Become a Fan

Blog powered by Typepad

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Virtual Meeting Usage survey | Main | Travel and Virtual Meeting Synergies »

June 27, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Pat Ahaesy


There is more to this based on your examples. Too many layers. I agree, though in transparency. Either a flat management fee or cost plus. One could also do a combination.
An aside, though. When I go to Macy's to buy a dress, I don't ask how much they paid for the dress and they sure don't tell me. I also don't ask if they bought it directly from the manufacturer or a jobber and how much the jobber paid for the dress, his markup, what Macy's paid the jobber, and so on.
An interesting dilemma for sure

Pat Ahaesy, CMP, CSEP
P&V Enterprises


Pat, thank you for your comments. You're absolutely correct. Yes, this markup practice is normal in most supply chains. Some buyers do not care and will pay all the mark up fees; other buyers are becoming more cost conscious and want to know their purchasing options. Thank you so much for your perspective.

Interested party

I agree that transparency should be standard and that is the way we've always done business. I buy and produce national entertainment, one of the more non-transparent industries.

Pat brings up some very good points. Basically, "dont count my money." If you are happy with the service (or product) and the price you were quoted, than cost transparency should not be an issue.

One other point that I would like to make, though, is we have preferred deals with some of our suppliers which are advantageous to our clients in the process.

With those agreements also come confidentiality clauses because that supplier does not want everyone else to know the deal they have made with our company.

In the end, you need to trust who you are doing business with.

The comments to this entry are closed.