MARKET MILK BUSINESS OF DETROIT, MICH., IN 1915. 27 
and small businesses. (See fig. 10.) The losses from spoilage and 
temporary surplus or shortage of a supply of milk were compara- 
tively less for the larger dealers. In the case of all dealers, regard- 
Jess of the size of their business, the losses from bad bills were small. 
Through the use of the ticket system a large part of the retail busi- 
ness was done on advance payments. 
It’ is noteworthy that only the larger dealers had expenses listed 
under the item of advertising. Practically all the dealers had ex- 
penses which may have been properly lsted under that item, but 
were listed under either administrative or miscellaneous expenses. 
Besides the readily recognized expenses of advertising, pr actically all 
| the dealers made contributions oi 
| gifts of various kinds to gain or OQEALERS GROUPED ACCORDING FO 
| retain the good will of consumers. RON To aide Tote as 
The comparatively expensive de- 
livery equipment of the larger 
dealers also has a certain advertis- 
ing value, although such expenses 
are not listed under that item. 
In this connection it is impor- 
tant to note the lack of uniformity 
in provision made for the adminis- 
trative end of the business, but in 
general the administrative ex- 
penses, which included. office ex- 
penses, tended to increase in pro- 
portion to the size of the business. 
The smallest dealers had prac- ee 
tically no administrative invest- OCR 
ments. Se e eke: tox VL ) Fie. pia WORE ONS in cost of labor per 
Though the larger dealers gener- ie 
ally had better administrative organizations, the personal supery ision 
which the smaller ones were able to give to the business was an impor- 
tant. factor in lowering their expenses. 
MORE THAN 3000 
RH LESS THAN (50 
45O/-2000 | 
200/-~3000 | 
CONCLUSIONS. 
1. The demands for market milk in Detroit necessitated arrange- 
ments for obtaining a supply from farmers living too far from the 
city to effect an E onrcal distribution of their comparatively small 
production. (Fig. 1 and pp. 2-4.) 
2. The prices paid to farmers by the various dealers competing 
with one another in the market milk business of the cit'y varied con- 
siderably. Milk dealers as well as the farmers were dissatisfied with 
conditions then existing. (Figs. 2 and 3 and pp. 4-7.) 
i 
i 
. 
