England rugby fans are not the only ones looking crestfallen this week. Supporters of the timber industry “promotion premium” have also clearly suffered serious disappointment now it has been decided to postpone the project.
The idea to impose a levy on timber sales to fund generic timber marketing is, of course, not new. But this time around it did seem that the idea was approaching its most formalised development for a while. ProWood Ltd, an independent company with input from Timber Trade Federation (TTF) members and other companies across the industry, was set up to levy and administer the scheme and a start date was settled. It was proposed that the money collected would support a range of timber marketing initiatives, including the established wood. for good campaign.
To the “premium’s” backers the whole idea that the cost of promoting timber should be spread through the business chain had an inherent logic. As one person said during a discussion at last week’s London Softwood Club meeting: “It’s an approach that’s widely accepted elsewhere – no-one queries the fact that when you go to Tesco part of the price you pay for groceries goes to cover the cost of their advertising.”
Others, though, clearly had their doubts. Some companies were obviously concerned about how the “premium” might affect their competitiveness in a fierce-fought market place, or whether, or to what extent, they should be involved if timber was not the sole or major component of their business.
Now that the launch of the scheme has been delayed, all parties seem to agree that the situation should not deteriorate into a war of words between the backers and the doubters.
Most of the trade seem to view generic timber promotion as something worth having, with the success of wood. for good held up as a proof of its value. The question is exactly how the promotion should be paid for and by whom. Time, as TTF president John Tong commented this week, for a period of reflection.
