DOSE GLASS COLLECTOR

The following is reprinted from The Druggists Circular,  April, 1908.  

Entitled,  "Selling or Giving Medicine Glasses."

By various subscribers (in response to J.B. Moore's article referenced above).

From Page 179

In the Circular for last month appears a little "editorialette" which reads as follows:

Druggists as neighborhood "good-things" have been much "cussed and discussed" among themselves.  In a recent issue of the Circular one of them advocated the giving away of dose glasses, for advertising purposes, to all prescription customers.  Elsewhere in this issue is a very readable letter advocating the selling of these useful sickroom adjuncts.  We should like our readers to take sides and tell us where they stand.

Some of our readers have "taken sides," and tell "where they stand" in words which are quoted below:

HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN A CIGAR TO A CONDUCTOR?

If the proof of the pudding is the chewing of the string, then the experience of a man who has been in business for two-score years should be worth something.  Therefore, let Mr. Heimstreet, of Janesville, Wis., speak:

I have been giving for forty years past and, so far, am satisfied that it pays.

Regarding graduated glasses, I tried it for several years, with, I think, success.  Many a time a customer, on receiving a prescription, has said: "Mr. Heimstreet, how do I take this and are all spoons the same size?"  My answer would be, "Well, there is a difference, and this medicine should always be taken the same.  I have here a little graduated glass and it is exactly the measure you want. You have always been a good customer and I appreciate it; take it home."  I had my name blown in the glass, and they are in many homes where I gave them twenty years ago, and I consider they are still paying me good interest.

Ask Brother Hunsberger if he ever tried a good cigar on a conductor, or fisherman, and how it worked.  The case is just the same.  To anyone who has any prescription business there is no better investment than a lot of medicine glasses with your name on, to send out with a prescription.

A HIGH AUTHORITY UPHOLDS MR. MOORE.

Dr. H.P. Hynson, of Baltimore, who---- but why undertake to introduce Dr. Hynson to an audience of American pharmacists?  As Milton might say, for them not to know him argues themselves unknown.  Well, here is what he writes:

At your request-- please let me state that-- I venture to express an opinion regarding the very pleasant, interesting and helpful controversy between the two Philadelphia pharmacists, Messrs. Moore and Hunsberger, as to the manner of disposing of medicine glasses.  I have reached that conservative age when I can see right on both sides of the question-- this ability comes only with age-- I like the spirit of Mr. Hunsberger's letter and endorse the underlying principle.  It is the same principle that should prevent one from making gifts, pure and simple, to customers and, especially to physicians; who should invariably be charged for all merchandise.  But I cannot see that this principle Is violated when useful articles are employed as the carriers of advertisements.  One's card on the pasteboard back to which prescription blanks are padded-- not on the blank; an advertisement on the inside of the leather pocket case for holding prescription blanks or such on the little celluloid rule, sample of which I enclose, will not, I believe, detract from the dignity of the pharmacist's high calling, while answering as very effective and economical advertisements, the cost of which should be charged to the advertisement account.  The medicine glass, in my opinion, offers a similar and most excellent means of keeping one's name In the minds of those who take medicines.  We use a goodly number of a certain style in this way and charge them to "Advertising," while those without our card, in greater variety, are charged to "Merchandise."  I hesitate to place an advertisement on an article, itself, for which a customer pays.  I will not have such myself and do not believe I am peculiar in this respect.  Advertisements may go on the containers of regular goods, but not on the goods themselves.

In addition to its advertising value, the medicine glass has an educational power and I believe the pharmacists of the country could not spend a proper proportion of their time, energies and money in a better cause than in educating physicians and the public as to the inaccuracy, as a measure, of the ordinary household spoon and in publishing advantages of accurately graduated glasses.  We have found the moulded glasses much more uniformly accurate than those that are blown and, afterwards, engraved or etched.  I enclose a circular in which we wrap the glasses used for advertising and educational purposes.  Please note that we do not use the term "given away."

The enclosure to which Dr. Hynson refers reads as follows:

                                                     IN EXPLANATION:

                           This Standard Medicine Glass is presented with

                           the compliments of Messrs. HYNSON, WESTCOTT

                           & CO., who hope, thereby, to assist their customers

                           in securing accurate dosage.

                           Household spoons are notoriously inacurate,

                           often, in reality, holding one half as much more as

                           estimated and, consequently, increasing the dose

                           fifty per cent.  This, in some instances, is a very

                           serious matter.

                                   NOTE.-- In measuring, be careful that the top-

                                  most line of the liquid comes Just up to the bot-

                                   tom of the graduation on the glass.

                          CHARLES & FRANKLIN STS. BALTO.

OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING THE PRESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT.

C.F. Nixon, of Leominster, Mass., one of the more prominent New England druggists, and particularly active in all matters affecting the pharmacy of the Old Bay State, writes:

I have read with interest the articles of Mr. J.B. Moore and Mr. Ambrose Hunsberger that appeared recently in The Druggists Circular, relative to giving away graduated medicine glasses to prescription customers.  I can see the force of the positions of both these gentlemen in the matter but think that the argument of the latter is the right one.

I believe that to give away premiums on prescriptions cheapens this, the professional side of our business.  The wisdom of this procedure would no doubt be determined, to some extent, by one's clientele.  In my own case I would think it very unwise to advertise in any way my prescription business.  It appears to me too much like the methods of the quack doctor. We would not think well of a physician who gave away medicine glasses to increase his business, and I do not think It would bring him customers.  Neither do I think that It would bring me customers to do so.  My observation tends to show me that the druggist who finds it necessary to advertise this branch of his business is the one who has but little of it and is making a desperate effort to obtain it.  

One will have difficulty to recall a first-class prescription pharmacy that advertises in these ways.  Of course there are successful "cut rate" stores, which do more or less large prescription business, but these stores cheapen the professional calling of pharmacy.

I have no doubt that this scheme of Mr. Moore's would be a good one for general advertising, and I do some advertising in this way.  The commercial side of our business, it seems to me, may be properly advertised. This may appear to some a very fine point, but it is my view of the matter.

I have built up my prescription business by gaining the confidence of the physician; and, by quality and accuracy, the confidence of my customers.  My stock is the best that I can obtain, and I get the best prices for all drugs and pharmaceuticals.  This leads customers to expect the best of every thing, and is the best advertising for the prescription department, in my opinion.

WHAT WILL THE COMPETITOR DO?

By his public spirited work, and by his readiness of speech, due in great measure to the fullness of his information on all matters pertaining to the welfare of...

From Page 180

...pharmacy, Jacob Diner, of New York, has become prominent in local pharmaceutical association circles, more rapidly, perhaps, than any man now active in those circles.  Accepting our invitation, Mr. Diner writes:

As to my views on the controversy now going on In your valuable paper as to whether medicine glasses should be given away or sold, I will state that it is my opinion that the druggist should not give them away, and for the following reasons:

Viewing pharmacy from the professional point of view, it seems to me that there is no more reason why the pharmacist should give away medicine glasses than there is for the minister to present to his parishioners prayer books, or the physician to give away thermometers.

From a mere business point of view, it has always impressed me that the people never value anything which they get for nothing; and the advertising value of such a step would be a very questionable one, since the giving away of premiums (and the people would come to look upon the medicine glass in this light) is never tolerated long by a competitor without his going you one better, the condition finally degenerating into one where the premium outvalues the article with which it is given.  I believe the New York retailers on the lower East Side have had a taste of this.

By all means encourage the sale of medicine glasses.  Show the people the value of having a measuring glass at their command that will enable them to give a correct dose of medicine.  But sell the glass and do not give it away.

REBATES LOOK LIKE AN ADMISSION OF OVERGHARGE.

F.M. Apple is one of the younger set of Philadelphia's business men whose high professional ideas have given him a prominence in that city of high professional ideals.  His opinion on the medicine-glass-giving question is thus vigorously expressed:

I wish to record myself in full accord with the views expressed so lucidly by Mr. Hunsberger in the March number of your valued Journal, upon the topic of free distribution of accurate medicine glasses to prescription patrons.  My policy has always been to offer no bonus with sales of any sort-- much less so with prescriptions, which are not to be classed with ordinary merchandise for obvious reasons.  The public is, to a large degree at least, laboring under the delusion that pharmacists enjoy profits of from 300 to 500 per cent. upon prescription work, and the custom of handing out bonuses of any sort or description simply intensifies their views in that direction and leads them to quibbling over legitimate prices for honestly compounded prescriptions, when no premium is handed to them.  This method savors too much of the trading stamp scheme to attract shoppers, and the old customs employed by the department stores to "magnetize" trade.

Circumstances alter cases ofttimes, hence pharmacists not having the same conditions under which to conduct their businesses that it is my lot to enjoy may feel justified in following practices that I would not condone or tolerate, but it is my firm belief that it is always far better to build up a prescription business upon the reputation that follows labor well done and honest values for the prices demanded.

As Mr. Moore retired from the retail drug business several years ago, and as a marked change in sentiment concerning the "something for nothing" plans has arisen within recent years, I doubt if the same satisfactory results would follow his custom, if employed to-day.

At a recent meeting of the pharmacists of the eleventh district of the Philadelphia Association of Retail Druggists, it was agreed to discontinue distributing presents of any sort to the public, upon holidays, anniversary days or any other occasion.  This action, it was agreed, should extend to the custom of remembering favored physicians at the Yuletide.  It is apparent from this that a distinct sentiment averse to offering bonuses exists among that body of pharmacists of our city.

Even the trading stamp schemes which periodically have been adopted by many merchants have passed again into history in the majority of cases, showing the fallacy of the bonus systems of attracting and retaining trade-- the latter factor being the vitally important one in a reliable, steady, increasing business-- and an enlarged prescription file.  

My contention always has been that any offer to rebate, in any form, one's customers is an acknowledgement of having overcharged them. Far better modify prices so that those so unfortunate as to require many prescriptions will be the greatest beneficiaries of our generosity, thereby extending the greatest benefits to the best customers (and usually the most needy ones as the result of prolonged illness and incapacity to labor).  

There are many other aspects of the case, which could he elaborated upon but time forbids.  My motto in business is "Whatever is worth doing at all is worth doing well"-- and is worthy of its legitimate price.

LITTLENESS A BESETTING SIN OF PHARMACISTS.

W.R. Ogier, of Columbus, for many years secretary of the Ohio Board of Pharmacy, has a well trained mind and can on occasion wield a vitriolically sarcastic pen.  He thus expresses himself on the subject under discussion:

May I suggest that you set apart a section of the Circular and invite contributions to it each month on "The Training of Customers?"  Every one who thinks, and some who do not, has taken a shot at the target "The Training of Pharmacists"; a change of topics in itself would rest a few fagged brains and the discussion might result In throwing some light upon the matter of donating divers articles to "draw" trade.

 The wisdom of such practice depends largely upon the custom followed by retail druggists, and if a tenderfoot pharmacist unwittingly finds himself in a locality where the habit is already established he would better "join the union."  In the abstract it Is an unscientific practice beneath the dignity of the pharmacist, and one which fosters that already too prevalent tendency in Americans to get something for nothing.  It is a pity that pharmacists can not combine to divest their useful, and of itself highly honorable, calling of much of its littleness. Why not leave the prize-package feature to such bohemian occupations as that of keeping a saloon, in many of which a sandwich is offered with each glass of beer or cocktail?

Patrons of drug stores do not covet gifts except where they have been taught to expect them by druggists who have thought to purchase for small outlay patronage from a competitor-- hence my proposition to have a column in some drug journal of prominence devoted to the training of customers.  The druggist across the way sells postage stamps as a side line; he charges them in the accounts of such as run accounts and desire it so, and he will send them out by messenger on telephone orders and wait six months before he gets his pay!  As a matter of fact the druggist across the way should be arrested and punished for contributing to the moral delinquency of his neighbors. And the customer?  Well, he forms an opinion of his druggist somewhat after the manner of that he has for his footman or his porter.

Let us work away from these petty practices as rapidly as possible.  Let us keep clean pharmacies devoid of many of the objectionable features which have prostituted a noble occupation.  Let us supply nothing but what is strictly first-class for which in every instance we should ask a fair return for professional service rendered and a reasonable profit on what we sell as tradesmen.  Let us preserve our self-respect and unobstrusively inculcate a little of it In those who come daily to our places of business.  By such methods the great majority will succeed.  And the few who fall?  Well, let them go out into the country where the sun shines and heaven's breezes blow, and In the evening twilight or under the eternal stars ponder whether poverty and obscurity are not preferable to littleness.

BE SURE YOU ARE RIGHT BEFORE GOING AHEAD.

J.L. Lascoff, of New York, is a man whose prominence as a prescription druggist gives to his words on matters like the one now under discussion, an unusual weight.  A letter from him follows:

The article in the January issue of The Druggists Circular by Mr. J.B. Moore, I find not only interesting, but beneficial to the readers.

Giving away souvenirs by pharmacists to the public, I have always considered unprofessional and quite agree with Mr. Hunsberger that the druggist should not offer premiums to attract prescription work.  However, I respect any pharmacist whose aim is to further particularly his prescription department and consider him a "pro-... 

From Page 181

fessional man." It has always been my object to obtain a good prescription trade, and although I have never offered any souvenirs or premiums as an advertisement of my prescription department, my advertising of the same consists in giving the best and purest drugs, using the highest quality bottles, boxes, corks and powder papers, and by making prompt deliveries.  I believe every professional man in our line should pursue the same course yet I would, under certain conditions, also approve of Mr. Moore's mode of advertising, if it would stop at the medicine glass, which might be of advantage in using medicines, but it should never lead to a rivalry among druggists quite unprofessional, as they might try to outdo one another.

I therefore prefer to adhere to the more conservative point of view-- rather to not give away anything, than the wrong thing.

THE MEDICINE GLASS APPEALS TO BUT FEW.

Dr. W.C. Alpers, of this city, who is widely known for his decided views on the ethics of pharmacy, writes:

If it is once admitted that the advertising of a professional pharmacy is a desirable means of promoting business, I cannot see why the giving away of any article should be objectionable.  Anyone who has watched the trend of advertising in general knows that the most effective and fetching method consists in giving something for nothing, or in creating the impression that a higher value is given for the customer's money in the advertising store than anywhere else.  It is this fundamental principle that by abuse produces the bold announcements of the cutters, and has given rise to whole volumes and libraries of literature of various natures.  Even the giving of free samples belongs to this class of advertising, and the impression that the dealer can create in the minds of the public, that they can obtain more for their money in that store than elsewhere, underlies this action.

Whether the graduated medicine glass is the most desirable article to use for this purpose is quite a different question.  I personally do not believe this.  Such an article Is of use only to the sick, and will be of little value to the average customer.  To send a graduated medicine glass with each bottle of medicine may be a nice compliment, and pleasant reminder to those who already deal in the advertised store; but the main object of advertising is to reach those who do not deal there, and make them come, and for this purpose the sending out of a useful, serviceable article appears to me to be more desirable.  I know of a druggist who once distributed three thousand wash cloths among the people living in the vicinity of his pharmacy, and he discovered that the sale of advertised wash cloths alone in the next four weeks was sufficient to pay for the advertising.  If, instead, he had distributed three thousand graduated medicine glasses, I do not think he would have received one-tenth the result.

 In these remarks, I infer that the propriety of advertising at all is admitted, and do not enter into the question whether it is ethical or not to do so.

BODEMANN TAKES A SHOT.

The ready and redoubtable Wilhelm Bodemann, of Chicago, expresses his views on this subject with characteristic breeziness, thus:

There are ninety-nine reasons against giving away medical glasses, and not one for this "give away."  That would be, on the track, a "long shot," and I never have dabbled in "long shots" and being beyond sixty, shall not start at this stage of the game at such odds.

 A number of other readers have expressed views on the question raised but as their letters were received late they can not appear in this issue