When Is Something Free Not Free?

I received this email the other day, the sender has asked me to keep their identity and who they work for secret. Take a read and see what you think:

To Swiss V head office Switzerland:

For the Last 8 Months we have been using SwissV spacer bar to comply with new UK building Regs.
We get our Glass units made by Glass Systems Ltd, Swansea UK. & we promote your products with samples & your Brochures in our showroom.
I have recently downloaded your latest version of Caluwin, in order to be able to give specific u-value information to my customers.
I was only able to download the "free trial 40 day" version, which does not have the capacity to printout reports. To get the print enabled version, it seems we would have to pay. Your colour brochure specifically states that the program is absolutely free of charge. I took this to mean that it is "absolutely free of charge"
Could you please supply me with the enabling code so that I can supply relevant information to my customers, as it states in your brochure, in order to continue to successfully promote your products.
We do like your product, but we have to work hard to sell at the premium price you demand.
The program provides the technical evidence needed to support sales staff.Your support in this respect would be very much appreciated.

Regards

The sender of the above information has said they would keep me informed of any progress in the matter, so if I receive any further emails I will post them on here.

Everest Mementos Stolen!

It appears someone has stolen a framed photo and feather from the Ted Moult Everest TV adverts. Here's the report from The Northern Echo:
An ill wind has blown through Britain’s highest pub, taking with it an “irreplaceable” piece of television history.

Staff at the Tan Hill Inn, near Richmond, North Yorkshire, are appealing for the safe return of the Everest feather and a framed picture of TV personality Ted Moult.

For more than 20 years, the mementos have hung on the wall next to the window made famous by an advert for double glazing.

In 1986, window company Everest filmed a commercial at the pub.

Viewers watched as a feather dropped by Moult fell gently to the floor while a gale raged outside.

To this day customers still recount the famous line: “You only fit double glazing once, so fit the best, fit Everest.”

The feather and picture disappeared in October when a stag party was taking place at the pub.

Assistant manager Shell Buckle said: “We don’t know whether it was members of the stag party who took them or another customer.

“They’ve hung on the wall for nearly 30 years and we just want them back.”

Owner Tracy Daley described the photograph and feather as Tan Hill’s “crown jewels”.

“We are desperately saddened by their loss,” she said.

“Many customers ask about Ted Moult and the feather used in the draught test on the adverts and are always pleased to see the picture beside the window where it was filmed.

“Everest has replaced and updated the double glazing only once at Tan Hill since they were originally installed.

“However, the picture and the feather are irreplaceable.”

Ms Daley said the thief could return the mementoes by any means and the matter would not be pursued further.

Everest returned to the pub in 2008 to remake the commercial.

The new advert starred ITV sports presenter Craig Doyle.

Everest decided to film the advert after being asked to replace windows and doors by Ms Daley.

Solar panels were also fitted to the roof.

Anyone with information on the missing picture and feather is asked to call the Tan Hill Inn on 01833-628246.

Why The Double Glazing Industry Is Fighting A Losing Battle

I'm not going to copy and paste the report, it's just not good journalism! But I will put the link to the article here: http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/84639-glazing-company-owner-jailed-for-nine-months.html?

While these terrible people are continuing to pollute our industry with criminal practices, we are always going to be fighting off an unfair reputation for the rest of us.

The Real Reason Why DGCOS Hasn't Exploded Onto The Scene

An interview with Tony Pickup in the GGP Magazine revealed their tough qualification process for installers:


The Double Glazing and Conservatory Ombudsman Scheme (DGCOS), has released figures showing that 39% of installers do not succeed in gaining accreditation.

Launched earlier this year, the scheme has attracted many long established and reputable firms but many installers fail to meet what the organisation claims is its ‘high standards’.  “We consider every company that applies,” explained Tony Pickup, founder of DGCOS, “but many simply don’t have what we’re looking for. Every installer has to supply at least 10 home owner references from recent jobs, plus three supplier references. We also ask for copies of their health and safety policies, contract terms and conditions and public liability and employer’s liability insurances.

“Our dedicated accreditation team investigates every detail in a 12 point process,  (seewww.dgcos.org.uk/member_join). Where we can, we help companies with their procedures and policies to ensure they meet our standards but many applicants fail because of County Court Judgements, bankruptcies or multiple phoenixing.” Mr Pickup stated that the process is a continuous one.“One company was recently expelled because they didn’t disclose a phoenixed company which subsequently came to light,” he said. “It didn’t turn up in our initial investigation because the directors were different, so we now look up as many variations on company and owner names and addresses as we can.

“It’s very thorough process but the feedback from members who have made it – and their customers – has been remarkably positive. It keeps our standards high, and ensures home owners can trust the DGCOS brand.”


I can completely understand that DGCOS has to have a high standard that they want to create and breed, but the problem is the majority of companies in this industry have either become bankrupt or changed their name at some point in the company's lifetime. If they are going to stick by this factor, they are going to seriously limit the number of companies that are going to be able to join. Then they face another problem. If they do want to expand into the mass majority of the industry, they may have to start breaking their own rules in order to do so. But this will put at risk the credibility of the scheme itself.


So with this, as well as the other 12 categories in which companies need to qualify for, the conclusion is simple: even if an installer wanted to join, the likelihood is they wont. It's probably just too hard! 

Bent Industry Organisations

I have tried desperately myself to keep optimistic about the WER scheme and it's enforcement on October 1st. But after finding out what I have over the past 48 hours, I've lost all faith I had in it. The more the BFRC's plan has unravelled, the more it looks as though it has just been a money making scheme from day one.

When WER ratings were introduced, this looked to be a great new selling tool. It would help companies differentiate themselves from their competitors and try to boost sales. The industry had a shiny new toy, yet most didn't want to play with it.

Then, at the beginning of this year, the BFRC announced the option for installers to register their products in their own name so they could obtain an energy ratings certificate with their name on the top. Obviously there was a price to pay, hundreds in fact. So as you can imagine, there wasn't a massive uptake from that initiative. But there was never going to be. Having an installers name on a WER certificate was never going to have any selling advantage.

So, come Summer, we had the Part L decisions to digest. And lo and behold, the decision makers thought it would be a novel idea that for installers to show energy efficiency compliance, they HAD TO HAVE one of these WER certificates. How handy is that!? Just weeks after the BFRC announced the option to put installers' name at the top of their certificates, it's suddenly announced that it's now law, and we would have to pay for it!! Who's been scratching who's back I ask!

Still, we seemed to handle that OK, and just got on with the business at hand. But a few started to look at the science behind it all, and how the BFRC had come up with their results. Champion of this was Kevin Ahern. His main quarrel was with how the solar gain factor was calculated, and especially how north facing areas were factored into their equations. But, after repeated requests to Giles Wilson, his questions returned unanswered. This for me is where this whole scheme started to unravel, and quickly. The whole credibility of the scheme was brought into question and the very fathers of the scheme couldn't come out and defend it.

This rumbled off for a while, and was replaced with the short, sharp rejection of the DGCOS - another ombudsman scheme a tired, clogged up industry didn't need. But before long Part L changes were the main topic of discussion - mainly doors this time and how they were going to be passed. We thought that doors 50% glazed or more had to have a U-Value of 1.8 or less. Hence the rush and panic to get all the industry's doors tested in time.

Then, over the weekend on the GlassTalk website, Quorn Conservatories received this letter from FENSA:

Compliance Against a Minimum U Value
a) Simple Method


If you are installing a PVC or a timber and the frame is fitted with sealed units which make use of soft-coat Low E Glass, warm edge spacer (minimum 16mm) and 90% argon gas, Then FENSA will consider without further evidence that the U value of 1.6 has been achieved i.e there will be no need to provide further evidence to the consumer or to the FENSA inspector, providing there is no evidence to suggest that our assumption is incorrect. (In timber windows the depth of the frame from front to back must be a minimum of 70mm).

Up until this, we were all under the impression we had to either have a WER certificate showing a C rating or better, or a similar piece of paper showing a U-Value of 1.6 or better. But according to what FENSA have said above, we don't need any sort of paperwork to prove this, we just have to let them know we are fitting windows to that standard if they want to drop in for one of their checks.

So, where are we now? Basically, thousands of companies have spent thousands of pounds testing dozens of products to obtain certificates to show compliance, only for FENSA to tell us right at the very last minute that we don't need all that!

What message is this going to send out to all the clowns and cowboys in this industry! They are still going to be able to get away with fitting a load of old shite, passing it off as efficient and get away with it. While others have been playing to the supposed new rules and gone down the certification route, for it all to be a waste of time money and resources.

BFRC, GGF, FENSA - you should all hang your heads in shame. You've conned money out of the companies that you were supposed to be helping. I've been in this industry for just over four years full time, and have heard about some of the things that have gone on in our proud industry. I kept faith in industry bodies that everyone was saying were corrupt, but I ignored them, and it turns out foolishly. Your actions and handling of this whole episode show a complete lack of understanding about the industry you represent. The industry was never ready for this sort of upheaval, but you knew that. You knew that if you made certification law, installers would just simply hand money over to line your pockets.

All I can say is well done. You've managed to piss off an entire industry, and to alienate it even more. If you were to tell me a million times that what I have just alleged is wrong, I still would not believe a single word. You've lost yourself a member of the younger generation that will one day soon take the place of those in position now.

The DGCOS Debate 2

I feel the debate about the DGCOS is due to run it's course sometime soon, and personally I'm starting to tire of the whole thing.

All of us with an opinion have made their opinions known, and most of those have been negative ones. It's too expensive. It's a gimmick. It's another unnecessary governing body. It will hardly be put to use. It creates an even more negative impression of the double glazing industry by creating the image that the industry as a whole is rotten. It's purely for profit.

Those are some of the reasons why most people believe the idea is flawed, most of which I agree with. But this is where I want to leave it. We won't be joining the scheme I don't think, I won't be writing about the subject again (unless I'm forced to!). If content about the scheme keeps getting published then I fear we will be travelling on the same roundabout for a while, and it's something not worth spending the time and energy doing so.

End.

Whistle Blowing

The subject of whistle blowing on bad double glazing companies is a tough one. On one hand, lots of us feel that it is only right to name and shame the companies which tarnish the reputation of our industry with their bad practices and poor customer service. On the other, if your company appeared on the site, then you would do all you can to make sure your name is removed, possibly going to court to do so. But is this right?

In my eyes, if your company has performed badly, and mistreated customers terribly, then you only get what's coming to you. But because of the society we live in today, the person who whistle blew on that company is the one that stands to receive the most punishment! How can this be? From the business point of view, they don't want their name described badly as it will harm their business, but I don't think that argument stands if they have acted terribly towards the customer. They have to accept whats coming to them. For those in the industry, we all know of a few cases where certain members of the public are actively speaking out against companies where they have been treated badly. But not one of us can report on it, for fear of getting stuck in the legal proceed ins ourselves.

How is it that if a company has been down right out of order, they have the most protection and we, Joe public, can't say a single thing out of fear of court action?

Ideally, what I'd like to set up is an anonymous site where people can leave messages and name companies, explaining how they have been treated. However, I know this isn't possible. Surely some law can be put forward to stop giving the cowboys of this industry protection?

Removal Of Two Posts

Regular readers will find that I have had to remove two posts due to the threat of legal action. Claims were made that these posts were libellous, in my opinion they were only voicing my opinion about the health of the conservatory industry and how companies can be doing so well despite the difficult trading conditions. However, the company which took it upon themselves to get involved in the conversation threatened legal action, so I had no choice but to remove the posts. Thankyou to all that had left comments, but in the future I'll have to take more time in considering what comments to publish.

It is a shame in this day and age that instead of talking about certain issues, people/businesses resort to legal action to find a solution. Apologies to all that had left their comments. Send me an email next time or something!!

Update: I won't be publishing anymore comments about this subject. There are too many trap doors and I don't want to let this blog, which started out as a small personal venture, become bombarded with legal action threats. RCG has said a similar thing in the past! I want to carry on with this blog un-threatened and unpressured, this will allow me to write the best material I can. However, if anyone has any gossip for me or wants to vent their frustrations about a company and their practices, email me at glazingblogger@googlemail.com that way I won't have to be put in front of a judge!

Again apologies to those who have commented, this wasn't my wish but I have to think of the repurcussions.

Never Bad Mouth Your Competitors

There is nothing more annoying than when you find out your competitors have been bad mouthing you to customers. But what makes it worse is when the company dishing out the abuse is getting what they are saying wrong!

One of our reps went to see a customer yesterday and found that one of our competitors indulged on a hugely mis-informed rant about us. Some of the things that were said included allegations we had just recently been taken over, and due to that that was the reason we were more expensive than them (when really the other company seemed to be desperatley undercutting to try and win the order), we were apparently in financial difficulties also. Oh and we also had a 'rubbish' product.

Tactics like this smack of two things. One, that the other company is desperate. If they have to rely on bad mouthing their competitors rather than selling on their own merits then there is something very wrong. The second is hipocracy. Time and time again our competitors make a point of not practicing these sorts of tactics.

Companies need to be very careful, there comes a point where this sort of thing stops becoming a selling tactic and starts becoming more personal. But for now I just put all this down to desperation and inability to sell their own product properly.

Can Blogs Be Dangerous?

As readers of this blog will be aware, I'm not scared to post information, rumours or stories which may cause provocation. If there is a company going under, I will report it. If there is inside information worth posting, then it will be posted. But this doesn't necessarily make me many friends. I won't shy away from posting my opinions or any information company related. If I do write about other companies, I try not to write offensively, and do try and write informatively. If I ever do write something that is incorrect I will always apologise and ask to be pointed out where I went wrong.

I understand also that some of the things I may write can get me into a bit of bother. I know that if I write about a company going bust and I'm wrong, then it could cause me difficulties. But, with blogs being a free and (almost) unregulated form of media, I will always continue to publish my thoughts and information in my own fresh way.

I do also think many blogs shy away from saying what they really want to say. There is a lot of political correctness and politeness being posted, but not enough strong opinion. There's lots of wishy washy blurb on blogs, and not jst double glazing ones.

Case in point is the latest rumour to be banded about. The name of the company thought to be in question has been posted on here by an anonymous reader. But why the hell not! There's a rumour, it's interesting and worth knowing, it keeps blogs like these worth reading!

National Companies Create False Customer Hopes

Recently we have seen campaigns by Everest and Anglian Home Improvements advertising their own scrappage schemes. From their point of view, the campaign to get the government to introduce a scrappage scheme design to benefit the double glazing industry provided the perfect advertising gimmick, and no doubt it may have swung a few customer's their way by now. But their campaigns in my opinion are mis-guided and have been a waste of energy. With the size of the companies involved with this type of campaign, I would have thought it more beneficial to have all the employees of both companies sign the government petition to introduce such a scheme nationwide. At the moment, the number of signatures on that petition stands at just over 3700. How many more could there be if there was a concerted effort by both Anglian and Everest to get as many new names on there as possible?

My second thought is that the campaign is not so believable. Because there seems to be just these two involved, when customers start to shop around for prices they will come to realise that no one else is advertising a scrappage scheme, and realise it is just another advertising gimmick, feeding off the success of the car and new boiler versions. To me this puts the validity of the campaign in doubt. It won't have the effect on customers that it wants to achieve because it's not a government scheme. This is why energies would have been better placed in putting thousands of signatures on the government petition website.

We risk the petition falling through and not being noticed because of this. While Anglian and Everest were thoughtless and only saw a 'quick buck' benefit for themselves, they have put the success of the petition at risk. Personally, I now think that we won't have such a scheme introduced because the heavy-weight influence of the national companies hasn't been put to good use, and has instead been used to feed greed, much like the bankers in fact!

So, if there are any readers who work for a national company, why haven't you instructed your employees to help the industry they work in and sign the petition for a national windows scrappage scheme?

WER's Save A Stagnant Industry

What would have happened to the window industry if WER's hadn't come along? Before window energy ratings showed their face, companies were trundeling along, selling their windows and doors on the same selling points: security and aesthetics.

What used to split companies apart was the security that was used in their windows and doors. Luckily for us we always had a fantastic product with great security features. This helped us win orders against companies at the lower end of the market. However, as the industry progressed, other manufacturers began to catch up and the playing field become more level. The market began to merge together again, lines blurred and it became harder to win orders.

When security wasn't doing the trick, the next road to go down was the aesthetics of what you were selling. There was a lot of plain out there. Lots of flat, chunky, boring PVCu frames. Then sculptured frames came along and became a game changer. We were one of the first to start using the sculptured frames, and that immediately set us apart from other competition. But, as with everything, over the years companies caught up and sculptured frames became the norm. The playing field levelled up again. Companies had to search for other selling points to win orders. That came in the form of things such as company history, white/cream/black woodgrain, age of the business, reputation, freebies etc. But nothing was significant.

That was until WER's came along. Suddenly, here was something that was simple, was a clear advantage to installers and customers alike, and something to point an industry lost within itself back in the right direction. And it came just in time. Just as WER's came to prominance, the industry started to decline in a very serious manner. WER's gave struggling companies a lifeline. Something to help promote their products in a new 'green' light. WER's mean't profit margins could be restored, falling conversion rates could be boosted, and optimism grew. However, over the last 2/3 years it has been introduced, still only roughly a third (maybe less) of businesses have taken WER's on board and actively sold the advantages. We use the energy efficiency of our products as our main selling point. When replacing windows in the future, energy efficiency is going to be one the of most important factors. So what has confused me is why so many companies are taking so long to get on board. When sculptured frames came out, companies quickly got on the band wagon, as they did with different coloured wood grains and break secure door cylinders. So, if any one reading this isn't pushing WER's, why? It's given the window industry the jolt it needed, and is going to be the main driving force for many years to come.

If You Value British Industry, Read This, Then Pass It On To As Many People As You Can!

The following is a heart-felt plea by Felicity Loudon to the shareholders of Cadbury to fight against the take over deal by Kraft:

Dear fellow shareholders,

In 1824, John Cadbury started commercial production of chocolate and founded the Cadbury brand. Then in 1879, his son George opened the family's factory at Bournville, on the outskirts of Birmingham, with its famous model village designed to house the workforce in rare comfort, with access to parks, gymnasia, lakes and gardens.

They even had one of the world's first factory canteens. Thus it was that, just as Cadbury's chocolate became renowned, so too did their ethos of philanthropic management of their hard-working staff.

It happens John Cadbury was my ancestor and that I was born a Cadbury, but practically everyone in this country was brought up on Cadbury's and that's the point.

We now stand on the verge of seeing this famous company, emblematic of so much that is good about Britain, sold to the giant American food company Kraft.

I oppose the Kraft bid on a number of points and the first of them is on grounds of taste.

I have no doubt that once Kraft's corporate chefs get to work we will lose the wonderful creamy, delicious Cadbury blend for ever. While Kraft produces cheese slices reminiscent of plastic, Cadbury makes premium bars of chocolate that are sought after all over the world.

Job losses for loyal and committed workers will follow a takeover and Kraft will inevitably move production out of this country to Poland, as they did with the last British chocolate maker they gobbled up: Terry's, sadly no longer of York.

I also oppose this bid on the grounds of national interest. There are, doubtless, many companies representing the best of British business that have been sold abroad in the past decade or so; I would suggest too many. We are now eroding our manufacturing base at a rate that is unsustainable and all this in the name of the global market.

I'm afraid the view of the global market and iconic national brands is quite different in other countries, including the United States, where they are quite fiercely protected from foreign predators. I think Cadbury should mark a line in the sand for the loss of our own manufacturing icons.

I've never claimed to be a financial expert but, importantly, I also contest this bid on the grounds of business prudence and best-value for shareholders. Cadbury is a successful, rapidly growing, vibrant brand while Kraft is a sluggish, unimaginative and low-growth conglomerate.

For me, shareholder value would best be achieved by continued investment in the British-held Cadbury model which envisages high growth despite difficult trading times.

Kraft represents only one thing and that's a disruption of the successful Cadbury brand and its manufacturing base to pay for the very bid that the board has accepted.

Cadbury will become just another division in the lumbering Kraft dinosaur. Kraft needs Cadbury but Cadbury certainly doesn't need Kraft.

The second string to my opposition is unashamedly patriotic and sentimental, at a time in our history when it is unfashionable to be either. That is why I mention the fine heritage of the Cadbury brand; bids may be made on the basis of financial imperatives but great brands are founded on genius, hard work and endeavour. My view is that Cadbury should remain in British hands.

My disappointment at the performance of the Cadbury board in all this is unqualified. At great expense to the company and the shareholders, they brought in City advisers and glitzy PR machines to 'fight' the Kraft attack. A stand-alone strategy was unveiled and I was heartened by its vision and positive stance. But then a small tweak in the unattractive Kraft offer saw the board capitulate and their seemingly robust defence of Cadbury was proved to be a sham.

How disappointing then, when it was revealed that Cadbury CEO Todd Stitzer stands to pocket a huge 'bonus' - around £20m - from the Kraft deal. He ostentatiously built a barricade around the company but then failed to fire a single shot from it. I hope he uses his cash for a flight back to America, where I trust he will stay.

Then, after the board acceptance was announced, the British public was treated to the unedifying sight of Roger Carr, the chairman of Cadbury, being interviewed on the BBC by their business correspondent Robert Peston. Could the chairman explain why Cadbury, a superior company, is being bought up by Kraft, an inferior company, asked Peston?

Trapped like a rabbit in the beam of headlamps, the chairman could barely answer and it was left to Peston to point out that the deal will leave all Britons a bit poorer in the future.

They say these takeover deals are sealed with the board's recommendation; we are told that the die is cast - but I wonder. Do we really have to carry on with the ghastly ritual wedding dance of this takeover? It is up to the shareholders to decide whether they will vote for this deal or not and I urge all my fellow shareholders to reject this bid on the grounds of price and future value.

Do not follow the advice of a board that has accepted a bid well below that which the company is worth. Do not let Cadbury, a distinctly superior company, be taken over by Kraft, an obviously inferior one.

Yours sincerely,

Felicity Loudon

One of the things that frustrates me most is that in earlier attempts to take Cadbury over, their CEO robustly attacked the Kraft offer. Yet when they tweaked their offer slightly, they caved so very easily. It seems that greed took over and was just waiting for the offer to be improved for his benefit.

We need to start an interent campaign if we are to put any pressure on the shareholders of Cadbury to vote against the take-over. If someone hasn't already, I'll start a Facebook group to protest against the sale. But we need bloggers and Twitter users to join in the campaign too. 

A Sad Day For British Industry

This post isn't about windows, in fact it's about as opposite as it could be!

Today we saw the beginning of one of Britain's finest companies being handed to the Americans. This is a sad day as it means a few things. One, that hundreds of jobs will probably go when Kraft take over. Creating jobs in other countries or America where wages will be cheaper. Leaving the unfortunate British to cope with yet more unemployment unfairness. Second is that a great industry and great company of this country will fall into foreign hands. This just compounds the issue of so many businesses, companies and industries in this country not actually being owned or run by this country! The more businesses that fall into the hands of foreigners, the worse our employment situation will be. Take for example the depot strikes about a year ago in Grimsby (think it was there, or at least somewhere near ther!). That was due to the company in charge not giving the British workers the chance to win the employment contract. Instead the contract was given to the Portuguese, despite the fact that the construction of the new depot was in the north east of England!

Even in this industry a lot of companies that provide the raw materials are foreign owned. Our manufacturer is British owned, and we make a point of that. The reason behind that is we know that there is an increasing attitude of disgust that everything we buy in thic country is either foreign made or the company producing it isn't British. There is also a swinging attitude change to buy local and buy British. The more we can aid to this cause the better it will be for the country as a whole. We have to bring industry back to this country. This will help the unemployment situation and help the economy overall. This country used to be THE becon of industrial and economic development. But now, we rely on everybody else doing well, otherwise we suffer! Something doesn't add up there!

Removal Of Last Post

Dear Mr Phil Jennings

Last night I published a full post based on the comment you left me yesterday. Whether you saw this or not I don't know. I posted your comment and your videos in full in a new post. However, I have been informed by other members of the double glazing community that there is on-going legal action with Anglian Home Improvement, and due to this I have had a change of heart and wish not to publish your comments. This is nothing against yourself. I just feel that it is best not to get involved while there is legal action in progress. The purpose of my blog is to air my views on the industry. I don't want it to become an outlet where the public get to victimise certain companies or organisations.

However, thank you for taking an interest in my blog.

DGB