Pants crusade?

[Bob White]

Torveaux

 

Why would you want the uniform to match a mass production piece? that would kind of eliminate the purpose of the uniform. Do you see anybody dressing like a UPS driver who isn't a UPS driver? Do you see lots of folks at the mall dressed as a mail carrier who aren't mail carriers? Pro football players? Jockeys? The uniform is supposed to be unique.

 

As far as what others wear in other programs... have you ever been to a World Jamboree? Have you ever had a chance to see what uniforms are like in other scouting programs? There are over 200 scouting program in WOSM, I would guess maybe 25% to 40% have head to toes uniforms at best. Most countries have only uniform shirts, some wear only neckerchiefs. We are fortunate to live in a free market, largely affluent country with the second largest scouting program in the world. I have met with scouts from at least 50 different countries over the years. They want to be like us! They like our uniforms, the quality of our patches, our handbook. They would scratch their heads with wonder if you said you wanted to have their uniforms for anything other than a collection piece.

 

BW

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SemperParatus]

Why do I get the feeling that by the time this thread ends, the BSA will have released a new pair of threads.

 

[FScouter]

What I am getting at is that the pants available on the open market are every bit as good or better than the BSA pants for much less.

 

Thats nice, but so what? Pants on the open market are plain old everyday pants any Joe can wear. WE get to wear genuine BSA uniform pants! Consider yourself lucky. Most people dont get this chance.

 

there is no good reason that with the high prices for the uniform pants that members have to accept poorer quality goods.

 

Thats nice. Why do you need a good reason?

 

Heres a thought. Would it make a difference if BSA sold uniforms at cost? Or how about if BSA issued a uniform at no charge to all registered members? Would you all be OK with that arrangement?

 

[Hunt]

"Heres a thought. Would it make a difference if BSA sold uniforms at cost? Or how about if BSA issued a uniform at no charge to all registered members? Would you all be OK with that arrangement?"

 

Well, sure! That would solve only one problem, though, the high cost. For me, that's not the main problem. In fact, I shelled out extra for the cotton shirt because I like it better--but I have the luxury of being able to afford to do so.

 

But if we're going to talk about cost realistically, what exactly is the reason the cost is higher than comparable clothing on the open market? I see several possibilities, which could be working in combination:

 

1. The clothing costs more because it is made in USA. I suspect this is the most important factor, and what you think about this may be more philosophical than practical. However, I would suggest that unless you also make sure that all your clothing is made in USA, I can't see why you should urge BSA to do so.

 

2. BSA takes a big markup. I don't know how much of a markup they take--I do remember that scout stuff was expensive back in the dark ages when my parents were buying it for me, when there was less competition from imports. But if there is a big markup, it seems to me that this would be a situation in which the financial interest of BSA would be in conflict with supporting one of its own methods.

 

3. The cut and/or design is special somehow. I can't believe this is the reason, because the clothing isn't all that different from other available clothing. It's really the color and the insignia that set off the Scout uniform, and no uniqueness would be lost if the uniform pieces were cut like more standard garments.

 

4. Long-term contracts with suppliers. Maybe BSA is locked in to certain suppliers, and can't bargain for lower prices.

 

[Bob White]

"2. BSA takes a big markup. I don't know how much of a markup they take--I do remember that scout stuff was expensive back in the dark ages when my parents were buying it for me, when there was less competition from imports. But if there is a big markup, it seems to me that this would be a situation in which the financial interest of BSA would be in conflict with supporting one of its own methods."

 

Actually not. The BSA's markup is comparable to any retailer's.

You are correct, because it is USA union manufactured it has a much higher cost than just about any clothing article you buy in any US location. That's why so much of the industry is now manufactured overseas. The union clothing products I sell cost me nearly twice that as the near identical import (you can always tell the difference) so my sell price is twice as much.

 

You have to remember that these products do not go straight from manufacturer to end-user. The manufacturer gets a profit (at union prices), The distribution center has to make a profit to cover shipping (to the distribution center then to the scout shops), warehousing, operation costs, advertising (the millions of catalogs aren't free to make)and profit. Then the scout shop or retailer makes a markup to cover operation costs and profit.

 

Most Retail store make as much a 40% gross profit margin. So a $15 pair of pants at cost would sell for $25

 

There are 4 ways to purchase new scout items. Through the distributor, a National Scout shop, a local council scout shop, or a local retailer with a scout shop franchise.

 

The further down the line you buy the less profit national makes.

 

If you buy from a local scout shop or retailer and they get 10% that's 10% the BSA does not make. But the price of goods is the same.

 

So if import pants are $15, then union made version can easily be $25 or more just as an example. If between the BSA and the retailer they split a normal retail markup of 40% that would make those slacks a retail price of about $42. Of that $17 profit the retailer gets about $1.70 andthe BSA gets $15.30.

 

Of that $15.30 gross profit, it is likely, based on industry averages that they keep about 7% of their gross as a net profit. So the BSA might net about $1.19 per pair of pants. Agian that is guestimating based on retail averages.

 

What I am trying to show is that while the BSA makes profit on the uniforms so do a lot other other people, and that you have to consider the costs the BSA has in the handling and distribution of those products. Do not confuse gross profits with net profits.

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

I would bet if the BSA made the uniform a requirement, the price would go down. More people would have to buy it therefore they could be sold for less and still make the same profit.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[EagleInKY]

Interesting theory Ed. I haven't thought of that. It would certainly increase volume and produce a more consistent run-rate. I'll have to ponder on that one.

[Backpacker]

You can throw figures around all you want but the bottom line is that since the BSA has all its uniforms made in the USA you have to deal with union costs and much higher wages paid to the workers resulting in a uniform with an overinflated cost to produce. The only way to get a less expensive uniform is to use foreign manufacturers, but then you have to deal with the other implications and messages that might send. You can't have your cake and eat it too. USA made goods come with a price not as competitive as foreign made goods, on the other hand I feel the quality and consistency, for the most part, is superior.

[Torveaux]

Hunt, I think you nailed it very nicely. I would highlight your point on cost being only one (and not necessarily the most important) factor.

 

BTW retail markups are generally closer to 100% than to 40%

 

Bob, I didn't say we should have a uniform like foreign units. Stay focused here. I said, effectively, that they do not all buy their uniforms from domestic merchants. This whole sub-set of the topic is born of misguided patriotism.

 

Ed, as for making the uniform mandatory. I think you would see a higher drop rate and a more difficult time recruiting. For some, it would be tough to afford, for others it would be contrary to their personal liberty stance (these would buy it now, but not if they were forced). I think the net number of uniforms would stay about the same. Besides, despite the fact that most read the rules to mean that one must wear the entire uniform, I would be willing to bet that most scouts/scouters wear the shirt with something other than the official pants. From observing our own Roundtables and the photos available from other council's fliers (photos of scouts with offical shirts and civilian pants), I would not place conformance at a high level. How would you enforce a mandatory uniform rule? I guess if we were to have one, it would be best implemented by an initial buy-in to join that includes the cost of a full uniform for each scout/scouter. Units in poorer parts of the country may need to get financial assistance, but I would expect National to help them coordinate a 'uniform-ship' program to make it happen. That would shrink the size of the BSA, but everyone would have a uniform. Of course, it also fails to address the the core issues of having an impractical, poorly made pair of pants, but at least you are thinking of alternate solutions rather than resisting all attempts at change.

 

Part of the reason the US suppliers can charge so much is that National has forced itself into the domestic corner. If buying internationally was an option on the table, it might bring costs down due to market forces. Classic microeconomic law, if you limit your supply options, price will go up.

 

 

[Bob White]

Torveaux

 

You are confusing Mark-up with Margin.

 

A gross profit margin of 50% is generated by a mark-up of 100%

 

Most retail clothing operates on a 40 to 50% margin which is a 66 to 100% mark-up.

[evmori]

Torveaux,

Personal liberty issue? Huh? I would bet those who complain if the uniform were made mandatory are the same ones who wouldn't scoff at shelling out $100 for juniors new football or band or hockey uniform. Personal liberty issue?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Torveaux]

Bob. You are right. I said markup was 100% and you said margin was 40%. I missed your term because you were responding to a question about the markup. My bad.

 

ed,

 

I just mean that there are a few people that will get a uniform because they want one, but if you tell them it is mandatory, they may balk. I would guess most of these people currently wear only the shirt and are the same ones that would not like uniform pants regardless of any changes. I also believe this is a small (10%) portion of those who do not regularly wear the pants.

 

Frankly, I played football and coached Jr. Football and never, ever, had to pay for a uniform. I currently coach a boys HS rugby team and the team owns the uniform. We help the boys by letting them group an order if they want to get their own 'official' shorts and socks, but that is to get them a discount, not increase the costs to them. The official pieces are optional. We also never tell them they cannot wear the 'official' shorts/socks with their 'civilian' clothing.

 

Maybe this touches on a possible solution. Rather than having boys purchase a pair of pants that they will be able to wear for maybe one year (due to growth), we should have a rental program wherein the pants are owned by the Troop/District/Council/National and loaned to the boys for official use. The boys pay only a nominal fee and a deposit. If the pants are returned in good, clean condition, they get a bigger size as needed. When they leave the unit, they get their deposit back less any damage or cleaning costs.

 

At the end of the day, however, this only solves part of the cost problem, not the appropriateness of the uniform, its look, or its durability.

[madkins007]

While REQUIRING uniforms MIGHT make the price go down (only true of membership does not go down as well), you can also drop the price by reducing product lines. If Every Scout- Cub, Boy, Venture, and Adult were in the same uniform, National would save money by being able to eliminate several product lines, and produce more of the remaining items.

 

Not necessarily arguing for that, just pointing out an option.

[BelieveinScouts]

Hi Semper Paratus,

 

I like the song. Was that set to Les Miserables's Red and Black? It seemed like it would fit nicely.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

And here I thought the Red and the Black was written by Stendhal and not Hugo