The Pearly Queen of the High Street?

pearly-queens-pie-and-mash-06

Whatever Mary Portas says in the various interviews she’s given about her new show ‘Mary Queen of the High Street’, Tuesday’s airing of the programme featuring Roman Road was little more than the same script we’ve seen played out in most of her recent series.  It may have been a fresh approach all those years ago when she first clattered on to our screens, but it’s now a tired, tawdry format that her production company have milked almost to death.  Indeed according to some of the local traders involved the experience was less than regal for many of them.

Amongst all the hype and hyperbole that’s surrounded the Mary’s involvement in the government’s high street revival plans, she’s always been right about one thing.  This is a serious issue, affecting the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people.  So it deserved rather more that what we saw on Tuesday.  This should have been a serious documentary.  Instead we got a barely watchable ‘show’ as in ‘show-biz’. 

As with most of her more recent programmes this was all about Mary, dressed up to the nines, posing for the cameras and promoting the Portas brand.  Mary sashaying about , Mary pointing and gesticulating and having staged encounters with traders and the general public.  Mary deep in discussion with the public about how well or otherwise she comes across on TV.

shopping-in-paris-thumb9157330Timing is everything

Time that should have been spent dealing with serious structural problems facing the area was wasted on jaunts to Paris and interminable tracking shots of Mary walking up and down rows of stalls talking about rain covers.  Finally we had her usual trademark finale set piece : This time a good old East End knees-up.  Just in case she hadn’t already patronised the locals enough.

Yet we’re told there wasn’t enough time in all this to feature progress she claims to have made with the council over parking charges and restrictions.  Probably the one thing that most of the retailers in the area were most concerned about.  Certainly something that was in her report and something she suddenly seems to have accepted as key to regeneration, albeit maybe only in interviews in the run up to her new show.  It was also something that was raised in her early brief encounter with the hairdressers in the programme.  Oddly enough we never seemed to return to them to discover what they thought of her ‘improvements’ to the area.

No Makeover

She claimed at the outset that it wasn’t going to be a makeover show, yet that’s exactly what we got.  When it came to it she couldn’t resist calling on her old standby approach : Pick one hapless retailer, march into their shop and spend a few moments deriding their wares. 

“Who’d buy that?” is one of her stock phrases, usually followed by a plaintive reply from the retailer that it’s one of their best lines.  Pure dismissal of the experience of the person that’s been there for a fair bit longer than she has, but good camera fodder, as she knows so well.  Then she sets about turning them into something more appealing.  Or rather her ‘team’ does.  Usually an easy win given that she usually picks on a store that even the most inexperienced shopkeeper could improve with a good clear-out and a lick of paint.

Yes the bric-a-brac shop looked great after the refit, and I totally agree that the person running the store was missing a trick.  But what she produced was a fully formed, niche retail experience.  Only problem is the niche customers are mostly in Mary’s head.  True, she found one or two in the local area, but one or two aren’t going spend enough to pay the proprietors rent, the rates and subsidise the council’s parking charges, nor would their business foot the bill for the fabulous refit, which I suspect was actually paid for by the TV company.  Mary’s hunch that these few boho locals were going to turn this person’s business around certainly didn’t justify the ludicrous idea that this small shop could be converted into an ‘anchor store’, 

The anchor store concept, which she borrowed from larger retail developments, requires a huge, already established, store to burst on the scene bringing in it’s loyal band of customers.  It’s not something you can create simply by dint of location, as appears to be the case here.  Certainly something that’s difficult to achieve from a standing start.  Still I suppose it made it all Mary’s thrashing around for ideas seem terribly scientific and purposeful.  But in the end it was just tinkering, and tinkering with someone else’s business at that.  But then that’s always easier to do when you don’t have to face the consequences a few months down the line, as one or two other stores Mary has ‘made-over’ in the past have reportedly done.

questions and answersQuestions, questions

The end of the show left more questions than answers.  What indeed had been done about the parking?  How were the original stallholders doing after Mary’s changes?  How many of them were left?  Were any of them removed to make way for her newcomers?  How were the existing Food & Beverage uses doing in the face of the new competition she’s introduced?

I’ve never doubted Mary’s veracity or her enthusiasm for what she’s doing. At the outset I was optimistic that she had the public profile as well as the chutzpah to fight the corner for retail against an obviously blasé government. 

But since her report was published she’s been swept away with the razzmatazz that was introduced by the government officials behind it.  The Willy Wonka Golden Ticket claims from the then minister responsible Grant Shapps.  The audition videos to became a Portas Pilot.  The branding of the whole experience itself.  It’s like it was all designed to take the focus off the most important issues facing retailers today : Rent, Rates and Parking, all of which were highlighted in Mary’s report only to be subsequently ignored by Shapps and his successor Mark Prisk. 

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I’d say that government spin doctors, much more accomplished in the dark arts of misdirection than Portas, used her wide eyed naïveté and dangled such shiny things in front of her.  She could easily have eschewed such distractions and pushed home her very well pitched report.  Refused to be driven off the course that she has constantly claimed to be on : That of dealing with the structural issues that have destroyed the high street over the past several years.  But when the chips were down she instead took the government’s shilling and disappeared down her usual rabbit hole of self promotion, hoopla and car crash, reality TV sham.

Infamy! Infamy!  They’ve all got it in for me! 

infamyIn a final twist of the ridiculous, Mary is now starting to claim that criticism of her is based on a political motive.  Where this originates from is a mystery to most commentators, certainly to me.  She’s quite right that she was given the perfect opportunity to cut through the political divides with her appointment by David Cameron all those moons ago.  But she blew it when let herself be sucked into the party machinery that she’s now crying foul of.  That has a lot less to do with politics and more with personal interest and ego.  Something no one has ever accused her of lacking in abundance.

If this first show is what we can expect as the culmination of her grand masterwork, I really don’t think it was worth the wait.  At best it was boring and mildly entertaining.  At worst it was selling retailers up the river for some cheap voyeurism and an easy TV fee. 

With the air date having apparently put back several times, it showed all the hallmarks of something cobbled together to try to fulfil the hopes of her TV production company.  The same company that has been tagging along since the Portas Pilot winners were announced and the same company that allegedly lobbied government over the most TV friendly locations to award the pilot money to.

In the end the only ratings values these people care about are the ones for the show, not those forcing many of the faces they’re using on screen out of business. 

Ultimately what we saw achieved nothing, except to fill a Portas sized hole in the Channel 4 schedule.  I like to think the livelihoods of independent retailers up and down the country are worth more than that.  Up until last night I thought Mary Portas felt the same.

Advertisements

Lies, Damned Lies, and The Office For National Statistics

statistics

The ONS and I have an uneasy relationship.  When I say ‘relationship’ I probably mean something more akin to a divorcing couple waiting for a decree nisi.

Sometimes it really does feel like I’m being stalked by a disgruntled ex.  I’m sent a list of personal questions which pile up in my in-tray where I try to ignore them while getting on with my life.   Periodically I get a call to ask why we don’t talk any more.  Eventually I let out a resigned sigh and spend half an hour on the phone having a very one sided conversation with a robot voiced Welsh lady who asks me the same questions several times in a row and repeats back most of what I’ve said to her in an expressionless montone.  So pretty much like a conversation with an ex.  Apart from the fact that I never dated anyone from Wales.

I’ve been trying to get the ONS off my back for a few years now but they don’t seem to be taking the hint.  Around 10 years ago I made the mistake of religiously filing my returns as instructed like a good little citizen.  This seems to have given them the idea that I just love telling them every minute detail about my business life and, since then, with a few short breaks for good behaviour,  I’ve been on their hit list for surveys ranging from monthly takings, internet activity, employment statistics and the length of time I spend on the toilet after a particularly accomplished curry evening.  OK, I made one of those up.

Mind you, the temptation to make stuff up is almost as overwhelming as telling them to go fornicate with themselves, if it weren’t for the hollow threat of legal action if you don’t reply.  “Just bung any old numbers down” was the advice I received a few years back from someone who shall remain nameless.  But I don’t.  I actually take the time to do the calculations and give them the right figures.  Which makes it all the more irksome when I read the kinds of daft analyses that come out of the ONS on an all too regular basis.  But now it seems they’ve shown themselves to be even more irrelevant than I previously suspected.

Off the radar

Pound-Notes-Going-Down-Street-DrainThis week we learnt that, after another set of Freedom of Information requests were made by fellow retail commentator Paul-Turner Mitchell, about the costs to the exchequer of the recent raft of retail failures in the UK, government officials claimed that they didn’t bother their pretty little heads with keeping up with such mundane statistics.  This admission became all the more staggering after Paul commissioned some research from Company Watch who calculated that the total cost to the UK economy since the beginning of 2012 has been in the region of £1Bn! (See Table Below).

These figures are based on the amount of unsecured debt to government that won’t be recovered.  We of course know that this isn’t the whole story.  We also need to consider the additional costs in social security payments and the knock on effects to other companies such as the loss of business to suppliers and service industries.  Although if the basic losses aren’t even being recorded, who knows if any of these implications are appearing on the exchequer’s radar.

One can only assume that the government is unconcerned about such amounts slipping down the back of the national sofa.  Although as it appears no one in the treasury or the ONS has bothered to do the sums, we can really only wonder at the basis for government rationale so far.

I’m fascinated to know what other threads of the economic tapestry they’ve allowed to be pulled apart without bothering to check the effect on the overall picture.  The effects of depressing the UK economy with successive cuts, warnings of cuts, warnings of warnings of cuts and promises of jam tomorrow seem not have been taken into account in the slightest.  Meanwhile we have government ministers such as Grant Shapps telling us that half a billion pounds being added to UK retailer’s overheads over the past two years by business rates alone is something that can’t be looked at until the deficit is dealt with.  A deficit we now know is being made worse to the tune of twice as much again by, amongst other things, these nonsensical rates increases.  Where’s the logic in saving half a billion in potential tax cuts, only to lose double than in revenue to the exchequer?

Lovable bumbler Vince Cable has more than once demonstrated his intellectual myopia over the crisis facing UK retail.  It appears now that his unshakable confidence that such a crisis doesn’t exist is based on similar logic to a five year old sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” or that old favourite adage “What you don’t know about can’t hurt you”.  Well it is hurting Vince, unless you think a billion here or there between friends isn’t worth you putting your specs on properly for.

Successive governments have been trapped in the paradox of not wanting to be seen to support private enterprise directly, yet not being able to successfully pilot the retail economy in a supportive way. But direct action is now the only option if they want to prevent the haemorrhaging of even more money from the economy.

Revolutionary

red_toryIronic then that this news should come out in the week when everyone is discussing the bold revolutionary economic policies of Margaret Thatcher.  Right or wrong, it can’t be denied that she made drastic changes to the fabric of government in the UK.  She also wasn’t shy of making sweeping changes to policies and practices that were otherwise regarded as the way we always do things.  I’m not a Thatcherite, especially given that she was at least in part responsible for our current system of business rates, but I think now we see the folly of governments who seek to run the country using policy by proxy.  Especially when it appears that they’re almost intentionally deaf to the underlying problems within one of the principal sectors of the economy.

It’s also rather laughable that a Conservative led government is about to splash yet more millions of our hard earned tax pounds on a hoopla funereal spectacular in an attempt to ally their current lacklustre leader with the former stateswoman.  Yet more distraction and misdirection for an administration who seems only to pootle about in the outer reaches of real policy, whilst expending a great deal of energy trying very hard to look like they’re doing something stately.   We all see now that fluff initiatives like the Portas plan generated much more light than heat, and it’s likely that the new retail forum will be stymied by the same lack of political will to really tackle the problems facing retail today.

But we desperately need a bold set of initiatives to deal with the structural problems faced at all levels by the retail sector.  Not a government in denial about the impact of their own inaction.  A good start might be for them to take a few lessons in economics and try to see the macro and the micro effects that their actions and inactions are having on the overall ability of retailers to generate jobs and earnings for the country.  Perhaps cutting business rates and VAT might have little or no effect, by why don’t we find out?  What’s the worst that could happen?  Maybe another billion or so might slip through the net, but apparently the government isn’t concerned about such loose change.

So perhaps when I complete my next batch of ONS reports I may not bother working out the actual figures.  After all it seems that such information isn’t really taken that seriously by policy makers or government departments, so my going to the trouble of accurately reporting the harm their policies are doing to my business apparently isn’t informing government ministers anyway.  Maybe I’ll just add a few noughts here and there, for fun.  After all, what’s a few decimal places to a government that isn’t going to be looking anyway?

 

           HMRC LOSSES ON RETAIL FAILURES 2012 – 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

COMPANY

FAILURE DATE

 STORES

 JOBS

HMRC DEBT

UNSECURED DEBT

 

 

 

 

 

£m

£m

 

PEACOCKS

Jan-12

                    550

                9,600

19.1

321.0

 

CLINTON CARDS

May-12

                    767

                8,500

6.7

88.3

 

COMET

Nov-12

                    243

                6,500

26.2

66.0

 

GAME

Mar-12

                    600

                6,000

27.3

109.6

 

HMV

Jan-13

                    238

                4,350

20.7

88.8

 

BLOCKBUSTER

Jan-13

                    528

                4,190

4.8

119.6

 

JJB SPORTS

Sep-12

                    180

                4,000

3.0

94.9

 

BLACK’S LEISURE

Jan-12

                    306

                3,885

2.9

10.8

 

LA SENZA

Jan-12

                    146

                2,600

5.3

16.2

 

JESSOPS

Jan-13

                    193

                2,000

1.3

45,2

 

DREAMS

Mar-13

                    171

                1,675

4.6

44.0

(Note 1)

REPUBLIC

Feb-13

                    121

                1,600

3.0

32.3

(Note 2)

PAST TIMES

Jan-12

                    100

                1,000

2.1

10.2

 

MADHOUSE

Feb-12

                      38

                    700

1.6

3.4

 

RHYTHM & BOOZE

Apr-12

                      68

                    425

1.0

4.4

(Note 3)

ELLIE LOUISE

Apr-12

                      97

                    400

1.5

6.8

 

ETHEL AUSTIN

Jul-12

                      60

                    400

0.7

3.9

 

PUMPKIN PATCH

Jan-12

                      36

                    400

0.0

1.1

 

FENN WRIGHT MANSON

Mar-12

                      79

                    350

0.9

4.3

 

SHOON

Feb-12

                      23

                    280

1.0

2.3

 

TOTALS

 

                4,544

             58,855

133.7

1027.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Note 4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note 1: Pending the Statement of Affairs, estimate based on December 2010 accounts

 

 

Note 2: Pending Statement of Affairs, estimate based on January 2012 accounts

 

 

Note 3: In absence of detailed analysis in Statement of Affairs, based on Administrators’ Proposals

 

Note 4: Excludes inter-group balances & bank debt

 

 

 

 

Talking Shop

talking-heads

Monday saw the first meeting of the The Future High Streets Forum.  Yet another talking shop put together by the government to talk about…shops.  This of course comes hot on the heels of the Portas review which pretty much identified all the problems and then set about trying to convince us that they could be dealt with by the judicious application of some showbiz fairy dust.

Of course when I say ‘hot on the heels’ I’m using an approved government timescale.  We’re now something like 18 months on since the Queen of Strops published her initial findings, and just over a year since the first audition tapes for her Pilot bandwagon were submitted and considered by an X-Factor panel comprised of herself and a certain Mr Green (AKA Grant Shapps).  Judging by the glacial speed of most government initiatives that’s probably Olympic standard.

After Shapp’s promotion to apologist-in-chief for the coalition, Mark Prisk was handed the delicately poisoned chalice of Minister for the High Street, a position created shortly after the Portas review was published in an attempt to show just how seriously the government regarded it.

Even though at first glance Prisk seemed like a much more able candidate for the position, his apparent lack of understanding about the problems we face seems to have eclipsed even his predecessors total ineptitude for effective policy making.  This has only been matched by his hitherto monumental lack of action, which may be why he’s letting a whole heap of ideas flood out now, like a backed up colon after a dodgy curry.

According to Mr Prisk, discussions at the first forum meeting focussed on speeding up the mentoring initiatives supposedly established during the set up of the Portas Pilots.  He also wants to offer Town Teams workshops, secondments and mentoring from over 30 organisations, including the British Council of Shopping Centres, the ACS and the British Parking Association to provide advice on aspects such as retail and tourism, the night time economy, public space design and age-accessibility.

So a veritable smorgasbord of limited options topped off  with a selection from the sweet trolley of the bleedin’ obvious!

Bedtime stories

As always this new improved super-forum is taking the approach that all the problems the high street faces are of it’s own making.  They start from the premise that none of us have the first idea why we ended up in this mess.  We’re all such terribly naive and inept businesspeople that we need a big brother or sister to hold our hands, read us a bedtime story and tell us where the monsters are hiding.  Apparently, reduced consumer demand and a failing economy can all be swept away with a few tired ideas, such as market days and pop-up shops.  Greedy intransigent landlords, hocked up to the eyeballs, and councils and governments ignoring economic imperitives can be dealt with by creating  a new logo and installing some extra street furniture.

That’s not to say that the people on the panel aren’t qualified to offer effective advice.  Far from it.  In fact I’ve got a lot of respect for most of them, even if they do seem to be predominately rooted in the property industry.  It’s just that there’s really nothing new to bring to the table now.  Most of the problems now being faced were identified and listed chapter and verse in the Portas review and most people, me included, agreed that the key areas for concern were in there.  If those in power chose to sideline the important issues with circus tricks and razzle-dazzle why should we think it’ll be any different this time around?

At the launch of the Portas Pilots both Mary and Grant Shapps were fond of saying how they’d accepted “nearly all” of the the points in her report.  Carefully  and disingenuously avoiding mention of the 3 main areas they ignored – high rents, high rates and high parking charges.  Without dealing with those points, the kinds of suggested improvements that are frequently trotted out by various experts are far removed from the key issues that have undermined the viability of the high street.  Superficial changes and local initiatives are all very well, but they’re cherries on the cake.  The problem is we don’t have much cake left after local and national government have finished taking their slices.

Why the government is so reluctant to take positive action on things like business rates really is beyond me now.  They seem to do nothing but thrash about looking for any option other than the most expedient solutions open to them as the people in charge.  The argument seems to be that they can’t be seen to be directly supporting private enterprise with public money.  Yet in the same breath they happily justify shovelling skip loads of cash in the direction of bankers who’ll just as blithely trouser huge wedges of the stuff in the guise of bonuses or just stack it up in the corner and gaze lovingly at it.  Not only is that direct support for one of the most unpopular and bloated sectors of private industry, it’s the very same sector that brought most of us to the door of ruin just a few years ago.  Yet we’re all supposed to be in dread of bankers moving their cash skimming operations to foreign climes, whereas Vince Cable seems to be pretty keen to see retailers head overseas as soon as humanly possible.

Do the math(s)!

bad_maths_example

Business rates are, along with rents, the two most corrosive factors eating away at the heart of the high street today.  In a few days the second of two massive hikes in business rates will kick in, leaving the retail economy shouldering the burden of over half a billion pounds worth of additional taxes imposed over the past two years in this single tax alone.  Yet Mark Prisk seems not to have noticed.

In a statement about the new forum he said “Over the last year this Government has worked hard to help boost the high street, including initiatives to simplify planning, revamp the public realm, cut the business rate burden and revive local markets”.

Now I don’t know if he’d normally describe an increase of £525M as a ‘cut’ but if so I think perhaps he needs to buy a new abacus or at the very least have a word with a professional about providing appropriate medication.  Self delusion is one thing, but trying to drag the rest of us into his fantasy world is probably a step too far, even for a government minister.

Although to be fair, this isn’t the first time this bit of spin has been thrown out there.  Whilst watching the Andrew Marr show a year or so ago I almost pebbledashed my TV with fruity granola after hearing  Call-Me-Dave Cameron announce to all the world that his government were “tackling business rates”.  Again a definition of ‘tackling’ that I don’t think would have got him very far on the rugby fields of Eton.

Peddling this kind of PR piffle serves to demonstrate just how little the government really wants to tackle the core structural issues that are undermining every high street retailer today.  In the past 2 years they talked a lot and walked very little.  To put this into sharper context we need to realise that the sum total of all the cash handouts given to towns under the various soundbite schemes dreamt up by Shapps and Prisk amounts to little more than 8% of the increases in business rates imposed since they were announced.  If there really was a will to fix the high street we all know what would be the first demonstration of intent – a freeze in business rates in the last budget.  That hasn’t happened so just like last time we’re expected to be satisfied with the sop of yet another inquiry.

And timing is everything.  The deadline for last years Portas Pilot audition video submissions was coincidentally the day before £350M worth of extra rates bills had to be paid by retailers.  This year we have a new talking shop that meets less than a week after the chancellor smacked us in the mouth with a further £175M hike and expected us to to smile about it through broken teeth.

Lies, damned lies and politics

how_to_be_a_sneaky_politician_2_button-p145796806303616259qd2b_400

We all know that no amount of pop-up talking shops and secondments are going to solve these structural issues.  Those in government know it too, and every time we swallow another piece of bullshit pseudo policy we’re letting them get away with the subterfuge.  There’s no substitute for proper action from a motivated and principled  government.  That’s something we need NOW, not in another year, not after yet another report or another raft of hair-brained ineffectual political stunts.

It’s going to take a lot more than just talk to get these problems solved.   Sadly though, it seems talk is still all we’re going to get.