No More Co-ops??

Last Fall, Alice Knapp hosted a bulb co-op that became huge... over 8300 bulbs I think. Anyway, Alice is no longer active here (moved in with a daughter and no computer access, or so I understand), and a small handful of us are now finding our bulbs were mis-labeled (they came packaged by the seller) or just didn't grow at all.

All it took was an email to Bloomingbulb who is now in the process of replacing the bulbs. That feels like a Win-Win situation, even though it will be fall before the correct bulbs arrive, and next spring/summer for them to bloom.

Would I participate in another co-op? Yes, if I knew the host (and who had been a member here for some time with a track record of successful trades) and the Vendor with a good rating in the Watchdog.

Why don't you find reputable growers or vendors to run your coops. If a vendor gets a check in the mail then that person will recieve an order. I agree there are a lot of bad business people out there who like to rain on everyones parade, but there are also good people and vendors that would bend over backwards to help a garden community (they do it everyday). My solution is find a vendor (makes sense if it was a DG contributor), display products in thread, take in orders, ship products out. Really simple stuff here, of course the price would be appropriate for DG members, and shipping not overpriced. There really are vendors that would agree to this.....

There will be mistakes in addresses and amount sent and all that, but that happens and wouldn't you think it be best that a qualified vendor handle those mistakes and correct them immediately?

I understand about the "no advertisement" on davesgarden, thats fully understandable, but if members recieve quality plants at a great price, then the vendor is gonna get the recognition anyway from the members, once they recieve there order.

This is only my opinion on the subject. I was asked by several people for my input on this matter. Have a great 4th of July everyone. Stay safe!

Ed

Your not gonna need a minimum or all that extra packing material stuff, this is real simple guys. $3.85 is cost of priority mail, you can probably ship 10 for that cost. There should always be a maximum order in place. If I got 400 patriot hosta liners then I can only sell 400. There shouldn't have to be a mimimum to meet before they can sell it, thats crazy. If they want it they can have it. There shouldn't have to be a middle person for this, everything should run through the vendor; order, payment, shipping; all done through davesgarden threads

Also save shipping the plants 2x instead of only once directly to the member. Sorry for rattling on, I will go away now, have a good 4th everyone.

Ed

I agree about the middle person. The plants arrive a lot faster too.
The vendors ship items everyday. I hope we can do direct co-ops.

Ed, thanks so much for weighing in here on the subject of vendor-direct co-ops. What I hear you saying is that the shipping/handling and receiving multiple orders and payments would not be a deterrent to you as a vendor in offering group purchase prices? Makes sense to me. What is a huge job for a volunteer who is not set up to do this is just everyday stuff to an online vendor who is already set up and experienced in doing these things.

This seems like a much more comfortable and safer way to do future co-ops. Thanks again, Ed!

I think this is a wonderful idea.So simple.I vote yes on it.Bring on the co-ops!

I also think Ed has several good ideas about future co-ops. If we use vendors that we know are reliable, how is gong directly through them any different than using an outside person? The vendors are all set up for shipping as well as being expert in packaging.

Will wonders ever cease! sound good to me Ed...I am all for it!
Sylvia

Dave, you have mail.

I have never been in a co-op, but...................to me, if I was a wholesale nursery and I had a group of 1000 people coming to me at once to buy my plants, I would be crazy not to offers quite a discount....Guys, this is money that they would have never had......For them to do the mailing is just a part of them doing business.... of course, they don't need the money...hehehe

Hap

Langbr's fabulous hosta and fern coop last year was perfect. You placed your order here on Dave's, sent the money and the vendor shipped direct to you. The plants arrived within a week and they were incredible. They were so good that you had time to order even more before the end of the coop. Some coops had better prices but the plants were not as huge as these. It doesn't get any better than that.

MJ

Now THAT sounds more like it! I'd be more than happy to participate in a co-op so streamlined and satisfying.

yes yes i agree i was in that hosta and fern coop and kept ordering more and more and i enjoyed it so i would hate to do away with co-ops i joined for that reason lets reconsider that was such a fun part of daves garden you have to take the good with the bad and the ugly i guess

I remember that co-op well. The vendor/grower was our own DG member/contributor Gretaduck (hostafarm.com) of Hickory Mountain Plant Farm. As a matter of fact, I have asked Greta to check out this thread and add her own ideas and comments about a vendor-direct co-op form. Let's hope we hear from her!

I am still watching this thread and hope to see an answer some time soon from Dave. I hope we can work this out and Ed's idea sounds great. (And if you have problems with the vendor who is offering the plants, don't buy from them - just wait for the next co-op.)
Terrie

I can only repeat that I have serious reservations about this model. If everything goes smoothly, then yes - everyone wins and it's wonderful.

But things do happen that make a transaction less-than-perfect. Currently, if a customer has a problem with plants or seeds they receive, or the level of customer service they experienced, they can report it in the Garden Watchdog (outside of our forums) and let others know what happened. The vendor can post their side of the story if they feel the incident is being mischaracterized.

Let's say we try this "vendor-direct" route and a DG member isn't happy with their plants for some reason. Because this is in our forums, we now have a dispute being hashed out member-to-member (instead of customer-to-vendor) and Dave or myself will be called upon to arbitrate the matter.

Perhaps I'm "borrowing trouble" but I can foresee this being just as messy (and perhaps messier) than when a member stumbled on a co-op they organized. If plants were not "up-to-snuff" from a co-op, there was usually latitude given for the fact the organizer was a volunteer.

Under the proposed model, the vendor will be under the gun to perform flawlessly, and on discounted orders to boot. That's asking a vendor to risk their reputation and their membership here, all for less profit on the sales generated. You can call me crazy, but that doesn't sound like something most reputable vendors would be willing to do.

I have to agree with Terry.

I have to weigh back in with one comment in response to your post, Terry. If we are talking about a reputable vendor with a large inventory, I would think they would welcome the chance to sell hundreds of plants at a discount that might otherwise not be sold. Maybe we could have more vendors/subscribers comment?

I feel there are are vendors that are willing to do this "grocery type" selling and more than likely have systems in place to handle these type of orders. Only thing is that these vendors still need to make a little money, but you leave the "non profit making" middle person out with all the frustrations that come for free with it, the members still would be paying less than if they would order individually from that vendor.

Reputable vendors will do an excellent job to satisfy the member and, if not on occasion, at least try to make good.

One thing needs to be understood though and that is that we deal with a live product in most cases. Sometimes, for some odd reason, something did not grow. In our industry (flowerbulbs) if 1 tulip out of 10 did not grow, it is accepted as OK. Now, if they flower a different color, that is not acceptable. That needs to made good. One also has to understand that they are bought from growers in another country and you would not know if he made an error. However, the vendor needs to make the member whole and the vendor needs to settle with the grower.

Terry, I hear you, but I think there are safeguards in place in this model.

First of all, using the member committee proposal, DG Admin is removed from the vendor selection process, and it should be made clear to all participants that if something goes wrong they have no legitimate recourse against DG. My idea is to have membership sponsored/membership organized co-ops, since Dave has made it clear that he doesn't want to deal with the complications. On the other hand, the members nevertheless want co-ops--so it makes perfect sense to me to let the members take on the responsibility and leave Dave and DG Admin mostly out of it (except veto power in that DG would have final approval authority for any co-op).

You say, "Because this is in our forums, we now have a dispute being hashed out member-to-member (instead of customer-to-vendor)"

I don't understand your thinking here. Of course it would be a customer-to-vendor issue. It is a vendor-direct model. There would be no member responsible for the performance of the vendor. The committee would select vendors with a good history and reputation, but beyond that, it is--as in all matters of commerce--caveat emptor. It was in the old model that the member could be held responsbile for time delays, poor shipping, non-performance, and such. Then it was a member-to-member issue, big time! And it was in the old model that DG got caught in the middle. Dave was expected to have some authority over a non-performing member co-op manager. I think we will all understand that he has no authority over a vendor's performance.

It is possible we will find ourselves dealing with a bum vendor. We cannot remove all elements of risk. For my part, I'm just trying to come up with a model that removes Dave from responsibility for these ventures, insofar as possible. I'm also trying to come up with a model that removes all those terrible duties a volunteer co-op manager had to cope with. It is a wonder (and a remarkable statement about the giving/caring attitude in our community) that we ever had a volunteer. My hats off to all of you who have given to us so selflessly! And may you never have to do it again!

And Terry, I am certain we can find vendors who would co-op with us under this plan. As you know, I already have one who has given us a plant list, prices, shipping costs and is ready to make formal application if/when we are ready to do a trial project. I suspect there are many more, and I suspect we will be seeing lots of co-ops if this plan is approved.

There is another thing I am very certain about: The members want co-ops, the members will support co-ops, and the members will be patient and helpful in finding a better way way to do them.

"Gotta have co-ops!"
Pen

If you volunteer your time to this then you have to do it right. From my companies point of view hostas would be my coop presence. You can't really hurt those poor little plants. Vendors like myself and some of the watchdog 30 are flawless in every transaction. Were only talking liners here, not 6 foot trees (sorry for the humor). I can understand bulbs like canna, tulips, daffodils, thats not my department. They could be a little sticky especially having to wait for the bloom. If a vendor or vendor/grower applies to do a coop then he has his whole reputation on the line. I myself and my company would do that in a second for davesgarden.com members knowing it would be done without any problems.

Terry does have a point, a vendor could mess it up not knowing the amount of orders he/she would recieve from the members. Nobody is superman but some of us seem to think we are pretty close. History and feedback tell the story, if there not perfect then they probably will have a hard time doing it. Shipping plants is a breeze, but not to some people, before you go launching coops make sure that you (the vendor) is more than prepared for the crowds of people about to visit your mailbox and paypal account daily. Have a great day everyone!

Ed

I surely how the coops come back...but I agree with Terry.

I wondered why I couldn't post, lots of posts made since I started typing... LOL. :-) I agree with everything Terry said, as well, does anyone else see how doing vendor co ops could quickly have this site bulging with "new members" who are also vendors?

I'm reminded of the person who joined last year, and the only time they posted was to announce that a certain place was having a "sale" Bleek is a PERFECT Example of a vendor who doesn't toot his own horn so to speak, but not everyone is our beloved Bleek. :-)

Yes, there are some fantastic people here who also are vendors, there are people out there who would join just so they could sell here, just like the people mentioned who join to rip people off.... it goes both ways, just because someone has a business doesn't automatically mean that they're honest, or that you'd want to work with them... how often would we have to hear in the threads that they had something particular for sale? I'm sorry, it's one thing when a member suggests buying a certain plant at XYZ Nursery, but when XYZ Nursery suggests I buy it from them that is different.

Vendors often don't know what they're getting into when they agree to sell to one of our co ops, and they, at least the ones I've worked with, have been very overwhelmed at times. It would be no different if it were "vendor direct".

The committee comment I made above has been completely blown away from it's original intention... sometimes things just seem to take on a life of their own, just like this thread has. I personally think that coops could be reinstated with a limit to how many participants, and a caveat to treat co ops no differently than a trade and nothing else.

I don't know if anyone has or not, but if someone has a lot of free time on their hands, why not count the number of co ops that went RIGHT and the number that went wrong, I think that you'll see the good far outweighed the bad.... unfortunately the ones that went bad, went REALLY bad.

When a host doesn't answer an email as quickly as some think they should, they immediately start screaming foul, and I can only imagine how many emails Dave and Terry have gotten in the past because co op host didn't answer co op participant's email within an hour.... and unfortunately, I'm not exaggerating--some people think that when a person is hosting a co op, that is the only concern they have in their lives... and if they don't get an answer to a question immediately, if not sooner, they can turn into really nasty people. (speaking from experience again) One person got mad at me because I didn't answer a question... I missed it, I'm human, ask it again if I don't answer you, it's simple. One particular order, I screwed up, and missed one of their plants... instead of getting an email to tell me I had forgotten one, they "assumed" that one I'd included as a freebie was a substitute for what they had ordered.... that wasn't the case, I had simply forgotten to include that particular plant. I sent the plant out the same day, but not before I was on the receiving end of a few scathing emails.... believe me, if I were a vendor, and had to deal with THAT... I'd tell the place to take a hike, refund the money and be done with it... there are some things that are just not worth the aggravation.

My committee suggestion was that the committee(made up of people who have actually hosted a co op before) would field the emails that Dave and Terry have had to up to this point, and could also be responsible for approving co ops... if need be at first, only those within the committee could host, but not that the committee should start seeking out vendors to come and sell their goods here... for a variety of reasons I don't think this is a good approach, not least of which is that it could very well be Dave's Garden getting the bad reputation, for having people who are impossible to please no matter what, and for having some impatient and rude people. Like it or not, those people ARE here, even though there might be 50 people involved with a particular co op who are nice and kind, that ONE that isn't will ruin it for everyone... the same way we got here in the first place... a few bad ones spoiling for all. My suggestion was to try to find a way to ease the burden on Terry and Dave, not to create a complicated entire new system that could end up causing MORE problems in the end.

Only Dave and Terry know how much they've had to put up with because of the co ops that none of us are aware of, and everyone has to accept that it just might not be worth it to them to reinstate them in any way shape or form.

I couldnt have said all that better myself :)

I would love to see a committe (maybe chosen by Dave staff) made up of successful coop hosts who are willing to serve..and let them help administer things.

Sorry...I just dont like the idea of Dave venders using coops for sales. Not saying..I wouldnt participate or support y'all if thats what you are set on..but I am afraid it could cause more problems than it solves.

But the vendors are using the coops to make money anyway, just through a middle person........if you think they are doing this without a profit, your mistaken. Each plant that goes out the door has some kind of profit attached to it. All I am saying is, whoever is making the money better do it right, wether or not there is a 3rd person involved.

I agree having a volunteer to administer things is helpful.

......."does anyone else see how doing vendor co ops could quickly have this site bulging with "new members" who are also vendors?"

Melissa, in the model I have proposed, there is no relationship between membership status and co-op vendor except incidental. A vendor could be either a member or a non-member. All the usual DG rules about no commercial messages on the forums would still be in effect. The only time a vendor MIGHT have commercial access to our forums would be while his approved co-op is in effect, and that would only be for the purpose of receiving orders and fielding questions.

I say MIGHT because we could model this so that the vendor does not have access to the forums at all. As before, a volunteer member co-op manager--unrelated to the vendor--could do all the postings and order taking and then funnel the orders to the vendor via E-mail. In all respects it would look like our old co-ops. The difference (big difference) is that the vendor would fill the orders directly instead of via the host/manager, and he would receive his payments directly.

Just wanted to clear this up in case there was a misunderstanding. Our forums would not carry any commercial messages--the same as now. --Pen

I really don't see the need for a committee or a big to-do over a vendor discount. I don't even see how it needs an organizer or needs to be called a co-op. That just opens the door for more miscommunication between a coop organizer and a vendor, and bickering on the forums because it's an official "co-op." If a vendor wants to offer DG subscribers a discount, however limited either by product, date, etc., or unlimited, they can. Maybe a quick "vendor discount" application to get permission to post on the site, and a group of volunteers "committee" can check out the vendor for Dave & Terry before being approved but I think this is getting much more complicated than it needs to be.

As for true co-ops, I'm still agreeing with Melissa. Keep them limited in price / number of participants, make stricter criteria for new hosts (and I still think "pairs hosting" is a good idea), have volunteers/committee to verify information in the application, and give participants an order-at-your-own-risk warning. I think many participants (and hosts in some cases) have unrealistic expectations.

Is there a pattern here? Are most of the people who have organized successful co-ops saying the same thing? (I'm not talking about arrangements with a vendor, but people who have done all the steps themselves). I'm not trying to be a smart-alek with this, I just don't know if I can't identify all the co-op organizers.

Yes, there wouldn't be anyway to not expose the source for the plants inside the forums, just call it "free advertising" for the coop vendor, he deserves it if the job is done right......if you use outside help (non DG vendors) then they must be AAA+++++++ in my books, with plenty of positive feedback from members and around the internet community. Someone run a trial coop, I would be available for one, but its too hot, maybe in the Fall. Keep the comments coming........

Ed

good point Cheryl.......well said...

Ed

Great day.

i have stayed out of this thread except to watch but great gosh .

i have been in 3 bad co ops and one that something major happened and still ended up happy in it.

heres a fact about vendors being in the co ops.

one of the co ops i was in went way way wrong. then the vendor got involed and said we will replace the plants, refunds and yada yada. the vender sent the same plants as the first time. some people didnt even get their plants from the vendor once it was in the vendors hands and i know a few who wrote off ever getting a refund from it.

i love the co op and its my risk to join i know that and yes its can be overwhelming to people. it is a chance you take.

its ALSO overwhelming to the staff here. Its Daves site and if he says no then no it should be. no one but the staff here knows what they deal with behind the scenes of the co ops.


i think everyone needs to calm down alittle here on the thread and quit pushing so hard for Dave to make a desicion . its beginning to seem like a crusade to get co ops back.

the co ops are gone for now. maybe in awhile when things calm down maybe Dave will try it agian.

there are still issues going on in the co op forum that need to be settled and taken care of. the staff also needs time to think about things that need to be done differntly in the co ops.


but for now Dave has said no to co ops and i think its a good idea right now ( too many people jumping the gun me included) and pushing doesnt make anyone move your way.

who knows maybe something more interesting will come along.

I don't think anyone lost more money in the Nadi scheme than I. That being said, I never once blamed Dave or this site with my lost. I knew that going in that things could go wrong as Dave has stated many times and Terry also. I remember the first Co-op I participated in was a Daylily co-op that Terry did. I think of all the beauty and enjoyment that Bobbie and I would have missed if not for that co-op. The Strawberry Candy Daylily is almost breath taking. If they had come up and were ugly I wouldn't have blamed Terry. I know all of us don't think the same and where I didn't blame this site for my loss, others might think different. I really hope things will change but I understand if things doesn't work out. Dave has always handled things here in a manner that is best for the members and I think he will come up with something that will work for all of us. Here's the Strawberry Candy Daylily. Thanks Terry.

Cheryl, I like the idea of not calling them co-ops. They would just be miscellaneous vendor discount offerings. VDO's?

The idea of 2 hosts is fine with me--or 1 host--or none, allowing vendor direct access to a forum for the term of the offering. Whatever pleases DG Admin.--or we could experiment to see what works best.

I think we do need the committee to check out the vendor and to approve the host/s, if applicable, and to keep DG Amin distant from the process, if DG Admin agrees that distancing is desirable.

I agree that this need not be complex at all. Details need to be worked out, but in actual practice is should be quite simple.

I think most of us are saying the same thing. We think a vendor-direct model will work, and we'd like to give it a try. --Pen

oh what a beauty that is georgiaredclay.

Maybe, Penzer, but without being so insistent that we try something right now. There is a nicely diverse representation here of opinions and ideas and it's good that they're all in one place for consideration. And after reading them, I don't think it's unreasonable for the Admins to still not be willing to consider any variations of co-ops either temporarily or permanently.

I have been watching this thread very carefully. I have only been a member for a little over a year. I have gotten some great plants in several co-ops and been burned in one. Before I found Dave's Garden, I was getting burned by the Plantron and Garden's Alive groups, so just finding out the truth about them has saved me money!

My garden is nicer for the co-ops. I would like to see them continue, but not at the cost of the terrible stress to members and Dave and Terry.

I do think that the co-ops with direct shipping have seemed to go easier and more smoothly. I watched the hosta co-op and I ordered from the hibiscus (tropicals) co-op. Both seemed really well organized and people (me included!!) seemed very happy with their plants. As I understood it, these were just regular co-ops, but the vendor shipped to each participant directly. This seemed easier on the members and on the plants.

What about only allowing co-ops with PlantScout members? We already trust them to do well by us. Or only with Watchdog 30 members?

I remember ordering Messenger direct from the website, but with a discount code that was only available to Dave's members. That was a nice bonus, to get the discount, and it wasn't a co-op at all. (There was a Messenger co-op later on.) Could other vendors offer coupons?

We need to make sure that when we tell the vendor it will be a big order, we mean a BIG order. Limiting the number of plants and participants seems good.

My two cents on this tricky subject. I would be willing to participate in a trial co-op for almost anything to see how it goes under some different rules. Hard to have too many plants!

Cheryl: ..."I don't think it's unreasonable for the Admins to still not be willing to consider any variations of co-ops"

Then we are definitely in different camps, Cheryl.

I feel that Dave would like for this whole issue to die down and go away. If he can get through the growing season, I expect the matter will go dormant along with our gardens. But I doubt we will see co-ops magically re-emerge next spring as our perennials do.

I think it is important and timely to present our ideas to him now and to encourage him to let us try a different approach--now while it is a live issue and not next spring when it is as dead as last year's annuals.

I respect Dave's position, and in his shoes I might feel the same way. But I am not Dave, and I am not staff. I am a member, and I am selfishly fighting for a membership benefit.

If I am correctly reading between your lines, Cheryl, I take it that you consider me unqualified to speak to this issue since I have never managed a co-op. Well, thank goodness it is a public forum, and we are all allowed to speak. Actually I have taken this matter a step further than talking in that I have a hosta co-op (or VDO, if you will) ready to go as a trial. I have also corresponded directly with Terry and with Dave and with vendors. I'm willing to put some action behind my words.

I know we all have questions about how well a vendor model would work, but I think we're approaching the point where we really need to try one before we can know the answers.

Dave has a strong and successful organization in DG, and one of those important strengths is the purchasing power that our large membership represents. It seems foolish not to put that strength to work to the benefit of all members.

I quite agree that the old model wasn't working well, and I hope we never try that again. But I am all for exploring new ways to put our purchasing power to work, and I'm willing to do my part. My hope is that Dave is listening with an open mind and that he will help us fine tune this to everyone's satisfaction.

"Gotta have co-ops!"
Pen

Yes VDO's

Penzer, just curious, I know that you've not hosted a co op, but how many have you participated in?

Just me looking in on this thread occasionally, it seems like you're the most outspoken concerning the co ops, I'm just wondering why... I don't remember you in any of the ones I've participated in, and don't remember you being in one of mine... so I was just curious as to why you've made this your "cause". Please do not take that as mean remark, I don't mean it that way... it's just that, I wonder why you've went to such lengths, even talking to a vendor about a co op, when I hadn't seen you around the co ops that much in the first place? If you have been, my apologies.

I also think that the statement you made about Dave above is very unfair to Dave... if Dave wanted it to "blow over" I don't think that he would have even allowed this thread to continue. He would have said no more, period, end of story.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between what you're proposing and a vendor-negotiated discount, except that there's another person involved relaying orders to the vendor when the vendor could be taking the orders directly.

Yes Penzer, I think we're disagreeing on this - the approach anyway. But, if you don’t try to read between the lines for something that isn’t there, you’ll hear what I really said. I didn’t intend to insinuate that anyone was unqualified to speak on the subject.

This message was edited Jul 5, 2005 4:59 PM

Melissa, I have participated in one co-op--a hosta co-op and I loved it. I've very much been looking forward to another one, but we haven't had another one that fit my purchasing purposes since. Well, I would have done the heuchera, but I overlooked it until it was too late. Anyway, I really wanted to see another hosta co-op--one with big plants--and that is why I talked with a vendor I really like and went to Terry to get approval to do one--and that is when I learned that they had been discontinued. That's how I got involved. I was very much in sympathy with Dave's feelings about this, and I thought there's gotta be a better way.

I don't mean to speak for Dave. Let me make it clear that I'm guessing that is how he feels (wishing it would blow over) about now based on clues in his posts above and based on how stressful I imagine that co-ops have been for him and his staff. And that is why I feel we need to push to get something going this growing season. Getting back on the horse, so to speak. I don't think that time is going to heal this. I think trying something different is more constructive.

And yes, Melissa, your comments were sorta mean. You imply that I am not one of you. Of course I am one of you. I am a member.

Pen