|
|
Post by mendipmagpie on Apr 30, 2006 18:51:33 GMT 1
Got to also agree with GVM well said.
Like most I have read THE COMMUNICATION a number of times and need the following clarified pretty dam quick.
1) What are the min and max liabilities to the agent under the policy excess re customer damage.
2) Why must we bear the cost of a first error when Hillarys get a freebe when they cant control product quality and correctness.
3) Is the error cost of £20 per order or per blind.when due to another agent
How can they justify 3 for £99 when the cost is £46 per blind.as per JR Are these now history
Re SAM paper,this is a bit of a red herring when consideration of costs saved by reduction of order pads.
Re Invoice discounted at fitting or prior to final collection of payment-Hillarys or Advisors fault. Commission paid on cash collected. IF the reason for reduction is Hillarys fault then why should commission be reducwd ---or am I missing something.
MM
|
|
|
|
Post by mendipmagpie on Apr 30, 2006 19:03:36 GMT 1
Note and info
Just this week I ran out of low contact masking tape and used white electricians tape to measure out the cills in a relativly new conservatory. After finishing I removed the tape and with it came two coats ot paint leaving the bare wood-chipboard. Obviously the original primer had not dried before the top coat was applied. I offered to patch up but cust wanted more as she was sure we would be insured. Fortunately I reported immediatly so covered .
However what will happen from May 8.
Bet I dont run out again.
MM
|
|
reginald
Junior Member
agent 27 years
Posts: 70
|
Post by reginald on Apr 30, 2006 20:19:09 GMT 1
Mendipmagpie can only agree completely with your last posting, we need to have this clarified NOW. I will not be going into anyones house until it is clear in my mind. To the managment I can only say "why can you not make clear statements" were you all trained by ex politicians?
|
|
|
|
Post by saxman on Apr 30, 2006 20:30:43 GMT 1
having read through JRs letter a couple of time, i have come to the conclusionthat
1. hillarys dont give a stuff about us full timers, they would rather fill the area with part timers, and keep a high level of advisor turnover so they can rip off the agents and then replace them.
2. whoever put that document together obviously doesnt live in the real world as we know it.
3. the sam paper is there to try and make us think were getting a good deal.
4. WE ARE BEING SCREWED
victor
actively seeking other employment.
|
|
nkotb
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by nkotb on Apr 30, 2006 20:42:35 GMT 1
As a new member to this forum i do believe the core problem we all suffer is simply that we cannot trust hillarys to act in our interests at ANYTIME. we are and always will be the pits of the company that are easily (they think) replaced.
|
|
|
|
Post by farmer on Apr 30, 2006 21:08:39 GMT 1
They have had 3 months breathing space since the seminars and this is what they come up with. All advisors who go to sales calls now are put under extra pressure as ANY MISTAKE will cost £20, which in many cases will out weigh the commission. Would ALL H/O staff including production like to work under the same conditions.............. i think not. Why should we suffer for our mistakes whilst others go unpunished for theirs......hardly fair is it. Is this their idea of rallying the troops? owl. exactly, we take the risks, management above us all on salaries cant loose. |
|
|
|
Post by farmer on Apr 30, 2006 21:11:41 GMT 1
Some interesting figures coming out of Colwick lately. For those of you currently suffering 3/£99, think of this. Out of £99, the VAT man takes £14.74 and you take £14.53, leaving £69.73. Hillarys claim it costs £40 to generate a lead (some say £50). This does not cover any overheads associated with placing an order, just creating a lead. That leaves £29.73. According to JRs current letter, the average cost of making a blind is £46, making 3 blinds average £138. This leaves Hillarys with a net profit of ..... errr .. minus £108.27!  Being a little disingenuous with the figures are we Mr Risman? Just putting out figures to justify the action? Watch out for phase 2, variable commission rates. As sure as god made little green apples, they ain't goin' up. Des - not Russel ;D for gods sake its not the making of the blind that cost the dosh, its paying for company cars, food and drink, and the rest. A £100 quid blind probably costs a fiver tops |
|
|
|
Post by farmer on Apr 30, 2006 21:21:19 GMT 1
Some interesting figures coming out of Colwick lately. For those of you currently suffering 3/£99, think of this. Out of £99, the VAT man takes £14.74 and you take £14.53, leaving £69.73. Hillarys claim it costs £40 to generate a lead (some say £50). This does not cover any overheads associated with placing an order, just creating a lead. That leaves £29.73. According to JRs current letter, the average cost of making a blind is £46, making 3 blinds average £138. This leaves Hillarys with a net profit of ..... errr .. minus £108.27! Being a little disingenuous with the figures are we Mr Risman? Just putting out figures to justify the action? Watch out for phase 2, variable commission rates. As sure as god made little green apples, they ain't goin' up. Des - not Russel ;D for gods sake its not the making of the blind that cost the dosh, its paying for company cars, food and drink, and the rest. A £100 quid blind probably costs a fiver tops while we are at it, please explain to me how generating a lead cost £40-£50 quid. In our paper, a box ad for example is about £35 quid per week. Local blind companies to me use this method and have been going years, proving they work.. if they only get 10 leads a week that makes a lead between £3 & £5. With hillarys buying power, you cant tell me they aren't getting huge discounts on all their advertising |
|
blindmansam
Full Member
P/T advisor (over 5 years)
Posts: 225
|
Post by blindmansam on Apr 30, 2006 21:57:46 GMT 1
Please may i suggest to ALL AGENTS that they send a urgent e-mail , re- the unhappiness caused by issues surrounding the john risman mailer.
The MOST obvious is a reuest to delay ANY action planned for 8th May, and postpone untill all issues are dealt WITH / BY Advisor feedback.
advisor.feedback@hillarys.co.uk
Everyone e-mail them - This is a trully serious situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by desmorse on May 1, 2006 8:34:19 GMT 1
for gods sake its not the making of the blind that cost the dosh, its paying for company cars, food and drink, and the rest. A £100 quid blind probably costs a fiver tops while we are at it, please explain to me how generating a lead cost £40-£50 quid. In our paper, a box ad for example is about £35 quid per week. Local blind companies to me use this method and have been going years, proving they work.. if they only get 10 leads a week that makes a lead between £3 & £5. With hillarys buying power, you cant tell me they aren't getting huge discounts on all their advertising As I said, there seems to be a bit of bias in the way figures are presented. Several times over the last few years I've been told a lead costs Hillarys £40 or £50, so they're Hillarys leads not mine. The current letter states the average cost of re-making a blind is £46. All of these figures will include overheads, like the running cost of the buildings, the non-production staff at H/O, the FSMs and their cars - and mobile phones, and yes, the cost of providing us with refreshements at team meetings. The true cost of re-making a blind is nothing like £46, the marginal cost is what it costs to make 1 more blind than planned. All the overheads have already been absorbed in to planned, profitable work, so the marginal cost is the cost of material and the labour spent making it. Which, as others at H/O have said, "If in doubt, just DOR it, it's costs nothing more than a few quid to remake a blind". Otherwise they could never run 3/£99 could they? |
|
|
|
Post by JoY on May 1, 2006 9:22:41 GMT 1
If it is illegal to reduce the commission rate from the 14.68% stated in our contracts "for sales achieved" , as a direct result of a Hillarys cockup... WHY ARE THEY STILL GOING TO CONTINUE DOING IT? AND why aren't they returning all the illegal commission clawbacks that have already been made? |
|
j
Junior Member
Posts: 51 
|
Post by j on May 1, 2006 9:34:04 GMT 1
SERVICE CALL within guarantee - other advisors order, their error. (THE ORIGINAL ADVISOR MUST BE INFORMED BEFORE SENDING SOMEONE ELSE - WHAT IF YOU ARE ON HOLIDAY?)
PLEASE CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN.
How can a fault in a blind become your error later on in the year. If the customer has signed the invoice, he or she has said the job has been fitted to satisfaction - therefor it cannot become an agents error later on. Everything was correct and working, 9 months later something goes wrong, and we get £20 docked.
This has to be defined a lot clearer and certainly not in the form of this mailer. I cannot see how a service call can be classed as an advisors error. I have been to a customer twice for an ex advisor where the rod kept working its way out of the sidewinder mechanism ( roman blind). How can something like this be an advisor error, and who is going to determine the error.
I do agree on blatant thingy ups which I have had to re-measure and order, but you find the time spent is not worth £20.
DIARISED SERVICE CALLS - this should be discussed with the advisor first, and ONLY THEN put onto the diary when fitting is being done. It's hard enough finding parking at night, but we must now carry ladders etc 24/7 for whatever might be needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotton on May 1, 2006 9:46:09 GMT 1
Im afraid to say Q that as some one who was on the forums and who was wholeheartedly behind the new era of consultation brought in by hillarys I feel that we have been let down and been used to by them. It would be interesting to know how many agents were consulted with regard to these new edicts. looking at the letter I would say zero. This was not the way we were led to beleive was the new way forward of consultation and communication. I have absolutely no problem with £20 fines for mis- measures and I speak as as an advisor who shall we say has made a few!. This is an incentive for me to get it right first time every time as it should be. However this raise in in fines should be matched with an incentive on hillarys part to get it right first time everytime! and I see nothing here to incentivise Hillarys. I am not interested in payment for second and third dors only in the first and the only way hillarys will rectify the problem is if they penalise themselves by paying us for their mistakes everytime. These proposals are loaded against advisors and go agaisnst the spirit generated by the advisor forums. I think these are the quick wins for hillarys that none of us thought about!
|
|
YOYO
New Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by YOYO on May 1, 2006 11:07:28 GMT 1
hi all when i started at hillarys it was ok but the longer it goes on the more unhappy i get and this letter has just put the cream on the top .Some of the customers play the game BIG TIME and know how to play it very well ......... QUOTE ME HAPPY ........ BA HUMBUG...... I am going to start and look else where for employment where i dont get ripped off!!!!!!! Sam reduce my costs i dont think so put them up £15.00 per month stamps didnt cost that much O sorry i was surposed to up my diary slots to cover the cost and i forgot DOH...... I have not posted much on the site and not contributed to the great banter between you GOOD PEOPLE another one riding off into the sun set ...............
|
|
|
|
Post by RED on May 1, 2006 11:09:41 GMT 1
So after all the hard work from the forums and advisors and with all the good will and intentions in the world from Hillarys, it’s a screw up again!.
I have to ask myself now, do Hillarys have their advisor interests truly at heart, thereby securing their own future or is it just the shareholders they are looking after.
Descent all around and from every angle, Mr Risman, you must be wondering why?.
Well, maybe it is because we are no longer individual advisors, we are a collective and some feedback from ourselves before letting loose the dogs of war may have been of guidance. We do understand that you and others are trying to get things moving in the right direction but must have your hands tied to a certain extent.
I myself do not expect to dictate to you how to run your business, that is for you to do but I, like many others would have liked to have been able to point out to you the implications and pitfalls of the insurance problem and all the other problems that you did not foresee. Or have we got it all wrong and need better clarification on it, which as far as I can make out, may well be the case.
Please let me point you in the right direction. Everything started to fall apart around 3 years ago, Just as Sam came into use. Diaries were taken away from successful advisors and decimated. Cost of each lead were pushed up due to all the new staff required, diaries went up the wall and still do, advisors were no longer able to manage time as efficiently. Please do not get me wrong; I would not want to go back to answering the phone all day long again and the new appointment of a direct contact that can shuffle your diary around to your weekly tailoring and without having to get a spreadsheet from your fsm, may well be a very positive move.
Now to a point I feel I must make public on this forum,
I was recently approached by another regional company offering me a package far above Hillarys.
I buy the blinds off them for 50% of the price I can sell them at, and remember they are already half the price of Hillarys so a blind we sell at 200 pounds would cost me 50 pounds and I sell at 100 plus. They pay the advertising costs for the first 12 months to build you up. 5 Hillarys agents have joined this company in the last 12 months, each one with the same reason, they were no longer happy.
Now, I consider myself as extremely loyal to Hillarys and have dismissed this company with no hesitation. However, the point is, other companies know of the problems within Hillarys and are now exploiting this. As the manager of this other company told me, and I quote, “Hillarys loss is our gain and we are doing more sales now than ever”.
So is this a glimpse of the future not far down the line and Hillarys becoming a shadow of its former self. I truly hope not. Time will tell, time and good decisions.
Red
|
|
