MatterOfConcern:TheGuamProductSeal?
April 25, 2011 by admin
Filed under Special Forces
So let’s get this straight, A non-native Senator on Guam, is trying to say that only Guam-based manufacturers are allowed to place the word “Guam” on products that are sold in Guam….even if the manufacturing doesnt exist locally to make custom goods with custom packing.
Now however, we can support the restrictions of products saying “made on Guam” to be limited to products actually made on Guam but limiting locally sellable goods to the confines of local manufacturing is just as silly as saying you cant work to service our people unless you are of local blood…
For the people.Period.
the main issue is that products carrying the word “Guam” practice promotional power for Guam. Even if theyre made overseas, that shouldnt discriminate them from promoting our island. maybe Guthertz feels this bill will focus the support of local factories. Unfortunately locally and for whatever reason, we are limited to what we can produce in bulk
Dear All,
Thank you for expressing interest in the on-going discussion regarding the possible changes to Title 4 GAR and 12 GCA Article 2 regarding the Guam Product Seal.
As a result of the April 11 Roundtable discussion sponsored by Senator Judith Guthertz , the initial discussion and media coverage (Marianas Variety dtd April 12, 2011) indicates the Senator’s intention to introduce a bill to change the present laws which apply to products which are imported from other countries that have the word “ Guam” on them . As you may be aware the present statute allows for these products to enter Guam as long as the country of origin is indicated on the item. The changes being discussed now are meant to stop the importation of these kinds of products. In addition, discussion also surrounded the possibility of establishing a surcharge for use of the word “Guam” on any products, with the exception of those products which have the Guam Product Seal.
Many of us import “Guam” branded products to compete in the wholesale and/or retail market. Our decision to do so is based on the principle of supply and demand. Guam’s growing tourism market created the need for promoting Guam not only through its natural beauty, hospitality and cultural activities but also by offering a shopping experience which included “ value- priced gift items with destination packaging “. This form of marketing exists worldwide. A visit into any airport duty free shop offering souvenirs and gift items branded with the tour location but clearly imported from another country will attest to this. For many of Guam’s now price-conscious repeat visitors, the origin of the gift products is not as important. Those of us who import such products for sale to the tourist and local market do so because Guam does not have an adequate supply of manufacturers, raw materials or resources to fill the demand for value-priced “Guam” branded souvenirs, consumables or gift items. In fact, many products which bear the Guam Product Seal are actually made from imported products which are not readily available on Guam. This fact should come as no surprise to anyone who lives here. With a few exceptions for local produce, most every item in Guam’s retail stores is imported. According to the existing statute, as long as a minimum of 50% of the value of a product has been added on Guam, the Guam Product Seal may be used after permit application and approval. Based on this premise one can import all raw materials, assemble the item here and place a Guam Product Seal on it legitimately despite the fact that the item was only assembled on Guam.
The revenue generated by the retail sale of souvenir products is reported to be in the millions of dollars and does much to support our local economy, our workforce, as well as the tourist industry. In the very least the name of our island, “Guam “, is being promoted extensively. It is imperative that any changes in the law which would impact Guam’s fragile tourist market be carefully considered. The present legislative intent to stop the importation of “Guam branded” goods will have wide-reaching negative effects. Its implementation will limit the buying options open to our visitors and therefore limit the revenue possibilities. Retail sales totals will only be generated by the limited products available. Guam’s reputation for offering “value-priced” souvenirs and gift items will be lost. As a result, importers will be forced to bring in the same kinds of products but absent the “Guam” labeling. Guam-manufactured products will still not be able to compare in pricing and our visitors will leave Guam with souvenirs which do not have any “Guam” branding, thus squandering valuable promotional opportunities for our island.
There are those who say that the present conditions create an unfair advantage. In reality there is a niche for everyone in this market. Any person, tourist or otherwise, will pay whatever it costs to get what they want. It is the seller’s marketing strategies which make a product more desirable.
As a fellow importer and a concerned member of Guam’s tourism market, I urge you to voice your concerns to our lawmakers at this early stage in the law-making process. It is important that they understand the magnitude of the economic impact which poorly researched legislation would result in.
In closing, please feel free to contact Senator Guthertz and share your thoughts . Her phone numbers are 472-5834 and fax 472-3547. Her email address is judiguthertz@pticom.com The following individuals from her office will also receive comments regarding this matter. The email address for her Chief of Staff Ed Leon Guerrero is edleonguerrero@gmail.com . Her Deputy Chief of Staff is Robert Tupaz. His email address is rob.tupaz@gmail.com .
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Edi V. Alvarez
General Manager
Suncare Distributors
T: (671) 649-6646
F: (671) 649-6656
E: edi@suncareguam.com
john charo on Tue, 26th Apr 2011 11:47 am
Wow , interesting letter by Ms. Alvarez. Lets clear the record on some mis-leading statements made in this open letter by Suncare Distributors.
Ms. Alvarez defintion on branding speaks for itself. I quote ‘
“Your brand is your promise to your customer. It tells them what they can expect from your product and services and it differentiates your offering from that of your competitor. Your brand is derived from who you are , who you want to be and what people perceive you to be ” Guam Premier Chocolate , Guam USA Dried Fruit , Guam Tropical Cookies is Ms. Alvarez saying that she wants our tourists to come to Guam and have them “perceive” that they are buying one of the above mentioned items as if it was made here ? When in fact they are products of foreign countries. Ms.Alvarez this is called by law deceptive labelling. Please reference the Lanham Act and Made In the USA Federal Laws that apply to the territories.
Ms.Alvarez states that this practice exists worldwide , pretty strong statement , unfortuantely not true. Besides the two federal stautes listed above that state you can not make reference or imply by using U.S. symbols , geographic locations that would deceive a customer that these are of U.S origin , example try labelling a product California Chocolate that is made in China and bring it to California it will never clear U.S. Customs.
Lets take a quick at Hawaii Law , HR 486-119 Ms. Alvarez should be very familiar with this law as this law states you can not use the word Hawaii or imply by any means that the product is from Hawaii unless it is made in Hawaii , one of the reasons Ms.Alvarez brand Hawaii USA is no longer allowed entry into Hawaii.
Souvenier items as from my understanding will not fall into the same category as edible items when proposed legislation is presented.
Of course the scare tactic of lost revenue is just that a scare tactic.
This is only a short synopsis to clarify some of the mis-leading statements made by Ms. Alvarez. I am positive they will all be addressed atthe appropriate time.