AMDA News (Split Topic)

[dizzy]

Look vitz the future of the internet will be wholesalers selling direct to the public. Eventually it will be Island mariculture operations selling direct to the public. It won't be inland retailers paying all the shipping costs and absorbing loses that will be able to compete. If you think it will you not as brite as I assumed. :wink: Sure it has an effect on business but newbies are the life-blood of retail.
Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

Look vitz the future of the internet will be wholesalers selling direct to the public. Eventually it will be Island mariculture operations selling direct to the public. It won't be inland retailers paying all the shipping costs and absorbing loses that will be able to compete. If you think it will you not as brite as I assumed. :wink: Sure it has an effect on business but newbies are the life-blood of retail.
Mitch

i disagree....

a: repeat customers are the lifeblood of ALL retail-it's also what determines which LFS's fail after only two years

word gets around-sometimes slowly, but always surely


selling a noob a $1k setup with high cost items isn't what keeps you afloat long term, it's the $4.00 can of fish food at the 150-250% markup repeatedly that does :wink:

is this shortsighted view that typical of 'BRIGHT' retailers? (shudder)

i do not think that livestock being sold mainly by wholesalers is actually the future of e-bizness, i believe that lfs's will evolve primarily into more livestock sales, and fewer drygoods-THAT'S where the 'hit' to their purchasing power/overhead/revenue cycle is affected the most.


btw-if you take care of your livestock properly, w/the subsequent low DAA results, you should have NO problem competing with e-tailers, re: actual ROI on livestock

 

[Anonymous]

fyi, as a csr for an etailer of dry goods-a very prevalent sentiment i hear from customers is that they prefer to actually see what they're buying re: the main reason they don't want to purchase livestock over the net


it's also the pitch i used while retailing at b&m's :wink:


and btw, IF your pov is correct, the last thing the AMDA should be doing is alienating themselves from the etail/wholesale livestock trade, for it's a battle they will ultimately lose, imo

amda's smartest move would be to setup their own wholesale sector,( that does a better job than present companies), and then supply there own member stores (ala petsmart/petco) :wink:


you can't legislate the consumer's pocketbook , you can only convince him to spend it with you :wink:

 

[dizzy]

i disagree....

a: repeat customers are the lifeblood of ALL retail-it's also what determines which LFS's fail after only two years

word gets around-sometimes slowly, but always surely

Look I've owned and operated my own business for 20-years. If your so damn smart how come you don't own your own store? Very few if any retail stores would be able to make it without new people getting into the hobby. Sure you need to keep the customers you get, but you have got to have those tank, filter, heater, gravel, and lighting sales. The advanced hobbyists tend to make major purchases online. (Other than glass). They have just come to assume the lfs will be higher and don't bother looking. I don't know exactly what AMDA is up to these days, but I tend to agree with Burton on most issues. If AMDA has morphed into a pro-B&M organization it's ok by me.

 

[Anonymous]

who ever said i wanted to own my own store? :lol:


that's one headache i can do without, and it's certainly no measure of how knowledgable one is about the trade-any tom dick and harry can open, run, and own a store


i prefer to sell stuff, and educate people-it's what turned me on about working in lfs's in the first place

 

[Anonymous]

amda can morph into whatever they want- they don't matter, in the same way mac doesn't-theyre just a bunch of self important folks trying to be important to others-the same way mac is

if they spent more time worrying about their own businesses performances, they wouldn't have to go crying to anyone about anything


it's a self responsibility thing, the only thing ANY business has to blame for being non successful, or successful, is how they conduct THEIR OWN business

if you worry about yourself, the competition is irrelevant :wink:

and if AMDA has morphed into a pro b&m only org.,, they're already a white elephant

 

[dizzy]

Why should they listen to you?

 

[JennM]

that's one headache i can do without, and it's certainly no measure of how knowledgable one is about the trade-any tom dick and harry can open, run, and own a store

Only if Tom, Dick or Harry has access to money. Otherwise it takes quite a bit of doing to open a store - jumping through hoops to write a realistic business plan, procure funding... setting up the store itself is the easy part.

Judging by the amount of shops that fail, or are in financial trouble, on COD with suppliers etc., it's not as easy as people think to run one either.

Jenn

 

[dizzy]

Judging by the amount of shops that fail, or are in financial trouble, on COD with suppliers etc., it's not as easy as people think to run one either.

Jenn

The people on the AMDA BOD are successful business people who have stood the test of time. That self important comment by vitz was a cheap shot that Morgan, Bruce, Burton, and Liz don't deserve. B&M retailers should be appreciative that they are willing to take away from what little free time this business gives and work on issues that have a negative impact on B&M lfs. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. :roll:

 

[clarionreef]

Vitz,
and btw, IF your pov is correct, the last thing the AMDA should be doing is alienating themselves from the etail/wholesale livestock trade, for it's a battle they will ultimately lose.

:roll: Do saltwater clubs 'Alienate" freshwater folks by keeping their focus on saltwater?
Of course not. Its so matter of fact that groups will tend towards their interests that we don't call it alienation...but free will and choice.
By not having F$#@ers and Smith on the BOD....what are we losing? The crowd that most wants to lo-ball drop-shipped juiced philippine bicolors angels for $14.00 to the public? So what?
Its a simply a marinelife dealers group that wants to focus on and enhance the interests of bonafide storefront retailers.
No one is stopping cumputer marketing 'marinelife dealers from forming their own group. In fact, I wish they would.
'Fish in the mail' and basement fishroom businesses'...and have many different interests then storefronts and they can pitch them in thier own venue.

amda's smartest move would be to setup their own wholesale sector,( that does a better job than present companies), and then supply there own member stores (ala petsmart/petco) mately lose, imo

A business chain? You mean like MAC and MAMTI are doing?
That would not be the smartest move....even if AMDA had access to the millions of dollars like the groups it is compared to. [ thats a pretty silly thing to do actually]
A Non profit org set up to service the best interests of ALL marinelife dealers goes into business to service its own, SELECT elite?
What then, stickers, certificates, mission statements, 100 k salaries and constant self promotion?

Vitz, ...de-caf....Make it de-caf.

AMDA may have well kept this scenario you mention from actually happening in the case of MAC. THE EXPOSURE OF THEIR BUSINESS CHAIN TO PROFIT THEIR BIGGEST CONTRIBUTORS was in no small part AMDA doing.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Has AMDA actually done anything in the past 6 years? Never thought of them more than a $50 pretty sticker to put in the door.

 

[dizzy]

Has AMDA actually done anything in the past 6 years? Never thought of them more than a $50 pretty sticker to put in the door.

Go back and read AMDA's newsletter near the beginning of this thread. I'm not quite sure what you expect for $50 but if AMDA dues was the worst $50 I spent every year I'd be a rich man.

PS
Don't be afraid to contact them directly with your questions/concerns. They won't bite.

 

[clarionreef]

Geez,
Folks who never do anything for the general good of the trade and hobby certainly have little credibility when dissing those that have.

Early on in my time there we often observed the nerve of people who thought that their 50 bucks was seen as an investment that should net them a return in spades...instead of a donation to take on the serious issues confronting us. Seeing the membership fee as like a COSTCO card fee that enabled one to shop cheaper and gain direct financial dividends was very common.

Increasingly I began to relize that the quality of people that comprised our industry was often very low indeed and incapable of thinking beyond greedy and competitive notions.
Such people, if in charge, would try and figure out how to make themselves look better then their competitors and abuse their public trust to somehow aggrandize themselves.
Keeping AMDA away from this myopic mentality and away from being the MAC rubber stamp and sticker on a certificate was a constant battle in the first year.
Being retarded by people who thought mainly of benefit for themselves and for their MAC daddies cost us a great deal of effort and momentum.
AMDA is still free to represent the best interests of the dealer w/ storefronts who join it and drive it. Its a democracy and unlike the 'outside the trade'...trade groups, there is a vote and a rotation of leadership every two years.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Has AMDA actually done anything in the past 6 years? Never thought of them more than a $50 pretty sticker to put in the door.

Go back and read AMDA's newsletter near the beginning of this thread. I'm not quite sure what you expect for $50 but if AMDA dues was the worst $50 I spent every year I'd be a rich man.

PS
Don't be afraid to contact them directly with your questions/concerns. They won't bite.

Other than this forum and this thread, where is the newletter posted? I'm not seeing it anywhere on their website, (although they have finally changed the BOD page).

 

[dizzy]

Ask 'em yourself: [email protected]

 

[PeterIMA]

It is unfortunate that the position statement by Burton Patrick concerning the role of AMDA and it's relation to MAMTI posted by Steve Robinson seems to be lost in bickering concerning retail stores versus web-based sales.

AMDA like the IMA initially showed strong support for the MAC and its stated programs. It is difficult to disagree with the goals (stop cyanide fishing, sustainable harvesting, better shipping and handling, certification tied to lowered mortality and better quality fish etc.). The MAC and the Community Conservation Investment Forum (CCIF) picked many people's brains in the IMA and elsewhere to come up with the goals. People like Ferdinand Cruz (IMA's main community organizer). Dr. Vaughan Pratt (IMA President) and Dr. Charles Barber (IMA Vice President and MAC BOD member) played significant roles in developing the concepts. Others from the AMDA board like Randy Goodlet also supported the MAC. Even, the need for net training advocated by Steve Robinson is incorporated into the proposal to the World Bank Global Environmental Facility. So, it is not surprizing that the MAMTI document sounds good.

I do not agree with the statement by Burton that the "MAMTI represents legislation that is being introduced into congress and is known as the Marine Aquarium Market Transformation Inititiative." At least this is not stated in the MAMTI proposal that is posted at the URL listed. While it is clear that MAMTI seeks to transform the aquarium trade, the idea of using legislation in either the host countries (e.g., Philippines, Indonesia, Fiji) or the importing countries in not discussed in the MAMTI proposal (or anywhere else that I can find on the web). It is not clear whether the Draft Legislation by Democratic Congressman Case is tied in with the MAC or not (although I suggested that it might be).

The idea of establishing a chain-of-custody with a for-profit network of participating businesses is alluded to in the MAMTI proposal. But it is not clear how this would operate or who would be involved. Most of the emphasis in the MAMTI proposal relates to the producing countries (e.g., net training, CAMPs, standards and certification of exporters etc.). It is not clear what "reform" would be required by importers or retailers (some of the concerns voiced by Burton).

The acronym RPA refers to Reef Product Alliance (RPA). The creation of the RPA was in a proposal that was prepared by those associated with CCIF (a non-profit conservation group) to form a for-profit network. The initial RPA proposal is posted on CCIF's website. A more refined proposal to create such a network was submitted to the World Bank GEF several years ago, and as far as I know was not funded. However, I suspect that these ideas are being implemented in association with the MAMTI initiative. So, while MAMTI is a non-profit program intended to tranform the aquarium trade, it does look to me like there is a hidden agenda by some of the larger importers and exporters to establish a for-profit chain-of-custody that could be detrimental to non-participating groups (e.g., collectors, exporters, importers, and retailers).

My main concern is that I don't see enough evidence that the MAC is following though with its stated goals and objectives outlined in the MAMTI proposal. By excluding experts from both the trade and from conservation-based NGOs (like the IMA and OVI) the knowledge-base needed to make the various programs work is lacking. This is particularly true when it comes to community-based trainings (e.g. net training) and other types of community-based programs (e.g., mariculture of corals, live rock etc.).

The CDT is another issue. The MAC states in the MAMTI document that they favor a cyanide detection testing (CDT) program, but then go on to describe the paperwork tied in with a chain-of-custody from collectors to retailers without use of a CDT. In addition to the paperwork, the exporters and importers are required to segregate each group of net-caught fish (so that they can be tracked). The paperwork required by the collectors, evaluated in the MAC feasability study conducted with Ferdinand Cruz (seconded from the IMA in 2001), was found to be too onerous and time-consuming for the uneducated collectors. Likewise, the exporters in the Philippines have not bought into the idea of paying more for net caught fish. The only exporter company that made the effort to comply with the MAC standards (Aquarium Habitat) found itself in conflict with the PFTEA and learned that adhering to MAC Standards was not required. Basically, the MAC did not demonstrate through its own Feasability Study that paperwork in a chain-of-custody without use of a CDT can work. There is good reason to question the practicality of the concepts just mentioned, and to doubt that the MAC is sincere in implementing what they promised in the MAMTI proposal.

Ferdinand Cruz became a full-time employee for the MAC in 2002. He carried out field evaluations for the MAC associated with the creation of Collection Area Management Plans (CAMPs). He developed underwater survey methods with a Peace Corps worker. These methods built on previously published methods in the scientific literature and were published in a booklet by USAID. The collectors demonstated that they could learn the methods and participated in the underwater surveys to assess the distributions and relative abundance of marine aquarium fishes on the coral reefs. So, it is not correct to state that ReefCheck's MAQTRAC methodology was the only underwater survey methodology available (in fact MACTRAQ did not yet exist, it was published in 2003).

I initially assumed that what Ferdinand was doing in creating CAMPs was endorsed by the MAC. I was shocked to learn when Ferdinand resigned that the MAC did not endorse what appeared to me to be workable CAMPs (in the five areas where Ferdinand did his work). Instead for reasons I don't understand the MAC certified two other areas where CAMPs were created (Batasin and Clarin off the Island of Bohol) without prior underwater surveys, and without adequate training and participation of the fisherfolk. Ferdinand was not involved in those trainings coordinated by Lino Alvarez (Ferdinand was not informed about them).

There appears to be many deficiencies in the implementation of MAMTI both in the host countries and the importing countries. Retailers in the USA (such as those associated with AMDA) are justified in being concerned about a program that threatens their livelihood for little or no apparent benefit.


Sincerely,
Peter J. Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

Duplicate posting deleted

 

[Anonymous]

Ask 'em yourself: [email protected]

I was hoping to find out from the person who posted it. The current BOD doesn't seem to like me too much. :?

 

[Anonymous]

Why should they listen to you?

i don't know that they should

Only if Tom, Dick or Harry has access to money. Otherwise it takes quite a bit of doing to open a store - jumping through hoops to write a realistic business plan, procure funding... setting up the store itself is the easy part.

Judging by the amount of shops that fail, or are in financial trouble, on COD with suppliers etc., it's not as easy as people think to run one either

'zactly-and maybe they shouldn't have opened up a pet store to begin with :wink:


anyone who knows how to care for fish properly,educate their buying public properly, gets the resulting customer loyalty,keeps a clean store, with knowledgable polite staff, will do well (at least that's what my experience shows-the only thing a 'box' retailer, B&M, or etail ever did for the stores i've worked in was help my employer-they just gave us so much fodder for conversion :wink: )

That self important comment by vitz was a cheap shot that Morgan, Bruce, Burton, and Liz don't deserve

it wasn't a cheap shot- it was a reply to a cheap shot...

a blanket assertion as to the 'investment' ALL e-tailers have, based on AMDA's admitted prejudice is as cheap a shot as any, imo

what 'investment' do B&M's make to the community? do retailers open stores because of altruistic motives to the 'community' ? :lol:

oh puhleeeze-everyone's in this business to make a friggin buck, period-any issue of claims of being morally superior to anyone from a business stanpoint is ludicrous and laughable, and no objective reason exists for one venue to ***** about the other..

you can either fish, or cut bait :wink:



i guess what i'm saying is i don't get this 'run for self protectionism'

if someone develops a better business model, with less operating overhead, why not adopt the model, or incorporate it into one's existing one?


and what the heck is a 'community investment' ?


online etailers pay salaries to workers, rent and taxes on property, just like B&M's do


anyone who performs proper research into the lfs biz should know from the start that it's one of the most difficult retail sectors to succeed in, it requires a very high initial investment per square foot to start off, has one of the longest returns over initial investment of starting the operation, and is one of THE most competetive retail sectors there is

if the AMDA thinks that banding together to try and gain more economic power will solve the 'plight of the B&M's', there more than welcome to think so

but the question begs to be asked....

why are the succesfull B&M's successful WITHOUT the AMDA, or ANY other 'umbrella' org helping them out to begin with ? :wink:


DR.'s f&s aren't bad in my book because they're etailers, they're bad because they have no clue about livestock they sell-no-one should be selling livestock if they can't give their customers proper husbandry education, imo

i've seen plenty of B&M's that kill even more livestock at the expense of making a buck at the expense of an idjit noob who just want something pretty to look at than F&S, proportionately though

does that mean i label ALL B&M's as 'evil'? no, just most of them :wink:

:wink:

 

[Anonymous]

MAC certified two other areas where CAMPs were created (Batasin and Clarin off the Island of Bohol) without prior underwater surveys, and without adequate training and participation of the fisherfolk. Ferdinand was not involved in those trainings coordinated by Lino Alvarez (Ferdinand was not informed about them).

I seem to remember that a bit differently, and maybe Steve will jump in here to correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't Blue Hula (Jessica, remember her Peter :evil: ---man I wish she'd come back ) have a BUNCH to say about one of those area's that she'd actually worked on, and did survey (found are was in bad shape) prior to MAC enterring that area?