The Lull Before th4 Itorrn?
Page 62
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
OPPOSING views on advertising were ventilated at the morning session of the annual conference of the British Association of Overseas Furniture Removers held in Eastbourne last Friday. The discussion which took place in the afternoon was no less contentious—at least potentially. The bone of this contention was the encroachment of some Amer can Van Lines on what has been traditionally recognized as the home removers' legitimate business.
Whilst the morning discussion was entitled "Advertising in the overseas removal trade", many of the views expressed were centred on a particular advertisement of the Brewer and Turnbull organization in Liverpool publicizing a fortnightly service to an overseas area, with an indication of the minimum price.
Opening the discussion, Mr. G. M. Steele recognized that whilst the N.A.F.W.R. had a by-law restricting certain types of advertising, including a stipulation that there should be no publication of prices or charges, he recognized that the B.A.O.F.R. had no such regulation. Because of the great diversity of practical conditions which applied to most overseas removals, advertisements indicating prices could be misleading to the public and, he suggested, should be controlled by the Association.
In a spirited rejoinder Mr. H. Waddington, of Brewer and Turnbull, stoutly rebutted this approach to overseas advertising. Their prime concern was the public, he said, and the enthusiastic response from their entry into this field of publicity substantiated the need and purpose of the exercise.
Mr. Waddington also maintained that the fear of excessive competition resulting from such advertising was misplaced in this particular field of removals because of the imminent upsurge in emigration from the U.K. to Commonwealth countries. Frankly, he was amazed that there should be the suggestion of curtailment. The potential emigrants were largely ignorant of overseas removal facilities and costs and the purpose of publicity was to educate this section of the public as to the facilities available.
The immediate past president Of N.A.F.W.R,, Mr. A. H. Rimmer, saidhe understood the matter had been discussed at regional level and asked what decision had been arrived at. The general secretary, Mr. E. A. Harris, replied that it had been hoped Brewer and Turnbull would see fit to amend this type of advertisement.
In a further comment 'Mr. Steele reiterated that the public did not understand the difference between jobs and could not therefore relate prices to a job. Brewer and Turnbull, he maintained, were benefiting only because they were first in the field in this type of advertising. To which Mr. Waddington replied that his company went very seriously into this matter and considered there was nothing misleading in the statements (.4 made in their publicity. The response showed that not only was there a public need but also an opportunity for other members to do the same. His company were neither trying to mislead nor steal a march in this field, he added.
Another past president of the N.A.F.W.R., Mr. D, R. Pearce. claimed that the discussion illustrated that there could be genuine differences of opinion. On the one hand Brewer and Turnbull had made a courageous effort in this field but the fact remained that what they had done could be of serious concern to fellow members of the Association.
At this point there was suggestion that the conference should take a vote on the issue, but the president of B.A.O.F.R., Mr. H. Burnett, ruled that it was not intended to get a decision at that meeting but rather to provide an opportunity for general expression of opinion. At the appropriate time it would be for the executive council to take whatever decision they considered fit.
Mr. F. W. H. Winwood contended there was no need for further regulations to govern this matter. In defence of Brewer and Turnbull the publicity under consideration did request its readers to obtain a booklet, with the qualification that all jobs would be subject to quotation. He suggested a slight variation of the existing statement as to minimum charges so as to read, for example. "Obtain an estimate and you will be surprised how little it costs would meet the case.
Price War?
"I cannot really believe people would decide to emigrate if only they knew they could move their effects cheaply" commented Mr. H. F. Marks, vice-president of B.A.O.F.R. If the Association did nothing about it a price war could result, he said. He did not accept that the reference to estimates justified the advertisement; those first in the field got the cream, but in the long term it would be .to the detriment of all.
Mr. Marks considered that the Association should not only have the power to stop this type of advertising but should take the necessary action now. It would he very embarrassing to any subsequent conference if they waited until the expulsion of a member became necessary because of such practice.
A viewpoint from "down under" came from Mr. H. Badenoch, of Adelaide. He felt it was right that the public should be informed in this matter and to correct an impression given by some Government quarters that emigrants were well advised to limit the effects they took with them to virtually china and cutlery. Mr. D. J. Blatchford had also experienced official influence to limit the amount of furniture taken by emigrants.
There then followed an open forum to deal with any trade question raised by conference delegates. Initiating the discussion Mr. Blatchford 'asked what progress had been made with trade education relative to B.A.O.F.R. The president, Mr. Burnett, said they wanted greater enthusiasm from the areas. At the moment they had to drag response out of them rather than be asked for information. Mr. Winwood observed that overseas training would have to be paid for and this would further affect the financial relationship between N.A.F.W.R. and B.A.O.F.R. already referred to in the annual report.
Mr. Burnett then referred to the disclosure made by Mr. P. Lamer Gore, president, National Furniture Warehousemen's Association, U.S.A., the previous day at the N.A.F.W.R. conference. In the discussion which followed the paper then given by Mr. G. J. Skelton entitled "Trade schools and trade education" (reported in The Commercial Motor last week). Mr. Gore announced that in America insurance interests paid 100,000 dollars towards training schools within their industry.
In view of the interest shown by delegates in this statement and possible implication as to the future of training schools in this country, Mr. Lamer Gore himself returned to the subject at this session of the B.A.O.F.R. conference. He feli he should add the caveat that this method of financing training was not a panacea for all ills. His association passed on all members' business through one insurance company and two brokers so that they felt they were well able to make the approach they did for funds. But he fully appreciated that these conditions do not apply in the U.K. associations. There were both advantages and disadvantages in individual negotiation of insurance, he said, but as things stood at present the U.K. associations would not be in such an advantageous position to solicit financial support from such a quarter.
A comprehensive report was then made by Mr. J. L. Gerson on the organization and procedure of the Congress of the Federation of International Furniture Removers held at Cannes in May, with comment as to future developments. In his view this congress, commonly referred to as F.I.D.I., should serve two functions. One was the opportunity to meet old and make new friends and have invaluable informal discussion, It should not be overlooked that during the 13 years of F.I.D.I.'s existence delegates have been living in a sellers' market, said Mr. Gerson, Should there be a return to harder times he suggested this congress would collapse. There was a need for a more serious side to this conference and there was dissatisfaction of rank and file members that they had no rights whatsoever to contribute to the proceedings. In particular, at this year's congress, delegates from the U.K. and U.S.A. were left in no doubt that the English language was a poor relation compared with the other official languages of German and French. As a result much of the proceedings was lost to them. This contention was strongly supported by Mr. E. G. Wright and Mr. Lamer Gore, who insisted that the availability of simultaneous translation should be an essential facility at any future venue, Mr, John Newbold then gave a resume of the F.I.D.I. congress with a similar qualification that it had been as bad as any he had attended as far as language was concerned, Van Lines in U.K.
"They have taken my watch and now charge roe when I want to know the time." That comment was referred to by Mr. G. 1. Skelton in the final paper at the B.A.O.F.R. conference entitled Van Line developments in the United Kingdom ". The sentiments implicit in that comment were indicative of the growing concern felt by many in the removal industry both in this country and on the Continent as to certain aspects of Van Line developments which seem to constitute a considerable threat to the economic health of British removers.
Mr. Skelton first disclosed that in February last an informal meeting had been held in London to discuss this matter. Whilst the number-16—was small, the representation was wide, including some of the largest removal firms in the U.K. The object of the exercise had been to provide an opportunity for exchange of views and experiences in regard to Van Line activity outside their natural habitat and, in particular, in the U.K. Most of the firms represented were or had been agents for Van Lines. Additionally they all shared a growing concern over certain aspects of Van Line development.
A warning note had been sounded at the F.I.D.I. congress in Madrid last year when German delegates gave a very clear and disturbing account of what was taking place in their country.
'Resulting from these intial discussions it was decided that the most effective way of dealing with this matter was to alert the respective Councils of the N.A.F.W.R. and B.A.O.F.R., with the latter deciding that this occasion would provide the best platform for sounding the alarm.
Because of the many respected American and Canadian friends they had within the industry Mr. Skelton said that he took on the appointed task as spokesman with a feeling of considerable embarrassment. He had taken the opportunity provided at Cannes the previous week to acquaint his American friends of what was in prospect. He said their reaction had been complete understanding and they maintained that the were plagued quite as flinch as the U.K. delegates by certain greedy and unscrupulous component members of Van Lines.
'The picture I have", Mr. Skellon continued, "is of cut-throat competition inspired by the unethical practices of a
sinall minority of American movers--of shrinking profit margins and of the imperative need to increase revenue and volume in order to survive," At the same time he refuted starry-eyed reports of conditions in the moving industry in the United States which, to say the least, were misleading. The American equivalent of the N.A.F.W.R. Journal—namely. the Furniture Warefrouseman--confirmed his contention, showing that the average profit ratio for the whole industry was four per cent, whilst 22 per cent of companies even showed a loss on their operations. Moreover, there was growing concern throughout the whole industry in America as to its bad public image. Thus, in its April edition, a leading article stated; " ... the industry must clean tin the minority of offenders—we are all denounced for the sins of the few ".
In former years, Mr. Skelton reminded delegates, imperial preference designed to encourage and promote trading within the British Empire on a favoured nation basis had been strongly criticized by U.S.A. But a strange thing had now happened. Preference was operating in reverse. As U.S. international responsibilities had increased, so had U.S. investment overseas, and Mr. Skelton instanced the Chrysler/Rootes announcement made public only that morning. Coupled with the military commitments of U.S.A. overseas there was the related movement of military and civilian personnel taking place on a vast scale from and to U.S.A. Such persons took furniture and personal effects with them which naturally were shipped by American movers and. Mr. Skelton added, "we can scarcely complain about that ". They could understand, although they may not agree with, the desire on the part of Van Lines to have some pickings out of shipment in the reverse direction. 'Van Lines, therefore, were quoting for movements on a global basis notwithstanding the fact that in the majority of cases they had no physical resources to handle traffic overseas,
In this context Van Lines acted as brokers and this introduced the first objection, Mr. Skelton maintained. Van Lines needed to appoint agents to represent them in the countries concerned, and in this country in particular, and in fThrope generally, there was a growing army of disenchanted ex-Van Line agents. Many had had the experience of being appointed an agent and, after organizing and increasing facilities and staff, had more or less been blackmailed under threat of losing the agency to reduce the tariff to a point where it ceased to be profitable. Van Lines were not fussy IS to whom they appointed to represent them, said Mr. Skelton. Price was the ill-important factor.
Minimum Standards It was reliably estimated that 75 per cent of the work being performed in this country on Van Lines account was being carried out by firms not members of trade associations. This was damaging to their industry. Mr. Skelton contended, and undoing what they had been at pains over many years to create in ensuring minimum standards of performance.
The third objection was that ihe American Van Lines were insisting on their British and Continental agents carrying out purely civilian work at the military tariff. Mr. Skelton then disclosed that it was this particular issue, more than any other, which resulted in his own company., --Pickfords Ltd.— parting with its Van Line i connection. They had their own tariffs and rates within B.A.O.F.R. and E.I.D.I. and it was unethical and completely improper to expect them, to be in breach of their domestic agreements.
Far from resenting criticism of American Van Lines, Mr. P. Lamer Gore said that he was amazed and shocked that it had taken so long for British and European • removers to realize the danger of the type of Van Line development Mr. Skelton had referred to. Five years ago they had told their British friends what would happen to them if they agreed to the proposals of certain Van lines, Mr. Gore then named the North American Van Line as the aggressor. Their agents includedgarage men and
" undertakers, . if y.ou please ''. if members had not agreed to accept cut rates they would not be in the position they are in today.. . Such Van Lines were a cancer in business and should not be in overseas removals. Mr. Gore continued:. " We don't like it—we would like to abolish it and we are with you four square in resisting ". Such Van Line developments had only been possible because of the cupidity and avarice of those consenting to be their agents.