LS-45:15

---------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------

VIEWS 'OF NEW YORK MILK DISTRIBUTORS

.' ',- " !. '/ CONCERNING CONTIlWATIOliT OF WARTnm LIMITATIONS

ON DEL IVERY SERVICES AFTER THE WAR ENDS

t.

" .

,' : . ' .. . ~ ~ . ,; ....

,. :

. '. A 'Prelill1inarY Report to

Mr. Kenneth F~ "Fee ; Director . . : " .. ~ .' ~ : . . , . ,", . ~ Divisi6n of Milk Control New York ' State Department of

Agriculture and Markets OJ ,

A. E. 50S

By

Leland Spencer, Professor of Marketing

New York State College of Agriculture . Ithaca, New York

6

January 30, 1945

------------------------------------------------------------------------------'

Ls-45:16

FOREWORD

This report is the res-ultdf: a cooperative arrangement for analysis of report s filed by milk distributors in connection with a questionnaire survey conducted by the Division6C1Jlilk Control. The questionnaires were sent early in December to all distributors of milk and cream licensed by the Division in New York City and in the adjacent counties of Nassau, Suffolk, and Westcb,ester.

This preliminary report deals with only one phase of the survey; namely, the replies by distributors to questions concerning possible continuation after the war of certain restrictions on delivery services which are now in effect as wartime economy measures. The questionnaire also called for facts and figures pertaining to the routes operated by these distributors and the quantities of milk and cream sold before and after the various wartime restrictions were adopted. This information is now being tabulated. When summarized, the data will show in terms of quarts per route per day, quarts per mile of travel by delivery vehicles, etc., how much the efficiency of milk delivery in that area has increased.

The a:uthor wishes to acknowledge the cordial cooperation of Mr. Kenneth F. Fee, Director; Mr. L. L. Clough, Ass"istantDirector; and l~r. W. J. McKinney, Supervisor of Auditing; of the Division of. Milk Contr.ol, who have carried the chief responsibility for the survey. Credit also is due the many distributors who responded promptly to the request for information concerning their route operations and for their views on cO"ntinuation of the specified wartime practices.

1s ... 45:17

VIEWS OF NEW YORK MILK DISTRIBUTORS CONCERNING CONTINUATION OF WARTIME LIMITATIONS

ON DELIVERY SERVICES AF~ER THE WAR ENDS

, This report is based on the replies to a questionna.ira .by .appro:d,mately 270 milk , distributors who del iver milk and cream to ' consumers, stores, restaur-.n ts, and other types of customers j.n New York City and adjacent counties. All types of, mil:k;:;.9-1stributors, such as producer-dealers,subdealers. and the regula.r merchant-distributors, are represented; likewise the small One-route operators, as well as the largest firms, have. been incl\lded in the survey. The distribu-tors whose reports are represented in this tabulation handle more than 90 per cent of the total volume of milk sold in New York City and upwards of -50 per cent of tbe total volume sold ill Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester COUll,ties. In order to bring out any significant differences in the viewpoints efdifferent groups of distributors, the reports have been classified in se-veral divisionS', as indicated in the following tal:mlat'ion:

Location: and ~ZEe of business

New York City

Retail trade, Wholesale trade .. On retail routes only Wholesale tr?-de, 'on whOl~~ale routes

" " .

Westc.hester 'County and Long ' Islap.d . -li

* * * * * Please indicate below which of the wartime changes in milk delivery you

b-elieve sho.uld'(1)e ' C'ailtinu@d after. ~ tfleGWar. ends. :-(Check in appropriate column): . . , ~ . . 7', ,.:f. ~'. ' : ~: ~ ."'. '. " ~ ."' .;, .. ,., r ::!.:' ~< L .:.:i .... '. ' .

. , . ) . . -.. ~ .-. ~ .. ~; . . ~, .. : . . . . : ::'..'.~ .. : :. :; :~ ~ ";~ ~ "I -' . ~ ~ ' ' l , ' ; :, .. . " ~ .. '

. ::l:

A'; .~ . .}3 . . ,' . ... .. . C .. D . E F G ,:r

,': :'

Every-o,:th~r.~d~y .'s~r;ic.e' .~ ; :lj , ~ : " .!~" Daylight~,9.pe~ati~n,~ofroutf, .s, : . ,',' ... ". ',. a Ban ~n speciai ~~i~Y~d~~ : .:.:" .;....: .

. Ban on call ... back~.. . .. ... . ~ :; :.I ,'.:i " Customers required to o~~e~ J }~.'?'-9:yal1q~ ... . . Ban on use of pint bottles . . Ban on sale of heavy cream Limitation on number of grades of cream*' ..... ~ . -:"," . ~ ... "' .... " .... . " .,_ " .. _ ~ .. - ~ .... ....... ' ___ w_ , ......... __ .

. '. Should be continued

Should not be cont inued

. >41 If you favor contj:tiuecLl imi ta tion on cream grades, how many do you think should be allowed? ' .':" "': ... .

'.'

* * * * * . . . : . . , .. .,. I ~ ~ f ' .

. 'As shown by the foregolng tabulatlon, usable reports have bBen"recelved .. f~0if{ 2-31 di s tr ibu tor ~?:WhO-()-pe.r.ate . . r.atai1m-ilk routes. Twen tY-tv;.o . ..o.f-.'.:.t":f1ese

distributors expressed no opinion as to whether any of the wartime restrictions on delivery of milk and cream should be continued after the~r . .end:a:._~:~ the 209 distributors who took a position on the matter, 187, or 89 per cent, said that. the every-other-day system qf delivery. ~o retail custo'mers sl?-otd be con-t inlJ.~d. Somewhat smaller numbers/btlt s1i1?staI).hal:majo~Hle 8;:6:t: fue' di stri bu-tors" appear to favor the continuation: ofs!3\Teralof' the citner;h~~tf.f&tions listed. Only a small minority (who proba1?ly misunderstood the question) indi-cated a preference for continuing the .:bafi." .. 6-n.heav:y cr.aa.m; , .:: '. :~.i.!.:~:'.::,"'.: .:;.> .. >:

Slightly more t~n half the.retail distributors who expressed" themselves on the question of limiting the' number:' O{;gbl9-'et : of ' cream after' t:hr~~ar favor this type of restriction. Aboutthre'e ' fowth's'6fthese say that tvfo \ grades of cream (light and heavy) should be allowed. Most of the others su:ggeste~ that only one grade, presumably heavy cream. be permitted. " .' :: ,: " .,

The percentages 'of lI]'ew' York .. City and suburban distributors' f llvo.ring each of the specified restrictions on del'iV'er:y~ serv''ic'e to retailcustoiJier.~ are given on the following page. " ' . ": . " : . . ' . . ' . . : .

I" " .", '. , .~ - . , .~ . .. .. ,,-~ ." t . . - " I " . " '~ . . " .~" .. '~

' . .... , . .. '; ~ i :" . .

. ' , : ./~ ' j .: I "., , . . .. .. ,.r, .-: -I.~ .; . ': ,; :' ". :: ,': .;'f

. " . . :-. :

Specified restrictions 'on delivery services

-Percentage a position that favor

Distributors

of distributors who took on each type of restriction its contipuation:

Distributors in suburban Eoth

to retail customers in New York City areas* groups

A. Every-other-day . serVice --, E. Daylight operation C. Ean on special deli~8rie~ D. Ean on call-backs E. _ Advance orders by customers F. E an on :p-int. :00 t tle s G. J3an on sale of heavy cream H. Limitation on cream grades

91 55 82 71 79 70 19 48

* In Nassau. Suffolk, and Westchester Counties.

86 89 86 69 91 86 82 76 64 73 82 75 10 16 61 53

In general the distributors 'operating in the suburban ;J.reas -outside New -York City took about the same position with regard to continuing the various restrictions on delivery services as did the city distributors. Hoviever, a marked difference in viewpoint between these two groups is noted with re.spect to the claylight operation of retail routes and the ban on "call-backs,',1 The sub-urban distributors favor these provisions to a much greater extent than do the city distributors. As a matter of fact. daylight operation of ' retail routes in New York City has not been "required by the federal authorities because of con-gested traffic conditions during the daylight hours. Call-backs for purposes of co Hecting bills and SOliciting trade are more essential when the deliveries are made before d8\)'light. . . ',: ,

Some of the restrictions on retail delivery a.re favored to a. grea.ter extent by the large distributors, and. others to a greater extent by the small operators. For example, the ban on special deliveries and the ban on use of pint bottles are favored more generally by the ' large distributors, while the ban onea.ll-backs ~nd the requirement that customers order in advance received a larger percentage ""te on the part of I the small firms. Among the New York City distributors, a. ~Ch higher percentage of the large firms expressed themselves in favor -of a l.iI!litation ,on the n1i!nber of grades of cream. but among the suburban distributors the viewpoint on this question a.pparently ' wa.s not influenced much by the si~e Qf business.

These and other differ~nces " 'in viewpOint as related to the ,size ,of business are shown in the tabula.t ion on thE) following page.

~ r.. . ~ : I ..... .. .

Ls-45 :20 .

Specified restrictions on delivery service to retail customers

Percentage of distributors who took a position on each type of restriction that favor its continuation: Small Medi urn Large volume volume volume

Distributors in New York City

.'1. . Every-other'-day service 92

~3 . Daylight operation 54

c, Ban on special deliveries 81

D. Ban on call-backs 73

E. Advance orders by customers 82

F. Ban on pint bottles 70

H. Limitat ion on cream grades 44

Distribut((:t's outside New York City

A. Every-other-day service 39

B. Daylight operation 85

C. Ban on special deliveries 87

n. Ban on call-backs 80

E. Advance orders by customen:l 60

F. B