Year End Memo

[keenasmustard]

I agree with some of the points you have made but think you are wrong on 2, retrospective settlement of illegal reductions and an armistice.
the reason i would want some monies returned is for the fact that Hillary's legal department are looking for a loophole instead of being up front about this and putting their hands up and saying sorry we can work this out between ourselves.
they have been very quick of the mark to take this money in the past.
I would have thought that in this computer age they could have a good idea on what we have paid?
if this cannot be done then a token sum per adviser per year of service across the board say for a figure £50 for part time and £100.for full time.
also I would like to hear some honesty from Hillary's on this maybe Ross can be their spokesman?

[grumperbear]

Honesty and Hillary's have nothing in common other than they start with H

[Augustus]

I might have missed this before, but are many people missing the fact that we discount in order to get the deal.

If we sell a £100 blind for £90, should Hillarys be able to ask us for the full amount ?

I'm not saying what is happening is ideal, but just trying to see it through both sides so I can get a better understanding of the situation.

P.

[BlindWizard]

If we discount to get the order (which Hillarys agree we can do) both we and Hillarys benefit in getting the order. Hillarys has the option of not accepting the order at price sold for. We only get paid commission on the discounted price. It is in the interest of Hillarys to get order that is why they accept us discounting.

If the order is subsequently discounted by Hillarys because of their fault then we should not be penalized for something that we do not have control over, is not our fault and is not in our interest. Therefore we should receive commission at the full price of sale. If the order has to be discounted later because of the advisor's fault the advisor should not receive the full commission and it could even be argued they might lose more than just the commission on the discount.

As far as the suggestion that commission is repaid retrospectively this would not happen without a big fight and I think most advisors would just like Hillarys to admit that the current policy is wrong and change it for the future.

I haven't really suffered from this much but if my commission was (or is in future) reduced by a reasonable large amount on an order because of a discount given due to Hillarys fault I would/will fight it.

[filo]

Hi motters
Sorry can’t agree, us giving a 10% discount to get the order is not same by any means, for one thing the 10% as already been sanctioned by hillarys as a way to get the order if needed, which in it’s own right lowers our commission, the simple fact is
We sell the blinds; Sam prices the blinds, if the customer happy an order is made, the end price is what we should be paid on, and if they have got to give a discount for any other reason other than any thing we have done, then our commission should be left alone. If I do something to cause the discount, well yes I will take the loss, if not then why should I.

[inkjet]

I am a bit concerned. I do not like the suggestion that if we discount or make a mistalke with priceing we should make up the diffrence.

I do not know who the selected few are meeting with management but if one of them thinks like this I am dum founded.

I admit its early in the morning so I may not have understood motters posting.
I actually believe there should be no fines. Or having the phone FSM If Advisor makes lots of mistakes FSM gets report and discusses it with Advisor.
To contact FSM you have to make an expensive Mobile Call when many of us have FREE CALLS OR AN INCLUSIVE PRICE TO LANDLINES. This makes me very ANGRY before I start.

I have noticed that some adsiors sneak DORS on other orders, not me . to avoid this.
Must admit only skimed end of year memo as I do not eat and drink Hillarys.

[Augustus]

Inkjet,

yes you might have taken my post the wrong way.

Making up the diference is not what HQ are asking for.

I just suggested it as a view of the other side of the coin.

We discount at the sales call for whatever reason ( to get the order/pricematch etc ), gladly HQ never bill us us the book price of the blinds.

If they need to do some kind of discount after the fit, then it needs to be instilled into the person doing the discount exactly what it means to our earnings.

Also- some kind of guidelines need putting in place so discounts are not just handed out like candy !!!

P.

[alajeacot]

I'm wondering if someone is trying to tell me something!!!! I didn't get an end of year report!!! i've been agent 8 years now and remember the good old days. When Tony Hillary left we said give the company 5 years then it'll be down the pan. How long do we have left???

PS.. is anyones commissions still up the wall, because we've now been waiting over 5 weeks for some payments

[ricko]

Just another example of commission claw back that shouldn't happen.
Got an email today saying that customer had rung up and complained that she didn't get all her blinds fitted before Xmas as promised, so as a gesture of goodwill we have given her 10% discount could you please take it off the invoice.
Not only have I had to had to travel to fit one job twice now I have to pay for the privilege.
£1500 order less 10% = £22 loss to me.
It is just not right.

[desmorse]

I would have an issue with the concept of an amnesty on historic clawbacks of commission. Two jobs immediately come to mind ..
20mm shaped roof, fitted 3 times, only to be told it was suffering a known problem and even the German company who developed this system can't stop it. Whole job written off, never received a penny commission
Large wood venetian, changed twice, customer given full refund and kept the blind, all commission clawed back.
We should also include where customer services have told customers their 10% voucher can be applied to the invoice, as they've received it after placing an order.

For the future, I would actually suggest a more equitable approach on mismeasures/DORs. I have no problem with the concept of paying for my errors, but do have a problem with paying for Hillarys errors in time and diesel.
I think for all mismeasures, advisors should be charged the direct cost of re-making a blind. (This is actually quite low). All DORs resulting in a return visit, we should be paid £15/blind - not per visit. Most would be quite straightforward, but there would be grey areas where things like brackets are missing. We all carry these, but when you get what I had on the run up to Christmas, 3 jobs with no louvre hangers it becomes arguable. I had about 100 3,1/2" ones as spares, but needed over 250 in total.

gilly said:

I agree with some of the points you have made but think you are wrong on 2, retrospective settlement of illegal reductions and an armistice.
the reason i would want some monies returned is for the fact that Hillary's legal department are looking for a loophole instead of being up front about this and putting their hands up and saying sorry we can work this out between ourselves.
they have been very quick of the mark to take this money in the past.
I would have thought that in this computer age they could have a good idea on what we have paid?
if this cannot be done then a token sum per adviser per year of service across the board say for a figure £50 for part time and £100.for full time.
also I would like to hear some honesty from Hillary's on this maybe Ross can be their spokesman?

[russell]

i would get 1000s via claw back lovely but wont hold my breath have also had a roof wrote off but did get expences via cust serv but didnt cover cost to me dors drive me mad get loads spend 5plus hours a week putting right so i feel i need either clawbacks being stopped or we should be payed for a dor at the moment we lose ALL ways the system is unfair to the point of being illegel am happy with sam and mainly pk with diary maintainance they take leads off if there service calls advertising is outragious in my area we spend about 1k a week on leaflets that dont go out h\o are not bothered but i get charged for printer paper too sell their blinds overall im happy too be a agent have a good income and flexability BUT the old hillarys cared about staff and quality not selling the company on i worry for the future that said think the meeting is a way forward WELL DONE MOTTERS AND HILLARYS ;D