Home Center Merchant

BILL FISHMAN

Bill Fishman & Affiliates

1'1650 lberia Place San Diego, Ca.92128 lN MY last column I suggested lumber land building material dealers must consider different strategies to be positioned for:

(A) Contractor, commercial and industrial customers

(B) D-I-Y customers

Here are some of the elements to be considered!

SITE LOCATION

(A) For Commercial & Contractor Customers

Almost any site location will suffice if it's within a short drive and relatively uncongested. Depot street is okay. Parking for trucks and pickups.

(B) For D-l-Y Customers

Nearby. Main Street. Well lit safe neighborhood. Easy access in and out. Safe left hand turns across traffic. No competition between d-i-yer's home and the store. Allow ample parking cars and pickuo trucks.

MERCHANDISE MIX

(A) For Commercial & Contractor Customers

Heavy toward commodity items. In stock on commercial building needs. Heavy duty professional tools and hardware. Long lengths. Large size containers. Bulk pack merchandise. Availability of special orders,

(B) For D-l-Y Customers

Cut sizes. Promotional brands and models. Bubble and blister packs on pegboard. Household size containgrs. Progres- sional sizes and price points. "Packages" of materials to complete projects.

(Of course the merchandise mix for the aftermarket can easily be expanded beyond the requirements of the contractor, commercial and industrial customer.)

VISUAL PRESENTATION

(A) For Commercial & Contractor Customers

No visual presentation of commodity items is required. A chalkboard listing of "instock" and "outs" is helpful. Minimum requirements for display of non-lumber items.

(B) For D-l-Y Customers

How-to-install displays. Promotional end caps. In-store lumber inventory. All merchandise price marked. Descriptive and promotional showcard signs. Fact tags.

STORE HOURS

(A) For Commercial & Contractor Customers

7:30 a.m. opening weekdaysminimum till 4:30 p.m.

(Please turn to pase 27) an opportunity to address dcficits in a fashion that b both fair and cffoclive. af,ONTINUING thc discussion of the Yfederal deficit started in this column last month, we explore hcre more thoroughly the effect a Constitutional amendment might have on the problem. ln short, everyonc who receives either a federal paycheck or a federal benefit chcck would receive no mor€ or no less in fiscal year l9E5 than they received in fiscal year 1984. All federal departments, agencies, and programs funded through discretionary appropriations also would have been required to operate in fiscal year 1985 at fiscal year l9&4 funding levels. The equity of such an approach to deficit reduction would afford Congress

As it turned out, only a minority of Congress agrccd with this solution. The plan was defeated by a 2-l margin.

The problem, howcvcr, won't go away. Annual deficits of just undcr $200 billion are projected throuSh the end of the decadc. And as long as they are prescnt, the economic stability we seck cannot be achieved.

If Congress should adopt such an amendment, its intent could be skirted. Congress could do this merely by revising the federal budget structure by shifting more deficit-riddcn federal programs into the "off-budget" category. This, of course, would only compound the problem.

This past spring, Congress surprised the pundits by taking a sincere look at potential solutions to the deficit problem. In the Senate, several senators proposed looselydescribed "freeze" plans to cap or freeze federal spending in some major areas.

The most broadly-based and equitable proposal was an across-the-board freeze in all federal spending for one year. Under the plan, all departments, agencies and dependents of the federal government would have shared the burden of reducing the deficit.

The proposal had the backing of a bipartisan group of senators. In the case of appropriated programs, both defense and nondefense, we proposed that budget authority befrozen atthe l984level. In entitlement programs, we suggested that individual benefit payments, as well as reimbursements for health care providers, be frozen at their 1984 level. The plan also called for freezing federal pay and benefits along with a one-year revenue increase of about $10 billion.

Thc freeze idea may not be appealing in the years ahead. But something like it-something that is equitable and broad-bascd-will be necessary. It is strong medicine, but our stricken federal budget is in need of such a prescription. If the optimists ard pessimists among us are to breath easier, Congress must be willing to act sooner rather than later. A lumber and building material industry in search of stability demands it.