CASE STUDIES
 
 SOLUTIONS OFFERED
 
 THINGS TO NOTE
 
 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS


 
 MANAGING TRUSTEE PROFILE
 
 LETTER GALLERY
 
 SMALL TRADER PROBLEMS
 
 THINGS TO DO

 





 


 

OUR REQUESTS

WE THROUGH, THIS WEB SITE, JUST INTEND TO HIGHLIGHT THE PROBLEMS OF THE DISTRIBUTING, FRATERNITY !! IN NO WAY THE INTENTION OF OURS IS TO POINT FINGERS AT THE BRANDS, WHICH HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC UPLIFTMENT OF THEIR DISTRIBUTING ENTITIES !!

A FAIR IDEA OF A BRANDS BUSINESS IDEOLOGY CAN BE EVALUATED, BY THE PERCENTAGE RETENTION OF THEIR DISTRIBUTORS, AND ALSO BY, AVERAGE GROSS MARGINS ALLOCATION TO THE DISTRIBUTORS IN COMARISON TO THE INVESTMENT.

HOWEVER BRANDS WITHOUT LEGIMATE TRADE PACTICES FIND IT DIFFICULT TO RETAIN PARTNERS BEYOND (5) YEARS, SINCE IT IS THE MAXIMUN TIME FOR THEM TO GET EXPOSED, EXCEPT FOR EXCEPTIONAL CASE LIKE - IGNORANCE, STRATEGIC BENIFITS TO DISTRIBUTOR, LIKE OWN FUNDS AND PROPERTY BEING PUT TO USE, BUT DYNAMISM BEING ABSENT WHICH IS OF ADVANTAGE TO THE BRAND OWNER TOO, SINCE IT SUITS ITS IDEOLOGY TO MAXIMIZE STOCK DUMP AND MARKET CREDIT OF THE DISTRIBUTING ENTITY. OTHER SCENARIOS ALSO EXIST, THE PERILS OF WHICH ARE BETTER UNDERSTOOD THAN SAID.

WE ARE NOT BARGAINING FOR UNLIMITED TURNOVERS, BUT LOGICAL THOUGHT PROCCESS !!

FOR EXAMPLE IF A DISTRIBUTOR WAS SELLING (40) LACS OF STOCK AT (3) PERCENT MARGIN, HENCE GROSS MARGIN BEING (Rs.1,20,000) IN (2001), BOTH HIS MARGINS AND TURNOVER HAVE BEEN PLAYED AROUND WITH REPEATEDLY, WITH HIS GROSS MARGINS FALLING TO (Rs.30,000) AT TIMES AND EVEN IN (2010) HIM RETAINING (1 CR) OF SALES AT (1.2) PERCENT MARGIN, HENCE GROSS MARGIN BEING ( Rs.1,20,000). MOREOVER WHEN INVESTMENT STOOD AT (5%) of turnover in (2001) in (2010) it is (25%) of turnover !!

ABOVE THESE COSTS EXCALATED BY AN AVERAGE OF (200%) PERCENT, OVER THE PERIOD OF LAST (10) YEARS. BRAND OWNERS SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT, RUNNING A DISTRIBUTION HOUSE INVOLVES ALL INPUTS WHICH A BUSINESS ENTITY DEMANDS AND PLAYING AROUND WITH HIS BUSINESS IS NOT JUSTIFIED !!

BRAND SHOULD PUT THEMSELVES IN HIS SHOES AND IMAGINE A SITUATION, IF THE SUSCRIBER BASE IS ALLOTTED TO A COMPETING MOBILE OPERATOR IN CASE OF DEFAULT IN SOME SERVICE CRITERIA, BY THE MOBILE OPERATOR IN QUESTION.

Employees of the brands on pressure of achieving their K.R.A. targets, axe the areas of distributors by setting the most unreasonable targets for the distributor, well beyond available recourses and non achievement of the some is cited the reason for distributor business curtailing.

WITH AREA OF ALL DISTRIBUTOR BEING CURTAILLED UNREASONABLY, IT REFLECTS THAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE BRAND AND NOT THE DISTRIBUTOR.
THE MACHINERY OF THE BRANDS AT TIMES MAD FOR EXPANSION ROLLS IT’S BULL DOZERS ON THE HUTMENTS OF THE DISTRIBUTORS WITHOUT EVEN DROPPING A TRICKLE OF COMPENSATION, HENCE RAZING THE HOPES AND ASSPIRATIONS OF NON SUSPECTING INDIVIDUAL !!

LASTLY THE OPPORTUNITY TO EASILY DOWNLOAD ALL UNREASONABLE PRESSURE BY EMPLOYEES OF BRANDS ON DISTRIBUTORS, LEADS TO A SCENARIO WHERE THE CONSTRUCTIVE, THOUGHT PROCESS, IS TAKEN OVER BY A DESTRUCTIVE ONE, WHERE THERE IS LACK OF SINCERE EFFORTS TOWARDS GENUINE CREATIVE WORK !!

FINALLY IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED, THAT HELPNESSNESS OF ANY INVIDIDUAL FOR HE BEING OUT OF OPTIONS, DOES NOT BESTOW RIGHT OF EXPLOITATION – TO ANY ORGANIZATION !!