up. It is further contended by supporters of this side that it would be far better to throw the surplus into the rubbish heap than glut the market and discourage the "best" people from purchasing flowers.
I have often had the privilege of listening to such arguments at florists' clubs. It is no unusual thing to hear the retail man deliver himself of arguments such as these:
"Why, it is preposterous to stock our windows with bargain sales! It looks cheap, and discourages our best people from entering our store. I would sooner sell one dozen Carnations for 75c. than four dozen for $1. There is more money in it, and less work. It will be the end of our business if we persist in cheapening our product. Flowers are a luxury, and we must cater to the elements appreciating such luxuries, and able to pay for them. I for one don't give a snap for the bargain buyer in flowers."
On the other hand, the grower has his side of the story, and he tells it in no' uncertain terms.
"We are in the business," he says, "to make a living, to pay expenses, and to have a fair return on our investment. Our product is in the market, and we look for the best returns possible. It is but natural that we should expect all we can get for our stock. And when we do get fair returns, as during holiday times, for example, you people are the first to raise a howl. But conditions arise where the supply by far exceeds the demand. We are sending in our Carnations and Roses by the stacks, but there is no demand for them. The market is overstocked. Carnations sometimes drop as low as five dollars a thousand. Roses go in the same proportion. Now what do you retailers do about it? Do you ever think of relieving the market, of buying more than you actually need, and taking a chance? Does it ever occur to you that five dollars a thousand for Carnations does not pay for the labor of picking and packing them? You buy just what you need, at a bargain price; you take your flowers to your store, and sell them to the public at 75c. and $1 per dozen. The remainder of it can go to the dumps, in so far as you are concerned.
"Now let us look at the situation clearly. We are in the business not for the benefit of the retail florist exclusively. We want some of the benefit ourselves. Nor do we give a snap for your 'best elements,' and the fact that it might cheapen the price of flowers and impair their charm in the eyes of society folk. We are in the business not for sentiment, but for all we can get out of it. Since you cannot take the chance to give us a lifting hand, we must help ourselves, and find the best market we can for our surplus. A half loaf is better than no bread. We must pay our coal bills and our help, and whatever we realize on our stock helps toward meeting those obligations. Besides, I can see no reason why the common people should not have as much chance of buying flowers as your 'best elements.' When the market is overstocked, and flowers are cheap, there is at least the advantage that the common people become educated and learn to appreciate flowers. The fakir on the streets who offers a bunch of Roses to the working girl at a low price is doing good work. That working girl will in time become accustomed to the beauty of flowers, and will buy them from a florist at times when the fakir will have none to offer. At any rate, it pays us better to sell flowers at bargain counter rates than to throw them on the dumps.
"Aside from this, we are taking all the chances. When a new Rose or Carnation appears on the market, you want us to grow it. We invest our money, and often get no returns. A Rose or Carnation that may best appeal to you may not pay for the space given it. And yet we persist in trying, year after year, in order to satisfy the demands of the discriminating public."
There is, of course, something to be said on both sides. The retailer is logical from his point of view; and the grower's arguments are quite rational, too. It
