Why wouldn't value pricing work in the tractor business?
Tractor buying these days is even more of a rocket science
than car buying, with a dizzying array of options from tread
width on the tires to coffee holder in the combine.
According to Implement & Tractor magazine, as reported in Farm
Show, 'value pricing' works. Car dealers who switched to
one-price selling reported that new vehicle sales grew by 22
per cent between 1992 and 1994, compared to 7.8 per cent for
the industry overall. Dealers also reported less turnover of
sales staff, even though salespeople made less money per car.
Why couldn't this work at the tractor dealership too? At the
recent Toronto farm show, farmers were out in droves kicking
tires and looking under the guard shields of new 1996
tractors. All the features were there on the literature ad
nauseam, but the question on everybody's lips was the price.
There's a little bit of extra money out on the concessions
these days, and some farmers are in a buying mood. Tractors
have clocked a lot of hours over the last 10 years, and
there's not a good supply of good used equipment. Because of
the exchange in the dollar, much of that is going south of the
border.
But buying a new tractor has often been a cat-and-mouse game,
with the dealer coy on what the true price is, and the farmer
equally coy on what the previous dealer quoted. "February is
entertainment month," says one dealer in disgust.
It's time dealers and farmers did a time management study on
the cost-efficiency of endless hours of haggling, driving,
phone calling, and faxing dealers across the province. In some
cases, dealers and farmers have become their own worst
enemies. Some dealers are now even afraid to put prices in
their advertisements.
It's no good pointing the finger at the dealer or the farmer
on this one. "We've trained them well," says the same dealer.
Too seldom do farmers actually put a price-tag on their time.
Driving 300 miles to save $500 on a tractor just doesn't cost
out in the competitive 1990s. It's like the cross border
shoppers of several years ago who drove 40 miles to save 15
cents a gallon on gas, and then burnt up the savings on the
drive back home.
On the other side, dealers have to be up-front with farmers
about what the costs are, and what their margins are.
In these days of just-in-time manufacturing, there soon won't
be the luxury of haggling anyway. Gone are the days when
companies cranked out tractors to fill their dealer lots.
Combines are now all built to order, and tractors won't be far
behind.
There's no reason why 'value pricing' wouldn't work at the
tractor dealership. If dealers needed an impartial third party
to help set up a framework, what better role for the Ontario
Farm Implements Board?
With the competitive nature of agriculture in the 1990s, there
just isn't room for suppliers and buyers to breed mistrust.
It's hard enough competing with the 1,000-cow dairy herds on
the other side of the border.
Disturbing trend
Organic milk
"No brainer", says the trendy looking young car purchaser in
the TV ads for GM's new 'value pricing' system, where the
sticker price includes the so-called 'options' - wheels, and
all.
LETTERS
Get involved
I would like to thank you for the advising farmers of the
December 1995 decision by the Farm Practices Protection Board
(FPPB), Embrun man Must Restrain Red Dog by Robert Irwin, in
the Jan. 23 issue. Every farmer should be outraged by the
board's decision. Despite their "clear finding" that Mr.
Lapointe's operation "is a normal farm practice", the board
requires Mr. Lapointe to build a 12-foot wall between his
operation and his neighbour, even though red dog grain dust
will probably continue to settle on his neighbour's land.
We should also ask ourselves why the Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs was absent from the proceedings.
The provincial government, through the pending Bill 20 and the
December, 1995, Draft Provincial Policy Statement, thinks it
can open the flood-gates for non-farm development in the
agricultural areas of this province and, at the same time,
assuage farmers' fears by promising to beef up the Farm
Practices Protection Act.
No one in the farm community should be fooled by this
approach, when the only approach that will benefit both sides
would be appropriately restrictive planning policy that will
preserve prime land for long-term agricultural use, free
farmers from the risk of nuisance complaints, and safeguard
the environment.
While the farm community still appears split on the issue of
farm severances, we must agree that the Harris government's
financial machete is going to completely emasculate our
agriculture ministry. Add to this the serious ramifications of
the government's proposed "one-window approach" to planning,
which will mean that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing (MMAH) will be the only ministry commenting on
development applications. Soon, agriculture will have no
provincial voice whatsoever.
Farmers must go get involved and find out about Planning Act
changes. Copies of the December, 1995, policy statement can be
obtained from the MMAH at (416) 585-7041, at some public
libraries and from your local MPP. The MMAH will receive
comments on the policy statement until March 4, 1996. Written
submissions should be addressed to: Policy Statement Review,
Municipal Planning Policy Branch, Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing, 13th Floor, 777 Bay Street, Toronto, Ont.
M5G 2E5.
Virginia Berg
Millbank
Your recent news and editorials indicate a disturbing trend
away from earlier farmer commitment to foodland conservation.
For example, Keith Matthie, in the December issue, complains
of More Land Use Motherhood.
Many farmers have avoided preparation of a Farm Environmental
Plan and object to restraints on severances, the exception
being the members of the Christian Farmers' Federation.
Urban environmentalists and anti-urban-sprawl activists are
farmers' natural allies. Farmers have to be seen by urban
voters as stewards of the countryside. Unfortunately, many of
the editorials and reports of farm leaders in Farm & Country
paint farmers as speculators, diminishing urban support. There
should be no rural-urban conflict - both suffer from
inefficient, tax-demanding urban sprawl.
Bona-fide farmers should be lobbying for a 100-per-cent farm
tax rebate or the removal of farm land from municipal tax
assessment. A bona fide farmer is any farm land owner who
agrees to an Environmental Farm Plan and welcomes registration
of a conservation easement on the title to the land which
precludes development and guarantees the farmer's right to
farm.
Farmers need to be seen as trusted custodians of the nation's
foodland by the 97 per cent who are not farmers, but have a
vague concern about where their food comes from.
Lorne Almack
Claremont
Ontar-Bio Organic Farmers Co-operative has added the organic
dairy pool to its existing grain and oilseed pools. Ontar-Bio
is marketing the organic milk, cream and butter under the
label Organic Meadow. This particular pool employs one person.
Ineke Booy
Ontar-Bio Organic
Farmers Co-operative Inc.
Durham