Many readers of National Clothesline have noticed that drycleaning suppliers are placing a message on their delivery trucks focused on drycleaning.
A name or message that is given sufficient exposure becomes highly familiar and always remembered.
Traveling messages on high-speed highways should be easily readable at a quick glance. Long messages may cause a rear-end collision.
For example: the Coca Cola logo is highly familiar worldwide. The dryclean label that says "Dryclean Only" has the potential of becoming the icon logo for drycleaning when used in a positive way.
Now that drycleaning suppliers are showing messages on their delivery trucks, this will create awareness for drycleaning that will be seen by thousands of motorists and their passengers.
Such awareness will bring more customers, provided that drycleaners take advantage of this opportunity and follow through. Drycleaners should show and tell customers why drycleaning is necessary -- and not forget to thank the suppliers for their effort in getting the message out.
Back in January of 1983, Dr. Ernest Dichter, the fabric care industry prophet, had this to say about drycleaners: "Drycleaners' apathetic attitudes could spell doom."
He said this for a reason. Drycleaners play a much more important role in society than is normally known and they haven't sold themselves well. They pooh-pooh the need to go after customers.
Dr. Dichter conducted about 500 interviews with drycleaning customers and with drycleaners. Reporting on the survey, Dr. Dichter said, "The drycleaner is not helping himself in getting more drycleaning."
Dr. Dichter also said that we should quit pooh-poohing and become aggressive in getting more business.
Dr. Dichter, a highly respected psychologist and a distinguished professor of marketing at Polytechnic Institute, lectured extensively in five languages. As a lecturer, he wanted to be understood with whomever he spoke. He didn't want language to become a barrier.
Immigrants coming to our shores searching for opportunities and a better life are restricting themselves in finding opportunities because of the language barrier.
In the service business, especially drycleaning, an understanding can come about when the language spoken by the customer is understood.
Failure to understand each other will cause disappointments. The proprietor becomes the loser and the customer will find understanding elsewhere.
We know the word "quality," but how do we apply it? If we don't know, then how do we explain it to the customer?
Put it another way. Suppose a customer asks, "Why do you charge more than other drycleaners when your cleaning looks the same as the others?"
How do you convince the customer that your cleaning is better? Do you have the means to back up that statement? And what are you doing now that shows that your cleaning and services are much better?
It is no secret that the drycleaning industry needs a boost to be revitalized. People no longer do dirty work. They work in a clean non-smoking air-conditioned environment. Getting oneself dirty is hard to do.
Forget how drycleaning was in the past. People had more dirty clothes then that needed drycleaning. That's the way it was, but not anymore.
To stay in business we need more business, not only to survive, but also to make a profit. By not getting together for a common good in building a healthy drycleaning industry, drycleaners will be forced to cannibalize their competitors for more volume.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a Russian writer, had this in mind when he wrote, "A slice of pie always looks bigger in another's hand." We should stop fighting competition with cheap prices and instead focus on customers -- they are the ones with a lot of pies.
Working to put value into your services is the best way to go after more business. Not only will you please the customer, but your efforts will also be so convincing that price will not have first priority.
The pursuit of perfection is never ending. Perfection for many may just be an illusion, but in its pursuit new ideas and improvements are found that make progress a reality.
However, we should not spend too much time trivializing with distractions or negative thoughts. A man falling off a building is not counting floors on the way down. He's hoping for a soft landing.
Bill Bogus is president of Textile Restoration Services Inc. in Laurel, MD. He can be reached at (301) 776-4961.Are your employees productive? How do you know?
For decades we have measured productivity in this industry by comparing labor percentages. Is this the best method?
Did you know employees in a plant with a 40 percent labor cost and a plant with a 33 percent labor cost can actually share the same rate of production?
They can do this even if these two plants share the same prices, the same average hourly wage and the same gross sales.
In the majority of plants, the only real time difference between processing a laundered shirt and the average piece of drycleaning is found in the finishing departments and in the time difference between cleaning and spotting versus shirt washing and shaking or another shirt pressing preparation method.
In plants where minimal spotting is done, the time difference between processing the average piece of drycleaning and a laundered shirt easily can be less than one minute.
Let's say your drycleaning finishers average 30 pieces per hour and your shirt finisher averages 48 shirts per hour over an eight-hour shift. That works out to 120 seconds of paid labor per drycleaning piece and 75 seconds per shirt. This leaves the total difference between finishing times at 45 seconds. Opening nets and shaking shirts at a rate of 250 per hour works out to 15 seconds each.
This would allow us 30 seconds per drycleaning piece to hang each piece and do minimal spotting, leaving our time difference at one minute per piece or less.
A plant that averages $3.75 per drycleaning piece and $1.25 per laundered shirt that processes an equal number of drycleaning pieces and laundered shirts will have average revenue of $2.50 per piece.
$3.75 + $1.25 = $5.00 / 2 = $2.50 average revenue per piece.
If their labor costs, including management costs, are 40 percent, the total labor cost per garment will be $1.
With a one-minute time difference and an average hourly wage of $8 per hour, the total labor cost difference between processing a laundered shirt and piece of drycleaning would be 13 cents. That would make a total labor cost per drycleaning piece of $1.06 and $.93 cents for each shirt.
A similar plant sharing the same prices that processes three pieces of drycleaning for each laundered shirt will have average revenue of $3.13 per piece.
$3.75 + $3.75 + $3.75 + $1.25 = $12.50 / 4 = $3.13 average revenue per piece.
This raises average revenue per piece by 25 percent.
At $1.06 per drycleaning piece and $.93 per shirt, our total labor cost per piece would only rise by 3 percent if we maintain the same rate of production.
$1.06 + $1.06 + $1.06 + $.93 = $4.11 / 4 = $1.03 average total labor per piece.
With an average total labor cost of $1.03 per piece and revenue of $3.13 per piece the total labor cost for this plant will be 33 percent.
The first plant had total labor costs of 40 percent, which were over 20 percent higher than the second plant even though they share the same rate of production, the same prices, the same average hourly wage and the same gross sales.
This is why it is unwise to measure employee productivity in percentages. Your labor percentage tells much more about your likely profitability than it does about the productivity of your employees.
In order to be accurate and fair, employee productivity needs to be measured in pieces and time. Profits are then managed in percentages.
If your employee productivity is satisfactory and your labor percentage is too high, then you understand that the reason for poor profitability is the result of prices that are too low.
If the opposite is true then you understand that you need to raise employee productivity to reduce labor costs.
Others in this industry are suggesting that if your profits are too low, simply raise your prices. If the reason your profits are too low is due to poor employee productivity, this could be a big mistake. You could be opening the door for a competitor to come in and do it better, faster and cheaper than you.
Bill Bohannon is the owner of Hollin Hall Cleaners in Alexandria, VA, and president of The Drycleaning Edge, a cost analysis group that focuses on productivity and profitability. He can be reached by phone at (703) 765-5518 or by e-mail at bohannon@tidalwave.net.TO THE EDITOR:
I read with interest in the May National Clothesline Dr. Joe DeSimone's response to my article on "A Long-Range Strategic View of the Industry."
Of the many claims Dr. DeSimone makes in his response, there are two which need to be addressed:
First, that of Micell's willingness or unwillingness to be a part of the industry.
Second, whether the Micell/Hanger's CO2 concept meets the "five critical criteria" that I developed for evaluating whether a cleaning system should be considered for use today.
Micell as "part of the industry"
Personally, I believe that any good product can (and should) stand on its own merits -- and I do believe that there are a number of positive merits to liquid carbon dioxide cleaning.
On the flip side of the coin, I believe that negative advertising, especially to the public, can and will hurt our industry -- both in the short-term and in the long-term.
Taking that into consideration, I believe that Micell's attacks on perc and petroleum-- the solvents used by 99+% of the industry today -- support my statement that "Micell has shown a decided unwillingness to be part of our industry..."
In between publication of my original article and Micell's response, I received a letter signed by Dr. DeSimone, in which he referred to "...eliminating the need for traditional hazardous drycleaning solvents." I responded to that letter, and a copy of my response is enclosed. (Editor's Note: The letter follows this one.).
Apparently, Micell has decided that these attacks are central to their marketing strategy, I believe that they are wrong in this, but certainly they have the right to do so.
However, having made that decision, I believe that it is hypocritical to challenge my statement about not being part of the industry.
The five critical criteria for new cleaning systems
In his response to my article, Dr. DeSimone stated "that there is only one process that meets all (of Mr. Fisher's) five criteria, our liquid CO2 process."
For the benefit of your readers who did not see my original article, I proposed "Five Critical Criteria" for new cleaning systems that I have developed.
In brief, these criteria need to be evaluated and answered for any new cleaning system before we start looking at questions of cleaning performance, handling characteristics, drying times, etc. These critical criteria are as follows:
Frankly, I do not believe that any current or new cleaning system can be shown to meet all five criteria.
Part of the "real world" in our industry at this time is that a cleaning system may meet three or four criteria, but not all five. I feel that liquid CO2 currently has a problem under these criteria with points three and four, dealing with costs.
With the Micell concept, one can only purchase a CO2 machine by signing up with the Hangers franchise. The machine itself costs $150,000, and the Hangers franchise wants to see a large ultra-modern award-winning plant.
There is nothing wrong with that, but it does put the total price tag of the plant and equipment (to the best of my understanding) in the $500,000 to $1 million+ price range. That to me exceeds the "financially realistic capital cost" level that would make it affordable for the majority of the industry.
While there are savings in operating costs associated with the use of liquid CO2 (most notably, the elimination of hazardous waste disposal charges), there is also the franchise fee to consider, and the use of an average of 3,000 to 4,000 pounds of CO2 per month, at 25 cents per pound, or $750 to $1,000 per month for CO2 (these last figures come directly from Micell's web site).
Where do we go now?
Let me be absolutely clear: I would like to see liquid CO2 (and other new solvents) succeed as a cleaning system, and I would like to see it realistically available as an option for more people to take a look at. It looks like the new Chart Technologies CO2 machine is being repriced at approximately $125,000 at retail, and I believe the SailStar is less.
I have the sense that there are still some issues with detergency (and other additives) to be sorted out, but these are hardly insurmountable, and I think the liquid CO2 firms have made more progress, and much faster, than DuPont did when it introduced Valclene.
Over the past four years, many cleaners, including former perc cleaners, have evaluated for themselves (possibly without knowing it) the five criteria I listed above, and made the decision to go to a hydrocarbon system, such as Exxon DF-2000.
If liquid CO2 machines were available for roughly the same capital investment as dry-to-dry hydrocarbon machines, (say, in the range of $60,000 to $80,000 net), what would the decision have been?
Let's keep the industry together
Are there environmental benefits to liquid carbon dioxide? Yes. Liquid carbon dioxide is not-- and will not ever -- be a ground or groundwater contaminant. With the threat of liability hanging over so many people in the industry today, this is a powerful factor. Additionally, carbon dioxide -- for all practical purposes -- is not toxic.
Do you have to bash perc and petroleum in order to promote liquid CO2 cleaning? No. You could say something as simple as "...liquid CO2 is unlikely to face the regulatory issues or environmental pressures that have impacted perc and petroleum solvents."
It's straightforward. It's simply stating the facts. And it's not bashing.
With best regards,
WILLIAM E. FISHER
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CED, CPD
INTERNATIONAL FABRICARE INSTITUTE
Dear Joe,
Thank you for your invitation to join you for the media event and grand opening of your first Triangle area "Hangers" location on May 4. Unfortunately, as I will be preparing to leave the foIlowing day for the North Carolina Association of Launderers and Cleaners annual convention in Wrightsville Beach, I will be unable to attend.
However, as the NCALC Convention is that Friday, Saturday, and Sunday I would like to extend an invitation for us to meet there, and I would be interested in hearing about the newest developments with Micell and the "Hangers" franchise.
I must tell you that I find it unsettling that you are personally signing and sending a letter that states "Hangers Cleaners protect the health of North Carolinians and our environment by ...eliminating the need for traditional hazardous drycleaning solvents.
By now, I think that Micell is well aware of the ill-will and resistance that it has created for itself with the existing members of the industry. I believe that CO2 systems have a place in the industry, but promotion of the use of CO2 should be on its own merits, rather than by continued innuendos and denigration of the solvents currently used.
Moreover, if Micell is truly interested in "...protecting the health of North Carolinians and our environment..." then it would seem appropriate for you to actively support the Barton Bill and other similar efforts by the industry.
As a further example, does Micell support or oppose the current legislative efforts in North Carolina to create a state contamination cleanup fund? I would have to believe that such a position by Micell would simultaneously show true support for the environment and would eliminate the threat of financial ruin hanging over existing North Carolina drycleaners ... and would go a long way to repairing the negative image Micell has created for itself.
Joe, there are two ways you can take this letter: as bashing Micell or as an attempt to offer honest suggestions that I believe would stand Micell in good stead.
I hope that you believe the latter, for this is my intent. I look forward to your response, and hope that we will have an opportunity to sit down and discuss these issues.
WILLIAM E. FISHER
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CED, CPD
INTERNATIONAL FABRICARE INSTITUTE
More than 20 years ago, a chemical in widespread use became "linked to cancer" after rats that had been heavily dosed with it developed tumors. Ignoring the fact that virtually anything can become toxic in sufficiently large amounts, the results of animal tests were extrapolated to create a supposed carcinogenicity in humans, and for the past two decades, the chemical, though never actually banned, has lived under a shadow of suspicion. Until last month, that is. That's when the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences said, in so many words, "Never mind," and removed the chemical from its list of suspected carcinogens.
Before the industry begins celebrating, we hasten to add that the chemical in question is not perchloroethylene. In this case, the substance that was removed from the "black list," where it had been since 1981, was saccharin. In its Ninth Report on Carcinogens, NIEHS said it removed saccharin as a potential cancer-causing agent because those tests that showed it caused tumors in rats did not apply to humans. The director of the institute, Dr. Kenneth Olden, said that studies now indicate that rat bladder tumors arise from mechanisms that are not relevant to humans. Saccharin, he added, has been used for decades without increasing rates of cancer.
NIEHS lists 218 substances in its current Report on Carcinogens. Among them is perc, listed as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," as it has been since the institute's Fifth Report. Perc is listed based on "sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals," according to NIEHS. But the report also notes that "There is no data available to evaluate the carcinogenicity... in humans." Perhaps if NIEHS were to review some of the more recent data and take into account, in Dr. Olden's words, that "our understanding of the science has advanced and allows us to make finer distinctions today," the Tenth Report on Carcinogens, whenever it is issued, could contain some good news for another chemical that has been under a cloud of suspicion for too many years.
This issue contains a letter from IFI CEO Bill Fisher, which responds to another letter printed in last month's National Clothesline by Micell's co-founder and chairman, Dr. Joseph DeSimone, who addressed some of the issues Fisher had outlined in a previous issue of National Clothesline that focused on the "Five Critical Criteria" for drycleaning technologies.
Confused? Well, the paper trail seems to grow every day, but the correspondence back and forth has proven to be quite interesting, not to mention, educational. Both DeSimone and Fisher have offered thoughtful, well-written opinions and they have managed to maintain a civil tone, even when both sides disagree with each other. Hopefully, National Clothesline readers have enjoyed the insight of both writers and have been able to expand their perceptions on what the future for the industry holds.
Regardless of whether you agree with Fisher or DeSimone, it is good to see industry figureheads set a positive example for all drycleaners. Expressing ideas and opinions is exactly what the industry needs -- especially if the ideas and opinions come from a variety of voices. After all, how else can the industry progress unless it constantly examines itself under a microscope?
With the example of Fisher and DeSimone in mind, there is an opportunity for cleaners to voice their own opinions for the betterment of the industry. IFI has launched a program for its members that will begin this summer. In the July/August 2000 issue of Fabricare, the association will poll members to determine which national legislative and regulatory issues concern IFI cleaners the most. Ballots containing a laundry list of issues that affect IFI cleaners will be included in the publications. Cleaners will be able to vote on the industry issues that are of primary importance to them, which will give IFI an idea of which issues are most urgent and pertinent to its members. In turn, IFI will be able to use that valuable resource (the voices of the industry) to more efficiently and effectively combat the major problems that drycleaners face. Of course, how successful such efforts turn out depends largely on the feedback from IFI cleaners. Now is not the time to be apathetic. By voicing your vote for the industry concerns that you feel are most relevant, you will be helping the industry to help itself.
Date created: May 30 2000 Copyright © 2000, National Clothesline Maintained by: Hal Horning Hal Horning