These are 13 digits (12+checksum), and allocated by a company, GS1.
At the beginning the UPCs were allocated on a one off basis to companies for a one off fee, but this changed and now they are allocated to companies on the basis of an ongoing rental.
Rental makes sense.
It is 12 digits, but this is some whole blocks to each organisation so not evenly spread out, and ultimately they will run out, so a system to manage these makes sense. Rental makes sense on the basis that companies will only rent as many as they need, will be encouraged to recycle from discontinued products, and the whole blocks could be re-allocated to new companies once a company no longer needs them or goes bust, etc. Obviously re-use of codes needs a sensible waiting period, and GS1 even had recommendations on that for companies recycling numbers.
Except!
Things have changed, in that GS1 no longer recommends re-cycling numbers because many platforms stick them to a product and do not update/delete that record.
What is extra odd, when querying this, I found GS1 do not re-allocated lapsed blocks to new companies.
This means GTINs are allocated as a one-off operation to companies - never recycled to new companies and not even expected to be recycled within that company!
So rental is a scam!
Rental for one-off allocation makes no sense. If the allocations really are forever, then the pricing should be for a block to be allocated. Ongoing rental is a scam as if you stop renting the numbers stay allocated. Indeed, discontinued products continue to cost you if rental.
We only have 100, and the price has doubled this year. We do discontinue products, and we tried to recycle (several weeks or Amazon support is failing to do this). So at some point we will be renting a significant number of dead codes, and it will be worth getting a new 100 block, re-allocating new numbers for current products, and stopping rental of the old 100 block.
What is interesting is that platforms like Amazon do seem to lock in a GTIN, but also they seem to not care if it is your GTIN unless there is a conflict. So if Company A got a block of numbers, paid the year, did not use them, and then ceased. Company B could use those numbers on a platform like Amazon as no chance of a clash.
Interestingly GS1 have replied to my various emails right up until I said the above, and they said Company B could face fines. I asked for legal basis for fines. GTINs are not covered by a contract with Company B (not that fines are allowed in a contract). GTINs are not protected by trademark, copyright, or patent or any other legal framework I am aware of. I mean I may have missed something, so I am happy for them to enlighten me - and asked as much - but no reply.
It seems to me, in my honest opinion, a rental arrangement for a permanently allocated resource is a scam, simple as that. If it is permanently allocated it should be a one-off fee for the allocation.
That is just my view, obviously.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.