Founded in 2008. The Landscape Juice Network (LJN) is the largest and fastest growing professional landscaping and horticultural association in the United Kingdom.
LJN's professional business forum is unrivalled and open to anyone within within the UK landscape industry
LJN's Business Objectives Group (BOG) is for any Pro serious about building their business.
For the researching visitor there's a wealth of landscaping ideas, garden design ideas, lawn advice tips and advice about garden maintenance.
Replies
I am not looking for pats on the back from the APL, BALI or SGD (and I am not sure that they would admit it anyway) but I am convinced that whilst those 'within' these organisations find my approach prickly - some say my tone has been antagonistic - I am convinced that they have started to wake up to the fact that their very existence is threatened.
LJN has changed the landscape (excuse the pun) on the way that information and advice is shared amongst our communities of like minded businesses.
I will repeat myself - I am happy to see the APL to succeed but I am still not sure that it is possible for any organisation to exist and create exclusivity - it is such a self serving infrastructure that many ordinary businesses cannot be part of the set-up on the say so of an elected few.
I am also of the opinion that once a fee is asked for and accepted then the ethics of what the organisation represents is compromised.
The APL and BALI are moving towards adopting the same model that we have created here on LJN. I am also aware that the APL have sought or are seeking quotes from software companies with a view to launching their own interactive community.
We use Ning after Craig McGinty (our resident social guru) pointed it out to me just under a year ago. Together, these last ten months, Craig and I have researched many different aspects of social networking and I am comfortable that the site has removed this exclusivity barrier from membership and stripped away any need for policing and vetting of members.
I have no burning desire to own the network and that is why I have never had to impose any kind censorship to members here - everyone knows what level of experience and skill levels that they can operate at and that is immediately clear when viewing profiles - potential clients should be comfortable enough to make that initial decision make contact. We just broker the connection.
Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
Replace 'newspapers' with 'membership organisations' and you will see that what is happening is that the control of information is being ripped from the hands of the few.
How all this is paid for is open to question, the business model of such a project is far from clear, but drawing on the thoughts of many instead of a select group of elected officials has, I believe, the potential to produce positives for all those willing to take part.
Drawing on Craig's post, and the link he provides concerning newspapers, internet social networking is still very much in its infancy, a look at the main social networking sites would soon demonstrate this. However LJN shows how this form of open networking can mature and change the future landscape of supporting different markets.
Groups like APL will have to adapt, and this seems to show they are starting to appreciate this. But for those who would criticise Phil and others like him I would point out the comment:
'suggesting the SGD should up its profile to make the general public aware of who and what they are. He says the the APL are in the process of doing the same.'
Whether they would accept it or not this is basicly an admission that Phil has been right in what he has said. If one of the main advantages of membership is increased respectability and trust by the general public then this is an admission they have been fundamentally letting their members down.
But can they turn things round?
Sites like LJN are fundamentally changing the landscape and this has to be recognised. I have found gardeners/landscapers or whatever title you prefer to be one of the most sharing professional industries there is. Keen to share their knowledge of plants and trees, techniques, and even down to sharing what are normally business sensitive information such as sharing quotes with potential competitors.
LJN has allowed this to be a two way process, so not only are you able to share your expertise and knowledge with each other and those outside the industry, it allows those outside of your industry to share their knowledge on their areas of expertise and knowledge. From some of the comments I have received this is just as important.
But LJN also provides hidden(?) benefits and dangers, ones that members do need to be aware of.
At least two products have caught my eye from reading on here, both I hope to see being used on the estate I live on. One I have been raving about to a number of potential customers. By opening the membership to all you create opportunities.
But what of the dangers? Open social networks expose you to future potential clients in a way that closed membership would not. A huge bonus, but one which can be a double edge blade. For example a conversation on health and safety can be far more revealing about your attitude towards something that is very important to a potential customer. An attitude of 'I know what I'm doing and have insurance' placed publicly where clients can read can seriously restrict your ability to break into new markets later on. However that said the advantages far outweigh the dangers.
I have never been against membership organisations, but I do believe there has to be tangible benefits to membership. We belong to a national federation because the benefits are tangible and it has a voice which represents our needs with the government. I also asked the TMO to meet my subscription to the Chartered Institute of Housing so I can remain Housing Practitioner member. However if the only benefit was so I could put Cert CIH after my name I would not bother. It offers me tangible benefits, and through being better aware of what is going on to the TMO as well. In both cases taking advantage of the benefits means that we recouperate our costs. The extra benefit I had hoped to use from CIH was 1 to 1 mentoring when I finally got a job in housing. Since I have now in effect been given the opportunity of three months of mentoring prior to finding a job I will look at the other options.
If organisations like APL are to stop being seen as turtles (throw backs from the age of dinosaurs in the modern world) they must learn to change and adapt. Something that is often not easy to do, especially in a top down organisation which is led by the elite rather than by its membership. And while at the beginning of this post I said that the statement showed Phil was right in that they have been failing their membership because their public profile is not high, it still does not show that they have acknowledged a fundamental problem, that they are still failing to meet the needs of its members, and charges a great deal to do so.
I believe that Lock is asking the SGD to concentrate on marketing itself more and by doing so he believes that if the wider general public knows about the SGD then this will increase work to its registered members. However, letting people know you exist does not necessarily mean you will get more work.
For example, if a client is in the market for having his garden designed, during his enquires in the local market, he may or may not establish that the SGD exists. He may feel more inclined to go to an organisation to help him find a designer or he may just use the Yellow Pages or the internet as most do.
However, this doesn’t increase work for SGD members. I know about Corgi registered plumbers but it doesn’t encourage me to update my heating system or install a new gas fire because of it.
The business skill of marketing is one that most landscapers/designers/gardeners need to work on. Some member’s (of these type of organisations like SGD, APL etc…) answer seems to be to blame the organisation they belong to for not getting them work. However, in some cases even if the client goes through the organisation, the client is often not encouraged by what happens after, i.e. when that client speaks/ emails the member.
The truth is we all know about Corgi because it is backed by legislation. Landscaping is not and therefore to get to the same position, millions of pounds need to be spent on a series of marketing events from TV adverts to local newspaper articles. The SGD has a turnover of £500,000 a year, it does not have the money to spend, to achieve what Lock wants. However knowing about something and wanted something is completely different. Most landscapers tell me they find work by word of mouth. This I think is the best form of marketing there is and it costs nothing!
A good point Jonathan and I would say that LJN has given us all the opportunity to broadcast that 'word' further than in normal local circumstances.
When considering my thoughts and criticisms of the APL I would like to point out and make it clear to opponents that the Association of Professional Landscapers was started in the first place because at least one BALI member became disillusioned with the direction that BALI was heading.
So it seems rather ironic that as the APL shows signs that it itself is not up to the task that it set itself, we are asked to 'lay off' from highlighting where the APL weaknesses are.
The APL and BALI are self elected and self serving and are not governed or audited by any external agency. They set their own rules, charge what fees that they like and exclude businesses and individuals on the authority of a committee that has been selected from within.
How many members know how their membership fee is spent?
Whether they would accept it or not this is basicly an admission that Phil has been right in what he has said. If one of the main advantages of membership is increased respectability and trust by the general public then this is an admission they have been fundamentally letting their members down.
So what you're suggesting is that the APL, BALI and the SGD do what? Spend vast sums of money marketing themsleves on the high street to ....who? Everybody? Are you saying that because every person in the UK hasn't heard of these organisations then they are failing their membership?
Surely, and I might just be naive here, Mr Joe Public is only going to be interested in whether SGD or APL or whatever exists is when he wants a garden designed or built? It's at that point that he does his research and finds out about them.
LJN is another good medium for people like us to swap tales and ideas but no punter in their right mind is going to approach a landscaper on here and offer them 100K worth of work without some serious back-up information. And what's going to give them peace of mind more....membership of a trade organisation or that they contribute to an online forum?
This new direction from the APL should be welcomed by all professional landscapers and garden designers, whether they are members of an association or not, as surely it is promoting standards within the industry.
Which, maybe, is the debate that LJN members would find more useful if they aren't planning on joining a trade body. How, exactly, can we improve and promote standards within a trade that is absolutely riddled with cowboys? The trade associations are, at least, trying....
Dave
I just want to clarify that my comments were not aimed at SGD but APL and BALI based on what has been said here. One thing I often find frustrating is when people take quotes out of context and so try to find a reasonable point to quote from so I am less likely to do this. My point was in telling SGD what to do Jason Lock admits APL had failed to do this and was now trying to correct it - 'He says the the APL are in the process of doing the same.'
If I failed to make this clear I apologise.
Hi Dave
One of my points all along has been that there is no evidence that they are trying. How many landscapers are there in the UK?
Jason Lock tells me that the APL have just 280 members so they are either not getting the message out, the fees are too high, landscapers are not bothered about membership of the APL is being exclusive?
I hope that the APL are not going to say that there are just 280 'quality' companies in the UK?
On the point of cowboys - I have always argued that the APL is a part-time organisation (utilising HTA staff to answer phones and send out literature) who are representing the professional interests of full-time professional businesses - is this what a member who has paid £500 really wants?
I have also highlighted the spelling mistakes and broken or missing links on the APL website and the lack of PR. I have always wondered how the APL can insist on the highest of standards but fail to meet certain basic requirements themselves?