Just reading the initial launch issue of the new Pro Landscaper magazine and wondered if I had picked up an APL brochure by mistake..
Is this magazine the unofficial or official new mouthpiece for the APL ?
In the headline article, the current APL chairperson wants to:
- educate consumers to watch out for rogue traders (good)
- implicitly only use APL members (the jury's out on that one for me....)
- setup an exclusive SGD & APL monopoly to deliver landscape construction projects (totally arrogant...?)
- believe only 1 trade association is required ( wouldn't be APL based by any chance would it ...?)
If ever there was any doubt, the Editor's endline states:
"Thanks for your time Mark, when it's obviously something you have little of, i hope our magazine can be the voice that APL needs to encourage new members and we look forward to hearing more from you in the future."
So, is the 'tie-up' desperation, arrogant, misguided, misunderstood, acceptable or really good for our industry....?
Would love to hear your views..............
At the moment for me - APL comments = 'uncomfortable'..
Any before any APL member accuses me of 'bashing' I will remind them that it was their chairperson (whom I have utmost respect for as a 'Landscaper') who stated the above and it's the not the first time there has been similar comments or a move for an exclusive club..
Come on, prove me wrong and I'll happily apologise...
UPDATE - This thread does not read as well as per its original form as several members have removed key posts and thus the flow of the debate has been interrupted or left confused.
have you got a link as I cant find the page your talking about !!
The online version can be found here: http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1to26/ProLandscaperSeptemb/resourc...
thank you Phil
How about this novel idea for this new magazine - how about supporting the small landscape practitioner, irrespective of whether they decide to be belong to outdated trade associations aimed at the 'big boys' or not ?
Too radical ?
I wish the APL would define 'rogue trader' I always get the feeling the inference is that anyone who's not a member of the APL is a rogue trader.
According to Lantra there are over 230,000 land-based businesses in the UK. There are circa 200 members of the APL.
Gary, I wish Pro Landscaper well, I really do, but by their own admission the directors say they are experienced in publishing but they are not landscapers.
If their policy is to seek out APL members to provide their content, and ignore the majority of the landscape and horticulture industry, then they'll surely have problems.
Gary RK said:
How about this novel idea for this new magazine - how about supporting the small landscape practioner, irrespective of whether they decide to be belong to outdated trade associations aimed at the 'big boys' or not ?
Too radical ?
Is my maths bad or does that imply they represent a "full" 0 .00008695% of the industry ?
Me, I must belong in the other 99.999131% of the industry...;-)
I got my numbers wrong (updated above)
Noted and % modified.
Agree with Gary RK -
Read the article and ended up feeling like a rogue purely based on the fact l was a small business, infact at present a one man band.
l am working hard, with hope and the outlook to grow my business. All my clients are delighted with their gardens; l build them to be last, to a great standard, any issues are resolved with out quarrel... does this make me a rogue?
Surely all APL members started small and built to a level that then justified the seeking accreditation. This factor seems to have been lost... I'm not sure as a one man band l would be awarded accreditation.
Industry spokes people should be encouraging businesses; coaching companies, providing resources to support companies, encouraging growth which then will be given back to society in form of taxes, employment opportunity to others, the ongoing purchasing of materials result in benefits through the supply chain. I feel to tar all non-accredited businesses with the same brush as a few rogue traders gives the industry a bad name; which will in fact provide a negative view industry as a whole independent of accrediation.
There are fantastic builders out there, carry out high quality work, with excellent customer relations but as an industry they have been tarred by the behavior of a few, which has lead to significant public mis-trust in them as industry. I hope the landscape industry doesn't go down this path...
These spokes people should be shouting about the benefits of employing a garden designer, the landscaper and the garden maintenance experts... focus on the positive not the negative... be glass half full not half empty! It's a hard enough economic climate to be operating in without the talk of rogues being out there.
Another point article also advises don't pay any money up front - discouraging clients to pay a deposit. Leaves business open to abuse from rogue clients...
I will seek accreditation at a time the overhead can be justified and the accreditation achieved based upon the size of business etc etc...
Sorry bit of an unstructured ramble...
Craig, that was not a ramble. I found it an enlightening response.
Part of the problem of these type of articles, is by there very nature they are produced by/with publicity seeking people in high profile positions.
Is this article to further his own 'position' at the expense of 'normal' contractors - I don't know?
He is the mouthpiece for an organisation that clearly does not represent the industry, but what he has got is the ability to get his name, position, image out in front of the press.
Is there someting to learn in that ?
Yes. It's all about image & marketing......
If the inference one gets from the APL that all those businesses that are not menbers of it's tiny association are rogue traders, then they deserve to be very serverely rebuked.
Has anyone on LJN ever hinted that the landscaping members of APL should not be employed by the general public ???
Do we ever say that the general public should only employ members from the largest trade association in Britain,