiently. Thus, the measurable difference is probably in carrying charges. 



It is suggested that three breakdowns would be equitable within the 

 credit-cash area: 



(1) Payment in full within 7-10 days. 



(2) Payment in full between 7-10 days and 30 days. 



(3) Payment at some time after 30 days. 



The first alternative might carry a specific discount on either a dollars- 

 and-cents or percentage basis; the third, interest at a specified rate per 

 each additional 30 days or fraction thereof on the unpaid balances. The 

 second, payment between 7-10 and 30 days, is assumed to be a character- 

 istic of the base price, as discussed herein. 



Few transactions are made in distributive channels wherein "spot cash" 

 is involved. A usual courtesy period of 5, 7, 10, or some other number of 

 days is allowed between delivery or billing and payment. In the case of 

 farm purchases of feed, payment for these is generally related to receipt of 



15 



