Sublicence Proposal

I support the direction in principle. There is clear value in giving members more flexibility to service customers and bring additional brands under the UMF system. That said, I have some concerns around how the current structure may impact the long-term positioning and pricing integrity of UMF.

1) Barrier to entry and fee level
The proposed $1,000 annual fee is very low relative to the commercial value of accessing the UMF system. At this level, it does not create any meaningful commitment from third-party brands and is unlikely to discourage opportunistic or short-term participation.

My concern is that this will lead to an increase in smaller or price-driven brands entering under existing licences, with limited investment in brand building or long-term alignment. Over time, this risks putting downward pressure on pricing across UMF grades.

2) Brand proliferation and market impact
The proposal acknowledges the risk of brand proliferation. I believe this risk is understated once those brands are operating inside the UMF system rather than outside it.

An increase in brands selling similar UMF-graded products, particularly at lower price points, will make it more difficult for established brands to maintain premium positioning. This is especially relevant in key export markets where price comparison is already active.

3) Supplier switching and lack of commitment
As structured, there is no minimum term or volume commitment tied to a sublicence. This creates a scenario where a brand can build under one UMF member and then switch suppliers relatively easily.

This places the full compliance burden and investment on the licence holder, while the third-party brand retains commercial flexibility. Over time, this may discourage members from investing in these relationships.

4) Risk to UMF premium positioning
UMF has built strong value through control, consistency, and a relatively high barrier to participation. Lowering that barrier too far risks shifting UMF towards a more commoditised grading system, where differentiation is driven primarily by price rather than brand and quality.

Suggested adjustments

To support the intent of the proposal while protecting the integrity of UMF, I would recommend consideration of the following:

• Introduce a cap on sublicences per UMF licence (e.g. maximum of 2–3 third-party brands)
• Increase the annual fee to a level that reflects the commercial value of participation.
• Consider introducing a one-off entry fee (3^rd party to pay) alongside the annual sublicensing fee to create a stronger commitment from participating brands and help filter out short-term or opportunistic entrants

I believe a more controlled version of sublicensing could work well and support growth for members, but it needs to maintain a meaningful barrier to entry to protect the value that has been built in the UMF mark.

@s-haines-manuka-south Thanks for your well-considered feedback Sam.

What do others think of Sam's suggested enhancements?

Like Sam support the direction of this initiative.

Agree, makes sense formally linking the brand owner to the UMFA member sponsor. Ultimately, the member sponsor is the party doing the heavy lifting in the early stages, developing the relationship [Trade show / Travel costs]  more often than not, taking on the packaging and payment risk associated with supply.

From your proposal, Tony, my understanding is that you are recommending the brand would require UMFA endorsement before changing suppliers. I see this as a real benefit, as it creates a clear process and helps ensure members are not left exposed to payment issues or commercial disputes.

In the early stages, until we see how this develops, I also support the idea of a cap of 2–3 brands per member. This would encourage UMFA members to be selective and focus on bringing in larger, higher-value players.

Ultimately, from a member perspective, this would create tangible value by increasing our ability to derive greater return from our membership fees paid.

Thanks Mike: yes, the intention is that a sublicensee brand becomes recognised as an allowed brand under your Licence. Therefore, if they wish to move production to another UMF member, we will need to approve that. One of the practical consequences would be that we first ask the current UMF member if there are any outstanding matters of concern before agreeing to another UMF member picking up that business.

Hi everyone. I've had a few off-line conversations also supportive of this proposal. Therefore, my next steps will be to proceed with drafting the third-party/side agreement and take the other feedback to the UMF Board for discussion and confirmation of final settings on things like fees and capping the number of sublicences.

Regards,

Tony

I think with the detailed process Tony is suggesting (see extract from the proposal below), this could work well for the proliferation of UMF honey. To me it's a given that UMFHA signs off the labels of the third party, but maybe members need to be reminded?

Process Considerations

The following process is envisaged:

1. Existing UMF Member contacts UMFHA to advise of 3rd party brand opportunity

2. UMFHA conducts due diligence on 3rd party brand owner, including verifying intended markets are covered by UMF trademark registration

3. Current policy of no retailer brands would still apply

4. UMFHA confirms UMF Member is fully compliant and has the capability to manage 3rd party subcontracting in accordance with the UMF Licence Agreement and the 3rd Party Agreement

5. 3rd Party Agreement entered into by 3rd party, UMF Member and UMFHA

6. Fees are paid in accordance with the Agreement

7. 3rd party brand is issued a UMF Licence Number, which will be an extension of the UMF Member number, i.e. 1234-1, or similar

8. UMF Member commences production of 3rd party goods (the expectation being that the UMF Member has direct control of production)

9. Routine queries and support re the 3rd party brand are conducted between UMFHA and the UMF Member – communication with 3rd party sits primarily with UMF Member

10. UMF Member pays levies to UMFHA upon transfer of goods to 3rd party

11. UMFHA enables Release Certificate verification and brand verification via the UMF website

12. On or around 1 April, the sublicence arrangements are reviewed by UMFHA and the renewal fee invoiced to the UMF Member

13. If the 3rd party wishes to change supply arrangements, that would trigger the requirement for a new agreement to be signed, and UMFHA would conduct due diligence to ascertain if there are any outstanding matters of concern.

I think the 3rd party agreement template should cover more then just trademark and branding rights, should also consider storage conditions and lifecycle management, training on Manuka Master etc, what not to say and do with health claims etc You are wanting these new members to be quality partners so ideally some sort of onboarding programme would be ideal. Yes you could leave this to the members to add but would be better if the basics were templated

Also on the fee, if UMF want $1000, is it not feasible for members to pass part of their annual membership onto these sublicenses? Its not unrealistic that if we are paying $5k pa that I might want to charge $2k for the right to use my license and admin