RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

The letter regarding for profits making money from out sport?

Jump to Latest
61 - 80 of 118 Posts
#61 ·
I don't currently run field trials, but the grounds we run our hunt test on belong to someone who stated we must use RTFN for our entry service or we couldn't use the grounds. Well, they are his grounds so after years of using and loving EE, we tried to go with RTFN this year. Big surprise - no HT tab, no way to list HT or to find HT to enter. With our HT less than 2 months away, we were in a bind. Fortunately the land owner saw the problem and relented, but it put a lot of work and pressure on the HT secretary to try and set up with RTFN, then finding out it wasn't working, then having to do it all over again with EE.
On a personal level, I had a GREAT deal of difficulty trying to get my dog's information on RFTN. It kept bumping me out when I tried to enter stud dog info. Finally gave up. Hopefully it will be working if we have to use it again for another test. Not a computer person, don't know one program from another, just know what is easy for me to use and what is not.
Dawn
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#62 ·
Rft Entry has improved, no doubt about that but......you see this in business all the time: A company comes to market with a product that tries to compete with an established company and product that are outstanding. They realize that they can't compete on their own merits so the resort to price cutting. People start buying the cheaper product for a while then realize that the small premium they had to pay for the superior product was well worth it.

Why do you think everything we buy today is made in China?

I agree with Ted's analysis in general but if you drill down into the numbers that $3/dog savings isn't that impressive nor do I think it will benefit the sport.

If you own 3 dogs that run 25 events per year and you save $3.00 per event that turns into $225 a year.....if that is the difference to you between running trials or not then you are in the wrong game. Plus those savings are a lot like the extra $8 per week some folks are getting in their paycheck thanks to Obama.....you really think that is stimulating the economy like they said it would:rolleyes: Most folks have fewer than 3 dogs so their "savings" would be considerably less.

We have multiple suppliers of dog boxes, etc in this game.....why can't we have multiple entry services?
 
#63 · (Edited)
Ken Guthrie said:
Well said.

What I have never understood though...

If the National Clubs really want to force their hand on this issue...

Why not mandate all qualifications and points earned towards qualifying be gained from trials using their entry service?

Simply saying, if you want to play in our "championship" you must play in our league.
Click to expand...
Because they have to answer to a higher power, the AKC. The National Club and The National Amateur club can not dictate which entry service must be used.

Competition in business is a good thing. As consumers, we all benefit from competition. A concept the Obomo Administration doesn't understand.

I also doubt we would have an on-line entry service had not EE.net come along.

Reminds me of the Coca Cola/Pepsi marketing battles. Coca Cola outsells Pepsi 4 to 1. Coke was first and they also have the better product according to consumers.

1970's MBA 101: Hertz vs Avis...Hertz was the first national rental car company. So, what did Avis do? They came out with a campaign of, "We Try Harder". Avis' share of market grew ten fold after that campaign. Hertz is still #1 and Avis still makes a profit.

P S As long as I am the FTS for our club, we will continue to use EE.net!
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#64 · (Edited)
Looks like more socialism to me. EE found a niche in the entry process and applied year 2000 technology to the entry process. I myself appreciate the ease of use vs. how the process worked in the past with snail mail. EE was the innovator and brought on a tool that took off, they should make money this is capitalism at work. Find an area in the market not served, target it with a superior and cost effective product and you benefit. EE took the risk of it not taking off and look, its the best. If the RTF.entry now wants to play, they must compete and they should not mandate a certain products use. They should compete for the service anyway they can, its up to them to be creative and win over the entry process.

Its good to have two or more players now, the end user will benefit in the long-run.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#65 ·
Ken Guthrie said:
Shayne your probably spot on with this....

But you posting this in a public forum is the same tactic you have a problem with. What is the difference in what you just wrote and what Mr. Ainley wrote?

Know your business, do your business, promote your business.

Forget the other one and throw the pom pom's away.
Click to expand...
It is worse.

The Ainley letter was a private mailing, the kind of solicitation received almost daily in the mail and on line, addressed to a select target group, the demographics of which would do the writers cause some good.
Also, It would have remained private had not someone else chose to make it public.

In this case the relatively loose demographics of this forum gives me cause for concern as to the motives for his posting here . Perhaps his rebuttal should have also been in letter form, and sent only to those who received the original letter.

BTW To be fair...While not yet on a par with their competition, the second edition of their service is a quite functional, usable product, and their customer service person also named Mark, is a quick study, who aims to please. Now all I have to do is convince them to expand from just using Visa and Master Card ......hint, hint, hint If that happens:) it is my intention to use both.

john
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#66 ·
I find this thread very interesting - ;)

An individual who makes a portion of their living from selling large ticket items to the sport, coincidentally President of the National Amateur Retriever Club, solicits for the use of services of a sport connected non profit organization which oversees national championship events. Does anyone besides myself find that ironic? :rolleyes:

But while we're on the subject, shilling for the non profit would explain many of the other actions seen in this sport & the view by the higher ups of those actions.

It is OK to own a kennel, train dogs, co own those dogs, handle those dogs, sell those dogs & have no other visible means of support - & as long as you brand yourself an Amateur & are successful those higher ups will look the other way & buy your dogs & use your services.

It is OK to own a kennel, advertise your wares, breed dogs, co own dogs, campaign dogs, have no other visible means of support & as long as you brand yourself an Amateur you will receive the full benefits that go with that status.

I believe it good for the sport that there is competition in entry services. EE has responded with consumer friendly initiatives that probably would not have existed had RFTentry not come on the scene. While not as lucrative as it would have been for a monopoly, the consumer does not care, they just want good service with the biggest bang for the buck.

Now if someone could figure out how to deal with the Shamateurs & the unqualified judges, things would be :cool:.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#68 ·
Marvin S said:
I find this thread very interesting - ;)

An individual who makes a portion of their living from selling large ticket items to the sport, coincidentally President of the National Amateur Retriever Club, solicits for the use of services of a sport connected non profit organization which oversees national championship events. Does anyone besides myself find that ironic? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

well..."ironic" isn't the word that comes to mind...but yes is does seem it would draw some interest but in a sport that allows clients judge THEIR pros, I am not surprised at all.
 
#69 ·
john fallon said:
It is worse.

The Ainley letter was a private mailing, the kind of solicitation received almost daily in the mail and on line, addressed to a select target group, the demographics of which would do the writers cause some good.
Also, It would have remained private had not someone else chose to make it public.

In this case the relatively loose demographics of this forum gives me cause for concern as to the motives for his posting here . Perhaps his rebuttal should have also been in letter form, and sent only to those who received the original letter.

BTW To be fair...While not yet on a par with their competition, the second edition of their service is a quite functional, usable product, and their customer service person also named Mark, is a quick study, who aims to please. Now all I have to do is convince them to expand from just using Visa and Master Card ......hint, hint, hint If that happens:) it is my intention to use both.

john
Click to expand...

Hey hold on. They sent a private letter to member clubs? What happened to the clubs owning the entry service? Each and ever member of a club is part owner, according to them. These underground mafia techniques are unnacceptable and frankly I'm surprised that a guy such as yourself who has been trying to get these same very clubs to share information would take this stance. You've fallen and struck you head on this one.

/Paul
 
#70 ·
It would be nice if someone bothered to take the time to get the facts straight. The letter is posted on another thread in its entirety.

The letter was addressed to FT secretaries.

Therefore, it was neither private nor secretive.

If we are going to have a debate, discussion, whatever, it would be nice if it were factually based.



 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#71 ·
Ted Shih said:
It would be nice if someone bothered to take the time to get the facts straight. The letter is posted on another thread in its entirety.

The letter was addressed to FT secretaries.

Therefore, it was neither private nor secretive.

If we are going to have a debate, discussion, whatever, it would be nice if it were factually based.
Click to expand...
Why ruin a good story with facts? ;)

(I must be getting old, I'm starting to agree with Shih more and more)
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#72 · (Edited)
Ted Shih said:
It would be nice if someone bothered to take the time to get the facts straight. The letter is posted on another thread in its entirety.

The letter was addressed to FT secretaries.

Therefore, it was neither private nor secretive.

If we are going to have a debate, discussion, whatever, it would be nice if it were factually based.
Click to expand...
Why ruin a good story with facts?

(I must be getting old, I'm starting to agree with Shih more and more)
__________________
Click to expand...
Ken,
Perhaps there is was a better word to be used than private but...........
The letter being addressed to FTS, means that trial giving Clubs are for who it was intended and not fieldtrilers at large. That being the case, makes it a "private" correspondence, in the sense the message was aimed at that particular group --- And, as I said previously, I see nothing wrong with taking that tact .


And Paul/,There is nothing nefarious about the letter being addressed to a target audience of customers and and those they would like to have as such.

john
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#74 ·
john fallon said:
Ken,
Perhaps there is was a better word to be used than private but...........
The letter being addressed to FTS, means that trial giving Clubs are for who it was intended and not fieldtrilers at large. That being the case, makes it a "private" correspondence, in the sense the message was aimed at that particular group --- And, as I said previously, I see nothing wrong with taking that tact .


And Paul/,There is nothing nefarious about the letter being addressed to a target audience of customers and and those they would like to have as such.

john
Click to expand...
Well John, the FT secretaries are in their position to support the club. FT secretaries are there to send/receive correspondence pertaining to the club and/or the event. Any decisions made need to be approved by the board, which in turn are there to represent the general vote of the club members. The letter was sent to the secretaries but that does not make it a private letter or even a letter focused at a target audience. This letter intended to sway clubs to use their service, which in and of itself is not wrong. I disagree or question their intended 3 truths and I take objection to the premise that using their service over any other service is the only way to support the support. I also continue to disagree with the manner in which they conduct business pertaining to EE. Bullying people, strong arming clubs via landowners or guilting people into using your service just tells me that you recognize your service is not as a good and your're business plan is too weak to over come it.

/Paul
 
#77 ·
Ken Guthrie said:
And the road goes on forever and the party never ends.......................
Click to expand...
Well, you could do something about it. Get involved, make a difference don't just sit on the sidelines. Those of you who believe your're in the know, get off your duff and use your "inside" knowledge....:)

/Paul
 
#78 ·
Gun_Dog2002 said:
Well, you could do something about it. Get involved, make a difference don't just sit on the sidelines. Those of you who believe your're in the know, get off your duff and use your "inside" knowledge....:)

/Paul
Click to expand...
Do something about what?

I don't have a beef with RFTNentry or EE.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
61 - 80 of 118 Posts
About this Discussion
117 Replies
37 Participants
Last post:
twall
RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF
posts
1.5M
members
36K
Since
2003
A forum community dedicated to retriever owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about breeding, training, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Retriever Training Forum Event Information AKC Field Trials Equipment, Gear & Miscellaneous Classifieds Training