Goliath Can’t Handle David’s Potential Success.
NPR reported this morning that TerraCycle, purveyor of worm castings (i.e., poop) as fertiliser, is being sued by Scotts for false advertising. The claim refers to the statement on the TerraCycle bottle that the product works better than the leading synthetic fertiliser. If TerraCycle were to lose, they would go under, in this their 5th year in business and the first in which they would probably have made a profit. Scotts does not have evidence that TerraCycle does not work better than the leading synthetic, they just want to see the data. So, why didn’t they simply ask TerraCycle for it instead of suing them? The data are indeed available, as the research has been done, but of course TerraCycle can’t just hand them over now after they’ve been slapped with a lawsuit. Everything will now have to be done through counsel.
TerraCycle is a tiny company compared with Scotts. They have a teensy share of the plant food market compared with Scotts. It is looking like TerraCycle will make a profit this year for the first time, whereas Scotts’ annual sales are over $2.5 billion, with profits over $130 million. What could Scotts be hoping to accomplish with this lawsuit? And how does it make them look to consumers, in a time when there is increasing interest in organic products with low environmental impact (TerraCycle packages their fertiliser in used soda bottles)?
In the world of voice-over the definition of quality and talent is subjective. I can’t conduct research to demonstrate that I have a better voice than a competitor or that my voice sells more consumer products than the leading brand voice-over. Even if I could, that’s just not the way we do business. I’m frequently asked to refer colleagues for work and am always happy to do it. There is much to be gained from the practise in good will alone, and much to be lost by doing otherwise. If I were one of the “leading brand voice-overs”, such as Don La Fontaine, or Nancy Cartright or Joe Cipriano or Terri Apple, would I be spending my time looking for talent on the lower rungs of the ladder who might some day take away some of my business? The idea is preposterous. There’s enough business for everybody. What a waste of time, talent and resources to try to step on somebody else’s toes.
Things you can do to help TerraCycle, if you’re so inclined:
• Buy their product. You might want to stock up, just in case the worst happens and they go out of business.
• Write a letter to Scotts to tell them what you think of their lawsuit
• Write a letter to your newspaper telling them what you think
• Visit the TerraCycle blog for other ideas.
NPR reported this morning that TerraCycle, purveyor of worm castings (i.e., poop) as fertiliser, is being sued by Scotts for false advertising. The claim refers to the statement on the TerraCycle bottle that the product works better than the leading synthetic fertiliser. If TerraCycle were to lose, they would go under, in this their 5th year in business and the first in which they would probably have made a profit. Scotts does not have evidence that TerraCycle does not work better than the leading synthetic, they just want to see the data. So, why didn’t they simply ask TerraCycle for it instead of suing them? The data are indeed available, as the research has been done, but of course TerraCycle can’t just hand them over now after they’ve been slapped with a lawsuit. Everything will now have to be done through counsel.
TerraCycle is a tiny company compared with Scotts. They have a teensy share of the plant food market compared with Scotts. It is looking like TerraCycle will make a profit this year for the first time, whereas Scotts’ annual sales are over $2.5 billion, with profits over $130 million. What could Scotts be hoping to accomplish with this lawsuit? And how does it make them look to consumers, in a time when there is increasing interest in organic products with low environmental impact (TerraCycle packages their fertiliser in used soda bottles)?
In the world of voice-over the definition of quality and talent is subjective. I can’t conduct research to demonstrate that I have a better voice than a competitor or that my voice sells more consumer products than the leading brand voice-over. Even if I could, that’s just not the way we do business. I’m frequently asked to refer colleagues for work and am always happy to do it. There is much to be gained from the practise in good will alone, and much to be lost by doing otherwise. If I were one of the “leading brand voice-overs”, such as Don La Fontaine, or Nancy Cartright or Joe Cipriano or Terri Apple, would I be spending my time looking for talent on the lower rungs of the ladder who might some day take away some of my business? The idea is preposterous. There’s enough business for everybody. What a waste of time, talent and resources to try to step on somebody else’s toes.
Things you can do to help TerraCycle, if you’re so inclined:
• Buy their product. You might want to stock up, just in case the worst happens and they go out of business.
• Write a letter to Scotts to tell them what you think of their lawsuit
• Write a letter to your newspaper telling them what you think
• Visit the TerraCycle blog for other ideas.
posted by MCM Voices at
9/04/2007
4 Comments:
Mary,
Thank you for writing about this!
As you know, I am a HUGE fan of Terracycle...and am very disheartened by the actions of the larger companies. First Miracle Grow was upset over packaging, and now this?! Finally, a company who took the time to develop a product that is good for our environment...and now they will have to fight to survive.
With the current trends towards more enviro-friendly products, the big guys are threatened. Go figure!
I do hope we never see this in our industry. Yes, VO is competitive, but it also full of giving souls such as yourself.
Kara
I received an email from Scotts last week informing me that they settled outside of court. Terracycle had to agree to change their packaging and remove the claims of superiority from the package. They also have to remove the suedbyscotts link from their website. I suppose it's better that this tiny and excellent company settle and put this behind them rather than risk losing to the synthetic plant food giant and going out of business, but this case just appalls me.
Shame on you, Scotts!
W/o prejudice toward or against either side, i wanted to share a with you in the interest of being factual and not hindering credibility.
It is highly unusual for a company like Terracycle to be truly unprofitable for that length of time. Sometimes companies are owned by people with enough wealth to feed the business and it can function truly profit free. Typically though, it is a tax thing, whereby a company can use their profits for dividends to the owners, for salaries to the owners and other reasons. All this is legal and often ethical as far as the IRS is concerned. A company, for example may take 1,2,5,10 million dollars of available money and buy real estate, invest in 401k or other financial instruments to benefit the owners. This is a business expense and therefore shows "no profit". The property an then be leased for positive cash flow back into the company which is seen as income, but that can then be used to buy equipment supplies, etc, but again still no profit. I would wager that Terracycle has wealthy owners, or creative accounting as shown above, rather than being a poor little company that truly has made no profit or salaries or other such monetary benefit to the owners.
Hey Gary - thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your perspective. It certainly would be interesting to get a look at the inner workings although from the perhaps simple-minded perspective of a fairly new business owner, it doesn't seem outrageous that profits wouldn't appear until year 5, although I was assuming that everybody was making a reasonable salary in the interim & as you point out that may or may not be considered "profit". This is what I used to call in my biology days "the tyranny of taxonomy". Once you've named something you are constrained in the way you think about it.
Again, thank-you for reminding me to be open-minded about definitions.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home