Letters to the Editor

What do you call plants?

I’d like to take a poll. What do you call plants? Are you like some and refer to them as “plant material?”

In my mind, plant material is akin to the term “building material” — a rather all-inclusive term that includes a lot of dissimilar things, such as boards, nails, putty, glass, steel beams, bricks, mortar and shingles.

“Printed material” includes anything on which words are printed, like books, pamphlets, newspapers, fliers, instruction sheets and calendars, and “fencing materials,” a more specific term, still includes a number of dissimilar things: fence posts, staples, posthole diggers, wire, fencing tools, etc.
Then we have “dry goods,” “dairy products,” “baked goods,” “leather goods” and “produce,” all rather broad terms that include a number of dissimilar-looking things.

In my mind, “plant materials” is also a broad term that could include not only living plants, but sticks, hay bales, willow wands, bamboo stakes, dried flowers, pine cones, bark and even lumber and cotton clothing. Somehow, however, I don’t think that is what users of the term mean. They are undoubtedly referring to something that could be simply called “plants.”

In my mind, I can’t decide if “plant materials” is demeaning, pretentious or just excessively wordy, like “erode away” and “erupt out.” I do know that when the term is shortened to just “material,” I stop reading or listening. What do you think?

Jim Borland, Horticulturist, Denver

Trade show value

I read with interest your editorial concerning the future of “trade shows” (Editor’s Desk, Feb. 15, 2008). I am a member of the MichiganNLA and serve on the GLTE (Great Lakes Trade Exposition) committee. We have had the same concern for several years about the viability of the “trade show” as a venue for exhibitors to sell their products. As an attendee, I feel regional exhibitions are still an important means of gathering, providing education and introducing new products. Not to mention they offer associations a means of advertising and demonstrating the importance of belonging to a larger group of industry professionals. It (the trade show) is where I became aware of the many successful entrepreneurs in the green industry, made long-lasting friendships with them and, as a young business owner, followed their advice. I’m glad I attended that first show in 1976 and will continue attending as long as I am able.

Thanks for a great publication.

Tim Banfield, ASLA, Outdoor Living Inc., Lansing, MI

A case of overload

(Re: Editor’s Desk, Feb. 15, 2008) We had this same discussion after the shows last January. The rumblings you spoke of in your article were rampant in the aisles last year. We decided to evaluate this year’s shows individually to come up with a strategy for 2009.

We’ll not be returning as exhibitors to some shows we’ve participated in for a long, long time. We’re refocusing those dollars to a couple other shows that we feel better suit our needs. You hit the nail on the head with “ ... a booth contract is only one part of the overall, ever-rising expense of exhibiting.” The other part of the equation is results, and shows, for the most part, haven’t been able to provide fannies in the aisles these past few years. We understand orders received are no longer a big part of the winter show circuit, but contacts and new contacts must be. There has to be hope.

Peter Scarff, Scarff’s Nursery Inc., New Carlisle, OH

More overload

 (Re: Editor’s Desk, Feb. 15, 2008) Thank you for voicing concerns about the trade shows. I wish I had some answers just as you do. As the owner of a small, new, wholesale grower company that just spent a large amount of time and money in January displaying at these shows, I too must voice the same concerns. I tend to think they are running out of appeal and must change to continue to draw the buyers. The problem is that we as exhibitors will be the last to know. I have friends who still remember the time when they left these shows with orders. Now we leave these same shows with only a business card and the promise of spending more time on the telephone.

The idea of consolidation is appealing to me. But knowing that the Mid-States show has tried to bring in the surrounding states with little success, I don’t think it will happen. At least I wish they would work together on scheduling to make our lives easier. Look at next year’s schedule: They are on top of each other — at least the ones we need to do. It all seems to favor the large companies that have the people and money to run in many different directions.

Probably those of us left in 10 years will still be having this same discussion.

Cost of personal contact

(Re: Editor’s Desk, Feb. 15, 2008) Consolidation is at least a great partial answer. The cost of travel to and from shows has got to be one of the least factors. The booth itself and the hotels are where the real money goes.

I can see educational functions going more online, but the personal touch is still the answer for sales folks to meet clients and prospects face to face. It is rare for this personal touch to occur more than once a year anymore, and a loss of this one opportunity would only further erode “customer loyalty” I feel. People still buy from people — but will they still do so if all personal contact is relinquished?

 Phil Kuntz, Kuenzi Turf & Nursery, Salem, OR

Show buyers beware

Just read your recent editorial (Editor’s Desk, Feb. 15, 2008) and thought I’d put in my two cents concerning the nursery trade shows.

I am a nursery buyer. My company provides a “plant finder” service to the trade — major merchandisers, mail order, landscape contractors, retail outlets.

Anyway, I’ve noticed at the trade shows that many times I am one of the few buyers in attendance. At one trade show, folks were being especially nice until one vendor pointed out that I was wearing a “brown name tag” designated for buyers. I then realized that most of the people strolling the aisles had other color tags — growers, other displayers, etc.

My point is that the management of the trade shows should be more concerned with attracting buyers since sales is the main point of the entire event. They owe it to their displayers if they want to remain a viable show.

One trade show even requires buyer attendees to join their trade association — a $90 yearly membership fee — just for the privilege of entering the show floor to buy product from eager vendors. Others add a hefty “penalty” if we decide to attend at the last minute.

I love going to the trade shows, and they are very educational and worthwhile, but the increasing bite that they consume out of our yearly travel budget is becoming prohibitive.

Al Koliner, The Plant Horticultural Search Service, Yankton, SD

Face time

I think that anyone that attended trade shows this year or last asked themselves the question you asked in your article (Editor’s Desk, Feb. 15, 2008). I know at CENTS in Columbus that there were less exhibitors and less attendees. Gilson Gardens bought one booth this year instead of our usual two. We will repeat this again for 2009.

 I don’t think that trade shows will disappear any time soon, but the way we look at them has changed. Many years back, it was a “selling” show for us, and we would take orders all day long. Now the shows are more of a “Hi, how are you?” kind of thing where we are there and our customers are there and we just catch up on how the business is going and how they think the year is going to be. Most of our customers have their orders placed before they even come to the show.

 We have had to look at how we use the show to attract new customers and keep the existing, and have realized that it’s more than just being there. We took clients to the anniversary gala, and the next night, we took potential clients to dinner this year. Next year, I see maybe getting a meeting room at the Hampton and setting up a breakfast or brunch for our customers as a “thanks” for their business!

 “Face to face” is still very important in this industry, and although the trade shows have taken a downswing in the last couple of years, I don’t feel that they will be gone any time soon. You just have to get creative in how you spend your time there!

Green ‘R’ Us

I think your article from the Editor’s Desk in the Jan. 15, 2008, American Nurseryman was right on the mark. A lot of people in our industry just never have picked up, i.e., joined into this total line of thinking.

What an opportunity!

We are and have been the guys with the white hats. The world is promoting our industry, and all we have to do is step up and join in.

It must have been near 30 years ago when I went to the first national green meeting in New York City. I bet there were not two or three other people from our industry in attendance. The place was covered with every other type of industry people that you could think of: the soap people, Procter & Gamble, etc.

The world is telling people to do all this green and environmental and sustainability stuff while our industry has been working in these areas for years — but we have never told anybody about it. Therefore, we don’t get the credit we deserve.

Keep up the good work!

Wilbur C. Mull, Classic Groundcovers Inc., Athens, GA

Semantics

That was an excellent article on pruning in the Feb. 15, 2008, issue. I would like to make a gentle suggestion, however, regarding the use of the word “butchered” to describe bad pruning practices. “Butchering” and “butchery” are what I expect of a professional butcher to deliver the finest, well-placed cuts. “Botch,” “ruin,” “bungle,” “spoil,” “damage,” “mess up,” “foul up,” “destroy,” “wreck,” “devastate,” “harm,” “mutilation” and other terms are available to describe senseless pruning practices. 

Jim Borland, Horticulturist, Denver