24 



The Florists^ Review 



February 9. 1922 



Wo send another statement the next 

 month, and if wo do not then lioar by the 

 tenth, send a reminder. If we do not 

 hear the following month wo send no- 

 tice that we will draw and if this does 

 not work, we give it to R. G. Dun to 

 collect or sue. All this is in case that 

 debtor pays no attention. If he writes 

 that»he is unable to pay just now, but 

 will do so later, we are glad to extend 

 credit as long as wo think that he means 

 right, but if a man who owes us money 

 has not the courtesy to lot us know one 

 way or another, there is no reason to be 

 lenient with him. 



We do make exceptions in this line of 

 action if we are acquainted personally 

 with the debtor, but we should not do so. 



You can greatly reduce losses if you 

 inquire of some florist in the purchaser's 

 town about the responsibility of your 

 customer, but when you do so, ask a 

 business house of reputation, as this will 

 insure you the quickest answer. Most 

 florists are not prompt in answering. 



Ask for Your Money. 



This is about the routine we follow 

 in our business. Exceptions are, of 

 course, made as common sense demands. 

 And/ do not bo afraid to ask for your 

 monby and do it in good, plain English 

 until you get it. No right-thinking man 

 will /be offended. If those that are 

 offended do not jiatronize you again, you 

 are bettor off. You are working for 

 yourself and not for the others. 



You have grown your stock for a good 

 many months, and during that time have 

 paid for growing it every week. You 

 are certainly entitled to your money as 

 soon as you have delivered the stock; 

 there should bo no further waiting. 

 Many may say, "How can we ask our 

 customers for the money? They would 

 bo offended." No, they would not. Men 

 would not, and your good lady customers 

 nearly all have husbands who are in 

 business themselves and know credit cus- 

 toms and conditions much bettor than 

 you do. 



Rules Kecommended. 



I should like to advocate that it be 

 made a custom that all goods be paid for 

 within ton days from date of invoice, 

 that a discount of two per cent bo 

 allowed on such payments, and that all 

 bills bo settled by the tenth of the 

 month following date of invoice without 

 discount. And I should recommend that 

 all accounts overdue draw the lawful in- 

 terest for at least one month if paid for 

 within the next thirty days. 



The grower in a good many cases car- 

 ries the purchaser for an unduly long 

 time and you all know that he does not 

 turn his capital quite twice a season, 

 while the retailer turns part of his cap- 

 ital over twelve times a year and in the 

 case of cut flowers oftencr. The grower 

 often goes to his bank and borrows 

 money in great chunks, as ho cannot 

 make collections, and this money, for 

 which ho must pay the interest ahead, 

 does partly help to carry the retailer, so 

 it seems only fair that the retailer pay 

 the grower in turn interest on the money 

 overdue. 



I believe that the whole fault of the 

 long credit lies entirely with the grower. 

 Unfortunately, florists arc, as a rule, not 

 so well trained in business ways as men 

 in other lines of trade, owing to the lack 

 of knowing costs during their appren- 

 ticeship. ()ur business does not give us 

 the same chance during the period of 



productipn to explain the copt to our 

 help and in most cases we do not know 

 it ourselves. 



Summary. 



Now, if wc boil all this down to a 

 few words, we can improve the credit 

 conditions and cut down losses by 



(1) Growing good stock, 



(2) Growing the proper amount and 

 avoiding surplus, 



(3) Extending credit wisely and in- 

 sisting on prompt payment, 



(4) Interchanging credit informa- 

 tion, 



(.')) Sending out statements promptly 

 and being prompt in all correspondence, 

 (6) Using common sense. » - 



ALLMAN TELLS WHY. 



Growers Don't Get Profits. 



Permit me to thank The Review for 

 the opportunity of reading "Costs Show 

 How Profits Shrink," which appeared 

 in the issue for January 26. If this 

 article truly reflects the present status 

 of the average grower, and I have good 

 authority for believing that it does, 

 surely there is something wrong some- 

 where. Of course, I do not assume that 

 the concern which supplied the inter- 

 esting figures will, as a consequence, be- 

 come bankrupt, nor do I believe that 

 the average grower fails to "make both 

 ends moot" when a 10-year average is 

 struck. But what I do know is that 

 all costs and risks considered, the 

 grower gets less in return than any 

 other branch or phase of the flower 

 business. 



There is much pleasure and some prof- 

 it in growing flowers on a commercial 

 scale, as my own experience has shown, 

 but my neighbor, who is not a florist, 

 gets the same enjoyment, plus a nice, 

 fat income, considerably more than five 

 per cent at that. In other words, I do 

 not consider the "joy of working among 

 flowers" a sufficient compensation for 

 the small margin of profit which you 

 have brought out by the study of fig- 

 ures. Lot the poets rave on; the baby 

 must have shoes! 



Thousands Without Millions. 



How many have made a "cold mil- 

 lion" solely by growing flowers? We 

 have millionaire wholesalers and re- 

 tailers in every known industry, ours not 

 excepted. If there are any extremely 

 wealthy growers, stop forward, please, 

 gentlemen, and help the rest of us. 



Now, I hold that there is no basic rea- 

 son wliy average returns from com- 

 mercial flower growing should be less 

 than those accruing from the manufac- 

 ture and sale of clothing, coal, oil or 

 cornstarch. The old retort, "Flowers 

 arc a luxury; hence the grower must 

 take what he gets," is a ridiculous 

 fallacy. If Wrigloy had thought the 

 same about chewing gum, he could never 

 have built up a fortune. And yet, do 

 people need chewing gum more than 

 they need flowers? Surely, "Say 

 It with Chewing Gum and She Will 

 Stick to You" hasn't the universal ap- 

 ])eal that "Say It with Flowers" has. 

 You cannot convince me that people do 

 not need flowers. Wniile this country 

 was making every known sacrifice, while 

 our lads wore being pushed inch by inch 

 toward Paris, people bought flowers at 

 record-breaking prices. Show me a bet- 

 ter test than that! 



What is the trouble, then? Why 

 that five or six per cent profit, which 



most of us growers are glad to reap, but 

 seldom have courage enough to figure 

 correctly? Who or what is to blame? 

 Briefly, these are my opinions, much as 

 it hurts to state them: 



Individuals and Dividual. 



Growers are poorly organized, even 

 less so than farmers. Each grower feels 

 isolated, alone, amid a sea of retailers, 

 wholesalers and what-not. There is too 

 much individual action, whereas there 

 should be united or cooperative action. 

 The grower is a producer. He should 

 ])roduce at a profit commensurate with 

 the costs and risks which he must as- 

 sume. On the other hand, the public, 

 as the consumer, must have flowers and 

 will pay as fair a price for them as for 

 any other commodity. Now, therefore, 

 either flowers are being sold to the con- 

 sumer too cheaply, or else there is un- 

 due profit or waste in distribution. Here 

 is one of the many problems for the 

 National Flower Growers' Association, 

 an association which, by the way, ap- 

 pears to me to have imlimited possibili- 

 ties. 



Most growers do not know the cost 

 of production. Any schoolboy can keep 

 a few cost figures. Yet many growers 

 keep none. Now, there are so many 

 who do not keep records, compared with 

 those who do, that the latter are power- 

 less to act for the general betterment 

 of prices received for stock. 



Growers, as a class, are fine follows, 

 but, unfortunately, so many are content 

 with few of the so-called pleasures of 

 life — too few for the ultimate good of 

 the trade. Cost finding seems to many 

 to have <a small place in the transaction 

 of business, production being the all-im- 

 portant question. A "good living" is 

 sufficient for many. 



Want More! Get More! 



Personally, I have much faith in tlie 

 younger generation of growers. They 

 expect more and will get more for a good 

 day's work than many of their fathers. 



In conclusion, I would say that there 

 are a few growers who are making "big 

 money" — a purely relative term — due 

 to certain peculiarities of trade, loca- 

 tion, etc. The men I hope to reach are 

 those who, although they do their utmost 

 in the way of manual work, feel that 

 they are entitled to more than they re- 

 ceive at the present time. If we can 

 only lino these men up and got them to 

 realize that a scientific investigation of 

 the average grower 's business methods 

 is the thing most in need today, I think 

 half the battle will have been won. If 

 wo growers keep feeling this hard and 

 long enough, then perhaps we might do 

 something and wake up to bettor days. 



Drue Allman. 



