DSF

A win for us yes it will go towards paying for the 4 containers

Only 4

Also, to add there are sellers on Amazon who sell via Prime and without Prime, and their non-Prime versions of the products are cheaper, just not necessarily next day.

But is the cost equivalent to a next day cost? Personally I don't mind and I don't normally look at the price first as I tend to go with service and convenience. However if the same seller was selling the same product with a few pounds difference between Prime and Standard it wouldn't bother me. In fact I might go as far as to say I think that is fair, however I understand logistics, the general public might get a bit miffed though.

socialgiraffe;125295 wrote:Not sure what you mean on that?

There is one company who already sells sublimation blanks on Amazon, just not through Prime (would not purchase from them anyway). Trade suppliers selling on Amazon, is no different to Ebay or their own web shop to be honest.

I suppose another way to look at it is the order that I just purchased from Dye Sub Supplies. Only needed 1 photo slate, ended up buying 6 and spending £35 including shipping and VAT. That's a win for the supplier

I never knowingly support a supplier who sells into marketplaces where I sell, to me there is a difference between a "trade only" website and a marketplace seller where I could purchase 1 or 2 pieces.
I wont knowingly deal with a distributor who retails on marketplaces either. I am a big fan of minimum order quantities too.

The harder to buy the better as far as I am concerned.

Keep eps us going for a few weeks Simon!!!

socialgiraffe;125322 wrote:Only 4



But is the cost equivalent to a next day cost? Personally I don't mind and I don't normally look at the price first as I tend to go with service and convenience. However if the same seller was selling the same product with a few pounds difference between Prime and Standard it wouldn't bother me. In fact I might go as far as to say I think that is fair, however I understand logistics, the general public might get a bit miffed though.

I never knowingly support a supplier who sells into marketplaces where I sell, to me there is a difference between a "trade only" website and a marketplace seller where I could purchase 1 or 2 pieces.
I wont knowingly deal with a distributor who retails on marketplaces either. I am a big fan of minimum order quantities too.

The harder to buy the better as far as I am concerned.

This used to be a bug bear of mine also but not anymore. I personally do not see any difference between a dye sub trade seller advertising their wares to the general public and a photographer deciding to print on merchandise (such as mugs). To be honest, I suppose I am in a different sector and my customers know how much the blanks are and know how much to expect to pay on top. I do appreciate that if you were dealing with the public it might be different.

froggy;125330 wrote:I never knowingly support a supplier who sells into marketplaces where I sell, to me there is a difference between a "trade only" website and a marketplace seller where I could purchase 1 or 2 pieces.
I wont knowingly deal with a distributor who retails on marketplaces either. I am a big fan of minimum order quantities too.

The harder to buy the better as far as I am concerned.

That's Coralgraph and L***forte off your list then.

That's Coralgraph and L***forte off your list then.

But this is where it gets complicated.... here is an example...

Mrs A only sells to a business or merchandisers. That means she should use Longforte as their sales are direct to consumer (in theory) but should not use Listawood because they sell to businesses as well. However, Mr B only sells online so should not use LF or Coral but should use Listawood....! That could mean that the company with the excellent reputation (Listawood) would probably lose out on bulk sales of blanks....

This is why I think it gets very confusing to play by these rules.

I 100% agree with the stealing of images and would never use a company that has done so. But why not use Coralgraph, I personally do not see the issue and see no difference between them and those that have decided to branch out into dye sub or added it on to their existing business, if there is a difference I would like to know what it is.

Perhaps froggy gave too many examples. But the difference is that Coralgraph and L**forte sell similar designs on mugs etc in direct competition with their blank customers.

L**forte offer a print on demand service for all of our NOTHS competitors but also sell those designs direct to the public.

Imagine if I set up a rival music merchandising company, but ordering from you supporting your business, when I should be dreaming up ways to destroy your business. You don't really help a competitor.

socialgiraffe;125362 wrote:This used to be a bug bear of mine also but not anymore. I personally do not see any difference between a dye sub trade seller advertising their wares to the general public and a photographer deciding to print on merchandise (such as mugs). To be honest, I suppose I am in a different sector and my customers know how much the blanks are and know how much to expect to pay on top. I do appreciate that if you were dealing with the public it might be different.

I see a big difference between the two. A trade supplier wants the best of both worlds, he either wants more margin on the stock he holds or he wants trade buyers to break the bulk of his inventory so he turns his money quicker. The same trade supplier sells at a price his trade customers cant compete at, unless they want a razor thin margin, thus subsidising his retail sales. If he wants to retail then by all means retail, but dont pose as a trade only distributor.

The photographer plays on the same terms as most of us do, in fact he needs to be a little more expensive to enhance his "arty" sales pitch, he isnt the same threat to other traders in the same way the trade wholesale supplier is. Now if a retailer wants to buy containers etc etc and work on a thinner margin , then thats his business, he isnt using other decorators to sustain his business model he stands on his own two feet. (BTW or her)

Imagine if I set up a rival music merchandising company, but ordering from you supporting your business, when I should be dreaming up ways to destroy your business. You don't really help a competitor.

Firstly, lets forget LF, as we all no, there is A LOT more to them than selling blanks and selling designs to consumer...

But by your own set of "rules" I should not use Listawood should I? I use them as an example very loosely as they are a much bigger operation than I will ever be (or intend to be), but they are a trade only supplier just like me and I have no problem in purchasing my blanks from them as they offer an excellent price and service. They do not try and steal my customers so where would my problem be? Many of my customers know exactly who they are and just prefer me to deal with, I don't know whether it is price or something more likely that I am better looking Either way, I am happy to purchase blanks from them even though they could be seen as a rival.

I see a big difference between the two. A trade supplier wants the best of both worlds, he either wants more margin on the stock he holds or he wants trade buyers to break the bulk of his inventory so he turns his money quicker. The same trade supplier sells at a price his trade customers cant compete at, unless they want a razor thin margin, thus subsidising his retail sales. If he wants to retail then by all means retail, but dont pose as a trade only distributor.

The photographer plays on the same terms as most of us do, in fact he needs to be a little more expensive to enhance his "arty" sales pitch, he isnt the same threat to other traders in the same way the trade wholesale supplier is. Now if a retailer wants to buy containers etc etc and work on a thinner margin , then thats his business, he isnt using other decorators to sustain his business model he stands on his own two feet. (BTW or her)

I take your point in paragraph one but I personally think it contradicts paragraph 2. The only difference is the size of the threat, a photographer is not a very big threat so is not considered a problem, but he is still doing exactly the same as a trade supplier. He (or she ) has purchased dye sub kit to produce mugs (for example) in house more than likely to increase sales and profit, so they have taken that service away from a dye sublimation specialist, the same could be said for a screen printer - we have all seen the "I am a screen printer who wants to branch out" posts, is that not the same thing as a supplier of blanks saying, hey you can buy your blanks from me or you can get me to drop ship them. Like I say, I have a real problem with those that steal designs or copy copyrighted images (I still remember the member that claimed he had permission direct from an artist on here, that was until I pointed out he had been dead for 25 years...), that is a big no no and likewise if I chose a drop shipping service who started contacting my customers direct then all hell would break loose. But I genuinely can not see the issue. If you like the price they sell the blanks at then great, if you don't then get them elsewhere.

To me, the photographer is no threat at all....I think thats a fairly big difference. At least a photographer isnt afraid to ask decent money for his product, the trade supplier retailing online tends to undercut to gain market share. I dont have a problem competing with discounters on the whole because i run a very tight ship, but its a struggle to try and compete with someone who has such an advantage and uses his trade distribution to maintain and bolster his retail margins.