In my interviews with retailers for the May/June issue's articles on gourmet foods and fashion accessories, I asked what suppliers could do to help them be more successful. Not surprisingly, the issue of minimum order sizes came up.
The retailers I spoke with had two problems with some suppliers' minimum order sizes: One, the actual dollar amount was too high. Two, the amount of product they had to order was too much for their trading area. It was pointed out that a store in a small town with a population of 2,000 or even 20,000 could not be expected to order the same amount of product as a retailer located in a city of 200,000 or 2,000,000. In terms of minimum orders, they felt that location should be a consideration.
However, minimum order size is a tried-and-true business practice that is essential for the efficient, profitable operation of a wholesale or manufacturing company. It weeds out buyers who are only interested in purchasing one item (quite often for themselves, or family or friends), and also serves as a deterrent to very small retailers, who are, it's argued, not cost-effective to deal with.
But here's the thing: For small retailers and small town retailers large minimum order sizes--and I do appreciate that "large" is a relative term--stand in the way of introducing new products and lines, which seems unfair and unfortunate--to the retailer and his or her customers. In an economy where retailers need all the help they can get, maybe suppliers should consider a sliding scale of minimum order size that takes into account selling area size, etc. Maybe some suppliers already do. In any case, prior to heading to the shows it might be wise to reconsider the minimum order size question. While retailers can't expect to be able to order as much--or as little--as they want, suppliers might think about how they can meet these small retailers half way and create a new, mutually beneficial minimum order middle ground.