Etail/AMDA

[MaryHM]

This has been discussed in a few different threads, so rather than tacking on to the end of one of those I thought I'd start a new one.

I have a unique perspective on the brick and mortar vs. etail situation- having been a retailer, a wholesaler, and an etailer. Hats that not too many people have worn. I can understand what AMDA is trying to do, but I think they really need to clarify it. From my view, I see 3 different types of etail operations:
1. Drop Shippers- Those companies that never even see the animals that their company sells. They have contracts with importers and the importer ships out directly for said company. I do feel that this does delve into the whole "false advertising" arena, as these companies make statements to the effect that they are personally watching over every fish that is shipped.
2. Jobbers- Those companies that have either no holding facilities or very limited holding facilities, and go around to various wholesalers picking out their livestock. Again, I see false advertising here as many claim to know where all of their fish come from, etc... and that is impossible since they aren't importing them.
3. For lack of a better term, what I will call Facility Etailers- Companies that have holding facilities for all of their animals and are able to observe and screen them accordingly.

I can definitely understand AMDA's view as far as the Drop Shippers go. I don't personally like that way of doing business either. I can sort of understand AMDA's view on the jobbers as well. However, I can't understand what the problem is with the facility etailers (to name a few, Premium Aquatics, Jeff's Exotic, Harbor Aquatics, SeaCrop). These companies have the overhead and expense that AMDA has been talking about. They have the ability to properly screen and handle their animals. I can see no gripe with this type of company. It's simply another way of doing retail. Now I will add a disclaimer that I can understand AMDA's problem with so many of the "garage" type businesses that do hold stock but have little/no overhead. But there are plenty of legitimate etailers out there and I have no understanding of why AMDA lumps them in the same category with the others. It doesn't make sense. Someone mentioned earlier that AMDA needs to more clearly define the issues and where they stand. I agree. So since AMDA brought this whole discussion to this forum in the first place, I'd like to see some clarification of the topic.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Mary, I brought this question up in another thread but it really deserves its own..

 

[Caterham]

I too would like a little clarity on this topic. How does AMDA differentiate between the etailers?

I was looking at some of the pricing that one of the MAJOR online livestock etailers offers and fail to see how this would threaten ANY traditional brick and mortar retailer. If a hobbyist wants to pay $38.99 for a Flame Angel and then another $35.00 for shipping, have at it. Any traditional retailer with a reasonable overhead has a clear advantage in this situation, in that the hobbyist can actually SEE the fish that they are purchasing. This etailer that I am referring to does indeed use a large wholesaler as its fulfillment center, although their livestock is supposed to be checked over by Doctors. This is just plain wrong.

So how does AMDA differentiate between the etailers? There are basement and garage operations, sites that use a different fulfillment center and etailers that actually tank the livestock and care for it. Some have prices that are higher than the LFS by the time you add freight.

Do we lump all the etailers together or do we classify them into groups? :?:

 

[Anonymous]

To be perfectly honest their really isn't much clarification on this as we are still hashing a lot of this stuff out. AMDA is an association of stores and businesses all with diverse opinions and ideas. This is a big deal because the suggestion marks a shift in the organizations purpose and goals. These are issues that the current BOD (elected by the members), feel are important. If the issues aren't equally as important to the members it may not go anywhere. But definining all of these issues will surely be a part of the process. It may seem vague for now because it is. The letter than has been sent out is just an expression of the concerns of the BOD. If the membership agrees with the concerns then steps will be taken to ensure that things are clarified and explained in a more orderly manner. This isn't an oligarcy where the BOD suddenly decides to change the rules on everyone. It's simply an announcement and a call for feedback. For the most part the feedback from the membership has been positive. I'm still somewhat unclear as to where the impression that AMDA is out to squelch all etail is coming from. Likewise, I'm unsure of the benefits e-tailers think they will be missing by not being AMDA members (legit or not). What are the benefits that current AMDA members are recieving, they they will be losing if they are no longer eligible for membership?

 

[MaryHM]

Did the BOD contact the membership about changing the rules and sending DFS' check back? It's one way or the other. Either this is a vague idea that is going to be taken to the membership for clarification, or the board is sending back checks from etailers they don't like for one reason or another with no set rule about it being in place. This has always been AMDA's problem- a complete and total lack of organization. Since the board is obviously already sending checks back, I just want a clarification as to who can have an AMDA membership and who can't. If I send a check, will it get returned? If a company like Jeff's Exotic sends a check, will it get returned? If a business like Morgan Lidster's Inland Aquatics sends a check, will it get returned?

 

[naesco]

I think Rover answered your question Mary.
It is up to the Board of Directors duly elected by the membership to make the determination.
If you want to be a member why don't you send them your cheque and than you will find the answer to your question as to whether they will return it back to you or not?

I too can't understand why anyone would consider buying a fish or coral sight unseen.

 

[MaryHM]

It is up to the Board of Directors duly elected by the membership to make the determination.

Wayne, you may want to reread what Rover said so you understand it. Let me put it here for you and explain it so you'll understand why I asked the questions I did.

These are issues that the current BOD (elected by the members), feel are important. If the issues aren't equally as important to the members it may not go anywhere.

The letter than has been sent out is just an expression of the concerns of the BOD. If the membership agrees with the concerns then steps will be taken to ensure that things are clarified and explained in a more orderly manner.

This isn't an oligarcy where the BOD suddenly decides to change the rules on everyone

None of those statements say to me that the BOD plans on making the sole determination, as you insinuated in your reply to me, Wayne. It says to me that they are interested in getting the opinions of the membership prior to making any major policy changes. Therefore, my questions still stand. Since DFS' check was sent back, I would think this would mean a change in policy. Was the membership aware of this? Is there a set policy to determine who gets their check back and who gets a membership?

 

[naesco]

My point was that if the Board is considering excluding etailers from their membership they would not want to be accepting cheques from them for membership at this time.
Rover clearly stated that they have not decided whether or not to exclude or include at this time and they were seeking imput from the membership.

The other issue is this. Does AMDA want to have wholesalers and importers that deal in cyanide caught fish from the Philippines and Indonesia as part of their membership? I hope not.

 

[naesco]

I just had an opportunity to review the "Standards of Practice" set out in AMDA's web page.
How many importers/wholesalers meet those standards?

 

[MaryHM]

Rover clearly stated that they have not decided whether or not to exclude or include at this time and they were seeking imput from the membership.

Actually, by sending back DFS' check, they already DID decide, now didn't they??? And that is the point I'm trying to make.

If you would like to discuss AMDA's SOP, then please start a new thread. As per the title of this one, I'm trying to stick to the etail issue and not let it get sidetracked as it has in multiple other threads.

 

[naesco]

If AMDA sets up a buying group composed of LFS they have a couple of options.
1. They use their clout and buy from various wholesalers.
2. They use their clout and buy from one wholesaler exclusively.
3. They set up their own wholesaler. (Likely because that way they control cost, quality, quantity, delivery and country of origin.

Therefor it doesn't make sense to have wholesalers/importers/etailers as part of their membership. There would be a conflict.
Isn't that the problem now? They are faced with excluding wholesalers and those that ride two horses (wholesale and online retail.)

 

[naesco]

Further, AMDA, if they decided to set up their own wholesaler they might want to consider having an online outlet with the following results.
1. The online division would add to the bottom line of the wholesaler to the benefit of the AMDA membership.
2. The online division would beat the existing onliners at their own game.
3. AMDA members would be the cherry pickers.
4. AMDA membership would increase ten fold.
Of course the online division would not sell to hobbyists where there is an AMDA member LFS within a defined radius.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually Mary, the truth is, the check was never sent back, so what was that point being made? (edit - I was wrong. My bad, I guess it was finally found and sent back) As a non member, why do you expect an answer from a full voluntary BOD? They only have so much time, and what time they devote to AMDA surely could be used more contructively then answerring a non members who will never by her own words would "never rejoin such an orginaztion" questions about the innner workings?

 

[Anonymous]

Mary,

As the newest member of the BOD I may not be the best person to be explaining this, and want to be clear that I am not neccessarily speaking for the BOD. As far as I know, the check from the good doctors is what set the issue off. It started the dialogue, as many felt that an organization of that size was merely using the organization as window dressing (like a white coat). Those who were working to build AMDA into something (as currently it's not much of anything), felt as though the good docs were going to use their own organization to compete against them. The check was returned until the matter could be clarified pending the feedback of the members. If the members decide this is a watershed issue, then the focus of the organization may change toward a brick and mortar retailer group. Essentially it is a refocusing of the mission of the organization, as you are correct in your assessment that the group has been hopelessly unorganized. A big cause of the organizational problems has been the fact that anyone with fifty dollars and an envelope could be a "member." Which resulted in a group with a good common goal (improvements in the Marine Ornamentals Industry), but little common ground on specific goals, so nothing was ever accomplished. The reform issues have basically boiled down to two "fronts". Improvements in the collection methods (both cyanide issues and handling issues), and the state of the modern LFS. AMDA feels that improving the quality of the brick and mortar LFS dealers is something that they can accomplish, and that through organization through a common goal, more purchasing pressure can be placed up the chain. One of the biggest obstacles to reform thus far has been the complete disorganization of the industry in general. It's a complete hodge podge of fiercely independent shops where the way to get ahead is through secret sources, secret techniques, and hoping your competition is an idiot. Granted the policing issue will always be there and there will likely be bad stores that are members, but the plan is that by offering a good reason to join (buying power through livestock wholesalers as well as product manufacturers) the numbers will increase enough to create a valid organization capable of changing something. If anything it may allow some of the good guys a better way to compete to keep them around a little longer. I see AMDA as primarily emerging as an organization focused on educating the independent LFS, (similar to the way RDO is for hobbyist). Buying power is simply one part.


The solution to most of the industries problems is not more etailers, but better LFS's.

 

[naesco]

Took 'Ben" out for a walk in the park this evening a came up with a couple of adders.
5. AMDA could set up a not for profit tax deductible 'arm' and accept donations that advance training and supply netting to fishers.
6. The Calgary Flames defeated San Jose in five a proceed to the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
7. An empowered AMDA could lobby a newly elected Democrat government to force cyanide detection testing on all fish entering from the Philippines and Indonesia and thereby level the playing field for its LFS members.
Rover, Steve you are on to a good thing.
DO NOT BE RUSHED BY ANYONE!

Wayne

 

[naesco]

Rover posted
" As the newest member of the BOD"

Good News Congratulations.

 

[MaryHM]

Actually Mary, the truth is, the check was never sent back, so what was that point being made?

I was relying on information that Steve has stated in print and in person. That the check WAS sent back. So either Steve (and now Rover, see his last post here) is lying or you're incorrect. I'll await the answer to that one.

As a non member, why do you expect an answer from a full voluntary BOD? They only have so much time, and what time they devote to AMDA surely could be used more contructively then answerring a non members who will never by her own words would "never rejoin such an orginaztion" questions about the innner workings?

AMDA brought the issue to this board. I am addressing it. They didn't have to bring it here if they didn't want to spend time discussing it. Or, they could have stated that it was just an announcement and requested that Rover lock it and sticky it as such. I will also never join MAC, but that doesn't mean I can't ask questions.

Rover, I appreciate and completely understand your response. However, it seems like the reorganization should be in place and THEN checks should be sent back. So I guess I'm back to my original question- if I send a check, or Jeff's Exotic, or Morgan Lidster, who (if any of us) would have a check returned? Also, what would be the reasoning behind disallowing "Facility Etailers", as per my original definition, from joining AMDA?

 

[naesco]

MARY POSTEDRover, I appreciate and completely understand your response. However, it seems like the reorganization should be in place and THEN checks should be sent back. So I guess I'm back to my original question- if I send a check, or Jeff's Exotic, or Morgan Lidster, who (if any of us) would have a check returned? Also, what would be the reasoning behind disallowing "Facility Etailers", as per my original definition, from joining AMDA?"

With the greatest respect Mary, I think you have it backwards.
It would be wrong for AMDA to accept cheques from companies that they may restrict membership to at this time. AMDA did the correct thing by returning the cheque until they reorganize.

Clearly, if one of the tenets of the NEWLY REORGANIZED AMDA is to turn AMDA into a buying group it would be a conflict of interest to have a wholesaler, even one with a tank, as a member.
If that wholesaler were allowed to be a member, they would have access into private information like costing, source, and business strategy to name a few.

Further additional strategic benefits that I failed to add in my previous posts are these.
\ DELETED.
I deleted portions of this thread as I felt that potential AMDA business strategy should not be in the public domain.

 

[MaryHM]

It would be wrong for AMDA to accept cheques from companies that they may restrict membership to at this time. AMDA did the correct thing by returning the cheque until they reorganize.

Possibly that was the reason. But it still doesn't answer my question about whose checks will be returned. And it just seems like until things are finalized you continue to accept members based on current policy. If policy changes and a company like DFS is no longer able to hold membership, the check should be returned at that point. Look at it this way, if the policy doesn't change, AMDA has effectively completely offended a potential member. I know if they returned my check that I wouldn't ever be sending it back. Of course, this is all my opinion. Bottom line, I want to know whose checks get returned if they are mailed in tomorrow. What is the policy in place that dictated that DFS' check got mailed back? How does that policy effect other potential members? Only AMDA can answer these questions. And if the answer is "there is no policy, we just did it because we felt like it" then that's fine. At least it's an answer!

 

[Anonymous]

I understand your point, but it may just be a difference of opinion in the interpretation of the rules. Rather than issuing memberships that would later have to be revoked, they were simply put on hold until the issues were clarified. So to answer your question to the best of my knowledge, anyone who is an etailer would have their check returned for the time being until the issue has been resolved. Once the issue has been resolved, who is eligible for membership and who is not will be made perfectly clear.

If AMDA is set up to be representative of the brick and mortar retailer, what reason would an etailer have for wanting to join? You still haven't answered my question about what benefits you as an etailer will be missing out on.