Readers air views on FR, ISPA numbers, price hikes
Today my readers get their say. My June 16 column about setting the record straight on the safety of fire-resistant mattresses provoked one reader to blast me for writing “a false article on the FR chemicals in mattresses.”
My critic continued: “Since you are not interested in the facts, I won’t waste my time sharing them here. But please know that when the consumer is presented the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to why the Consumer Product Safety Commission put these ridiculous rules in place, they don’t want a ‘safe’ mattress.”
My response: I’m not interested in facts? I quoted extensively in that column from the CPSC’s study of FR chemicals, which it deemed safe. Those are the facts, according to CPSC. I quoted facts and now I’m accused of not being interested in facts. That criticism is way off base.
My June 30 column questioning the accuracy of the International Sleep Products Assn.’s monthly statistics brought this comment: “Unfortunately ISPA does not have a true grasp on what is happening with the industry on a timely basis…. However, without the majors providing accurate information it is difficult to see how they can even closely approximate what is happening, which begs the question of why even publish such a report.”
My response: ISPA CEO Dick Doyle made a similar point to me about the importance of having majors participate in the monthly reports. Several majors do take part, but some don’t. While I have questioned the accuracy of the monthly reports on occasion, I strongly believe they should be continued. Some guidance on what is happening in the industry is better than none. What we need is a history of the variance between the monthly figures and the annual figures, so we can keep the monthly figures in proper perspective.
The industry’s sales slump also drew a couple of comments from my readers. “My personal belief is that survival is not a given for many if their only plan is to hold on and wait for a better economy,” one producer wrote. He said his vendors “continue to project much gloom about the industry’s health.” My comment: Amen.
Another producer lamented “the unprecedented price increases our industry is getting on raw materials. … Coupled with all the other problems faced by our customers and consumers, this is turning out to be the most difficult year I have ever seen in the mattress business. What does your crystal ball show?”
My crystal ball confirms that this is going to be the worst year in the industry in decades. But here’s a thought: Why don’t we raise prices? Who says we must make $299 queen-sized sleep sets? Does the consumer know that last year’s $599 bed is now a $699 bed? I don’t think so.
And here’s another thought: Let’s talk about the importance of better sleep. We’ve got to break out of this price-price-price marketing strategy.
Barb commented:
I am a democratic "liberal" who very much believes that we need to regulate industry so that we don't poison our air and water over the long term. I also believe in tough safety regulations for automobiles, where through no fault of your own, you can be killed on the highway at high speeds. But I believe that the FR regulations on mattresses were completely unwarranted except in situations such as nursing homes, hospitals, dorms and hotels (which were largely already regulated in the area of FR). The cost to the manufacturing industry in terms of revamping designs, machinery retooling, burn testing and complex burdensome record-keeping was/is completely out of proportion to the risk to the average consumer and the benefit to society at large. We've introduced MORE toxic materials than before for consumers to be exposed to on a nightly basis, we've dramatically increased the cost of a basic necessity for all Americans, we've totally removed choice from the picture in an area where the risk was so low to begin with that choice was a no-brainer, we've driven smaller regional less-sophisticated less-deep-pocketed manufacturers completely out of business and we've made it infinitely more difficult to recycle the end product, a project where significant progress has only been made in the state of Massachusetts (to my knowledge). The risks and waste of sending wornout mattresses to the landfill instead of recycling them far outweigh the risks of the average American consumer facing fire death by mattress in their own home.
bed selling daddy commented:
raw goods cost? prove it?? all the manufacturers could produce proof however they won't!! the raw goods cost increase vs the price increase by % my bet not even close, ok so its mostly frieght cost!! fuel prices dropped and your cost still went up!! hello. Have you noticed the weight of the new products? Get out of your office and go grab a good example new Sealy posturepedic its what I call the featherlight line. go ahed ask your warehouse guys and drivers hmmmmm less for more!! yes it cost less fuel to move the lighter load ok getting the idea. I hope you did not take the 2% for keeping the warranty returns??
John Madison commented:
I agree!
Dave Perry commented:
Dear 28year Rep: Thanks for sharing those provocative views. I think you've gotten a bit carried away, however. The idea that manufacturers are driving price increases misses the reality that costs for raw materials continue to go up. I don't think suppliers are happy about passing along price increases in this climate, but they are forced to do so.
-Dave
28year rep commented:
I personally believe that the current climate of weekly, monthly, etc pricing increases is now a feeding frenzy fueled by the manufacturers and distributors.
They have learned that the public is now expecting (and accepting) price increases. Let's get as much as we can, for as long as we can. That is the current attitude.
Why can't the bedding industry get back to basics. Build a long lasting, two sided bed and establish brand loyalty again. This is a sad industry currently.
| Mattress Pads
Great deals on the most comfortable mattress pads. |