COUPON TRADING

Hokitika Guardian, 4 July 1931, Page 6

COUPON TRADING

(Associated Chamber of Commerce of of New Zealand).

There has been wide-spread agitation on tlie part of retailers and other interested parties against the system which is steadily growing, or using coupons for certain classes of goods. As a result, a Bill entitled “‘The Trading Coupons Act, 1931”, was introduced to the House of Representatives by the Minister of Industries and Commerce in April, 1931, but the Bill was not proceeded with. In this Bill, “Trading Coupon” was defined as •

“Any stamp, coupon, cover, token, package, document, means or device issued by any person for delivery to a purchaser upon or in connection with a sale by means of which or any part o. which, either by itself or together with another or other trading-coupons, any person becomes or purports to become, or may become entitled to demand, whether directly or indirectly, and whether with or without any further payment of money or for any other consideration, and whether by a legally enforceable contract or otherwise, and whether from the issuer or from any other person any money or any goods (other than the goods sold) or any right ct transport of the right to enter any place of entertainment or amusement or any other consideration, benefit or advantage, whether of the kinds aforesaid or not.”

“Trading Coupon Company” is defined as including: “Any person, firm, company or corporate body, including any trader, as hereby defined, who supplies any trad-ing-coupons to any trader 'or to any person and undertakes to redeem the same by means of money, goods or other right, consideration, benefit or advantage, or undertakes for the redemption of the sanite in like manner by any other person.” The issue and redemption of trading stamps by trade stamp companies was rendered illegal by “The Trade Stamps Prohibition and Discount Stamps Provision Act, 1908,” but a Supreme Court judgment held, however, that in some respects, the Act did not apply to certain forms of trade coupons, and therefore the proposed Bill enlarged the scope of the “Trade Stamps Prohibition Act, 1908”, to include all forms of trading coupons.

The stoppage of coupons issued by the Universal Distributing Company, Limited, (called Universal Certificates) was deemed illegal under “The Trading Stamps Prohibition Act. 1908.” The present legislation is intended to he directed against the gift schemes which are chiefly operated by the tobacco and cigarette companies, although for a number of years, gift schemes h»ve been in force in regard to certain brands of teas, breakfast foods, etc., and certain retailers have had gift schemes running for many years in connection with their general business. Speaking generally, gift schemes appear to be very wide-spread in Great Britain and America. In Great Britain tile schemes are not only operated by the Tobacco Companies, but also by the leading chocolate and cocoa concerns. Gift schemes are advertised extensively, the form of advertising featuring prominently in some cases the article manufactured and in other cases the gifts distributed. For many years, the gifts issued by chocolate manufacturers were confined to modest boxes of chocolates of the firm’s own make, hut now coupons entitle users to such articles as electric irons, mincing machines, stockings, sets of toilet specialties, toys and so on.

, An advantage claimed for the coupon . scheme is that it induces people to buy tile same goods for the sake of the . gifts. There are, however, many draw- , backs and difficulties, and. many retail , j traders are finding their businesses de- . I finitely affected by these gift schemes . Naturally, they are protesting, and have appealed to the Government for relief. On account of these protests. [ manufacturers of many well known pro- , ducts have withdrawn from the supply of gifts, or coupon schemes. A variation of this scheme is the practice- of some manufacturers to give away with one of their own manufactured lines, an article either maim actured by themselves, or co-reln ted to the use of their own article. For exainple, a packet of peas was given free l*,v one manufacturing concern to every purchaser of its Tomato Ketchup; soap manufacturers have given away safety razors and tooth brushes to purchasers of their own manufactured articles. In another case manufacturers of a certype of lamp secured a lower fire insurance premium for their users, and in yet another case, manufacturers of fruit juices offered to every purchaser of 12 bottles, a free sparklet syphon. In yet another case, a boys’ bobby paper gave a model mechanical toy with each copy of its paper and is stated to June increased its sales five-fold thereby. It is obviou s from the above that gift schemes have taken quite a strong hold, and in certain cases, they have proved successful in boosting th > sales of particular classes of manufactures, it is apparent that these sales are made at the expense of retailers, who adhere to what is considered legitimate business. ' An endeavour lias been made in this article t () .set out tile pros and <oiis of the matter as they appear evident, and the Associated Chambers of Commerce; while sympathising with the views ot many retailers, suggest that Parliament may consider whether 0 r not it- would be practicable to make an exception in the Bill in the cases of gifts confined t" articles manufactured by the- concerns giving the gifts, as. for instance, a Cocoa Manufacturer might give boxes o f chocolates. The Government is proceed ing this session with new legislation on the lines of the Bill submitted to Parliament in April last, and it is hoped that, on this occasion. Parliament will definitely pass this Bill and bring it ‘ into operation at an early date. ’