Battery World Seeks Third Line Forcing Approval
Australias' Battery World Franchise lodges contentious Third Line Forcing Notification with the ACCC.
Third Line Forcing describes a situation where a supply of goods or services is made on the condition that the purchaser buys goods or services from a third party or a refusal to supply because the purchaser will not accept those conditions.
In the area of franchising, this is most easily explained as the right to operate the franchise, use of trademarks and other services on the condition that franchisees buy their goods or services from nominated or authorised suppliers.
Third line forcing is prohibited unless a notification has been lodged with the ACCC and the ACCC is satisfied that the likely Public benefit will outweigh the Public detriment.
Typically, franchisors argue that the conduct will promote brand consistency and increase buying power and this is certainly the argument put forward in the Battery World Notifcation N94446 (pdf).
However, these arrangements are never as innocent as they might seem, nor as beneficial as they are claimed to be.
Let's look at the first argument:
Support of Battery world network, as part of deciding on which suppliers are approved suppliers, BWA is likely to be able to negotiate for approved suppliers to provide benefits to the battery world network (for example, contributions to annual Franchisee conferences)
The example given should ring alarm bells for franchisees. In a number of Australian franchises, “benefits” typically translates to “rebates for the franchisor” often in the form of ad fund levies and this is nearly always to the detriment of the franchisees buy price.
Another outcome of this kind of strategy is that network support is diminished once suppliers do not have to compete with other suppliers for the franchisees’ business.
If a franchisee has two suppliers for the same or similar products and goes to one of those suppliers with a faulty product then the supplier will be more likely to rectify the problem, knowing that if they don’t the franchisee is likely to purchase from their competitor.
If you only have one approved supplier for that product well then, you may as well get used to poor service from that supplier in the future. The supplier no longer needs to work to get the franchisees business it just has to offer a sufficient enough rebate that the franchisor will overlook any poor service to its franchisees.
Consistency
This is a typical argument from a franchisor that can have merit in some cases but is detrimental in others. What seems to happen an awful lot is that consistency of a type of good or service is confused with consistency of the supplier of those goods.
Using the BWA example, the argument is that certain items need to be stocked so that a customer can buy the item in any of the battery world stores. But, and this is a big but, it simply cannot be argued that it is important to the consumer which supplier provides those goods except maybe in extreme and unusual circumstances.
If an identical item can be purchased from a variety of suppliers, how does limiting the supply of same goods from one supplier over another enhance brand consistency? It is the goods or services that may be important to brand consistency not from whom the franchisee obtains those goods that is important here.
The other problem that comes with this kind of strategy is that franchisees can be forced to purchase particular items or goods that they know full well they will never be able to sell. This often occurs where there are regional differences for product demand.
For example, if you run your BBQ and outdoor retail business in tropical Queensland you will probably have little market for wood fire heaters. If in the name of “brand consistency” the franchisor insists that franchisees carry wood fire heaters anyway, just in case someone comes in and wants support or service for that product the likely result for the franchisee is that you will have an awful lot of left over heaters and a reduced profit margin.
If the BWA franchisor is actually getting rebates from the supplier on those goods, which is a fairly typical occurrence, they get that rebate whether you end up selling the item or not. The franchisor makes money, the supplier makes money but the franchisee incurs a loss. Not just a loss on the cost of goods but a loss on the stock and purchasing paperwork and the floor space that could be being utilised by more appropriate products but also tying up cash flow and operating funds.
Buying Power
Most people understand the concept of buying power in general but many blindly accept it when their franchisor claims that being part of that particular network will entitle them to buy prices not enjoyed by non network (independent or competing franchise) members where far too often, the proclaimed benefit does not exist.
Indeed, this is often what attracts independent businesses to become part of a franchise. The problem comes when a franchisor uses that buying power to benefit themselves and does not pass on the price benefit to franchisees. They have the buying power that comes from the size of the network but instead of using that to ensure best buy price they use it to fill the marketing coffers or to fund an extravagant conference at 5 star facilities or the rebate can simply disappear into franchisor pockets.
If BWA operates a rebate system then BWA franchisees can probably kiss their buying power good bye if this notification is allowed to get through.
See what is happening here? The franchisor is using the buying power to increase their income at the expense of the franchisees and at the expense of the consumer.
The franchisee ends up passing on the higher cost to the public or has to accept the reduction in profit margin to remain competitive.
The ACCC tend to overlook the fact that, where rebate systems exist, the franchisor consumes any cost benefit to the detriment of the public consumer which is all they care about when it comes to third line forcing notifications. Unless franchisees point it out to them.
So what can BWA franchisees or any franchisee do when faced with this kind of situation?
As interested parties, franchisees can make submissions to the ACCC regarding Third Line Forcing notifications and outline their concerns including any discrepancies between the information given in the notification and reality and request that the ACCC investigate further or hold conferences between the interested parties.
Confidentiality
The ACCC will publish submissions relating to the notification for others to read but does have a process for keeping franchisees submissions confidential. This is obviously very important if franchisees feel they will be targeted or bullied by the franchisor for speaking against them.
There is a publication; Guidelines for excluding Information from the public register produced by the ACCC which gives instructions as to how a franchisee can have their name and any other identifying information withheld from publication.
Be careful to indicate that you wish not to be identified to your franchisor and the reasons and that you don’t include anything too specific in your submission that could inadvertently identify you.
While a Third Line Forcing notification can be revoked at a later date should circumstances change, it is best to contact the ACCC and let them know you intend to make a submission as soon as you can after the notification is lodged.
Contact details can be obtained by calling the ACCC hotline, 1300 302 502 or by email to public.registers@accc.gov.au who will likely provide you with a contact from the adjudication office responsible for assessing the notification.
--
Related Reading:
- Seal A Fridge Notification An example of circumstances where the ACCC has disallowed Third line forcing in relation to a franchisor.
- ACCC asks Poolwerx the Tough Questions
- Third line Forcing Wars: The Poolwerx saga continues
- Guide to Exclusive dealing notifications An ACCC produced publication.
- Battery World; Expires and Terminates?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Battery World Notification of Exclusive Dealing N94446.pdf | 123.49 KB |
- Franchise topic:
- Enter Your Own Tag:
Thank you
And to no one's surprise the decision is that Battery World franchisees will be forced to purchase whatever the hell BWA decides they must or have anything resembling the 'benefits' of franchising withdrawn.
I'm not exactly sure but from memory it has been almost 9 years since the ACCC rejected an application from a franchisor allowing for the creation of broad one sided supply agreements to increase franchisor revenues to the detriment of franchisees. I'm sure there will be more on this ..
And you thought they weren’t busy. And I thought they didn’t revoke anything. And we all thought they didn’t have resources. The impact on ice-hockey in a country where ice sports has the following of skinny dipping at the North Pole will be devastating.
That was to make a point and I apologise to all ice-hockey players in Australia. Both of you.
I would like to dissect the Notification submitted by Battery World and what it means to BWA franchisees.
2 Notified arrangement
2 (b) Description of the Conduct or Proposed Conduct:
Basically this is saying that the 'Arrangement' proposed by BWA is that the franchisor can choose a supplier, the products and the amount of stock and force franchisees to use that supplier's services & products or they could be terminated!
Given this is such a broad statement this could mean just about anything: Stationary, vehicles, tyres, fuel, signage, computers, printers, workshop equipment, flags, the list goes on. So if you don't purchase that new vehicle from the person BWA now calls a 'supplier' you could be terminated, regardless of whether you already have a vehicle or that you cannot afford a new one.
Franchisees will no longer have any say as to what is brought into their business and if you don't like it and don't do it, BWA have the right to terminate you, take your business from you, LEGALLY if this Notification is allowed to be approved!!!
4 Public benefit claims
4 (a) Arguments in support of notification:
1 Support of Battery World network.
BWA claim that by having ‘Approved Suppliers’ and therefore forcing franchisees to only stock from these Suppliers that suppliers will be able to provide benefits to the franchisee, in particular noted here is the contributions towards conferences.
As noted in the previous blog by Boudica discounts that could be passed on to the franchisee get diminished because suppliers have to take into account the advertising fund that they have to pay to BWA as well as the contribution towards the national conference. This is common sense business that has been quite clearly explained to me by a supplier. For me I would rather pay for the once a year weekend myself or welcome back the the conference levy if I was to save or make a further 3 +% on all my purchases or sales in a year. Do the math!
2 Consistency.
Quite simply BWA’s argument is that if everyone has the same product from the same supplier and the same stock amounts this will not only give a consistent national presence but also give comfort to the customer knowing they can get that product from another store.
Again, as Boudica points out, what sells in one area does not mean that it will sell in another area so you will be left with the stock or be forced to reduce the sale price to get rid of it. Either way BWA have already received their money from the suppliers for the purchase of the stock and if you sell it at a reduced rate BWA get their cut off the total sales through their franchise fees. Who benefits here?
3 Buying power.
The third and probably the most significant claim put forward by BWA is that by having the right to restrict franchisees from buying their goods from anyone other than who BWA say gives BWA a better bargaining position due to the size of the network and commitment to not have any, or reduced competition to that supplier.
This claim of ‘better buying power’ has long been used by BWA not only in this argument but also for the purpose of enticing potential new franchisees to sign up.
One of the main complaints about BWA put forward to the ACCC was that franchisees were not getting the better buy price from ‘Approved Suppliers’ as claimed by BWA. Copies of supplier invoices from other stand alone businesses who use the same supplier received a better discount than BWA franchisees. Also submitted were price lists from ‘non-approved suppliers’ that showed better buying rates for the exact same product and brand than what was negotiated by BWA for the franchisees.
In conclusion to the investigation into the many complaints about BWA the ACCC sent out a letter to the franchisees who submitted complaints outlining the undertakings required by BWA. In reference to this complaint of ‘better buying power’ it states that BWA must take the following corrective steps:
1. Implement a Trade Practices Compliance program for all BWA staff to attend so as to minimize the risk of verbal misrepresentation;
2. Must lodge a Notification for third line forcing;
3. Must NOT issue breach notices to Franchisees in relation to sale of non-approved products, unless they have a Notification allowing them to do so.
If Franchisees can only purchase from approved suppliers then BWA get their kickback and if you pay more for that product then the kickback is even better, whereas if you were to have the choice and be able to purchase from who you like and for a better rate BWA would not get their kickback. As it stands now without the Notification BWA are not allowed to breach any franchisee if they choose to purchase from non-approved suppliers. This will change if this Notification is allowed to happen.
6. Public detriments
6 (a)
1 The market for the supply of franchised businesses is highly regulated.
Anyone who has had to rely on the Franchising Code of Conduct to protect you will know that it is the broadest piece of legislation open to all sorts of interpretations. This is why there is so much discussion as to amendments that need to be added to make it fairer to all parties (not just the Franchisor).
2 BWA intends to allow Franchisees to have input into the selection of Approved Suppliers.
This may be the case that Franchisees have input, that’s easy to say (although this has not been the case previously), BUT that does not mean that it is taken on board and implemented. As the final sentence says that it is still the decision of BWA’s not yours.
3 The conduct is unlikely to affect the markets for the supply of Products, as the conduct only applies to Battery World franchisees.
What happens if that one ‘Approved Supplier’ runs out of stock, surely this is going to affect the market if franchisees cannot supply to the customers because no other ‘Approved Supplier’ has that product!
4 BWA retains the ability to consent, on a case-by-case basis, to Battery World franchisees supplying products from suppliers who are not Approved Suppliers.
One of the biggest concerns with BWA is Management’s selective treatment of franchisees. Again, a complaint put forward to the ACCC was that some franchisees were breached for selling non-approved products while other franchisees were permitted to sell non-approved without reprimand or question. This not only reduced the ability to compete in the market place but also created unfair competition within the network. BWA Management, under the direction of James Nixon-Smith even went as far as not allowing some franchisees to get in products that customers had asked even when their business was suffering and desperately needed the sales. This request/claim/argument is dangerous in that it will allow the selective unfair treatment of franchisees to continue.
Have a good think about the consequences of what this means to your business, there may be more that have not been thought of here. Notification reviews do not take long to assess so if there are any concerned franchisees out there you need to submit them NOW to the ACCC before it is too late.
I would like to highlight some of the points made by Guest and support them with my own experiences in a different but woefully similar franchise.
Guest is quite correct that the statement as to which products this would apply to is very broad.
When I started with my own franchise, we were able to select from a number of different vehicle manufacturers to purchase our compulsory vehicle from. This is important as you need to be able to choose a vehicle that can be serviced locally to cut down time, amongst a lot of other reasons.
However, the Third Line Forcing notification in combination with a very vague franchise contract, allowed them to insist that all vans had to be a specific model of VW. You can guess what happened to the price of these vehicles once the manufacturer knew he had a captive market. Whilst the franchisor argued to the ACCC that it would not force existing zees who had a non compliant vehicle to purchase another compliant vehicle (with the caveat of not immediately anyway), any franchisee who was trying to sell their franchise found themselves unable to sell the vehicle (with its $4000 signwriting and $2000 Oh &s compliant fitout) to the incoming franchisee or to others that required another vehicle within the network.
Compulsory approved supply for products is the thin edge of the wedge.
In my own experience, it was not long before this was being extended to products and services that had nothing to do with brand consistency and everything to do with rebate income streams.
Apart from the obvious problems this brings in cost and service, I found that it was quite difficult to build relationships with other local businesses now that I couldn't actually buy anything from them. I became a non- local local.
It was also the case that all prices went up, often by the same amount as the newly negotiated rebate amount. The mechanism was obvious and most of my suppliers told me that they would love to offer me a greater discount on goods but couldn't because of the rebate or because of the vast sums they had to contribute to the compulsory annual convention. Indeed, at one of these conventions I was discussing the pricing situation with a supplier and he waved his arm in gesture to the convention room and said "there is your discount".
This is in effect, like adding a few more % on to your royalties. In my case, this meant that the franchisor made twice or even 3 times as much money on a sale than I did for certain products. Because I was a mobile business I was able to simply not sell those products. Making $20 on a $400 sale was not worth the time and paperwork.
It would seem that BWA franhcisees will not have that option.
Again I find the whole consistency argument falls over itself here. If I have to put prices up on high turnover products that are in demand locally so that I can cover the losses I am making on the products that never sell in my area, the net result is that customers go where they can get a reasonable price on relevant products because that retailer is not forced to cover losses on irrelavent product. It seem to me a very high price to pay for some notion of brand consistency and my own inquiries with customers led me to belive that they agreed with me.
The other, I think very serious, problem with approved products is that the consumer is not aware that the franchisee is restricted in their product range. The customer thinks that the business owner is telling them that Product a is better than product b is because that is their expert opinion. They are none too impressed if they discover that the franchisee is actually only allowed to sell product a in the first place and thus considers the advice to be biased and unreliable- never to return and telling all their friends that franchise x is more concerned with making sales than offering the correct product for the customers' needs.
It was also the case with my own franchise, that "buying power" was the most often touted benefit of buying into the franchise. "You will get the best price available due to our buying power." However this is proved time and time again not to be the case. Independant businesses who decided to buy into the franchise found their buy price go up and the service level go down. Wondering, how this could be, franchisees investigated and discovered that it was due to the rebate system which they had no idea existed before they signed. Many had franchisor supplied sales brochures that said that the franchisor "makes no margin on the products."
I would bet that BWA operated a similar sales technique.
We also were told repeatedly by the franchisor that zees would be involved in the supply proccess and that zee concerns would be considered. However until recently (and I believe in response to complaints made to the ACCC) franchisees were not involved in the supplier selection process at all. It was just lip service.
Guest is also correct that this supply system leaves franchisees wide open to stock issues. Poolwerx franchisees encountered just such a problem around a year ago. The one and only chemical supplier experienced financial difficulties and at the height of summer was unable to get chemicals out to franchisees. Thousands and thousands of dollars in sales were lost and regular customers were lost to competiting stores. It was rumoured that the supplier in question, who was later bought out by another supplier, had their financial problems compounded by the requirement of the franchisor to pay monthly rebates, payments they could not make because franchisees themselves refused to pay until they had received product. A vicious cycle ensued and all of it down to the franchisors rebate system.
I believe that the massive hit on sales this produced was the reason that the franchisor finally decided to appoint a second supplier for chemicals. If the franchisor had not been so greedy and short sighted in wanting to obtain maximum rebate from a sole supplier the problem could have been avoided or at least had a lesser impact.
Selective treatment, or franchisor discrimination is a big problem in australian franchising despite the fact that treating zees differently can be considered Uncosncionable conduct under the Trade practices Act.
Of course if you dont have the money to take the franchisor to court this fact doesn't really help much.
Guest is quite correct that the notification will only enhance the ability of the franchisor to discriminate between franchisees.
Something I obviously didn't know, as our guest quite rightly refers to, was that the ACCC had issued a directive to BWA that directly relates to the Notification of third line forcing.
It is very alarming, albeit not surprising, that BWA seems to be using the notification to seek ACCC endorsement of the ability to breach franchisees for non approved supplier purchases.
Does the BWA franchise agreement allow for this? What disclosure were you given with regards to the approved suppplier system and did it ever mention, as required by the Franchise code of conduct 9(k) that the franchisor or an associate will receive a rebate or financial benefit from the supply of goods or services to franchisees?
In light of this ACCC directive to BWA, it is more important than ever that franchisees make a submission to the ACCC regarding the notification.
You don't need to write an essay, you don't need to be able to think or write like a lawyer, you just need to explain the impact of the notification on you, but most importantly, on the public.
Even if the notification is allowed to stand, any future franchisees will be able to read your anonymous submissions for years to come and make up their mind for themselves whether this is a franchise they want to get involved with.
On that note, I would recommend that any potential franchisees conduct a search of the ACCC public registers to see if there are discrepancies between what the sales material says and the reality of their supply system conduct as part of their due diligence process although a lack of any notification should not be regarded as a sign that there is no problem.
Delinquent franchisors at times have their preferred franchisees and they are often utilized to promote the sale of franchises when there is doubt in the satisfaction of the rest of the network. As importantly, they put them to work to close out any efforts to unreasonably deny the franchisors increased profits to the detriment of franchisees where they facilitate compliance when new initiatives might be considered to be particularly abusive; ‘smoothing the way’ could be a simpler and accurate description.
It does not take long for franchisees to be able to identify those who are paid for and who they cannot trust. They are typically more confident and more outspoken on controversial issues than small groups of quietly spoken dissident franchisees.
It is now 9.30am Sunday in Australia and as this is the day where network conferences normally go into reinforce and ‘go home’ mode, there are those franchisees that should take a breath, go home, and review their conference objectively. VIPs and 'delegates' sometimes stay on for an additional day for more dedicated and specific collaboration.
Preferred franchisees are necessary to a franchisor in situations where there may be network unrest. Unlike the newbies who typically need very little stroking, preferred franchisees generally receive promises of better treatment and often receive better treatment. That is; until their services are either no longer required or the ‘special’ franchisee realizes that while the health of their franchise will continue longer than most, they too are being ripped off. The inevitable results of franchisor abuse will either totally destroy or at least, substantially damage their investments as well.
None of this strategy is new or limited to just a few franchise systems.
When appropriate, consider the effects if a franchisor’s sole interest is in its optimal profit performance. History indicates such single minded motivation becomes an obvious cause for the decline in value of the franchises investments where buyers typically become scarce, and then nonexistent.
In my Australian experience, and the only broad network analysis I know of where the practice of exclusive dealing was abusive, the affect on average, took franchisees from a 12.75% royalty and advertising to 18.2% of bottom line through a wide range of mandatory suppliers and stock holdings and various other mandated business requirements. BUT I would also be extremely confident there are, and have been, far worse examples in Australia and world-wide.
I will also point out that personally I am a huge advocate for brand consistency and the network support for suppliers that enhance and benefit the brand and all that invested in it. There are strong arguments for that value when the arguments are not flawed by franchisor opportunism that destroys franchisee profitability.
Now; on a totally different subject and back to the BWA blog topic at hand, we are not as yet aware of how BWA has handled the sudden announcement here at BMM that an ACCC Notification for Third Line Forcing was lodged, how the implications were portrayed and who amongst the franchisee brethren supported whatever seemed feasible.
In the end you cannot drink the water for the donkey. Franchisees must make their own informed decisions. When two contradicting scenarios are expressed then sometimes a good place to start is by questioning where financial incentives lay.
Typically the weak franchisees prefer not to make decisions at all until it is too late or perhaps; follow the loudest noise in the room [sometimes referred to as ‘delegates’].
With regard to the authorization of Third Line Forcing [Tie Ins]/Exclusive Dealing by the ACCC it should be noted that the process is typically a very quick rubber stamp and you’re gone.
Should any of this discussion concern franchisees then they should be asking questions here at BMM and/or from legitimate franchising experts in the unlikely event that they know of one. Not from pretenders. This is not a game of theory from those without any real understanding of where the dangers lie.
Franchisees wishing advise as to the status of the BWA Notification N94446 should contact the ACCC hotline on 1300 302 502 or by email to public.registers@accc.gov.au. As BWA is based in Queensland I suspect this matter and any others would be handled by the Brisbane office although Canberra’s Director Nigel Ridgeway [nigel.ridgway@accc.gov.au] is an alternative should franchisees be confronted with a sense of stalling. I don't believe there is time to waste.
Typically in these instances once an authorization is given by the ACCC, the franchisee network will see costs increase, quickly or slowly in the long term it makes little difference, and when attempts to pass those increased costs on in a competitive market, customers are lost never too return.
Non-approval by the ACCC is as rare as rocking horse excrement. Mostly because no one advises franchisees what is happening until it is too late. This was a major problem in the Midas Australia network.
The public brand reputation is damaged and the value of the investment heads into decline as the franchise brand reputation follows. No one makes this stuff up; there is big history supporting these considerations.
How many of the BWA franchisees knew there were 2 State franchising inquiries and a Federal inquiry into franchising. None I would think.
These changes to franchise agreements were mentioned by mny systems and the government Expert Panel is still considering what to do.
These franchisees should 'search' 'Australian franchising reform' on the BMM home page. (top right)
This information is going to be new to the vast majority, if not all, BWA franchisees. Not just how ACCC Authorizations work and their potential consequences but I doubt BWA advised anyone that this was happening.
One of the concerns here is that BWA is not just applying for authorized increases in its ability to demand further mandatory purchasing that may come from questionable supplier deals; it is also seems to be requesting that the ACCC documents its backing for an ability to withdraw contractual obligations for support and services and whatever else it interprets as penalty should franchisees find that the deals struck undermine their business.
One of the most obvious concerns with this application by BWA is the unbelievable vagueness of the supply sought and the consequences of not adhering to BWA purchasing demands. If this were to go through, in theory BWA could extend supply to anything and everything and apply penalties capable of crippling the franchisee business.
This is franchising and it is not uncommon for the application of demands and interpretations of rights to reach what one would normally suggest is ridiculous. Don’t rely on the ACCC to reject an authorization for any reason. History suggests that would be a very big mistake.
Referred to as ‘tie-Ins’ in the States, 3rd Line Forcing in Australia and whatever else they call it in other countries is typically real bad news for franchisees. Not always; but rarely does it do much other than increase the Franchisor bottom line and decrease the profitability of the franchisee.
This behavior often reflects a detrimental change to the business model that franchisees thought they were signing up for.
BWA will be aware that franchisees have now read this blog and prior to the BWA conference this weekend. They will put their spin on this but franchisees need to do their own homework and discuss the information provided. Typically franchisees do nothing because they expect other franchisees to act. In fact, many will promise to but they just don’t and rely on everyone else.
These ACCC authorizations are handed out regardless and without action by franchisees so will this one unless franchisees get off their butts. I have never found a case where an authorization has been withdrawn at a later date because it was found to cause a disaster.
There are many blogs on this subject at BMM and across many other sites because the danger is real. This is not isolated to Australian franchising and typically franchisor blurb should be considered at best suspect. The conference should be very interesting and in relation to this subject, full of what many here at BMM could predict.
This appears to be an escalation of other behaviors that have led to complaints and reports of terrible consequences for franchisees. If BWA franchisees can quickly get on top of this then they need to establish an Independent Franchisee Association. Consider action against this application first and then learn about IndFAs here at BMM.
A lot of this information applies to many franchises and if people have questions this is the place to ask. Terrific blog but some of the links need to be fixed. I would like to read what is in that notification. It sounds unbelievable. At BMM we have read that there are more than many franchises where this profiteering is good for the franchisor and hurts franchisees and what the end up being ble to sell when they have had enough.
I just checked and Boudica has fixed the links. Here is one small extract;
BWA franchisees now report having selected a theme song for this weekend’s conference;
They have selected an old Aussie song called ‘The Real Thing’ first performed by the [linked] artist in 1969. There is a chorus lyric about 15 seconds in that goes something like this;
‘Ou Mau Ma Mau Mau .. Ou Mau Ma Mau Mua’ …. over and over and over again with 5 bloody long minutes of monotony.
Their catchy shorter version for the weekend simply picks up the chorus;
Blue Mau Ma Mau Mau .. Blue Mau Ma Mau Mua