While outside my front door this evening, a woman I recognised to be a 
Kleeneze rep paid a visit to a neighbouring property.

Once she had finished I approached her and asked her not to leave any 
further catalogues at my address. She immediately recorded this information 
on a chart she was carrying and said I would get no more catalogues....from 
her.

The problem is, apparently, that Kleeneze "territories" are not exclusive to 
one agent and you can therefore receive catalogues from more than one (this 
explains why I have had two in such quick succession).

I shall have to catch the other agent(s) for our street "in flagrante" to 
remove my address from his/her/their chart(s)!

BTW the agent seemed quite amused (or should that be "bemused"?) that 
Kleeneze's activities were the stuff of internet discussion.

Ida Goode-Johnson

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:06:09 -0000, "Ida Goode-Johnson" 
wrote:


>While outside my front door this evening, a woman I recognised to be a 
>Kleeneze rep paid a visit to a neighbouring property.
>
>Once she had finished I approached her and asked her not to leave any 
>further catalogues at my address. She immediately recorded this information 
>on a chart she was carrying and said I would get no more catalogues....from 
>her.
>
>The problem is, apparently, that Kleeneze "territories" are not exclusive to 
>one agent and you can therefore receive catalogues from more than one (this 
>explains why I have had two in such quick succession).
>
>I shall have to catch the other agent(s) for our street "in flagrante" to 
>remove my address from his/her/their chart(s)!
>
>BTW the agent seemed quite amused (or should that be "bemused"?) that 
>Kleeneze's activities were the stuff of internet discussion.
>
>Ida Goode-Johnson 
>


Just throw the damned things in the bin. I've had 3 twats putting the
things through my letter box over the last few years.




Posts from @privacy.net are killfiled and deleted before being read, as are most posts from anonymous remailers and Hotmail accounts.
So dont bother

If you think I care, you are badly mistaken.

"Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message 
news:423a295e@212.67.96.135...

> While outside my front door this evening, a woman I recognised to be a 
> Kleeneze rep paid a visit to a neighbouring property.


Put the catalogues in the bin. It's their problem if they want to put 
something with a face value on it through your letter box that you don't 
want, in much the same way as if I intentionally put a 10 note through your 
letterbox. You could put a notice on your door asking for no door to door 
sales people and point to that if they ever expect payment for one of the 
crumby catalogues.

"tHatDudeUK"  wrote in message 
news:39vnb0F64874fU1@individual.net...


> You could put a notice on your door asking for no door to door sales 
> people and point to that if they ever expect payment for one of the crumby 
> catalogues.


I could but prefer not to. Why should I deface my door with unsightly 
notices? Apart from anything, that's the sort of self-righteous looking 
twaddle that encourages casual vandalism.

My preferred option would be for catalogue companies to produce proprietary 
stickers or notices indicating at which properties their marketing material 
is welcome e.g. "Kleeneze - yes please", or "Betterware - put it there" 
(see- free marketing advice - why don't I get paid for this ;-) ?) Then 
those residents welcoming the junk can have the unsightly doors.

Ida Goode-Johnson

"Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message 
news:423aab7e@212.67.96.135...

> I could but prefer not to. Why should I deface my door with unsightly 
> notices? Apart from anything, that's the sort of self-righteous looking 
> twaddle that encourages casual vandalism.
>
> My preferred option would be for catalogue companies to produce 
> proprietary stickers or notices indicating at which properties their 
> marketing material is welcome e.g. "Kleeneze - yes please", or 
> "Betterware - put it there" (see- free marketing advice - why don't I get 
> paid for this ;-) ?) Then those residents welcoming the junk can have the 
> unsightly doors.


Unfortunately they prey on people, and see everyone as a buying opportunity 
which will get them a small amount of profit. I personally hate the 
catalogues and will never buy a single thing from them. I'm guessing elderly 
or disabled people are more likely to buy from them and didn't think they 
would before they got the catalogue.

The sign could be just a small strip people won't see unless they come to 
the door.If anyone does any casual vandalism, vandalise them ;-)

I wanna "Betterware - Put it there" sticker for above my wheelie bin!



"Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
news:423aab7e@212.67.96.135...

>
> "tHatDudeUK"  wrote in message
> news:39vnb0F64874fU1@individual.net...
>
> > You could put a notice on your door asking for no door to door sales
> > people and point to that if they ever expect payment for one of the
crumby
> > catalogues.
>
> I could but prefer not to. Why should I deface my door with unsightly
> notices? Apart from anything, that's the sort of self-righteous looking
> twaddle that encourages casual vandalism.
>
> My preferred option would be for catalogue companies to produce
proprietary
> stickers or notices indicating at which properties their marketing
material
> is welcome e.g. "Kleeneze - yes please", or "Betterware - put it there"
> (see- free marketing advice - why don't I get paid for this ;-) ?) Then
> those residents welcoming the junk can have the unsightly doors.
>
> Ida Goode-Johnson
>
>

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:06:09 -0000, "Ida Goode-Johnson" 
wrote:


>While outside my front door this evening, a woman I recognised to be a 
>Kleeneze rep paid a visit to a neighbouring property.
>
>Once she had finished I approached her and asked her not to leave any 
>further catalogues at my address. She immediately recorded this information 
>on a chart she was carrying and said I would get no more catalogues....from 
>her.
>
>The problem is, apparently, that Kleeneze "territories" are not exclusive to 
>one agent and you can therefore receive catalogues from more than one (this 
>explains why I have had two in such quick succession).
>
>I shall have to catch the other agent(s) for our street "in flagrante" to 
>remove my address from his/her/their chart(s)!
>
>BTW the agent seemed quite amused (or should that be "bemused"?) that 
>Kleeneze's activities were the stuff of internet discussion.


Write "Please don't deliver any more catalogues" in marker pen across
the front of the catalogue.

As each catalogue costs the agent money (50p?) they'll soon get the
message.

sPoNiX

"s--p--o--n--i--x"  wrote in message 
news:423ac326.12037343@news.individual.net...


> Write "Please don't deliver any more catalogues" in marker pen across
> the front of the catalogue.
>
> As each catalogue costs the agent money (50p?) they'll soon get the
> message.


Good one - as long as you don't get a arsy one who cries "criminal damage".

Ida Goode-Johnson

Ida Goode-Johnson wrote:
|| "s--p--o--n--i--x"  wrote in message
|| news:423ac326.12037343@news.individual.net...
||
||| Write "Please don't deliver any more catalogues" in marker pen
||| across the front of the catalogue.
|||
||| As each catalogue costs the agent money (50p?) they'll soon get the
||| message.
||
|| Good one - as long as you don't get a arsy one who cries "criminal
|| damage".
||
|| Ida Goode-Johnson

I don't really see how they can. Surely the unsolicited gift that you 
receive is your property to do with as you wish?

-- 
Rob

"Rob"  wrote in message 
news:3a00arF62kvdcU1@individual.net...

> Ida Goode-Johnson wrote:
> || "s--p--o--n--i--x"  wrote in message
> || news:423ac326.12037343@news.individual.net...
> ||
> ||| Write "Please don't deliver any more catalogues" in marker pen
> ||| across the front of the catalogue.
> |||
> ||| As each catalogue costs the agent money (50p?) they'll soon get the
> ||| message.
> ||
> || Good one - as long as you don't get a arsy one who cries "criminal
> || damage".
> ||
> || Ida Goode-Johnson
>
> I don't really see how they can. Surely the unsolicited gift that you 
> receive is your property to do with as you wish?


They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift.

Ida Goode-Johnson

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:04:28 -0000, "Ida Goode-Johnson" 
wrote:


>> I don't really see how they can. Surely the unsolicited gift that you 
>> receive is your property to do with as you wish?
>
>They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift.


They can insist all they like.  The law however does not agree with
them and that is all that matters to the householder.

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:04:28 -0000, "Ida Goode-Johnson" 
wrote:


>
>"Rob"  wrote in message 
>news:3a00arF62kvdcU1@individual.net...
>> Ida Goode-Johnson wrote:
>> || "s--p--o--n--i--x"  wrote in message
>> || news:423ac326.12037343@news.individual.net...
>> ||
>> ||| Write "Please don't deliver any more catalogues" in marker pen
>> ||| across the front of the catalogue.
>> |||
>> ||| As each catalogue costs the agent money (50p?) they'll soon get the
>> ||| message.
>> ||
>> || Good one - as long as you don't get a arsy one who cries "criminal
>> || damage".
>> ||
>> || Ida Goode-Johnson
>>
>> I don't really see how they can. Surely the unsolicited gift that you 
>> receive is your property to do with as you wish?
>
>They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift.


Then they shouldn't go sticking their property in other peoples
letterboxes

Isn't that trespass ?



Posts from @privacy.net are killfiled and deleted before being read, as are most posts from anonymous remailers and Hotmail accounts.
So dont bother

If you think I care, you are badly mistaken.

Ida Goode-Johnson wrote:

> While outside my front door this evening, a woman I recognised to be a
> Kleeneze rep paid a visit to a neighbouring property.
>
> Once she had finished I approached her and asked her not to leave any
> further catalogues at my address. She immediately recorded this
> information on a chart she was carrying and said I would get no more
> catalogues....from her.
>
> The problem is, apparently, that Kleeneze "territories" are not
> exclusive to one agent and you can therefore receive catalogues from
> more than one (this explains why I have had two in such quick
> succession).
> I shall have to catch the other agent(s) for our street "in
> flagrante" to remove my address from his/her/their chart(s)!
>
> BTW the agent seemed quite amused (or should that be "bemused"?) that
> Kleeneze's activities were the stuff of internet discussion.
>
> Ida Goode-Johnson


Maybe she thought you had a stick up your arse? If you dont want anything, 
dont buy it. I have never done Kleeneze, but can see by the kind of people 
who do, it is hard work, for little reward. Someone makes a lot of money out 
of it, but it aint the person handing out the catalogs.......... Some people 
refuse to go on the dole and will do anything to provide for their family, 
dont hold it against them.

Gaz

"Gaz"  wrote in message 
news:423af272$0$38040$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...

> Ida Goode-Johnson wrote:

>> BTW the agent seemed quite amused (or should that be "bemused"?) that
>> Kleeneze's activities were the stuff of internet discussion.
>>
>> Ida Goode-Johnson
>
> Maybe she thought you had a stick up your arse? If you dont want anything, 
> dont buy it. I have never done Kleeneze, but can see by the kind of people 
> who do, it is hard work, for little reward. Someone makes a lot of money 
> out of it, but it aint the person handing out the catalogs.......... Some 
> people refuse to go on the dole and will do anything to provide for their 
> family, dont hold it against them.


She was very polite and considerate (unlike you). She did not consider my 
request unreasonable (unlike you). She clearly has not had access to this 
debate which has been running for a week or two (unlike you) but did not 
feel the need to insult me (unlike you).

Are you detecting a theme here?

Why don't you read all the previous Kleeneze threads and see what the issues 
are before jumping in with your ignorant and loutish views?

Ida Goode-Johnson

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:04:28 -0000, "Ida Goode-Johnson" 
wrote:


>They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift.


...and you are returning their property! Unless they tell you not to
write on the catalogue there is little they can do.

"Gaz"  wrote in message
news:423af272$0$38040$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...

> Ida Goode-Johnson wrote:
> > While outside my front door this evening, a woman I recognised to be a
> > Kleeneze rep paid a visit to a neighbouring property.
> >
> > Once she had finished I approached her and asked her not to leave any
> > further catalogues at my address. She immediately recorded this
> > information on a chart she was carrying and said I would get no more
> > catalogues....from her.
> >
> > The problem is, apparently, that Kleeneze "territories" are not
> > exclusive to one agent and you can therefore receive catalogues from
> > more than one (this explains why I have had two in such quick
> > succession).
> > I shall have to catch the other agent(s) for our street "in
> > flagrante" to remove my address from his/her/their chart(s)!
> >
> > BTW the agent seemed quite amused (or should that be "bemused"?) that
> > Kleeneze's activities were the stuff of internet discussion.
> >
> > Ida Goode-Johnson
>
> Maybe she thought you had a stick up your arse? If you dont want anything,
> dont buy it. I have never done Kleeneze, but can see by the kind of people
> who do, it is hard work, for little reward. Someone makes a lot of money
out
> of it, but it aint the person handing out the catalogs.......... Some
people
> refuse to go on the dole and will do anything to provide for their family,
> dont hold it against them.
>
> Gaz
>
>


The people on 12K a week or the people on 30 a week will both be 'handing
out the catalogs'. One will have put a bit more effort in perhaps, and
certainly more time, but both will deliver catalogs and get orders.
As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.

Martin  <><

"Martin Davies"  wrote in message 
news:UxD_d.87633$Bk7.87388@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


> As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
> gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
> ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
> know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.


I think if anyone deliberately and repeatedly kicks a ball over someone's 
fence and then expects it to be returned every time promptly and without 
question then they are really pushing their luck.

Ida Goode-Johnson

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:28 GMT, "Martin Davies"
 wrote:


>As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
>gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
>ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
>know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.


If I knew that the kids were *deliberately* kicking a ball into my
garden, then then there is a strong possibility that they wouldn't get
it back.

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message
news:683m31tc3iidsvel205bcqj1lstejo48ee@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:28 GMT, "Martin Davies"
>  wrote:
>
> >As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
> >gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
> >ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
> >know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.
>
> If I knew that the kids were *deliberately* kicking a ball into my
> garden, then then there is a strong possibility that they wouldn't get
> it back.
>
> -- 
> Cynic
>


Yet if they did it just once, then when you told them they made sure not to
do it again, then some kids from elsewhere do the same - would you still
give it back?
Thats effectively what happens.

Martin  <><

"Martin Davies"  wrote in message 
news:5aE_d.87798$Bk7.43674@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Cynic"  wrote in message
> news:683m31tc3iidsvel205bcqj1lstejo48ee@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:28 GMT, "Martin Davies"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
>> >gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting 
>> >their
>> >ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. 
>> >You
>> >know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.
>>
>> If I knew that the kids were *deliberately* kicking a ball into my
>> garden, then then there is a strong possibility that they wouldn't get
>> it back.
>>
>> -- 
>> Cynic
>>
>
> Yet if they did it just once, then when you told them they made sure not 
> to
> do it again, then some kids from elsewhere do the same - would you still
> give it back?
> Thats effectively what happens.


In that case you have to question the company's practices.

It is not enough merely to say that every catalogue is potentially 
distributed by a different agent and therefore that absolves the company 
from the effects of its distribution policy.

Your analogy would only work if the kids always wore the kit of a local club 
or school - in which case I'd be contacting the club coach or headmaster.

Kleeneze should be responsible for the actions of its agents as they are 
representing their brand.

Ida Goode-Johnson

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:28 GMT, "Martin Davies"
 wrote:


>As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
>gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
>ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
>know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.


I though we'd been through all this before.

The reason people won't give the catalogue back (my reason, anyway) is
that it's an irritating and intrusive nuisance.  We didn't ask for it,
don't want it and see no reason to encourage further nuisance.

Mike.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:25:21 GMT, "Martin Davies"
 wrote:



>> If I knew that the kids were *deliberately* kicking a ball into my
>> garden, then then there is a strong possibility that they wouldn't get
>> it back.

>
>Yet if they did it just once, then when you told them they made sure not to
>do it again, then some kids from elsewhere do the same - would you still
>give it back?
>Thats effectively what happens.


That depends on how many different kids were doing it.  By the time
the 3rd one did it, he might not get it back even if it was *his*
first time.  It also depends on the attitude of the kid.  "Please may
I have my ball back," is one thing.  "That's my ball, you better give
it back!" is a different attitude.

In any event, a better analogy would be a kid who kicked an empty can
over my fence and then wants it back a week later.  If I did not
notice that it was a *special* can for the kid, I may throw it away
without wishing the kid any deliberate harm.

Must I keep all the Readers' Digest junk as well, just in case it
turns out that they ask for it back?

-- 
Cynic

"Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
news:423b1126@212.67.96.135...

>
> "Martin Davies"  wrote in message
> news:5aE_d.87798$Bk7.43674@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Cynic"  wrote in message
> > news:683m31tc3iidsvel205bcqj1lstejo48ee@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:28 GMT, "Martin Davies"
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its
a
> >> >gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting
> >> >their
> >> >ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden.
> >> >You
> >> >know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.
> >>
> >> If I knew that the kids were *deliberately* kicking a ball into my
> >> garden, then then there is a strong possibility that they wouldn't get
> >> it back.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Cynic
> >>
> >
> > Yet if they did it just once, then when you told them they made sure not
> > to
> > do it again, then some kids from elsewhere do the same - would you still
> > give it back?
> > Thats effectively what happens.
>
> In that case you have to question the company's practices.
>
> It is not enough merely to say that every catalogue is potentially
> distributed by a different agent and therefore that absolves the company
> from the effects of its distribution policy.



Each agent is a different company.
I'm a seperate financial and legal body than the company I purchased the
franchise right from.



>
> Your analogy would only work if the kids always wore the kit of a local
club
> or school - in which case I'd be contacting the club coach or headmaster.


Which wouldn't do a lot of good when each kid is seperate from the school or
club.



>
> Kleeneze should be responsible for the actions of its agents as they are
> representing their brand.


It disciplines its agents, up to removing the franchise right. Never heard
of that being applied, but the threat is there.
It will only ever be able to take any action though if someone bothers to
tell it. Telling the local agent only affects what that agent does.

Bit like McDonalds. The parent company sells the right to trade, but doesn't
itself run the local branch. Telling the manager of the local branch that
your burger was cold has no impact on the parent company. Telling the parent
company might have some impact, but not a great deal. Their business isn't
to sell burgers, thats a seperate company that does that (or many thousands
of seperate companies).

Martin  <><



>
> Ida Goode-Johnson
>
>

"Mike"  wrote in message
news:um4m31pd69ur5quls9e3c4m07ltu1elelt@news.kempston.net...

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:28 GMT, "Martin Davies"
>  wrote:
>
> >As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
> >gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
> >ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
> >know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.
>
> I though we'd been through all this before.
>
> The reason people won't give the catalogue back (my reason, anyway) is
> that it's an irritating and intrusive nuisance.  We didn't ask for it,
> don't want it and see no reason to encourage further nuisance.
>
> Mike.
>


And by the same principle, refuse to give kids their ball back?
Your local kids must just love you.  :)

Martin  <><

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:46:54 GMT, "Martin Davies"
 wrote:


>> >As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
>> >gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
>> >ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
>> >know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.
>>
>> I thought we'd been through all this before.
>>
>> The reason people won't give the catalogue back (my reason, anyway) is
>> that it's an irritating and intrusive nuisance.  We didn't ask for it,
>> don't want it and see no reason to encourage further nuisance.
>
>And by the same principle, refuse to give kids their ball back?
>Your local kids must just love you.  :)


I don't have any local kids.  But even you must appreciate the
difference between a deliberate act and an accidental act.  Or maybe
not: perhaps you're just a troll.

Mike.

In article , cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...

> In any event, a better analogy would be a kid who kicked an empty can
> over my fence and then wants it back a week later.  If I did not
> notice that it was a *special* can for the kid, I may throw it away
> without wishing the kid any deliberate harm.


How many times do you need telling?
Read all the instructions on the can to see if anything is written as 
to what to do, then you are required to do as the writer says.
If the writer says you must fill it with £20 notes, then that is what 
you must do.


> Must I keep all the Readers' Digest junk as well, just in case it
> turns out that they ask for it back?


YES! I will call for them next week, leave them outside covered by a 
plastic bin liner bag, thank you.


-- 

joeparkinchineseatbtinternetdotcom

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:03:01 GMT, s--p--o--n--i--x
  
was popularly supposed to have said:


> Write "Please don't deliver any more catalogues" in marker pen across
> the front of the catalogue.
>
> As each catalogue costs the agent money (50p?) they'll soon get the
> message.


I find just binning any junkmail stuck through my door and not bothering
returning it is best; the agent pretty soon gets the message that
they're on a hiding to nothing and stops doing it.

If they carry on, so what? Sooner or later the message will penetrate or
the agent will go out of business; same end effect either way. 

This may sound a bit hard, but I take junkmail in much the same way as
email spam; bin it and think no more about it. 

-- 
Dan Holdsworth PhD                   dan1701usenet@ntlworld.com
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed,  hands acquire shaking,  the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion

"Martin Davies"  wrote in message 
news:OeG_d.84391$ug2.51532@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Mike"  wrote in message
> news:um4m31pd69ur5quls9e3c4m07ltu1elelt@news.kempston.net...
>>
>> The reason people won't give the catalogue back (my reason, anyway) is
>> that it's an irritating and intrusive nuisance.  We didn't ask for it,
>> don't want it and see no reason to encourage further nuisance.
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>
> And by the same principle, refuse to give kids their ball back?
> Your local kids must just love you.  :)


Well you are basically admitting that your company's modus operandi is based 
on the mentality of a child.

We're getting somewhere now.

Ida Goode-Johnson

"Martin Davies"  wrote in message 
news:vdG_d.84383$ug2.83884@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
> news:423b1126@212.67.96.135...

>> It is not enough merely to say that every catalogue is potentially
>> distributed by a different agent and therefore that absolves the company
>> from the effects of its distribution policy.
>
>
> Each agent is a different company.
> I'm a seperate financial and legal body than the company I purchased the
> franchise right from.
>
>
>>
>> Your analogy would only work if the kids always wore the kit of a local
> club
>> or school - in which case I'd be contacting the club coach or headmaster.
>
> Which wouldn't do a lot of good when each kid is seperate from the school 
> or
> club.


But you are not. Just because your operation is based on quasi-autonomous 
agents does not mean each one is only responsble to him/herself. You are 
representing Kleeneze and it is their name you drag down when you behave 
unreasonably.


>> Kleeneze should be responsible for the actions of its agents as they are
>> representing their brand.
>
> It disciplines its agents, up to removing the franchise right. Never heard
> of that being applied, but the threat is there.
> It will only ever be able to take any action though if someone bothers to
> tell it. Telling the local agent only affects what that agent does.


Ah! So it's franchised! In that case, why can they not ensure that 
franchisee's territories do not overlap?

Or is this deliberately to create the sort of cunfusion that allows them to 
offload some of their corporate responsibility onto the franchisees?


> Bit like McDonalds. The parent company sells the right to trade, but 
> doesn't
> itself run the local branch. Telling the manager of the local branch that
> your burger was cold has no impact on the parent company. Telling the 
> parent
> company might have some impact, but not a great deal. Their business isn't
> to sell burgers, thats a seperate company that does that (or many 
> thousands
> of seperate companies).


You really don't understand marketing do you? A bad experience at McDonalds 
will taint the name of the brand and the customer's confidence in the 
products. The actual name of the franchise holder will in most cases be 
irrelevant to the consumer unless there is specific legal action to be 
taken.

Ida Goode-Johnson

"Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message 
news:423adf72@212.67.96.135...

> They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift.


Has anyone ever got some charity christmas cards free in the post, with a 
note asking you to pay for them if you want trying to make you feel guilty 
because they posted you them without you asking for them?!

tHatDudeUK  wrote:

> "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message 
> news:423adf72@212.67.96.135...
>> They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift.
 
> Has anyone ever got some charity christmas cards free in the post, with a 
> note asking you to pay for them if you want trying to make you feel guilty 
> because they posted you them without you asking for them?! 

 
Oddly enough I received some sticky address labels for envelopes
as part of an unsolicted charity solicitation a couple of days ago.
Binned since I would never use such things and furthermore my name
was incorrect.

Axel

"Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
news:423b78a8@212.67.96.135...

>
> "Martin Davies"  wrote in message
> news:vdG_d.84383$ug2.83884@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
> > news:423b1126@212.67.96.135...
>
> >> It is not enough merely to say that every catalogue is potentially
> >> distributed by a different agent and therefore that absolves the
company
> >> from the effects of its distribution policy.
> >
> >
> > Each agent is a different company.
> > I'm a seperate financial and legal body than the company I purchased the
> > franchise right from.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Your analogy would only work if the kids always wore the kit of a local
> > club
> >> or school - in which case I'd be contacting the club coach or
headmaster.
> >
> > Which wouldn't do a lot of good when each kid is seperate from the
school
> > or
> > club.
>
> But you are not. Just because your operation is based on quasi-autonomous
> agents does not mean each one is only responsble to him/herself. You are
> representing Kleeneze and it is their name you drag down when you behave
> unreasonably.
>
> >> Kleeneze should be responsible for the actions of its agents as they
are
> >> representing their brand.
> >
> > It disciplines its agents, up to removing the franchise right. Never
heard
> > of that being applied, but the threat is there.
> > It will only ever be able to take any action though if someone bothers
to
> > tell it. Telling the local agent only affects what that agent does.
>
> Ah! So it's franchised! In that case, why can they not ensure that
> franchisee's territories do not overlap?


What would be the point in that?
Many franchises don't try and sort out territories.
If they did, it affects profitability and work for people. If someone is
given a new housing estate, and wants to take on a 2nd round, having another
new housing estate 5 miles away from home in another direction doesn't help
the environment, doesn't help the agent and doesn't help the parent company.

The only company I have dealings with at all that I know allocates areas is
Betterware. And the most common complaint I hear from their agents is that
they are allocated areas - usually not their own area as someone else
already has it.



>
> Or is this deliberately to create the sort of cunfusion that allows them
to
> offload some of their corporate responsibility onto the franchisees?


More like not restricting themselves.
Works out OK in the long run. In the local villages where I deliver, there
are a total of 10 of us. We don't all operate in the same villages, and
mostly each have our own customers.
We don't usually even meet the others.



>
> > Bit like McDonalds. The parent company sells the right to trade, but
> > doesn't
> > itself run the local branch. Telling the manager of the local branch
that
> > your burger was cold has no impact on the parent company. Telling the
> > parent
> > company might have some impact, but not a great deal. Their business
isn't
> > to sell burgers, thats a seperate company that does that (or many
> > thousands
> > of seperate companies).
>
> You really don't understand marketing do you? A bad experience at
McDonalds
> will taint the name of the brand and the customer's confidence in the
> products. The actual name of the franchise holder will in most cases be
> irrelevant to the consumer unless there is specific legal action to be
> taken.


Thank you, you've just added to my illustration.
The franchise holder is the one you complain to - but the parent company
doesn't get involved.
Good thing really as their business is real estate, not burgers.

You think less of the name because of something done with their brnd on it,
but its a seperate entity from the complaint you put in.

Of course, if you just grumble but never put a complaint in, neither company
gets to know about it.

Martin  <><




>
> Ida Goode-Johnson
>
>

"Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
news:423b76a7@212.67.96.135...

>
> "Martin Davies"  wrote in message
> news:OeG_d.84391$ug2.51532@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Mike"  wrote in message
> > news:um4m31pd69ur5quls9e3c4m07ltu1elelt@news.kempston.net...
> >>
> >> The reason people won't give the catalogue back (my reason, anyway) is
> >> that it's an irritating and intrusive nuisance.  We didn't ask for it,
> >> don't want it and see no reason to encourage further nuisance.
> >>
> >> Mike.
> >>
> >
> > And by the same principle, refuse to give kids their ball back?
> > Your local kids must just love you.  :)
>
> Well you are basically admitting that your company's modus operandi is
based
> on the mentality of a child.
>
> We're getting somewhere now.
>


There are worse metalities to have.
Seriously, the company mentality is to pay out to distributors far more than
it makes in profits. While no one distributor yet makes as much profit as
the company (that could change), collectively the distributors make many
times the profit.
Not a bad way for a company to operate.
Makes money, supplies a service (home shopping), is a brand name that many
older folk remember (been going well over 80 years) and has been growing for
years now.

Martin  <><




> Ida Goode-Johnson
>
>
>

"Martin Davies"  wrote in message 
news:NAS_d.87131$y25.81357@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...



> Thank you, you've just added to my illustration.
> The franchise holder is the one you complain to - but the parent company
> doesn't get involved.
> Good thing really as their business is real estate, not burgers.


....and you've just added to mine.

Has it (still) not occurred to you that we are all fed up with Kleeneze and 
the way they operate - not individual agents?

Over to you.

Ida Goode-Johnson

"tHatDudeUK"  wrote in message 
news:3a1c77F64s779U1@individual.net...

>
> "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message 
> news:423adf72@212.67.96.135...
>> They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift.
>
> Has anyone ever got some charity christmas cards free in the post, with a 
> note asking you to pay for them if you want trying to make you feel guilty 
> because they posted you them without you asking for them?!


I still have mine

Ida Goode-Johnson

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:19:36 +0000, Cynic 
wrote:


>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:28 GMT, "Martin Davies"
> wrote:
>
>>As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
>>gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
>>ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
>>know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.
>
>If I knew that the kids were *deliberately* kicking a ball into my
>garden, then then there is a strong possibility that they wouldn't get
>it back.


Wouldn't the sharks get it?

> As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
> gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
> ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
> know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.
>

The reason I don't give them back is that I'm asked to leave them on my 
doorstep and I consider that to compromise my security.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:25:56 -0000, "Ida Goode-Johnson" 
wrote:


>"tHatDudeUK"  wrote in message 
>news:3a1c77F64s779U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message 
>> news:423adf72@212.67.96.135...
>>> They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift.
>>
>> Has anyone ever got some charity christmas cards free in the post, with a 
>> note asking you to pay for them if you want trying to make you feel guilty 
>> because they posted you them without you asking for them?!
>
>I still have mine


Are you going to use them? I have done so, both with address labels
and cards. And not felt in the least bit guilty.

"Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
news:423bfd96@212.67.96.135...

>
> "Martin Davies"  wrote in message
> news:NAS_d.87131$y25.81357@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
> > Thank you, you've just added to my illustration.
> > The franchise holder is the one you complain to - but the parent company
> > doesn't get involved.
> > Good thing really as their business is real estate, not burgers.
>
> ...and you've just added to mine.
>
> Has it (still) not occurred to you that we are all fed up with Kleeneze
and
> the way they operate - not individual agents?
>


But your complaint is about the actions of individual agents, not Kleeneze
itself.

Martin  <><

"Martin Davies"  wrote in message
news:wES_d.87132$y25.78282@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
> news:423b76a7@212.67.96.135...
> >
> > "Martin Davies"  wrote in message
> > news:OeG_d.84391$ug2.51532@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Mike"  wrote in message
> > > news:um4m31pd69ur5quls9e3c4m07ltu1elelt@news.kempston.net...
> > >>
> > >> The reason people won't give the catalogue back (my reason, anyway)
is
> > >> that it's an irritating and intrusive nuisance.  We didn't ask for
it,
> > >> don't want it and see no reason to encourage further nuisance.
> > >>
> > >> Mike.
> > >>
> > >
> > > And by the same principle, refuse to give kids their ball back?
> > > Your local kids must just love you.  :)
> >
> > Well you are basically admitting that your company's modus operandi is
> based
> > on the mentality of a child.
> >
> > We're getting somewhere now.
> >
>
> There are worse metalities to have.
> Seriously, the company mentality is to pay out to distributors far more
than
> it makes in profits. While no one distributor yet makes as much profit as
> the company (that could change), collectively the distributors make many
> times the profit.
> Not a bad way for a company to operate.
> Makes money, supplies a service (home shopping), is a brand name that many
> older folk remember


Is ultra-expensive

 (been going well over 80 years) and has been growing for

> years now.
>
> Martin  <><
>
>
>
> > Ida Goode-Johnson
> >
> >
> >
>
>

"TTT"  writes:



> The reason I don't give them back is that I'm asked to leave them on my 
> doorstep and I consider that to compromise my security.


And it does not help when the catalogue is left outside the door and
then not collected on the day specified. Only last week, I had a
kleeneze catalogue left and it said it would be collected Thursday
morning. So I left it outside the door ready for collection on
Thursday morning. It was still there Friday morning when a visitor
picked it up (because it looked like litter) and put it in my
bin. Late Friday morning the agent put a note through the door saying
that even though "I had not left the catalogue for collection" I could
still order by phone.

"jack"  wrote in message
news:LFY_d.1711$Kt5.244@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "Martin Davies"  wrote in message
> news:wES_d.87132$y25.78282@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
> > news:423b76a7@212.67.96.135...
> > >
> > > "Martin Davies"  wrote in message
> > > news:OeG_d.84391$ug2.51532@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > > "Mike"  wrote in message
> > > > news:um4m31pd69ur5quls9e3c4m07ltu1elelt@news.kempston.net...
> > > >>
> > > >> The reason people won't give the catalogue back (my reason, anyway)
> is
> > > >> that it's an irritating and intrusive nuisance.  We didn't ask for
> it,
> > > >> don't want it and see no reason to encourage further nuisance.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mike.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > And by the same principle, refuse to give kids their ball back?
> > > > Your local kids must just love you.  :)
> > >
> > > Well you are basically admitting that your company's modus operandi is
> > based
> > > on the mentality of a child.
> > >
> > > We're getting somewhere now.
> > >
> >
> > There are worse metalities to have.
> > Seriously, the company mentality is to pay out to distributors far more
> than
> > it makes in profits. While no one distributor yet makes as much profit
as
> > the company (that could change), collectively the distributors make many
> > times the profit.
> > Not a bad way for a company to operate.
> > Makes money, supplies a service (home shopping), is a brand name that
many
> > older folk remember
>
> Is ultra-expensive
>
>


Sorry, not everyone can be as cheap as the local supermarket or local
market.
Now if you want ultra-expensive, try your local corner shop. He has to be
expensive just to break even.
If the products get too expensive, no-one wants them.

Martin  <><

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:37:40 +0000, Alan G 
wrote:


>>>As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
>>>gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
>>>ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
>>>know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.
>>
>>If I knew that the kids were *deliberately* kicking a ball into my
>>garden, then then there is a strong possibility that they wouldn't get
>>it back.
>
>Wouldn't the sharks get it?


LOL!  Sharks are a bit rare hereabouts, but I certainly would not
advise retrieving a ball at this time of year.  My "garden" is 5.6
degrees Celcius at present (if my new thermometer is correct).

-- 
Cynic

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:53:32 GMT, "Martin Davies"
 wrote:


>There are worse metalities to have.
>Seriously, the company mentality is to pay out to distributors far more than
>it makes in profits. While no one distributor yet makes as much profit as
>the company (that could change), collectively the distributors make many
>times the profit.


Huh?  From where does the company get the money to pay its
distributors then?

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
|| On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:53:32 GMT, "Martin Davies"
||  wrote:
||
||| There are worse metalities to have.
||| Seriously, the company mentality is to pay out to distributors far
||| more than it makes in profits. While no one distributor yet makes
||| as much profit as the company (that could change), collectively the
||| distributors make many times the profit.
||
|| Huh?  From where does the company get the money to pay its
|| distributors then?

Just like any other company I suppose, from its cash receipts. I think 
Martin means the company's end share of the profits are less than the 
combined amount paid out to distributors. It depends on one's definition of 
'profit'. I tend to think of profit as that money which is left over after 
*everything* is paid for, including any amounts set aside for future R&D, 
expansion etc, whereas others may regard all overheads etc. as being paid 
for out of profit.

Indeed there are still some, sadly that consider wages to be an overhead.

-- 
Rob

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:59:49 +0000, Cynic 
wrote:


>On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:37:40 +0000, Alan G 
>wrote:
>
>>>>As for those who won't give the catalogue back on the grounds that its a
>>>>gift - I have to wonder if they are getting revenge for not getting their
>>>>ball back when they were kids and it went into someone's back garden. You
>>>>know, where you had to go knock the door to ask for it back.
>>>
>>>If I knew that the kids were *deliberately* kicking a ball into my
>>>garden, then then there is a strong possibility that they wouldn't get
>>>it back.
>>
>>Wouldn't the sharks get it?
>
>LOL!  Sharks are a bit rare hereabouts, but I certainly would not
>advise retrieving a ball at this time of year. 


News reports say Makos are increasingly being seen in British waters.


> My "garden" is 5.6
>degrees Celcius at present (if my new thermometer is correct).



I used to swim in that when I was younger.
Think it would kill me now

"Cynic"  wrote in message
news:nskt31ld7o4c95o645emubcg03smn47d52@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:53:32 GMT, "Martin Davies"
>  wrote:
>
> >There are worse metalities to have.
> >Seriously, the company mentality is to pay out to distributors far more
than
> >it makes in profits. While no one distributor yet makes as much profit as
> >the company (that could change), collectively the distributors make many
> >times the profit.
>
> Huh?  From where does the company get the money to pay its
> distributors then?
>
> -- 
> Cynic
>


Eh?
From its turnover.

Turnover and profit are two seperate and usually different figures. Turnover
will be so many million, then deduct all relevant expenses, whats left is
profit (very simplified way of working out and not going into disposal of
assets and so on).

Martin  <><

"Martin Davies"  wrote in message 
news:LFW_d.87936$y25.60589@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
> news:423bfd96@212.67.96.135...
>>
>> "Martin Davies"  wrote in message
>> news:NAS_d.87131$y25.81357@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> > Thank you, you've just added to my illustration.
>> > The franchise holder is the one you complain to - but the parent 
>> > company
>> > doesn't get involved.
>> > Good thing really as their business is real estate, not burgers.
>>
>> ...and you've just added to mine.
>>
>> Has it (still) not occurred to you that we are all fed up with Kleeneze
> and
>> the way they operate - not individual agents?
>>
>
> But your complaint is about the actions of individual agents, not Kleeneze
> itself.


Who cares?

The fact is that, by the methods Kleeneze uses, it leaves itself open to the 
sort of abuse you are getting from just about every participant in this 
thread other than yourself (have you spotted that yet?).

I don't care how good an egg you are, the name of the company whose 
catalogues you distribute is potentially brought into disrepute on a daily 
basis by eggs less good than yourself.

The reliance on autonomous and largely unaccountable agents, many of whom 
are possibly more desperate for cash than they are versed in the ways of 
customer relations, means that the company name is easily tainted.

The complaints are about Kleeneze because no-one is interested in the 
identities of individual agents.The identifiable aspect of the catalogue, in 
this brand-obsessed age, is Kleeneze.

Can you really not understand this?

Ida Goode-Johnson

"Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
news:423f036b@212.67.96.135...

>
> "Martin Davies"  wrote in message
> news:LFW_d.87936$y25.60589@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
> > news:423bfd96@212.67.96.135...
> >>
> >> "Martin Davies"  wrote in message
> >> news:NAS_d.87131$y25.81357@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Thank you, you've just added to my illustration.
> >> > The franchise holder is the one you complain to - but the parent
> >> > company
> >> > doesn't get involved.
> >> > Good thing really as their business is real estate, not burgers.
> >>
> >> ...and you've just added to mine.
> >>
> >> Has it (still) not occurred to you that we are all fed up with Kleeneze
> > and
> >> the way they operate - not individual agents?
> >>
> >
> > But your complaint is about the actions of individual agents, not
Kleeneze
> > itself.
>
> Who cares?
>
> The fact is that, by the methods Kleeneze uses, it leaves itself open to
the
> sort of abuse you are getting from just about every participant in this
> thread other than yourself (have you spotted that yet?).


Yes, I've spotted that a small handful of people are complaining.



>
> I don't care how good an egg you are, the name of the company whose
> catalogues you distribute is potentially brought into disrepute on a daily
> basis by eggs less good than yourself.


Ummm....the catalogues are ours, not belonging to Kleeneze. Sorry, I thought
I had mentioned that.



>
> The reliance on autonomous and largely unaccountable agents, many of whom
> are possibly more desperate for cash than they are versed in the ways of
> customer relations, means that the company name is easily tainted.


It sounds very much like most franchises.
Still, if you want to set up a franchise company and insist that only those
with qualifications in customer relations can purchase, thats up to you.




>
> The complaints are about Kleeneze because no-one is interested in the
> identities of individual agents.The identifiable aspect of the catalogue,
in
> this brand-obsessed age, is Kleeneze.


Yes, the name on the catalogue is Kleeneze. But who is complaining to them
about the actions of specific agents? Can't say I've read on this group in
any thread about someone actually ringing them.
Instead people complain about a company that has nothing to do with the
distribution of cataloges.




>
> Can you really not understand this?


We seem to be looking at this from different angles.

Martin  <><



>
> Ida Goode-Johnson
>
>

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:19:53 GMT, "Martin Davies"
 wrote:


>Yes, the name on the catalogue is Kleeneze. But who is complaining to them
>about the actions of specific agents? Can't say I've read on this group in
>any thread about someone actually ringing them.


Perhaps I shall.

Yet another unwanted catalogue was left on Friday, despite my "Sales
people not welcome here" notice, with a peremptory note requiring it
to be left out today.  The catalogue went straight in the bin.

Today, another unwanted ("Sorry you were out today, we'll call
tomorrow") note came through the letter box.

I intend to stick an enormous note on the door tomorrow stating in no
uncertain terms that they should stop bothering me.  If, nevertheless,
your fellow nuisance salesperson insists on ringing my bell, he, she
or it will be physically thrown off my property and I'll follow your
suggestion about complaining to your employer.

Let's name and shame them: Ian and Kirsty Slater are the culprits
here.  Why they can't get a proper job is a mystery: there's plenty of
decent employment round here.

Mike.

In article <t7F%d.107077$Bk7.89865@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, mart2306
@hotmail.com says...

> the
> > sort of abuse you are getting from just about every participant in this
> > thread other than yourself (have you spotted that yet?).
> 
> Yes, I've spotted that a small handful of people are complaining.


So have I, and I have only seen one poster not complaining (you)
How about a poll?
All in favour of having catalogues pushed through your door with 
instructions about using your own time, say Aye



> 
> >
> > I don't care how good an egg you are, the name of the company whose
> > catalogues you distribute is potentially brought into disrepute on a daily
> > basis by eggs less good than yourself.
> 
> Ummm....the catalogues are ours, not belonging to Kleeneze. Sorry, I thought
> I had mentioned that.


Not what I would call a good egg.

-- 

joeparkinchineseatbtinternetdotcom

joe parkin  wrote:


> In article <t7F%d.107077$Bk7.89865@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, mart2306
> @hotmail.com says...
> > the
> > > sort of abuse you are getting from just about every participant in this
> > > thread other than yourself (have you spotted that yet?).
> > 
> > Yes, I've spotted that a small handful of people are complaining.
> 
> So have I, and I have only seen one poster not complaining (you)
> How about a poll?
> All in favour of having catalogues pushed through your door with 
> instructions about using your own time, say Aye


To be honest, I don't mind them, haven't bought from Kleeneze, but have
used Betterware a fair bit - mainly because they sell stuff I can't be
arsed shopping for.

-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300
VW Golf GL Cabrio  -  Alfa 75 TS - VW Passat 1.8T 20V SE - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

In article <1gtsn7a.1vmrruee7d71lN%steve@italiancar.co.uk>, 
steve@italiancar.co.uk says...

> > So have I, and I have only seen one poster not complaining (you)
> > How about a poll?
> > All in favour of having catalogues pushed through your door with 
> > instructions about using your own time, say Aye
> 
> To be honest, I don't mind them, haven't bought from Kleeneze, but have
> used Betterware a fair bit - mainly because they sell stuff I can't be
> arsed shopping for.


So, you might say they are solicited.

-- 

joeparkinchineseatbtinternetdotcom

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:19:53 GMT, "Martin Davies"
 wrote:


>> The fact is that, by the methods Kleeneze uses, it leaves itself open to
>the
>> sort of abuse you are getting from just about every participant in this
>> thread other than yourself (have you spotted that yet?).
>
>Yes, I've spotted that a small handful of people are complaining.


It is a small sample, and therefore the numbers are bound to be small.
Rather look at the *percentage* of people involved in this thread who
are less than pleased about the sales methods used.  On this subject,
the people posting are likely to be reasonably representative of the
general population.  Unlike your customers.


>> I don't care how good an egg you are, the name of the company whose
>> catalogues you distribute is potentially brought into disrepute on a daily
>> basis by eggs less good than yourself.
>
>Ummm....the catalogues are ours, not belonging to Kleeneze. Sorry, I thought
>I had mentioned that.


Please!  If a policeman bought his uniform, would you say that his
behaviour whilst wearing it was not representing the police?

-- 
Cynic

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:47:58 GMT, Alan G 
wrote:


>>LOL!  Sharks are a bit rare hereabouts, but I certainly would not
>>advise retrieving a ball at this time of year. 
>
>News reports say Makos are increasingly being seen in British waters.


Yes, also other sea dwellers that don't normally venture this far from
the equator - it's occasionally a topic of conversation amongst the
local fishermen who have been finding some unexpected things in their
nets.  Probably indicative of the much-reported climate change.  Or
maybe el nino and the gulf stream.  Or maybe they just fancied a
change.


>> My "garden" is 5.6
>>degrees Celcius at present (if my new thermometer is correct).

>I used to swim in that when I was younger.
>Think it would kill me now


There is a chart that will give the length of time of immersion vs
temperature until unconsciousness.  I don't think it's very long at 5
degrees.  I have had to swim in it, and even with a 10mm metal-lined
wetsuit with hood, boots & gloves it is not pleasant at all IMO.
Sudden unprotected immersion can certainly cause instant death.

Something I bear in mind when there is ice on the jetties.  Still,
this last weekend was fairly OK.  I've always maintained that Easter
is the watershed between cold weather and weather I can bear to be
outdoors in.  Maybe we'll get a few days of Summer this year.

-- 
Cynic

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:31:10 -0000, "Rob"
 wrote:



>||| There are worse metalities to have.
>||| Seriously, the company mentality is to pay out to distributors far
>||| more than it makes in profits. While no one distributor yet makes
>||| as much profit as the company (that could change), collectively the
>||| distributors make many times the profit.
>||
>|| Huh?  From where does the company get the money to pay its
>|| distributors then?
>
>Just like any other company I suppose, from its cash receipts. I think 
>Martin means the company's end share of the profits are less than the 
>combined amount paid out to distributors. It depends on one's definition of 
>'profit'. I tend to think of profit as that money which is left over after 
>*everything* is paid for, including any amounts set aside for future R&D, 
>expansion etc, whereas others may regard all overheads etc. as being paid 
>for out of profit.
>
>Indeed there are still some, sadly that consider wages to be an overhead.


Well, if a company represented its wages as being part of its profits,
I'd suspect some very dodgy accountancy going on.

Wages *are* an overhead from the balance-sheet POV.  They are part of
R&D costs, or production costs, or cost of sales.  Or, yes, part of
company "overheads".  Depending on the department the employee works
in.  That does not mean that they are considered or treated as not
also being people.

-- 
Cynic

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:19:37 GMT, "Martin Davies"
 wrote:



>> >There are worse metalities to have.
>> >Seriously, the company mentality is to pay out to distributors far more
>than
>> >it makes in profits. While no one distributor yet makes as much profit as
>> >the company (that could change), collectively the distributors make many
>> >times the profit.
>>
>> Huh?  From where does the company get the money to pay its
>> distributors then?

>Eh?
>From its turnover.
>
>Turnover and profit are two seperate and usually different figures. Turnover
>will be so many million, then deduct all relevant expenses


Yes, such as wages paid to employees or agents.  Amount paid to
salesmen & advertising companies are usually listed on the balance
sheet as "cost of sales"


> whats left is
>profit (very simplified way of working out and not going into disposal of
>assets and so on).


Quite.  And you are saying that they give *more* than their profits to
their employees (or whatever you call yourself).  That doesn't make
sense.

Or do you assume that when a company announces its annual profit, it
has not deducted its employees' salaries from its total income?

-- 
Cynic

"Mike"  wrote in message
news:r5eu31h07ea837q403pjamf7lbajd9iuqh@news.kempston.net...

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:19:53 GMT, "Martin Davies"
>  wrote:
>
> >Yes, the name on the catalogue is Kleeneze. But who is complaining to
them
> >about the actions of specific agents? Can't say I've read on this group
in
> >any thread about someone actually ringing them.
>
> Perhaps I shall.
>
> Yet another unwanted catalogue was left on Friday, despite my "Sales
> people not welcome here" notice, with a peremptory note requiring it
> to be left out today.  The catalogue went straight in the bin.
>
> Today, another unwanted ("Sorry you were out today, we'll call
> tomorrow") note came through the letter box.
>
> I intend to stick an enormous note on the door tomorrow stating in no
> uncertain terms that they should stop bothering me.  If, nevertheless,
> your fellow nuisance salesperson insists on ringing my bell, he, she
> or it will be physically thrown off my property and I'll follow your
> suggestion about complaining to your employer.


Not an employer, sorry.




>
> Let's name and shame them: Ian and Kirsty Slater are the culprits
> here.  Why they can't get a proper job is a mystery: there's plenty of
> decent employment round here.
>
> Mike.
>


What? And remain on low income?
Why anyone would want a proper job is beyond me. :)
Or maybe they are employed and self employed, like many agents are. Best of
both worlds - regular income to pay the bills, extra money to save with, and
tax rebate if paying tax already.

Martin  <><

"Cynic"  wrote in message
news:4miu31hfirhfekjne54ia4fn69fe8asngl@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:19:53 GMT, "Martin Davies"
>  wrote:
>
> >> The fact is that, by the methods Kleeneze uses, it leaves itself open
to
> >the
> >> sort of abuse you are getting from just about every participant in this
> >> thread other than yourself (have you spotted that yet?).
> >
> >Yes, I've spotted that a small handful of people are complaining.
>
> It is a small sample, and therefore the numbers are bound to be small.
> Rather look at the *percentage* of people involved in this thread who
> are less than pleased about the sales methods used.  On this subject,
> the people posting are likely to be reasonably representative of the
> general population.  Unlike your customers.
>
> >> I don't care how good an egg you are, the name of the company whose
> >> catalogues you distribute is potentially brought into disrepute on a
daily
> >> basis by eggs less good than yourself.
> >
> >Ummm....the catalogues are ours, not belonging to Kleeneze. Sorry, I
thought
> >I had mentioned that.
>
> Please!  If a policeman bought his uniform, would you say that his
> behaviour whilst wearing it was not representing the police?
>
> -- 


Eh?
I'd say he was representing himself.
Seems an odd idea, representing some organisation that has little to do with
the problem.

Martin  <><



> Cynic
>

"Cynic"  wrote in message
news:qlku31h53qb3e38aulpc7lu48dffmouu55@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:19:37 GMT, "Martin Davies"
>  wrote:
>
>
> >> >There are worse metalities to have.
> >> >Seriously, the company mentality is to pay out to distributors far
more
> >than
> >> >it makes in profits. While no one distributor yet makes as much profit
as
> >> >the company (that could change), collectively the distributors make
many
> >> >times the profit.
> >>
> >> Huh?  From where does the company get the money to pay its
> >> distributors then?
>
> >Eh?
> >From its turnover.
> >
> >Turnover and profit are two seperate and usually different figures.
Turnover
> >will be so many million, then deduct all relevant expenses
>
> Yes, such as wages paid to employees or agents.  Amount paid to
> salesmen & advertising companies are usually listed on the balance
> sheet as "cost of sales"
>
> > whats left is
> >profit (very simplified way of working out and not going into disposal of
> >assets and so on).
>
> Quite.  And you are saying that they give *more* than their profits to
> their employees (or whatever you call yourself).  That doesn't make
> sense.
>
> Or do you assume that when a company announces its annual profit, it
> has not deducted its employees' salaries from its total income?
>
> -- 
> Cynic


Yes, they pay out quite a bit more than their own profit in bonus and
commission.

If you had a business, turnover 1 million. and paid out 50% of that between
agents. Then with other expenses declared a profit of 100K, then you would
be paying out 5 times your profits to your agents.
Who will have their own profit & loss.

Martin  <><



>

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:10:32 GMT, "Martin Davies"
 wrote:



>If you had a business, turnover 1 million. and paid out 50% of that between
>agents. Then with other expenses declared a profit of 100K, then you would
>be paying out 5 times your profits to your agents.
>Who will have their own profit & loss.


OK, I see what you are saying.  But whether or not that is a generous
thing to do depends upon how many agents there are compared to
shareholders and others who benefit from the profits.

If my wife and I owned a company between us and had 1000 "agents" who
brought in 1 million after all our outgoings other that agent's pay
were settled, we could pay each agent 800 and keep 200000.  Our
agents get 80% of the profit and may think we are being extremely
generous, but it is we who are getting the huge income, not the
agents.

The idea of having "agents" instead of employees is of course a huge
benefit to the company, who don't have any of the normal
responsibilities wrt employees.  No minimum wage.  No sick pay.  No
H&S concerns.  No pension scheme.  And best of all, a payroll that is
always directly proportional to turnover.

The fact that you see this as an advantage *to yourself* shows how
well you have been suckered.  The running cost of the business must be
minute, and the "agents" even have to pay for one of the overheads of
a catalogue company - the cost of the catalogue itself.

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message
news:vh9041po22pcdt5apg48l034rod27s9g4j@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:10:32 GMT, "Martin Davies"
>  wrote:
>
>
> >If you had a business, turnover 1 million. and paid out 50% of that
between
> >agents. Then with other expenses declared a profit of 100K, then you
would
> >be paying out 5 times your profits to your agents.
> >Who will have their own profit & loss.
>
> OK, I see what you are saying.  But whether or not that is a generous
> thing to do depends upon how many agents there are compared to
> shareholders and others who benefit from the profits.
>
> If my wife and I owned a company between us and had 1000 "agents" who
> brought in 1 million after all our outgoings other that agent's pay
> were settled, we could pay each agent 800 and keep 200000.  Our
> agents get 80% of the profit and may think we are being extremely
> generous, but it is we who are getting the huge income, not the
> agents.
>
> The idea of having "agents" instead of employees is of course a huge
> benefit to the company, who don't have any of the normal
> responsibilities wrt employees.  No minimum wage.  No sick pay.  No
> H&S concerns.  No pension scheme.  And best of all, a payroll that is
> always directly proportional to turnover.
>
> The fact that you see this as an advantage *to yourself* shows how
> well you have been suckered.  The running cost of the business must be
> minute, and the "agents" even have to pay for one of the overheads of
> a catalogue company - the cost of the catalogue itself.
>



Yes, my running costs are pretty small.
The cost of the catalogue is only a small percentage of actual money paid to
me. 600 catalogues a year, 50 in a pack, thats 12 packs at 30.
360 expense and a few thousand pounds income.
If that is me being a sucker, then maybe more people need to become suckers.

Of course, Kleneeze could provide the catalogues for free, and pay less out
to its agents. I'd rather pay for them and have more money, thanks.
It has to pay for getting the goods in the first place, has to pay most or
all the cost of shipping to me (they will be charged by Amtrak in this
country for sorting and delivering boxes), has to pay for its headquarters &
warehouse, has to pay for its own staff (presumably a few hundred), has to
pay for all European and international conferences, has to pay agents
commission & bonuses, and of course has to pay company taxes.
Oh, and some new cars too. Not a large number, but a few minis, BMWs and the
odd porsche too.

Martin  <><



> -- 
> Cynic
>

"Cynic"  wrote in message
news:vh9041po22pcdt5apg48l034rod27s9g4j@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:10:32 GMT, "Martin Davies"
>  wrote:
>
>
> >If you had a business, turnover 1 million. and paid out 50% of that
between
> >agents. Then with other expenses declared a profit of 100K, then you
would
> >be paying out 5 times your profits to your agents.
> >Who will have their own profit & loss.
>
> OK, I see what you are saying.  But whether or not that is a generous
> thing to do depends upon how many agents there are compared to
> shareholders and others who benefit from the profits.
>
> If my wife and I owned a company between us and had 1000 "agents" who
> brought in 1 million after all our outgoings other that agent's pay
> were settled, we could pay each agent 800 and keep 200000.  Our
> agents get 80% of the profit and may think we are being extremely
> generous, but it is we who are getting the huge income, not the
> agents.
>
> The idea of having "agents" instead of employees is of course a huge
> benefit to the company, who don't have any of the normal
> responsibilities wrt employees.  No minimum wage.  No sick pay.  No
> H&S concerns.  No pension scheme.  And best of all, a payroll that is
> always directly proportional to turnover.
>
> The fact that you see this as an advantage *to yourself* shows how
> well you have been suckered.  The running cost of the business must be
> minute, and the "agents" even have to pay for one of the overheads of
> a catalogue company - the cost of the catalogue itself.
>

Like many things it is horses for course, some people enjoy the freedom and
rewards that can come from such employment, the big bills are paid by the
principle and you can control the size of the ones you are responsible for.
Yes the agents carry a significant part of the catalogue overhead, but as
you have equally pointed out their rewards for success are also apparently
high. Now I am happy as a wage slave, but to many who are in various forms
of self employment I am a fool, every one has choices.

Peter

Axel at  wrote in the message 
: 
 

> 
> tHatDudeUK  wrote: 
> 
>> "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message 
>> news:423adf72@212.67.96.135... 
>> 
>>> They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift. 
>>> 
>> Has anyone ever got some charity christmas cards free in the post, with a 
>> note asking you to pay for them if you want trying to make you feel guilty 
>> because they posted you them without you asking for them?! 
>> 
> Oddly enough I received some sticky address labels for envelopes
> as part of an unsolicted charity solicitation a couple of days ago.
> Binned since I would never use such things and furthermore my name
> was incorrect. 
> 

 
Be charitable, though, Axel. I'm guessing wildly, but an extenuating 
circumstance may be that trouble is spelt for the said outfit when it meets a 
Polish surname containing umpteen consonants in a row. 

-- 
Giddy

Giddy  wrote:

> Axel at  wrote in the message 
>> Oddly enough I received some sticky address labels for envelopes
>> as part of an unsolicted charity solicitation a couple of days ago.
>> Binned since I would never use such things and furthermore my name
>> was incorrect. 
 
> Be charitable, though, Axel. I'm guessing wildly, but an extenuating 
> circumstance may be that trouble is spelt for the said outfit when it meets a 
> Polish surname containing umpteen consonants in a row. 


LOL.
 
Axel

>> tHatDudeUK  wrote: 
>> 
>>> "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message 
>>> news:423adf72@212.67.96.135... 
>>> 
>>>> They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift. 
>>>> 
>>> Has anyone ever got some charity christmas cards free in the post, with a 
>>> note asking you to pay for them if you want trying to make you feel guilty 
>>> because they posted you them without you asking for them?! 


This is definitely a growing trend and one with quite onerous
implications. See this message from a thread started by me a while
back:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/841b55c25ee6122b
-- 
Tony Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

"Tony Halmarack"  wrote in message 
news:hvl25114k1a9kgevnvhfn8m0didjuk4qud@4ax.com...

>
>>> tHatDudeUK  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ida Goode-Johnson"  wrote in message
>>>> news:423adf72@212.67.96.135...
>>>>
>>>>> They insist that it remains their property - it is not a gift.
>>>>>
>>>> Has anyone ever got some charity christmas cards free in the post, with 
>>>> a
>>>> note asking you to pay for them if you want trying to make you feel 
>>>> guilty
>>>> because they posted you them without you asking for them?!
>
> This is definitely a growing trend and one with quite onerous
> implications. See this message from a thread started by me a while
> back:
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/841b55c25ee6122b
> -- 
> Tony Halmarack
>
> Drop the EGG to email me.



do as i do if they say it remains there property , invoice them for storage