WOOL SALES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 174, 26 July 1933, Page 9

WOOL SALES

MARKETING METHODS MR. BAGLEY ANSWERS CRITICS In a Press interview with Mr. L Whittingham Bagley, author of the re cent booklet “Bnicient Wool Maiket mg,” made the following comments ol the published statement of the Nou Zealand Wool Brokers’ Association and the reply of the Wool Improve

Mr. Bagley stated that he found himself in agreement with some of tile principles outlined in the wool brokers statement to the Press. Bor example, his objection was not to the present system of selling wool by auction, but in regard to the method of presentu tion under that system. The auction system of disposing of clips in New Zealand and Australia was undoubtedly the best in the world to date.

Tho method of presentation, he added, did not compare favourably with others such as that in the Argeii tine, where the wool was sold to th: same overseas buyers, as New Zealanders did, but with the wool classified to tho buyers’ known requirements on a guaranteed clean yield basis. “Argentine has made buying easier,” he said, “but the growers do not get the benefits under their system. The local dealers who buy unclasecd and uuskirted wool and get it ready for overseas buyers, reap most of the benefit, whereas under New Zealand’s superior auction system, by niakirg buying as easy as it is in Argentine, our growers will get all the benefit, lhe way to do this is to apply a national standard of classing, in the first instance to wool from flocks of under 1000 sheep each, and offer this wool under that standard and on at least an appraised clean yield basis.”

Ho considered the question of stan dard classification so important that in his booklet “Efficient Wool Market ing” seven chapters were devoted to this aspect of the subject. There habeen so much proof of its practicability in the wool world that it becomes small supporting evidence that the present practice of thirty-two New Zealand wool broking funis is to class the wool, each firm to its own -idea of a standard. All that is proposed is tha' these thirty-two different ideas of standards should be brought to one national standard acceptable to the buyers; and with proper organisation it is not a difficult job. He was in accord with the brokers in that Government intcrfcrcnes through a control board was undesir able. His proposals of organisation show, however, that he realises the necessity of a New Zealand Wool Council comprising all sections of the industry but without Government nominees. It is essential to have a nationally recognised authority comprised of grow ers, brokers, buyers and bankers, such as a council which can introduce and maintain the goodwill of a standard of classing and assist the growers and brokers in getting down costs between shed and ship, or improving the presentation to the buyers.

There is no necessity to make binning compulsory and it would be an unjust practice. The small grower who consideied that his wool, because of its character, uniformity and breeding, held a recognised goodwill exceeding that of the binned wools, should be allowed to sell his wool classed to the national standard, but under his own brand and not pooled or binned. As the binning of wools, under the sami? standard ultimately, proved a more payable practice and carried a higher goodwill, small or large growers couid be expected to make voluntarily any changes which were to their individual advanatge. Tho objects of the Wool Improve ment Committee arc very desirable and necessary and a levy tor this purpose is undoubtedly justijred. However, marketing reforms are more urgent nationally and arc capable of reaping for the growers more immediate financial benefits. One fully realising this trull), deplores the fact that the main marketing clauses were eliminated for the second meeting of the committee in Wellington. Mr. W. J. Polson, ALP., noticed and referred to this feature in the following way: “One of the most serious difficulties,’> he said “was not in regard to the wool itself, but in regard to the costly system of marketing. It seemed to him that in abandoning the proposal to assist in the marketing of the wool, which could be done by working in with the growers, the meeting had abandoned one of the most important arguments in favour of tho general scheme.” Mr. Bagley added that it was also very unfortunate that without any attempt to investigate his proposals, the Wool Improvement Committee saw fit to rush into print before their Wellington meeting, with comments on the wool brokers’ statement. Now that Mr. Bagley’s proposals are defined and published, the members of both organisations, that is, the Wool Brokers’ Association and the Wool Improvement Committee will be realising that they were really under a misapprehension in regard to his scheme and proposals. In fact, when the national welfare of New Zealand is placed first, as is the case with these proposals, which aim at getting greater benefits to our wool growers by use of modern methods, it is generally found that such progressive proposals can be made harmonious to all concerned, once tho parties are willing to allow for each other’s viewpoint.