Damp proofing and timber preservation products used in existing buildings by treatment contractors are distributed in the UK by eight manufacturers/suppliers with a few other small distributors operating on the fringes.
 
The words ‘distributor’ and ‘supplier’ are used intentionally as many of these ‘manufacturers’ do not actually manufacture very much at all. They tend to buy products from each other and external manufacturers who produce products related to the industry. These materials are then labelled and marketed as their own which is not a problem and indeed it is normal practice in very many industries. However some blatantly copy a competitors data sheets, products and services and publish misleading statements which is irritating, deceiving and in some cases almost certainly illegal.
 
Take for example the relatively new and now widely used cream damp course system. One UK manufacturer spent a great deal of time and money developing and producing the original cream damp course material and system. Some eighteen months later a large European manufacturer, having made favourable overtures to the original manufacturer to obtain samples etc. then introduced their own cheap ‘copy cat’ version. This ‘copy cat’ version ‘looked’ similar but was a totally different formulation and only contained a very small amount of active ingredient compared with the original. Not content with producing a cheap imitation the same company then attempted (without success) to poach the original inventor’s sales force to sell their ‘copy cat’ product!
 
Despite elaborate claims to the contrary some of the ‘manufacturers’ lack the imagination, research and development capability to produce their own cream damp course system. They therefore purchased the cheap ‘copy cat’ product and re-labelled it to give the impression it was their own product. Hard though it is to believe one particular company who bought the cheaper copy cat product virtually copied word for word the original inventor’s data sheet and tried to pass this off as their own as well! Did they think no one would notice! That same company is widely regarded as a plagiarist and regularly copy products and other aspects of their competitors. They have even blatantly claimed to have third party accreditation on some of their range but simple research proved they did not yet they portray themselves as originators and market leaders and many sadly believe them.
 
Not content with mimicking a competitor’s products the less scrupulous and unimaginative ‘manufacturers’ regularly attempt to poach a competitor’s sales representatives. They naturally hope that a ‘poached’ representative will bring their customers with them as well as customer lists. This cheap tactic is a quick fix answer to their own inability to recruit and train their own sales personnel. Experience has shown however that sales reps who are persuaded to change allegiance tend only to last a few months once their customers and customer list have been extracted from them.
 
What is of concern is that this predatory practice tends to be carried out by the managing directors of the less scrupulous ‘manufacturers’ which perhaps sums up their business ethics. It is surprising this cheap practice continues despite the fact that enticing individuals who work in the preservation industry to break their contract and the loss of profit as a consequence has been challenged in the courts twice and won on both occasions.
 
We don’t for one moment believe these practices are unique to the preservation industry and no doubt many would say ‘that’s business’. It is just a shame that the façade of respectability portrayed by some of the manufacturers in the building preservation industry is just that - a front - a show - with nothing very substantive behind it except the ability to copy. People should try to look behind the elaborate façades and discover who the originators of products are and who has invested time and money in moving the industry forward.