I hope it's not an omen but last Friday (13th) the APL announced (gently it seems) that they are to team up with Marshalls to give Marshalls Register members access to their club for just £50.00 a year.
Just 6 months ago the APL vice chairman slammed some Marshalls members by saying:
"We have been asked tine [sic] and time again to join Marshalls Register. I am completely aware of the benefits of being on the Marshalls Register but one main gripe we have is who is on the register. There are companies local to us who are on their register who, quite frankly, are awful. As a company we just can't be associated with such companies. In our opinion it is just a way of making more money for themselves (suppliers)."
Marshalls admitted in a statement that they were forced to remove 18 of its members in 2013 alone (we don't have figures up to 2013 but one has to assume that the 2013 numbers are not isolated?)
Personally I'm baffled by this move. In the last six years it's been proven that the lack of exclusivity has been a tonic to the landscape industry.
Both Tobermore and London Stone operate a system that isn't dictated by vetted membership.
I talked recently about consolidation in the landscape industry but I wasn't thinking along these lines.
Views: 217
Replies
It is true that we do continually assess our Register members, and we are confused about the negative comments made about this activity, because this is the only way that we can be sure that they are operating to the required standard. We also make no secret of the fact that we remove under performing Register members, in fact we're proud of it, as it demonstrates that we care about the standard of those operating under our name.
I think its fantastic that Marshalls and the APL have finally forged a link together, with the proactive thinking of both parties it will only serve to make the landscaping industry better for everyone
For me this mutual decision raises some questions. I would like to hope that members - jointly and severally - of both groups would overlook the initial positive PR spin and consider these questions too.
Just 6 months ago the APL vice-chairman was calling into question the quality of some of the companies on the Marshalls Register. These comments weren't private, they were made in public.
Marshalls were forced to admit that there are some problems with quality within the Marshalls Register. Six months later all appears well. The APL are seemingly overlooking these quality issues and allowing Marshalls Register members to join the APL without, it appears, re-vetting their [Marshalls] membership.
If, as claimed by the APL vice-chairman, there were "companies local to us who are on their register who, quite frankly, are awful." then how has this apparent problem been fixed in such a short space of time?
Have these 'awful' companies been informed? Have these 'awful' companies been removed from the Register? Did these 'awful' companied ever exist?
Two further questions (and there are many more):
What about the existing Marshalls Register members who are already paying the full APL membership fee? How are these to be compensated? It's doesn't seem fair they should be penalised for paying full fee when others can bypass the APL vetting procedure for just £50.00.
And....how can it be explained that this tie-up 'will only serve to make the landscaping industry better for everyone'?
enthusiasm is contagious
Think its a good move for all.
The quality that the majority of members of both groups are doing exceptional work of amazing quality; for example Mick Gammage of Marshalls Register and Arbour Design & Build of APL.
The more business' belonging to these groups co-operate, the more projects are shared, best practices are learned and through these channels(as well as Social Media and groups like LJN) the more the standards will increase within the inducstry. Hopefully in the long term the recognition of the value of this industry to the general public, leading to increased salaries, benefits, marginalise poor performing companies etc etc.
I can qualify this by saying; myself and my staff are looking at the work these companies are doing and we are striving to improve our the quality of our builds, our standards and our services. Every project we get a little better quality, a bit more organised and we are loving the results.
As for the £50 fee; my impression is this does not mean a company is APL certified. It allows access to the clubs, the talks on business improvements, standards, network and ultimately it an opportunity for the APL to possibly entice new members. Also gives an opportunity for the APL to understand what maybe holding business' back from joining. It's breaking down barriers, that organisations and groups seem to be so intent to throw up with the 'we are better than the rest! attitudes'.
I hope Bradstone could organise a similar arrangement for its Assured Installers - l'd certainly be interested in attending with a long term view of joining the APL.
As Mick says 'enthusiasm is contagious' - my initial enthusiasm came from becoming a member of LJN, which has then opened the industry up to me. Have learned alot from the network, meet great members and have opened new doors and experiences. I am unfortunately saddened by the consistent APL bashing on LJN, l don't understand it! It's a business decision to join, the quality of its members is impressive and can be seen by just how many are involved on the RHS Show Garden circuit. We should be appalauding this in the industry. The Marshall Register awards are keenly viewed to see what's new and what standards are being set. Maybe it's time for LJN to draw a line under the bashing and look to start a fresh... we are stronger together! just a thought for the day!
I think its a great move, i have been a Marshalls registered contractor for many years and proud of it, Marshalls vetted me and my work in order to join the scheme and they continue to regularly do so including looking at work quality, correct procedures/ paperwork and health and safety and i cant understand how these awful companies if they ever existed managed to slip through the net ?
I have only ever had a positive experience with Marshalls they have provided training, advice, advertising gear, free samples, free tickets to the Chelsea flower show that i took advantage of 2 years on the trot and of course some great work leads from genuine clients looking for a quality vetted approach.
I was considering joining APL but have not had the time to do any thing about it and if the Marshalls merger makes it easer for me thats great. I can see the merger been a positive move that can only raise standards and the client awareness of the industry
Hi Craig
Thanks for your comment.
It does need to be made clear that this deal is mutually exclusive. There is no benefit for the majority of the industry...if there is then this needs to be demonstrated more clearly.
I'm a touch disappointed you used the word bashing as it tends to stifle debate. But why we are on the subject, I note nobody has commented on the APL's vice chairs comments about the Marshalls Register.
Are there a different set of rules applied to this situation?
Dave Jessop states that Marshalls are proud of the fact that they remove under-performing Register members. Quite rightly so but I am not aware that this information is published in the public domain.
Craig McGibbon said:
Hi Phil,
I'm not out to stifle debate - l just pointing out as a member of this site l feel over the years there has been a certain negativity toward the APL and for the life of me l cannot understand why - maybe it could be explained clearly as to why?!?; This probably contributed to why there has been no comment from them (Mick). As a non member of the APL and Marshalls register l only see positives.
That aside - l have received comments back from Paul Baker clarifying some of my assumptions as they were incorrect. These are on my Twitter feed @craigmcgibbon. My assumption that members wouldn't be certified just access to their clubs was incorrect but members would need to go through the usual assessment process. I stand corrected on this point but still feel the sentiment of my LJN post stands.
I asked Paul Baker if the APL would consider a alliance with Bradstone Assured members, he said 'yes would be very open to speaking to BradstoneUK. All new members (Marshall Reg or not) would need to go through the inspection process.' This is a positive from my view point and l blatantly agree the inspection process is required to maintain standards.
My impression is that the APL are looking to increase membership. Alliances with other certifying bodies is an obvious step - just look at the Irish manaufacturer whose name l forget signing up Registered members. The 'deal' is normal in todays world - a free or discounted period for a limited time to entice new members in.
The more cooperation between group the better it is for the industry and the stronger we become than fragmented parts.
Craig
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next