Fixing the co-op forum II (continuing the discussion)

Vendor issues may end up being easier to deal with by finding an alternative to the current co-op forum rather than trying to regulate it. I was thinking again about the possibility of creating a forum similar to but separate from the Classifieds forum, and I posted about it on the alternative thread: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=5782121

Stormy, I think the regular advertisements would continue to be much more visible (and profitable), especially since they are seen by all members and not just by subscribers... the Classified forum or a similar venue is more limited in scope and a different sort of thing, I think. Vendors would always have the option of subscribing in order to participate in direct posting (for $5 or whatever fee admin decides) in such a forum.

And maybe we should move this part of the discussion to the alternatives thread...

Terry, is it easier or more complicated to have the separate threads to discuss alternatives and fixes? When I posted the dual threads, it was because people suggested we try to compartmentalize the discussion... but if a lot of cross posting goes on anyway, maybe we should just combine the discussions into one thread? PLMK

Critter, I was having those exact thoughts too. It would still have to have oversight guidelines via an Aup, just one without the vendor restriction clause. It could also have different disclaimers and less easy access to Admin for complaints, or have a separate problem resolution scenario. But it could still act and feel like a coop.

Yes, Critter, I'd like to see this thread kept for coop issues, but there are times when the two items overlap.

Why would the admin have to even get involved. If it is vendor run, complaints should be handled between the member and the vendor. If the member does not get satisfaction from the vendor, they have the recourse of posting comments in the Watchdog. I think most Vendors will do what they can to fix a problem in order to keep their rating up. Much like Ebay.

it's the overlapping (which I understand) that made me wonder if it was really productive to try to have separate threads for the 2 topics... :-)

I think we might be onto something workable, however.

Budgie, in a "group purchase" forum that's similar to "classifieds," it would not be just the vendors supplying the co-ops who could pay for a posting. Non-vendor co-op hosts who were obtaining a discount for us by doing some of the retail work (ordering, inventory, reshipping, etc.) would also be able to post a co-op opportunity (the cost of posting could be split among participants).

And when you get hosts who are not vendors, you can't give feedback in the Watchdog. Giving personal feedback (like trade-related feedback) can result in hard feelings and harsh Dmails, and then admin ends up in the middle.

Critter, That's where the star rating after the member's name would be helpful.

Budgie your idea about the classified ad is good but in that limited form still does not offer educational or social benefits like a coop. An expanded coop like group purchase venue would create more excitement and increase sales to get to the maxium discount, much like the currently running seed coop.

Then set up a "Co-op Watchdog". LOL

I don't agree. It can be set up in the same format as the co-op forum is now, the vendor could answer questions just as well as a host. Who knows more about their plants than the one growing and selling it. It is also up the the members to educate themselves. I never buy a plant without researching it and it's growth requirement.

As an example, in this co-op, if you remove the introduction, it is basically a vendor run co-op.

http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/849526/

This message was edited Nov 12, 2008 11:03 AM

Many of the co-ops discounts are obtained because of case quantities, etc. - When I did the peat pellet co-op for example - I was able to get the cost down to .09 shipped to me because I ordered two cases shipped to one address - then had to individually count out everyone's order - recently the same pellet cost .15 on another co-op

The problems with shipping have occurred for two reasons:

1)The host does not really understand how shipping is calculated - you have three variables that go into calculating shipping - weight, mass - (dimensions of box needed) and ship from and to zipcodes

If you have this info you can - very closely estimate shipping cost

I'm surprised at how many individuals do not understand this process - they just hope it will all fit into a flat rate priority box

UPS and FedEx both have it set up for you to enter this info - and find out how much it will cost

USPS has online info on the zones - you input your zipcode - then you can print out all zipcode costs from your zone to anywhere else in the US - so you can figure out which way it is cheaper to ship - flat rate priority, priority, express, parcel post (not recommended for live plants)

2) too many live plants have to be sorted and reshipped - the brugs I ordered from one co-op also went to the wrong address first - I did lose 1 - but I could have easily lost them all -
The ideal situation here is that the host be someone who lives close to the vendor - so the plants are first just delivered locally - not really shipped -

or the host applies more the packing we use when trading - for example I traded with a member - not a subscriber - packed 3 banana trees - roots packed bare with water crystals around them and shipped them in summer for $15 from Dallas to Chicago - they arrived in 2 days - in great condition - he was thrilled

Hosts cannot expect to just plop the plants back in a box and ship them out and expect them to arrive in a condition that the participant is going to be thrilled with

We have seen results of the different care taken in packing plants in those who trade

Also the first person to ship is demonstrating faith in the other trader

Here is a case where the feedback system has worked - if someone approaches you wanting to trade - you check their feedback - if there are complaints that they don't fulfill their trades - you wouldn't be too smart to ship first

I would be interested in hearing from admin on the comparison of number of complaints they field on trades gone bad as opposed to co-ops that don't live up to the expectations of participant -

Yes, budgie you are right, a coop like sales venue is what most members want for member/vendors, if they can't host coops.

However, many have expressed a desire for the chat threads for the social and educational benefits. This site is for Gardeners helping gardeners and without the imput from other gardeners, many members have posted that they wouldn't have tried some plants.

Not everyone has the time, know how or inclination for research and the venue must serve the diverse needs of the group.

Which brings me back to the point of why there can't be information given out on the co-op thread for plant care/information. I'm sure the vendor or other members would be happy to answer questions about a particular plant. If members want to chat just to socialize, start another thread just for that purpose.

I realize there would be certain cases where a lead person would be required where a vendor can't fill individual orders due to packaging, etc. My suggestion only pertains to individual plant/bulb sales.

This message was edited Nov 12, 2008 11:33 AM

Budgie, A coop watchdog might not be a bad idea. It would certainly give members a place to vent and vendors a chance to present their side. Terry said they also get a lot of complaints from the vendors about the Garden Watchdog.

Many people here keep looking for guarantees. They also want to buy plants at 30% of the retail price and still expect a guaranty. How unrealistic are those expectations? The plants in the DG Marketplace cost more because the vendors are willing to offer guarantees.

The co-ops where relatively small discounts are offered should post the vendor's guaranty. I'm not sure that any co-op where plants are double shipped can offer any sort of guaranty unless it's only between the vendor and the Host. No Host should receive dead plants without recourse from the vendor.

Tetley, I admire your enthusiasm but think it's a little premature to start writing forms. If you have already begun, please keep it handy. Rereading these posts to update the summary keeps bringing new ideas. I can't edit the summary until 24 hours after my first edit.

maybe admin can come on and give us some ideas about what they are looking at as possibilities... that may give us something more to go on....just seems we are spinning our wheels here on all sorts of issues.
so if we know which way admin is leaning towards...then we can maybe help work out issues on those or play devils advocate...etc.

any help yet admin?

Terry, There seems to be confusion of how DG defines a vendor.

Is a member who occasionally sells plants on DG Classifieds or Ebay a vendor?

If someone is selling their Brug cuttings from their personal garden on DG or Ebay a Vendor?

If I buy more of something than I need because I can get a great price, but want to offer the excess on DG Classifieds or Ebay am I now considered a vendor?

If my friend, who is President of the local DayLily Society, needs to unload excess plants from the club's sale and I offer them in Classified, am I now a vendor?

The sticky thread in the co-op forum addresses the "who is a vendor" question, specifically in these two posts:

http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=2432114 and
http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=2433292

Thanks, Terry. That makes it pretty clear all except item #9, which I think is what Hart was referring to. Why would that make you a vendor? Would #9 apply in my scenario with the DayLily Society?

That wouldn't necessarily qualify you as a full-time vendor, but that scenario should be run as a classified ad, not as a co-op. We have had members who want to offer fund-raiser plants that benefit a society, and we have referred them to the classified ads.

Terry, Thank you.That sounds good in theory, but these plants have already been dug up, offered for sale at a club function to members, then offered for sale to the public at a club sponsored sale and then would have to stay out of the ground for an undetermined time for the duration of the ad.

This is very much the same as the last coop that was supplied by leftovers from the PNW Iris Growers Show. All plants were sold in 2 days or less as they should have been to insure survival. Classifieds do not offer the volume of viewers to unload a large quantity quickly.

If we either add co-ops (aka group purchasing opportunities) to the classifieds forum or create a separate forum for group purchases that's similar to classifieds, then the "volume of viewers" issue should be solved. I'm currently tending toward the thought that this might be the easiest way to remove that grey area from the vendor issue, by making it moot.

Another solution to the vendor shill & vendor/member issues might be to annually or semi-annually send a dmail blast to all members and post a thread on the home page offering an open enrollment period to all vendors who would like to supply or host & supply a coop.

Responding vendors then could be put on a list as a sticky in the coop forum and those would be the only vendors allowed to supply or host a coop until the next enrollment period.

Those vendors who are not advertisers would have to pay each period to stay on this list. Or all vendors would have to pay to stay on this list but have one fee for advertisers, and another fee for non advertisers.

Hosts could review the list and contact the vendor if they would like to run a coop with them.

This would completely eliminate the shill problem as well as the self promotion issue and level the field

In that scenario, how do non-member vendors find out about the list? Or does every host have to plan very far ahead (at the beginning of each enrollment period) to make sure the vendor of their choosing will be on the list? Maybe I missed something...

Critter, Don't non-members have access to the home page? Where do the advertisers come from? Every six months doesn't sound that far ahead.

OK, how about quarterly, or why not make it anytime, but the vendors have to pay to get and stay on the list.

Critter, maybe I should have said send a dmail blast to all members and post an ANNOUNCEMENT on the Home page..............

Stormy, I think there have been successful co-ops supplied by vendors who had barely heard of DG before, much less made a habit of visiting the home page.

I admittedly haven't gone through the entire thread as I am at the library supposedly doing a research paper. However I want to weigh in here. I have long been confused as to the micromanaging of co-ops. It is stated very clearly "Caveat Emptor". I don't understand why member vendors can't do co-ops. I don't think it even matters if they sell gardening related materials or not. If we are getting a great deal because they are offering it based on sales in bulk it's a win/win. If they are simply set up to be able to handle packaging and mailing due to the fact that they are a business - then again we all win. If they sell something unrelated completely but their love of gardening and sharing has them able to get group discounts with other vendors that require a tax ID# then - we all win once again. When do we lose? When people who are unprepared or incapable of managing the $, time, packaging, etc are the only ones left who can host. They (we - I hosted a co-op last spring) are not business-people and don't know how to manage all the processes. Sure there are many "amateurs" that put on a mean co-op - my previous statement is not to discredit them, but I think we can see the only co-ops that went bad were not run by people who know how to run a business. Shouldn't we offer the members here more courtesies than non-members though - by virtue of the fact that they are part of our community. Same way I shop at small local businesses that support my kid's school and our church??

I don't understand why it isn't left up to each of us individually to decide to participate (or not) in a co-op after seeing who is running it and how. Perhaps new rules should allow anyone to run a co-op but there must be full disclosure of whether or not they run a business. If a person were so incensed to have a member/vendor run a co-op then they can say no. Again - looking at myself I would sign up with a member/vendor any day and be smiling all the way to the dirt knowing I have gotten a deal by virtue of the fact that we share a common ground here at Dave's.

We pay $15 to belong here and presumably should all behave as adults. I guess we see what assuming has done for us at this point.

I don't see this coming to a good resolution, personally. Maybe there has to be another level of membership where you sign something accepting the conditions of participating in a co-op. I know I won't buy off the marketplace or classifieds. I seriously doubt Blooming Bulb or Terra Nova is going to post an ad with the prices we find on co-ops. They'd have to have a guarantee of a certain # of sales anyway. Think an ad that says "we'll sell at x price if we sell 3,000 bulbs, otherwise no deal" will get approval? That has more problems with it than a member vendor doing a co-op IMO.

Make membership at Dave's be a benefit for a vendor. At this point - why would anyone that is a vendor belong here?

Seems to me that the announcement on the home page might also have the effect of getting more people to join DG if they know that we regularly offer coops.

OK members, laugh away, but until this thread started, I did not know that there are pop ups in the "free" DG areas. When I encounter something of great value, I tend to spring for it. I joined DG as a paying member almost immediately after stumbling upon Plant Files. I really have no knowledge of the distinction of benefits between the two member groups.

Critter, I'm sure of that, but I'm having trouble getting your point. How did those vendors find out about us? If a member sought them out, fine but they would still have to pay to get on the list, which would be the only way they could supply the coop. If they didn't want to renew to stay on, that's fine.

I do understand the vendor issue with regard to the AUP, but I've never been sure since the Classifieds forum went through why it wasn't possible to make a similar exception for the co-op forum. But that's admin's call, and I pretty much trust them to have good reasons to do the things they do. :-)

Some co-ops start as an interest thread, with no vendor chosen yet. The host and others look around, contact various vendors (usually ones they've successfully ordered from in the past or ones with a good Watchdog rating), and see what kind of deal they can get. Then the co-op ordering thread opens. The vendor is not necessarily chosen 6 or 3 months before ordering begins.

Critter, basically, I agree with Terry, that all vendors should have to pay to access the DG members. Keep an open enrollment on the list. Let the interest thread determine who the vendor is, but make them pay to get on the list and supply a coop.
If their form of payment is offering exceptionally good prices, then the listing fee could be paid by the host and passed onto the participants along with the cost of packing supplies.

The issue I could see with some of the recent suggestions is that there are many cases where the host contacts vendors who have enough business to not need the advantage of being a member here...I would hate to exclude Blooming Bulb or Terra Nova or some of the other "big guys" just because they choose to not participate directly. It would certainly narrow options considerably.
Furthermore, I am not so sure I like the idea of a 6 month or even quarterly list..I think we would miss out on some last minute specials or new plants with limited quantities.
And while I know I should reasearch things (and do) no amount of research will ever equate hands-on experience..and it is the sharing of those experiences that the current classifieds lack.
Sometimes even seeing things like what someone else planted in the same bed with a plant can influence a decision, and it is the little details like that that you can't get forma 20 or 50 or even 200 word ad.

Peg, You passionately present a good arguement for lifting the member vendor host restriction.

Blooming Bulb and Terra Nova may already be advertisers with DG. DG is trying not to disenfranchise the advertisers by allowing vendors free access to our purchasing power. I personally don't like the classified ad purchase solution either. It seems like subterfuge and I'm sure would appear tacky and unprofessional to a large company.

People not acting like adults both on the coop threads, and post coop, with invalid complaints over unreasonable expectations, harassing DG for restitution and resolution led us here.

Perhaps bringing a complaint that is found to be frivoulous or because you didn't read the coop thread should result in suspension from coop participation.

Artemiss, the only way I could see missing out on Blooming bulb or Terra Nova is if coops stop altogether.

You are correct, no amount of research or vendor/host provided information will ever provide the indepth, unbiased, germain to your area and terrain information that usually pops up on the coop threads.

still wondering if dg admin can give us a inkling about which options might be doable...so we are not spinning our wheels on many different ideas.....