Scotweb, kilts, and shipping to the US

[KiltedPilot]

To my knowledge the only other retailers who "get stuff through" by courier without paying the proper fees are the ones who are prepared to lie on official forms by deliberately misdeclaring the contents.

Nick,

I feel your making a rather extreme statement here. There are a number of reputable kilt makers, including several other advertisers on this forum, who have worked out that certain shipment methods can reliably and repeatably reduce customer's import charges versus other shipment methods. Absolutely no lying is required. I can substantiate that with specific examples.

I am concerned, however, that you are taking this reasonable debate of your rather strong statements as a criticism of Scotweb. That is not the case. You've simply put forward a rather strong view, and I simply disagree with it.

As a courtesy to you, I've put forward a detailed example in a different thread so to no longer give you angst. If you have specific examples to support your view that kilt makers must be lying to achieved these import cost reductions, perhaps you can provide that information in that thread.

The only relevance to Scotweb is that if you are not familiar with these strategies, then there is a valuable opportunity for you to learn how improve your service. It might also explain why customers might be particular as to why they request one shipping method over another.

Mike

[tyger]

In a thread some months ago, there was the expressed opinion, or fact, that no duties would be charged if a package declaring "ethnic garments" were imported into the USA. Is there a US Customs Xmarks member who can verify this as true, and tell us exactly where in the code this can befound?

[ForresterModern]

In a thread some months ago, there was the expressed opinion, or fact, that no duties would be charged if a package declaring "ethnic garments" were imported into the USA. Is there a US Customs Xmarks member who can verify this as true, and tell us exactly where in the code this can befound?

Tyger

I believe that was me making reference to something I had heard from a vendor at a games but had never verified. Take this link to my lengthy post on your other thread regarding this issue for more details:

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...tml#post869024

jeff

[bricelythgoe]

Nick,

I feel your making a rather extreme statement here.

I am concerned, however, that you are taking this reasonable debate of your rather strong statements as a criticism of Scotweb. That is not the case.


Mike

I agree. I never read the original author's writing of this thread as one of extreme criticism or complaint. In fact, I don't think he was angry at all. He was just pointing out some things that happened to him. I think he has a right to do so on the forum publicly and to do it privately. I took from it that I need to be careful when ordering from ANYONE out of the country. I am assuming that was his intent. His intent never was to smear or otherwise degrade your company.

[creagdhubh]

I have ordered many items from Scotweb, to include 3 kilts and custom tartan, Argyll hose, their customer service, quality of products, and shipping has always been absolutely bang on! Have I had to pay a customs duty, yes I have, and the same goes for the many items I've ordered from Kinloch-Anderson out of Leith, Scotland. I have only had a few "minor" items that have slipped through customs without having a tax added to it, and without me being billed at a later date. You could avoid the duty all together by ordering from a company here that orders its kilts and other Highland products from companies in Scotland-then, you are only paying for shipping costs here in the States. I have done this with one kilt, in which I ordered from The Scottish Lion, a wonderful company that's been in the business for quite some time, out of New Hampshire. All I paid for that specific kilt was naturally the cost of the kilt, and the $15.00 shipping cost to have it sent to my home address here in the States. So, there are indeed ways around paying the customs duties, I suppose. Don't be upset at Scotweb, from what Nick said, they really didn't do anything wrong. I'm sorry that all happened to you and that it gave you a bad taste in your mouth, but I assure you, Scotweb is a reputable and honest company!

Cheers,

[Nick Fiddes]

Hi Mike, first, my thanks for taking the more general part of this discussion to another forum. It does make it easier for me to discuss when I'm just one of a number of voices contributing their perspective and experience to an issue, rather than having to shoulder the blame for the world economic system personally! ;-)

I was aware of the risk that my words might come across badly to some ears, and I think I understand why you use the word extreme. I'm sure you'll understand that as a retailer we are in a slightly different position than most others writing here. This can make it really quite difficult to speak freely and frankly, for several reasons...

One is that I do feel I have a duty to my company to speak with a voice that is not always the same as I would as a private individual. I hope this doesn't just mean it becomes 'corporate speak'. But it's inevitable I can't be as outspoken as others, even where I might like to. On the other hand, I do prefer to be open and truthful. This isn't always an easy balance to achieve, particularly when you know things that others don't but can't easily go into in detail.

For example, as an 'industry insider' I am party to a lot of both factual information and industry gossip that others here aren't. Part of me would love to share some of this stuff, some of which would certainly shock you. Like any industry, ours is comprised of a lot of different companies, each with their own practices and values and ethics. There are many that I respect greatly, including some active and direct competitors to us. There are others in the industry that are widely distrusted and despised for their behaviour by those in the know, but who nonetheless maintain a public front of respectability.

But I won't name names. Other than occasional reference to the Singh family, whom I consider beneath contempt, I will rarely if ever criticise a competitor by name. Why not? Several reasons. I think it reflects badly on businesses that slag off their competitors. I also think that constantly looking over your shoulder at competitors can be a huge waste of energy, and as anyone who knows me will tell you our mantra is always to get on with running our own business right instead. And our policy is just not to get involved in industry politics - I prefer to maintain positive mutually-supportive relationships where possible, and simply body-swerve the rest.

So for all those reasons, I'm sorry, but I'll have to decline your invitation to expand on my reference to supposedly reputable competitors actively and repeatedly misdeclaring in a manner that I consider blatant fraud. I've various reasons to say this with confidence, including that I've heard it bragged about, and we also in fact have documentary proof which was passed to us some time ago. But tempting though it was to make this public (or take it to the authorities) we decided not to get involved. It infuriates me when we are put at a commercial disadvantage by liars and cheats. But I hope that in the long run we stand to gain more by playing by our own rules and letting others make their own bed to lie in.

Having said that, if you are party to information about legal and honest procedures which we don't know about, and which don't have other drawbacks (such as high rates of 'loss' or rotten service standards, which ultimately cost the customer too) I'll be surprised, but we'd be delighted to hear about it. If so, I'd prefer to carry on such a discussion through the PM system where I could perhaps speak more freely (in confidence) about our own perspectives and experiences than I can publicly.

[KiltedPilot]

Having said that, if you are party to information about legal and honest procedures which we don't know about, and which don't have other drawbacks (such as high rates of 'loss' or rotten service standards, which ultimately cost the customer too) I'll be surprised, but we'd be delighted to hear about it.

Nick,

I'm happy to to recap, and expand on what I've said already on this.

1. Import costs can often be dominated by the courier's brokerage fees, and not the actual taxes and duties (see the example in the other thread). That is -- the largest part of the costs are often courier specific, and not uncontrollable fix government rates.

2. brokerage fees vary by courier -- national mail being the cheapest by far, but there are significant variances between the couriers.

3. brokerage fees vary by service (from the same courier) -- both UPS and FedEx, for instance, have services that include their brokerage fees, and services that don't. This can generate false economies where the retailer selects a shipping method that is, say, $10 cheaper (from the same courier), only to force the customer to incur $40 extra fees. (This is often a difference between "International Priority" and "International Economy", or "Air" and "Ground".)

4. the likelihood of waiving duties/taxes varies between shipping methods (this really just favours national mail carriers, which you are having a particular problem with apparently).

5. Some couriers will negotiate with package recipients over excessive brokerage fees -- FedEx will, UPS won't, in my experience.

6. Some couriers will negotiate over their fees with senders. I previously ran a mail order business in UK, and negotiated with FedEx a 65% discount on their rates in mind of our volume to North America. If I was doing it again, I'd try to negotiate their brokerage fees also in light of what I have subsequently learned.

7. (This probably doesn't apply, but larger courier customers can arrange the courier to bill the sender for duties, and act almost as a domestic US or Canadian supplier. This does require you to have IT systems to handle that. It can work very well. For instance if I buy from the Apple Store in Canada, the goods are actually sent direct from China, or warehouses in California or Memphis -- FedEx handle the brokerage for Apple in bulk, and it's invisible to me).

The only point that I have tried to convey here is, where you feel "our feedback shows the same aggregate behaviour of packages going through customs", I have observed this to not be the case. Sure, there are some random factors, but many stable repeatable factors, that can lead to significant repeatable economies. The point of my detailed examples is to demonstrate that.

A further trend you are alluding to is that Scotweb are experiencing high number of problems with package loss with Royal Mail/Parcelforce. This is preventing you taking advantage of the benefits that can offer in terms of significant reduced cost to the customer. The key question is, is that a common experience, or unique to Scotweb? All I can offer you there is that I used to send between 8,000 and 20,000 packages per year via Royal Mail/Parcel force from UK to US/Canada, and experienced very little loss. The most common problem, though rare, was random misrouting that occasionally caused packages to arrive unusually late. Very rarely did packages not arrive at all.

But this was a handful of years ago. Maybe the service has vastly deteriorated. Or maybe this is a local problem in your specific sorting office that might be resolvable.

I've not noticed many people reporting problems with Royal Mail/Parcelforce deliveries on this forum. This is one of the values of this forum -- sharing information. The membership here is large, and covers orders from a range of UK suppliers. You could post a request for experiences good/bad for Royal Mail/Parcelforce to help determine if this is a problem only Scotweb are experiencing?

Hope this helps.

Mike

[guitarmatt]

(regarding Royal Mail and Parcel Force)The most common problem, though rare, was random misrouting that occasionally caused packages to arrive unusually late.

These two problems have happened quite a bit to us in the last several years, mainly packages coming from the States to the UK. There would be solid tracking info to the point of entry to the UK, then often months of silence. We thought we'd lost my wife's saddle in one instance. It finally showed up in a box absolutely torn to pieces. If I as an individual have had these experiences, I can only imagine what a vendor has to deal with.

[Nick Fiddes]

The only point that I have tried to convey here is, where you feel "our feedback shows the same aggregate behaviour of packages going through customs", I have observed this to not be the case. Sure, there are some random factors, but many stable repeatable factors, that can lead to significant repeatable economies. The point of my detailed examples is to demonstrate that.

Mike, I hear everything you're saying. But I'm afraid your experience and ours is inevitably going to be very different for any number of reasons. As an importer of certain sorts of goods in certain combinations of weights and bulks, based in one locality on one side of the pond (several years ago, in a fast-changing environment) we find your thoughts interesting but we cannot base our policies upon it as an exporter of other sorts of goods, in other combinations of weights and bulks, to countless localities from the other side of the pond.

I don't believe I've anywhere said that import duties aren't an important consideration. What I've said is that they're far from being the only one. We have to base our decisions on which services to offer on what we believe is best, taking all factors into account, for our customers in the current market, based on what our customers tell us they care about. Of course this cannot always be optimal for all customers. But I'm really not sure whether you believe we are plain stupid, or whether we enjoy our customers having to pay unnecessary penalties, or whether we are secretly stooges for the US paymaster general, or what... Of course we want to offer the best available services for our customers, not least because we want their repeat business so it would be crazy to do otherwise. And we do constantly research and review our data to ensure we're doing so. So I'm yet to be convinced that you know how to run our business better than we do.

In particular I don't share your conviction that there are significant and systematic (aka repeatable) variations in duties and/or fees charged for comparable services. I don't expect to change your mind, because you have your own experience. But I have to ask you why, if you are correct, the free market does not regulate itself. If Company A is consistently able to get exactly the same packages through exactly the same sort of service in exactly the same locations than Company B, but for so much lower prices to the customer, then why (a) does the boss of Company B not demand from the customs folk that they get the same rates so as not to be commercially disadvantaged; and (b) does the public not wise up (via communities such as xmarks) and shift all its business and drive Company B out of business; and (c) does the bod running the customs operation not go to the boss of Company A with a large red bill for back taxes?

I put it to you that the reason for all of these is that the variations are just not as repeatable and systematic as your individual experience has led you to believe, however strongly you believe yourself to be right. (Or that where there is systematic variation, the service is not entirely comparable and you are effectively paying extra for positives in other ways.) Our own experience, as I've said many times before, is that there are indeed large inconsistencies, but the pattern to that variation is all over the place. Of course individual customers will spot their own local individual patterns and draw their own individual conclusions. But we have to go on the broad experience of shipping thousands of packages annually to all parts, using a variety of couriers, including running various tests, and having back-reporting that we can and do analyse. That all tells us your repeatable patterns are ephemeral in the aggregate.

Oh, and by the way, Canada Post used to be about as good as other comparable services until quite recently. It is really just in the past couple of years their service has declined catastrophically. And no, it is not just Scotweb saying this.