Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics on Business Rates

161265465.jpg.gallery

I started my high street retail career in the fine city of Oxford, so it’s a place that’s close to my heart.  It’s also a place where I first experienced the damage that can be done to an area by a local authority who not only takes its eye off the ball, they take the ball away and refuse to play nice with the local small business community at all.

We closed our last store where we had opened our first 20 years earlier, almost to the day, in Oxford.  It was a sad time for us, made ever more sad by a final tussle with the City Council who had refused us a change of use on the property so that we could finally sell the lease to the only people that wanted it – A Bureau de Change.  They finally relented hours before we were about to call the administrators in.

Not a great end to our Oxford experience, but one that had been marred over the previous 20 years by repeated mismanagement and lack of consideration for the high street.

From a dreadfully thought out one way system, to road works that took over a year to complete and decimated trade for years afterwards, to increasingly hiked, eye-watering parking charges, the city council couldn’t have more effectively shown my business, and many others, the door if they’d tried.

Eventually, after years of depleted useful footfall, and with a new shopping centre that we all knew was going to decimate the traditional retail areas in the city on the horizon, we finally took the hint and left.

Many other small stores and restaurants have followed suit since, and one of the more recent ones – Combibos Coffee – in Gloucester Green made their feelings clear in a newspaper article in the local press, where the owners levied the criticism that the city had “lost it’s sparkle”.

Read the original Oxford Mail Article Here

This chimed with me, not only because, as a jeweller, I think we once provided some of that sparkle, but also because as it mirrored my experience in dealing with the council a few years earlier.  My business had also applied for rates relief before we ultimately gave up on the city where we’d begun our high street adventure.  We were knocked back unceremoniously for our troubles.

The response to this article from the city council seemed to me to support my view, and that of many others in the local community, that they had not grasped the severity of problems in Oxford, particularly for smaller businesses, and were instead trying to wave away such criticism by making bland comments about supporting local businesses.

Moreover the councillor most closely concerned – Mary Clarkson – seemed to be suggesting the council were offering direct support for smaller businesses in the form of targeted business rates relief.

Read the Council’s Response

Intrigued by this claim I made a FOI request asking how many micro-businesses – nationally defined as operations employing 9 people or less – had the council given rates relief to outside of the normal concessions applied on a national basis as part of the new powers granted to local councils in the 2011 Localism Act.

The answer was virtually none.  The only rates relief given as a result of local initiatives came to approximately £40k and this was only to a group of businesses very narrowly defined by the council as operating as if they were charities.

The council made a subsequent claim to the local media that they had in fact given £31m of relief to businesses.  Closer examination of this claim revealed that they had included all the statutory government mandated relief schemes in that figure.  These included such things as transitional relief and charity relief.  As most of us will know, these are simple bolt on measures brought in by the government over many years, intended to reduce the business rates burden, instead of carrying out the root and branch review that everyone, including central government, knows is required.

My concern was that Oxford City Council, in attempting to obfuscate the fact that they have not provided any additional support, were undermining the argument that business rates do need a fundamental rethink.

I know that councils are cash-strapped by government cuts, so expecting them to provide support unaided is probably a tall order.  But in not making that point, and instead relying on empty cut and paste phrases, the council are missing an opportunity to engage with both the government and the business community on the issue.  I have to say that, for a Labour led city council, I find that doubly surprising and disappointing.

As the old truism goes, you can’t deal with a problem if you deny that there is one in the first place.

Unfortunately much of the local media have slightly missed this point and instead focussed on my criticism of the city as a “scruffy clone town”.  I think it’s arguable that it is, and that the reason for that is connected to the council’s apparent lack of support for smaller businesses that provide the diversity and distinctiveness that avoids towns and cities being described as such.  Their recent comments are really only a further indication of this.

I tried to correct this shift of focus in a radio interview I gave on Friday about the local press articles.  Sadly the council didn’t put anyone up to discuss the issue more fully, they will apparently be issuing a fuller statement in due course and I’m waiting with baited breath for that!  In the meantime, as you can hear in the interview they are relying on their claim to support local businesses using the same ‘cut and paste’ answers I accused them of in my letter.

Listen to the interview here

For those who are interested I’ve added the full text of my open letter below. At the time of writing I’ve received no response from the council or Councillor Clarkson.


Councillor Mary Clarkson
Oxford City Council

18 August 2018

Dear Councillor Clarkson

I read with interest your comments in the Oxford Mail some weeks ago in an article entitled ‘Council hits back at coffee shop claims Oxford has ‘lost its sparkle’ (Oxford Mail 14th June 2018).  This was in response to claims by a local coffee bar, Combibos Coffee, and some other small businesses in the city that Oxford had lost its appeal to consumers and that the council was not supportive towards smaller businesses, specifically those classed nationally as ‘micro businesses’ employing 9 people or less.

In the article you rebuffed claims that the council had not done enough to support such businesses in the city.  Amongst a number of rather glib statements focussing on broad indicators such as footfall and changes to the high street you made the following statement :

“Business rates are set by central government; the city council provides business rate relief to many small businesses”

Whilst I’d not dispute that business rates are indeed set by central government, the second part of your claim surprised me.  It suggested that the city council has provided specific relief to smaller businesses in Oxford over and above those it is mandated to provide by central government.  I assumed you were referring to powers available to local councils under Localism Act 2011 that gave them the discretion to apply rates relief where required.

As a former trader in the city of over 20 years standing, I’d applied myself to the council for help on business rates around 2013 when my store in Cornmarket was suffering as a result of many factors in the city that were arguably caused by the city council.  My business was refused support out of hand at the time, so I was intrigued to find out what help you may have provided to others in a similar situation as you appeared to be claiming in the Oxford Mail.

As well as being a retailer myself, I’m also a commentator and journalist on retail matters in the national and business press.  Many of the problems I highlighted to the council 5 years ago were repeated by Combibos Coffee in the Oxford Mail article you responded to. These included poor management of shared public spaces, high parking charges, lack of easy access to the city centre and a disproportionate focus on larger chain stores in the city centre.

The latter problem has now been massively compounded by the opening of the Westgate Centre which itself is only partially let and has largely cannibalised traders from elsewhere in the city, leaving large holes in the main trading streets.  There appear to have been no contingency plans laid to deal with the devastating effects of this development on other businesses in the city, especially smaller operators, not least in the Covered Market which is losing ground and tenants faster than even the most pessimistic observers predicted.

The response from the council has been one of apparent lack of concern and in many cases an evident lack of understanding of how the commercial property market operates.  Your colleague and former leader Bob Price was regularly heard to claim that more empty shops would lead to a reduction in rental values.  Sadly that is not the case for reasons too complicated to detail here.  It’s a shame that he, and it appears you, are not better informed on such matters.

As a result of your claims in The Oxford Mail, I made a FOI request asking for details of how the city council had provided business rates relief to “many small businesses”.  The response to that request and subsequent clarification you provided to the Oxford Mail demonstrates that little has changed in the council’s approach since my days as a city trader.

Although the city council apparently have no records of how many businesses apply for discretionary relief, you were able to confirm that none had been offered such relief in the preceding 2 years.  I was told that micro businesses “would not normally qualify for Discretionary Relief in the Oxford City Area”.  So the facts seem to run contrary to your claims.

You do apparently offer some relief, but only to a very narrowly defined group of businesses which “act like a charity, but do not have charitable status”.  Even then, you have only provided this to an average of 8 businesses a year and currently provide it to 6.  I doubt that would fit any reasonable definition of “many small businesses” as you have claimed.  The only other form of locally administered relief is hardship relief, for businesses in temporary difficulties.  According to your own figures you haven’t provided this to anyone.  Again, hardly a figure anyone would reasonably describe as “many”.

Your further response to the Oxford Mail did however provide a long list of other business rates rebates and discounts.  These included Mandatory (Charitable) Relief, Small Business Rate Relief, Transitional Relief, Empty Property Relief, Rural Relief, Public House Relief, Supporting Small Business, Local Discretionary Revaluation Relief and Local Newspaper Relief.

To the uninitiated this sounds like an impressive list, but as I assume you know, these are all government mandated schemes imposed and essentially funded by central government.  None of them are initiatives created or provided by Oxford City Council as you implied in the article on 14th June.  The council has no choice, no say, and does not directly contribute financially in the application of these rebates.  These are not optional or locally created schemes and so it’s misleading and disingenuous for the council to claim credit for them.

Contrary to your claims, essentially no direct support exists for small local businesses in Oxford similar to Combibos Coffee to offset the unique problems in the city centre, many of which have been created by your administration.  It follows then that your comments in the newspaper and the assertions your department have made since are at best confused and at worst factually incorrect and misleading.

I am aware from my own experience that the council takes the view that discretionary support should only be offered when it returns a direct benefit to the city and I can to some extent understand that.  I also understand that all local authorities are under immense financial pressure as a result of central government cuts, and very few if any have given rates relief on a purely discretionary basis.  But ignoring this fact and the associated pressures on local businesses and making misleading claims about local business rates concessions does not properly highlight this plight.  Neither does it help the national debate on the inequities of the business rates system.

The underuse of discretionary powers also overlooks the value of the amenity provided by such businesses, not to mention the employment and direct contributions they make in the form of local taxation prior to running into such difficulties.  I would also assert that there is a responsibility on you as a council, especially an allegedly socialist led council, to ensure that smaller businesses who are simply looking to make a reasonable living are able to do so, especially when they are providing valuable employment to people in the city.  Yes they are still private enterprises, but their continued success has many knock-on benefits for the city.

These are usually owner-operated outlets working hard against ever diminishing odds to simply stay afloat.  They are not in the same league as the large well-financed corporate operations your council seems to favour, particularly those likely to be attracted to the new shopping centre, itself a development instigated and operated by large wealthy conglomerates.

It’s also noteworthy that, unlike many other councils considering such developments within their purview, you did not impose any requirements on the developers to provide smaller, subsidised units for independent operators other than the usual ubiquitous RMUs.  But considering you didn’t deem it worthy of ensuring the housing element of the development would be affordable for key workers, I suppose this is hardly surprising.

I have to say that I agree with the original assertion by Combibos Coffee that Oxford has “lost its sparkle”.  Having traded in the city since the early 90s I’ve seen it go from a vibrant, destination location to a scruffy, poorly managed, clone town, trading on its past glories.  Over the past 10 years it’s essentially been allowed to go feral by a council who seems to have no concept of how an historic city should be nurtured, shaped and supported.

I was very sad to have to close both my stores in the Oxford after 20 years commitment to the city and it saddens me even more to see other small businesses being forced out in the same way.  It’s little wonder that so many of them are collapsing, if your response to such events is careless platitudes and specious claims.

It’s a truism that you have to recognise there is a problem before you can find the solution.  That solution is not issuing blanket media statements with claims that do not bear closer scrutiny.  So I would ask that you at least be honest with the business community and the wider public and admit that as a council you have no schemes in place that support small local enterprise and perhaps consider setting some up.

Oxford could be a special place again given the right local political will, but from your repeated cut and paste answers it seems that will is not there.  Neither is there any tangible support for struggling small businesses, despite your claims to the contrary.

I’m happy to discuss these matters in more detail if you think that would be useful.  In any event I look forward to hearing your thoughts and seeing an honest clarification of the position of the council on discretionary business rates relief in the near future.

Advertisements

Is Mike Ashley The New Blackadder?

Many of us watched the goings on at the Sports Direct AGM yesterday open-mouthed at the level of drama being acted out both on and off the stage.

Shareholder revolts are nothing new, and Ashley and Keith Hellawell surely had it coming, especially as it emerged recently that Hellawell had attempted to dodge the bullet of criticism by tendering his resignation before the company published its damning review into working practices.

One of the major criticisms being lobbed at Mike Ashley is the treatment his staff have to endure as a result of regular end of shift searches.  So it was doubly ironic that yesterday he suffered the same ignominy under the full glare of the cameras.

One wonders if the inclusion of a huge wad of fifty pound notes in his trouser pocket was a deliberate attempt at bravado.  The search came as part of a tour of the warehouse facilities Ashley was leading, presumably as part of an attempt to show improved working practices. He must have known it was going to happen, so the appearance of that crisp wedge of cash would have been unavoidable.  Or perhaps he’s just so loaded he forgot about that bit of loose change in his trousers.  If that’s the case perhaps he should be renamed Blackadder after this scene from the show.

What it says about Ashley rather belies the impression I got of him at the recent Parliamentary inquiry he attended.  I wrote the column below for Retail Week last Month, but after yesterday’s performance I think I may have to revise my assessment.

He may still like to consider my suggestions for improvements in working conditions though, even though they may rob him of future chances to whip his wad out when he needs to make an entrance.

I stand by my judgement on Philip Green however, who seems to get more loathsome by the day.  As an ambassador for all that’s great about retail success, he’s about as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool.  Even if that swimming pool is on board a 100 million pound penis extension.  The recent ‘renaming’ of his fabulous yacht by comedian Lee Nelson rather summed up my feelings and probably those of the thousands of BHS staff and pension holders he’s helped to leave in dry dock


My Column from Retail Week 11th August

Watching the recent Parliamentary appearances of Mike Ashley and Sir Philip Green, I was surprised to find myself warming slightly to Mr Ashley, something I’d never have imagined possible a few months ago.

That said it was rather like deciding which dastardly stage villain you’d most like to share a stage with, or perhaps a better analogy would be the pantomime horse.

In Green’s case he came across as arrogant and resentful.  Quite obviously certain in his belief that he was better than every person in the chamber.

It was a performance of bravado and bluster that, if I had my psychologist’s hat on, I’d say was more over-compensation than real attitude.  But then considering he apparently needs one yacht for himself and several others for his ego, I might be giving him a far too sympathetic analysis.

In both cases it’s apparent that they were less concerned about how their behaviour reflected on their own companies than they perhaps should be.  A blasé attitude that their customers will remain loyal to their brands, regardless of their attitude to the usual social mores that constrain the rest of us.

Ratner Moment

They may be right, but I wonder how far we’ve really moved on from the days when a mis-timed joke can bring down a company, as we saw with Gerald Ratner 25 years ago (yes it really has been that long!).  There but for the grace of the god of retail goes any of us.

With that in mind I remain baffled over Sir Phil’s nonchalance at being photographed relaxing on the deck of his third multi-million pound status symbol, while BHS sinks slowly to the bottom with the loss of almost all hands.  As Gerald discovered to his cost, timing is everything.

Mike Ashley at least looked like he was taking the questions being asked seriously though.  Considering he reportedly had to be dragged to Parliament ‘kicking and screaming’ he seemed to warm to the experience remarkably well.

His main defence against the revelations of questionable staff treatment at his distribution warehouses was ignorance of the circumstances and practices going on inside his own company.

I’m not going to speculate about the veracity of that claim, but as in many walks of life, as with MPs, doctors, military leaders, and business owners, the fault ultimately lies with the person at the top.  They set the tone and decide the ethos and culture of the organisation.  It’s really not a defence to say ‘Not me guv!’.

istock_000019971984xsmall

The culture in Sports Direct seems to be one of expediency and antipathy.  A strata of mistrust that runs through the company from the warehouse and shop floor staff upwards.  A belief that everyone is out to get everyone else.

Ashley expressed dismay that the daily searches of warehouse staff were taking longer than they did when he set them up 10 years earlier.  But in that admission he confirms that the general tone of the relationship between staff and management remains one of distrust.

Trust

Perhaps he’s right to feel that way, but that does beg the question as to why they would employ staff that they did not have absolute faith in.  Perhaps past experience informed their actions and the belief that they would be robbed blind if they didn’t watch everyone like a hawk.

To me that lack of trust seems to be at the heart of the problems at Sports Direct.  Sadly, rather than dealing with that, Ashley has pushed to improve the searching procedures to reduce the ‘bottlenecks’ at the end of shifts.

But another approach would have been to foster more loyalty in his workforce so that they might be less inclined to help themselves to a five-fingered bonus in the first place.

The culture in Sports Direct seems to be one of expediency and antipathy.  A strata of mistrust that runs through the company from the warehouse and shop floor staff upwards.  A belief that everyone is out to get everyone else.

Studies carried out many years ago showed an inverse relationship between company culture, pay levels, job security and the problem of pilfering.  In my own company, selling many easily pocketable items of high value, we never resorted to body searches.  I did consider them on occasions, but felt that the damage they would do to morale and staff relationships weren’t worth the small amounts that we undoubtedly lost over the years.

And with stringent stock control procedures in place, and – most importantly – seen to be in place, we knew the losses were minimal, even though on one occasion we had to have the manager and all the staff in a branch arrested over cash handling irregularities.

The key for me was that we had a good relationship with our staff and there was mutual trust and respect.  I’m firmly convinced that prevented just as much shrinkage as any number of cavity searches, body scanners and security staff.

happy-workers

So as Mike Ashley starts to get to grips with the managerial problems within a company that he admits may have outgrown previous internal audit procedures, he could perhaps do worse than take a look down the other end of the telescope.  Put himself in the place of his workforce who, if recent reports are to be believed, feel undervalued, under-paid and under suspicion.

A more open and meritocratic attitude towards HR management has so often been cited as the root of success in many companies, most notably in the IT sector.  Likewise success in retail doesn’t have to come down to the hard nosed antisympathetic treatment of those who work for you and with you.

Moreover, in terms of customer facing businesses like ours, we certainly don’t need our leading lights to be seen in the media as disconnected, uncaring profiteers.  Or to be dubbed by the press as “Rude, unprofessional and bad-tempered”.

Indeed as we’re finding out now, in a supposedly more enlightened and informed world, such behaviour could not only be counter-productive, it may even lead to another ‘Ratner moment’ in the very near future.

BHS – The ‘Dead Store Walking’ That Never Really Had a Chance

BHSI greeted the news of the sale of BHS to Retail Acquisitions with the same feeling of incredulity I’d previously experienced over Gordon Brother’s purchase of the ailing Blockbuster chain in 2013.

It seemed like a crazy buy, not least because if a canny businessman like Philip Green wants to shake hands on the sale of a major company for £1, you’d better count your fingers carefully afterwards.

The CVA details, released last month, revealed just how crazy it was. With a massive pension fund hole, debts of around £1.3bn and ongoing trading losses, it was going to take a miracle of biblical proportions to rescue the company for even the most experienced retail turnaround specialist. For someone like Dominic Chappell – a retail novice with several failed companies and a personal bankruptcy behind him – it was totally doolally.

The other thing that bothered me was the name of the company – Retail Acquisitions – which suggests that its primary aim was to acquire the stores, rather than to actually run them.

BHS was a dead store walking and I suspect Sir Green knew that when he sold it. Even the previously over-optimistic Gordon Brothers refused to sanction a £60m loan to Chappell for BHS, which if nothing else at least shows that they did their sums properly this time before leaping head first into another obviously doomed turnaround fiasco.

Dodging the Bullet

There are very few upsides to any of this, but I can’t help thinking how much worse things could have been had Philip Green also managed to buy M&S back in 2004. Already 4 years into his stewardship of BHS by then, one can only wonder if both these venerable old stores would have ended up in the mincer.

bulletM&S still has it’s problems, but it’s taken a far more robust route towards re-inventing itself than was ever evident at BHS. Updated, more up-market branding, a re-positioned clothing offer and a far more efficient front of house has kept Marks and Sparks out of the clutches of the receiver. Above all though it seems that dodging the bullet of being added to the Green portfolio was a far greater benefit to it’s survival.

The tired, confused and cluttered shop floor that greets you in BHS these days screams underinvestment and shredded staff morale. It’s been clear for years that Sir Phil had no idea what to do with BHS. In it’s final days under his stewardship, it was stuffed with poorly executed Arcadia brand concessions making it even less likely that shoppers would cross the threshold.

Essentially there was little inside that wasn’t already available elsewhere. This would also prove to be an Achilles heel for the new owners, leaving them very little room for manoeuvre in re-inventing the stock offer to attract new customers.

A late-to-the-party, rather shonky website did nothing to lift the image of a brand that was already years past it’s sell by date by the time it hit the net. The last gasp flirtation with a food offer shortly before selling the chain suggests the company had finally resorted to plagiarism of the more successful sectors of the M&S operation in a half-hearted attempt to turn the super-tanker before it hit the rocks.

Questions Need Answers

Given Sir Phil’s legendary retail acumen, it’s a conundrum as to why he wasn’t able to breathe new life into BHS rather than bail out. It’s almost like he wasn’t trying. Ultimately his priority was not to be on the apple cart when the wheels came off, which in business terms was a great move for him, but rather a bad one for his staff and creditors.

As shadow business secretary Angela Eagle has pointed out, there are still questions that need answers, especially if it’s it’s going to be left to the taxpayer to make up shortfalls in redundancies and pensions.

cash wheelbarrowI hope in the spirit of openness and transparency recently inspired by his friend David Cameron, Sir Phil will be just as forthright about his own personal financial arrangements. I’m sure speculation that, during the 15 years of his ownership, he trousered remuneration roughly equal to the hole in the pension fund is just a random quirk of inconsequential coincidence.

Likewise, there’s also some concern about pay-outs to Retail Acquisitions that may not have been entirely appropriate in the circumstances. It’s now expected that the company will be called before MPs to explain some of its actions in the run up to the collapse.

Even if there was a plan to relaunch the brand after the buy out, it’s become apparent over recent weeks that this was secondary to re-financing the company. Something that should have been in place long before the new owners picked up the keys.

Speculation

Speculation will now be rife about the future for BHS. A pre-pack resurrection deal seems unlikely considering the complexity of the situation and the continuing dead weight of the pension fund. That would also seem to preclude the option of a buyer being found for the company as a going concern. Even so, according to the administrators, there have been numerous expressions of ‘serious interest’ from prospective buyers. But I suspect it’s the nature of that interest that will be the rub.


I’m sure speculation that, during the 15 years of his ownership, he trousered remuneration roughly equal to the hole in the pension fund is just a random quirk of inconsequential coincidence.


If it does shutter it’s doors, it’s likely that BHS sized hole in our high street will be more difficult to fill now than it was after the demise of Woolworths in 2008. Not just as physical space, but in terms economic and societal impact of so many job and creditor losses. The announcement a few days ago of the collapse of Austin Reed will make that even more acute.

WooliesWhen Woolies went down there were plenty of takers from the bargain end of the retail spectrum eager to gain extra floor space. That sector is largely saturated now, although B&M Bargains are apparently eying some of the BHS portfolio.

Dominic Chappell himself is also reported to be keen to extend his BHS pipedream by buying back the majority of the company from the administrators using yet more borrowed money, this time from the USA. This smacks to me now more of obsession than sound business sense and I can see no reason why we wouldn’t just see a re-run of the last 14 months.

Let’s hope then that reports of viable rescue plans prove to be more than the wishful thinking of the administrators, and that if any part of the company can be saved, the future owners have pockets deep enough to allow them to concentrate on the business of retail rather than of finance.

Genuine Loyalty Can Only be Earned from Genuine Loyalty Schemes

cards-hero-loyaltyTesco having its knuckles rapped recently by the Advertising Standards Authority seems to me to be yet another symptom of a grocery price war strewn with landmines set for their hapless customers.

I’m a fairly avid watcher of supermarket deals, but even I hadn’t noticed the restrictive nature of Tesco’s Brand Guarantee offer.  So claims that they had set it up to be anything but a ploy to hoodwink their customers seem a little hollow to me now.

Even more so as I was about to pen an article proclaiming Tesco as having finally got this price matching thing right in the face of more disingenuous deals from stores like Sainsbury’s.

Next Time We’ll Be Generous!

Giving me a voucher at the checkout telling me that you were actually more expensive than your rivals this time and that NEXT TIME you’ll give me back the difference is a pretty measly offer in my humble opinion.  Even more so when the time limit to claim back the few miserable pence involved is so pitifully short.

And while we’re on the subject, just how many vouchers is it possible for one person to fit into a purse, pocket or wallet?  Judging by the number I get from Sainsbury’s, they’re running their own special study to find out.

inline-Lemon-Takes-Aim-At-Digitizing-Your-Traditional-Over-Stuffed-WalletConsidering we live in a digital age and most of these offers are connected to a databased driven loyalty or discount card, why are we still using annoying and wasteful slips of paper to administer such offers?

The answer, as I’m sure we all know, is redemption ratios.  These stores are assuming we’ll simply be chuffed with their generous offer of a freebie, even though in many cases we’ll not be able to take advantage of it, due to time limits, special conditions or a forgotten or lost magic ticket.

Fast and Loose

It’s been suggested that ASDA’s recent poor performance against it’s rivals was largely down to it’s stance on every day low prices, whilst eschewing a round of discounts and offers, especially in the run up to Christmas.  If that’s true then the value of special promotions is something that no retailer in a highly competitive market can afford to play fast and loose with.

But from my own experience, and from conversations I’ve had with store staff and other consumers, these rather iffy offers are starting to pall in attractiveness.  Coupled with the recent re-jigging of the Nectar scheme in Sainsburys, conditional discounts end up more sour than sweet.  They certainly don’t inspire loyalty.

from conversations I’ve had with store staff and other consumers, these rather iffy offers are starting to pall in attractiveness

Speaking personally, I passed the end of my tether long ago, the last time I had to stand in a checkout queue, leafing through multitudinous fiddly vouchers, checking that they were in date and that I’d bought exactly the qualifying size, variety, colour and amusing shape of kumquats to claim my 0.02p worth of points.

Get Serious

If the big supermarkets are really serious about taking on their snappy little discounting rivals, they are going to have to take a good hard look at how attractive, and above all, how genuine these offers are for their customers.

Bodies like the ASA and Which are feeding into an increasingly savvy and digitally connected consumerate who are not going to put up with the wool being pulled over their eyes forever.  Even if they are offered a discount on knitwear redeemable when there’s an X in the month.

90741

Let’s Not Plan Any Retail Street Parties Just Yet

bunting_2242499bFor many retail and economic pundits the term ‘anal-yst’ seems very apt.  So many of them seem to talk out of their backsides that it’s rare for me to find one that I agree with in broad terms.

Jon Copestake is one such individual, and I frequently find myself in agreement with the majority of his comments in Retail Week Magazine.  His comments today – Despite optimism, a UK retail recovery remains fragile – are no exception.

Along with many others, he’s quoted the LDC and Springboard figures that show a very tiny improvement in high street vacancy rates as part of the general consensus of optimism that seems to be building.  There were equally modest positive increments in retail sales figures which, whilst being better than expected, are still in the order of 1%.

Last week we saw breathless reports that the nebulous and somewhat metaphysical indicator known as ‘consumer confidence’ had finally recovered from the negative position it had been in for 10 years.  We were presumably expected to rejoice that this number had now reached a big fat zero, all of us clapping with one hand whilst frantically grasping handfuls of straws with the other.

Having spent a small portion of my academic career designing questionnaires, I’ve never been convinced by such a slippery concept.  Quite what real use a number based on asking a select sample of people if they’re likely to spend a few quid in the coming weeks is supposed to be eludes me.  I think it’s more something that retailers and investors cling on to as a comforter, intended to give the impression that we know the unknowable – the inside of a consumer’s head.

It’s hard to ignore the conclusion that the effort we all put it to predicting doom and gloom around the time of the collapse ultimately led to a self fulfilling conclusion.  But now we seem equally eager to ‘big up’ minuscule vacancy level movements in the order of 0.5% or a 0.4% – which in statistical significance terms are pretty much static – as evidence that good times are just around the corner.

The overall assessment from many retail analysts is that we’ll never see a return to the heady days of the early noughties.   ONS figures suggest that even though wage growth has edged ahead of inflation, most households are still around 10 years behind in real terms spending power.

Even if wages do rise in real terms there are just too many other ways for people to spend money now, assuming the average person ever really gets back to a point where they’ll feel they have the cash to splash around.  Factor in an ever imminent increase in mortgage rates, along with another housing price boom and the whole scenario starts to take on the familiar twists of the path that led us to disaster last time.

There are so many artificial factors driving the so-called recovery I think it’s far too early to be planning the next major roll-outs.  Low interest rates, the property bubble being inflated by government help to buy schemes, changes in weather patterns, even mis-sold PPI payouts are all shifting winds blowing across the sands of the retail landscape.  And we all know where building on sand gets us.

Whatever the numbers are based on there seems to be a mounting roar of expectation that the bunting will be out for a great big retail street party any day now.  Something of a turnaround from the interminable reports of the exact opposite a couple of years ago.  Personally I’m far from convinced that what we’re feeling are the positive winds of change and more worried that the rush of air could just be the prelude to another almighty slap right in our over-eager little faces.

Retail Technology – Master or Servant?

Facetime-Video-Phone-1950sAs I approach 20 years as a high street retailer I think I may have reached that age when I look back through the Vaseline smeared lens of nostalgia to simpler times when summers were longer, life was sweeter, shops were called shops, rather than stores, and the only channels we talked about were the 4 we had on our 20 inch TVs.

In those barely remembered days, window shopping meant standing with your nose pressed to a plate glass shopfront rather than your Microsoft phone, Android was a morose character in the BBC version of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and a web browser was someone who took rather than more than a healthy interest in arachnid architecture.

I’m not sure if it’s the change in the weather, the recent march of the souls of the undead on Halloween or simply the calm before the chaos of Christmas kicks in, but the last week or so has seen a marked increase in the proposal of ideas that will supposedly elevate the retail industry from these humble roots to previously undreamed of pantheons of technological supremacy.  Personally I’m not convinced.

Dynamic Pricing

Firstly we had Kingfisher’s Ian Cheshire and his predictions about dynamic pricing systems.  LCD shelf edge labels connected to a central computer will, he believes,  revolutionise the high street, allowing prices to be changed by the hour in response to demand, the presence of a particular customer demographic or even the proximity of a particular customer.

This was coincidentally backed up by a piece from Roy Horgan in the same edition of Retail Week Magazine, holding forth on pretty much the same hokum. I guess we can’t blame Roy, considering he works for a company that would likely be at the forefront of a roll-out of such technology, but as a retailer I’d have thought Ian Cheshire would have had more sense.

Comparing the day to day retail proposition with the pricing flexibility of an airline ticket or a hotel room is to miss the fundamental point by a nautical mile.  With the exception of some food uses, consumers are just as able to be flexible with their custom, so changing prices at particular times will only shift buying patterns.

To me this just sounds like the holy grail that RFID was held up to be some years ago.  Back then we were told that we’d have radio tags in everything from T-shirts to teabags but in didn’t happen.  Why?  Because ultimately the investment in the technology required didn’t justify the expense.  Sure, it would be great to be able to scan an entire shopping cart in one go, but if you need to ensure everything down to your last tin of beans has a tag on it that probably costs more than the contents, it’s never going to fly.

Click and Print Bling

Next we had the idea from Argos digital director Bertrand Bodson, that within 15 years we’d not have to worry about having our online purchases being shipped to us.  No more waiting for the delivery man or picking up that irritating ‘while you were out’ card.  No, according to Bodson we’ll all be furnishing ourselves with 3D printers where everything will appear like magic from within.

This was either a very transparent attempt at grabbing a few column inches during a slow news week, or Bertrand had been watching far too much Star Trek in his spare time.  He certainly didn’t seem to understand how 3D printing worked or what it’s limitations were.  The idea that anything other than the most simple products could be delivered in this way is plainly ludicrous.

handmade-jewelleryFor example, one of the products Argos will apparently be sending to us via this new channel will be jewellery.  As a jeweller myself I found this a heroically ill-conceived statement.  Presumably the idea is that we’ll all be sitting with a stack of gold or silver in our 3D printers, along with an equally dazzling collection of precious or semi-precious stones. Then, once we’ve ‘printed’ out all the components for the necklace of our dreams we’d only have to gain the knowledge of an experienced jeweller to polish them, finish them and then put the whole thing together.  That should take 2 or 3  years study on a good jewellery making course, plus the access to a small workshop, but that’s got to be better than waiting from the completed article to come through the letterbox right?

Why Fi?

Broadly this idea that technology will be the answer to all our problems seems to be taking hold across the industry.  A major plank of the recently published review by Bill Grimsey and his team suggested that one of the key innovations that will save the high street from ultimate demise is a wireless network that will apparently have customers prowling the streets with their noses pressed to mobile devices informing them of offers in the stores in the locality.  Presumably this will be a far better option than just raising their heads and looking in the shop windows.  I don’t dispute that Wi-Fi provision will play an important role in any future community area, but the idea of bombarding shoppers with local offers and adverts via a mobile device has been tried before without much success.  Perhaps it’s an idea who’s time will come, but the practical aspects of armies of people tapping palm pads rather than simply wandering about the shops seems to me at odds with what I understand as normal human behaviour.

Google Glass

google-glass-the-jerkProponents of Google glass have similar aspirations, with digital commerce solutions provider Venda recently publishing a report entitled “Wearable Technology: The High Street’s Secret Weapon?”.  Again the idea seems to be that wearing a clunky bit of face furniture with it’s origins in the 1970s children’s TV show Joe 90, will give you far more insight into available offers and promotions than simply looking at a sign next to the product.

I can appreciate blue sky thinking as much as the next person.  I know many of these seemingly unworkable ideas need to be thrown into the ring to allow them to be torn into digestible pieces that at some point may help to construct the next must-have innovation.

I’m by no means a technophobe either.  I’ve been working with computers since 1973 when the processing power we now take for granted in a microwave oven would have needed two huge rooms to house it, along with team of technicians on 24 hour call to periodically hit things with hammers.

I’m an early adopter of most new tech.  My company has had a website since 1995, and I designed and programmed from scratch the EPOS system than has run our inventory control and customer interfaces for the past 20 years, after finding a dearth of such software in 1994.

The good old days?

greengrocers1945So this isn’t a lament for the ‘good old days’ when ruddy faced greengrocers weighed out veg by eye and knew every customer for a 5 mile radius (although that was a golden era I can almost remember).  No, I fully understand that as modern retailers we all need to get our heads round at least some of this newspeak.  But my fear is that as ever more of these technologies are heralded as the answer to engaging an increasingly jaded consumerate, are we not also in danger of confusing the humble shopper as much as ourselves with an overload of ineradicable data and jargon?

It seems like every day there’s another start-up company or new think-tank that re-invents the retail wheel with yet another concept or strategy.  From the plethora of competing payment methods to new ways of presenting products in store.  When in essence the people we’re all selling to haven’t really changed from those we served before all these clever bells and whistles started dazzling us with their white hot potential.  More often than not I think we’re witnessing the birth of technologies for their own sake.  Answers looking for a questions and solutions looking for a problem.

Blind Alley

In practical terms it’s likely the very people that will be embracing these technologies, the young, may be the very demographic that in the future will have much less disposable income with which to buy all the stuff we throw at them.  If that’s true, I’d say we’re in danger of disappearing up a very dark and potentially rather empty alley in the not too distant future.  At the end of it we may see nothing more than our own hubris blinking back at us.

So let’s not forget the basic tenets of retailing as we launch headlong into this technological Valhalla.  The old aphorisms of customer service and personal interaction are often trotted out at this point in these discussions, and I’m afraid I’m not going to be any more original than that.  But in the final analysis I still maintain that we should only use technology if it enhances those two most basic functions of the humble shopkeep rather than seeking to find replacements for them.

Air_Conditioned_Shoes_Crazy_Inventions-s650x595-337964-580New technologies do of course offer fantastic opportunities, but ultimately we still need to be good retailers with all the same skills and motivations that were needed by that greengrocer back in the 1960s.  New ideas are of course exciting and innovation is always needed to keep our industry moving forward.  But I think we need to be certain that we’re responding to customer aspirations rather than confusing them with unwanted information, interaction or propositions.

Technology has brought us as much pointless gimmickry as it has opportunity, and as someone much cleverer than me once said, just because we can do something doesn’t mean that we should.   We should driving innovation, rather than being driven by it.

When is a U-Turn not a U-Turn? The Parallel Universe of the BRC

300541Last week’s sudden abandonment by the BRC of calls for a rates freeze came as something of a surprise to most of us, especially those of us who saw a freeze as a compromise anyway.

With business rates increases over the past two years adding over half a billion quid to retailers overheads bills, it didn’t seem too much to ask for government to allow us a bit of breathing space.  Even more so in the face of flatlining high street sales and the erosion of margins by other taxes such as VAT, which have already caused multiple failures this year.

A freeze was never going to be the final solution though.  The growing clamour for a complete revision of local taxation must by now be reaching even the lofty heights of the ivory towers inhabited by the Chancellor and his advisers.  Even so, it seems nothing is to be done to offer a helping hand to retailers.  The closest we’ve come to any direct action on high streets in the last 2 years was planning minister Nick Boles recent proposal that they should effectively be sold off to residential developers and forgotten about.

Now the BRC, an organisation I’d have expected much better of, has not so much blown the idea of a rates freeze out of the water, it’s sent it into orbit!

The reasons for this about-turn, according to Director General Helen Dickinson, is government claims of a potential £1Bn hole in the country’s finances.  This, she says, has led her to see the error of her ways and ally the BRC with the CBI who have been calling for a 2% cap on rates increases, rather than a freeze, for some time now, arguing that this is a more achievable goal in the short term.

Indeed Dickinson came out fighting very soon after the announcement of the BRC’s change of heart, with talk of a ‘step up’ in their campaign over rates reform with a pronouncement that this will be a long term goal.  The obvious disconnect between those two statements didn’t seem to occur to her at the time, or as far as I know, since.

Realistic ideals

Yes it can be argued that in any negotiation there’s little point in holding out for an outcome or a deal that you’re unlikely to be able to achieve.  Asking for the impossible does make you look unreasonable and in some cases faintly ridiculous.  But a freeze was not an unrealistic ideal.  Certainly not if it was applied to retailers only.

The figure of £1Bn loss to the treasury was, it appears, a little over-egged anyway.  The true loss is predicted to be around £840M and that’s only if the freeze was applied across the board to all businesses.  Taking into account rates relief, that figure could be as low as £700M.  But I suppose a figure like £1Billion represents a powerful headline grabbing number, supporting a Treasury polemic that the BRC appears unwilling to challenge.  After all what’s a few hundred million here or there?  Not much it appears, unless you happen to be trying to get the government to reduce the rates burden by a similar amount.

Special Case

In any event, I’d argue that retail is a special case, carrying as it does multiple burdens both in duplication of the charge over multiple locations, and with deference to the amount it contributes in other ways to GDP, not least in terms of employment.  In those circumstances, if the government really wanted to help,  retail could be singled out, thus significantly reducing the overall impact of a freeze.

In fact based on last years increase of £175M, if the reduction was applied to retailers only, it would take something like 5 years before we got close to £1Bn, unless inflation moves drastically northwards.  That’s plenty of time to bring in a new and fairer form of local taxation.

Although I suppose with predictions of next year’s increase running at anything up to £300M it might not take quite so long.  Even a cap at 2% would leave us facing an uplift of around £200M showing just how little would be gained, even if that could be achieved.  Either way the point is an overhaul of the rates system should already be a government priority.  A freeze for a year might sharpen the minds and pencils of those who talk about reform without ever actually doing anything about it, and with potential rates revenue likely to continue declining as many more stores close for good, the need is becoming more urgent every day.

percentageHelen Dickinson herself has acknowledged that :

[a freeze] “wouldn’t be enough to address the significant impact that business rates are having on local jobs, town centres and communities”

Yet somehow she seems to be arguing that a 2% increase would be a better option.  Perhaps that makes sense in some quirky, mathematically challenged, parallel universe, but until the Large Hadron Collider breaks through to a dimension where a 2% increase is better than no increase at all, we may have to file that comment under ‘S’ for Slightly Silly.

Simple ideas like adding ring-fenced increases to VAT or corporation tax might even net a greater income for the exchequer.  But perhaps there’s a hint at what lies behind the BRC’s change of heart.  Would it be outrageously cynical of me to wonder if all those large scale retailers that have the ear of the organisation have just realised that a turnover or profit based taxation system might actually cost them more?  Especially if effective action was taken to reduce tax avoidance schemes at the same time.  Just a thought.

Incredibility

From the comments I’ve received on this move so far it’s done serious damage to the credibility of the BRC, certainly with small businesses.  There’s always been a belief that as a trade body the BRC were rather more concerned with the fortunes of larger retailers, especially supermarkets, than with those of smaller independents.  This wasn’t a view I supported, but this capitulation on one of the most pressing issues on the high street will do nothing to dispel that belief.  The alignment with an institute like the CBI also pretty much puts the lid on any claims that could be made for the BRC being in touch with the grass roots retailers.  That’s all very disappointing, to put it mildly.

Happily though the Federation for Small Businesses does seem to have remained on the side of the little guys and coincidently launched their own campaign for a rates freeze on almost the same day that the BRC backed away from theirs.  I’d urge everyone to sign their petition and get involved with the campaign.

Not a negotiation

And there’s the difference that Helen Dickenson, the BRC and the CBI doesn’t seem to have noticed.  This is a campaign, not a negotiation.  We don’t need to achieve the best result we can by simply asking for what we think we’ll get.  We should be stating a position that is defensible and then fighting for it.  Yes, ridiculous expectations are a waste of energy and resources but we’re not expecting cash handouts to private businesses, jet packs or for Vince Cable to actually bother to research the difficulties that high street retailers face before he makes yet another dismissive speech.

protest-is-beautiful-free-2007This is a about taking a lobbying stance based on principles and fairness in the same way that campaigners have fought down the years to reform other unfair social inequalities.  Small retailers and their staff depend on the high street for a living.  In many ways reforming the inequities of an unfair taxation system is every bit as important as the fight against sex and race equality, or other socially corrosive political stances.  You can’t negotiate those values and aspirations away just try to save face and score an easy win.  Certainly not if you want to remain relevant to the people you claim to represent.

Internet Purchase Tax ? Be Careful What You Wish For

Funny_Internet_Tax_Cartoon

Sometimes I’m baffled by the workings of the human mind.  For example, why would a retailer in the UK, already burdened with some of the most onerous and inequitable taxes imaginable, not least business rates, actually propose to the government that they introduce a new one, specifically aimed at retail?

Well it seems that’s exactly what Justin King, the Chief executive of Sainsburys has done.  He’s recently called for an internet purchase tax to be applied in the same way he thinks it’s being applied in the USA.  I say ‘he thinks’ because he seems to have misunderstood the reason this tax is being called for over there.

As I’m sure many of you will know, the US don’t have business rates like we have.  They have local purchase tax, which is often added only at the time of purchase.  Items are priced ‘plus taxes’ which are often variable from state to state and region to region.  Because websites can make sales across state and regional lines, many of them have been charging a different rate of tax to what should be paid in the areas where the purchase was made.  In some cases they haven’t charged the tax at all.

Is this right?  No of course it’s not.  But it has pretty much zip to do with the way retailers pay local taxes in the UK.  In the US they are probably quite right to be considering the Marketplace Fairness Act in order to ensure online retail is contributing to local coffers in the way it should.  Here we pay business rates at a flat rate based on the valuation of the property you occupy.  Internet retailers pay these too for distribution warehouses, offices and the like.

What gets up the nose of many retailers, me included to some extent, is that these companies can be based in locations where local rents and by association, local business rates are lower.  Whereas anyone in a high profile high street location would pay a lot more.  That’s because we pay rates based on notional valuations and not as a tax on revenue.  I’ve gone to some lengths to explain how batty I think this system is, but I don’t think introducing a completely new tax is going to make it any more sane.

Golden Goose

Yes it’s annoying and yes it seems unfair, but in essence it’s not.  Online retailers are still paying rates and taxes, but just not at the same level as a normal retailer.  I agree taxes and overhead costs for bricks an mortar retailers are too expensive, but I don’t agree that we should fix that by making online retail just as ridiculously costly.

That’s not levelling the playing field, that’s digging ourselves into a hole in the middle of the penalty box.

Many online retailers are golden eggalso bricks and mortar operations who already pay a fair share of business rates.  Their online sales may to a large extent be supporting other parts of their business.  Taxing them more isn’t going to improve that situation.  Increased taxation would also have to be passed on to customers, hence neatly strangling the golden goose that may be keeping many parts of the retail industry aloft.

There also seems to be some sort of naïve belief by Justin that ministers will conflate this new tax with business rates and seek to reduce one at the cost of another.  Whereas I don’t have quite the same touching faith in any chancellors spirit of fair play.  Especially not one who’s faced with the biggest book balancing challenge since Margaret Thatcher left charm school.

I’ve been warning about the prospect of an internet purchase tax for the past couple of years.  It’s low hanging fruit that I’m surprised the chancellor hasn’t already started to salivate over.

Governments consistently support the mantra that taxing success should not be the way to go and I largely agree.  Why apply what amounts to a punitive tax on internet based operations rather than reduce the taxation being applied to bricks and mortar?

Yes, retailers in the UK pay far too much tax, well the ones who actually pay tax do,  and certainly far too much in business rates.  But adding to the tax burden elsewhere is not going to solve that problem.  Even if such a tax was sold on the basis of a reduction in business rates across the board, it’ll be a safe bet that pretty soon afterwards that whole relationship will slip into the same grey area that local taxation resides in now.

Sunlit Soccer Net

Leveling The Playing Field?

It’s more likely that an internet purchase tax would be applied in the same way as airport tax, or insurance premium tax.  Just slapped on at a nominal rate which will then be increased gradually in successive budgets.  Pretty soon we’ll just see it as another one life’s certainties, just like any other stealth tax.  We’ll moan but we’ll pay it and maybe a few more businesses will go to the wall.

Moreover any government that introduces such a tax is effectively agreeing with me and many others that applying a flat tax business rate to every other business premises in the country is wrong.  If online retail should pay an overhead tax based on revenue then why not the same for bricks and mortar retailers?

If the conclusion to this debate is a fairer system of local taxation based on ability to pay and it’s applied to ALL retail operations, then I’m all for it.  But I very much doubt there’ll be any change to business rates as they stand now if such a tax were introduced. Maybe I’m just not very trusting of government ministers.  Or maybe I’m less naïve than Justin King.

Either way, let’s stop putting such ideas out there shall we?  After all you have to be careful what you wish for in this life, as sometimes you might just get it.

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

 

 

 

 

Inquire Within

cable_1825216c

It’s just been announced that parliament are to hold an inquiry into the state of retail in the UK.  Be still my beating heart, another inquiry, we’re all SAVED!

This on the same day that Vince  – have you seen my glasses? – Cable put on his comfortable shoes and wandered on to the stage at Retail Week Live to tell us he’s looking into it all for us and will be “having a word” with the chancellor about business rates.   Meanwhile explaining that the best place for UK retail is apparently outside the UK.   Irony is obviously not a concept that Mr Cable is particularly familiar with.

Excuse me if I don’t wet myself with anticipation Uncle Vince, but didn’t you say that about the banks a couple of weeks ago when it was revealed that, rather than lending out cash to entrepreneurs under the new government scheme designed to encourage banks to do just that, you let at least one of them trouser another large wad of public cash and lend out even less?!  This after a threatening them all with regulation if they didn’t play nice a couple of years back.

After taking a stand on this issue that was about as aggressive as a 5 year old with a spud gun, he announced that he’d be “having conversations” with them too.   I’m sure they’re all cowering in their luxury riverside penthouses and waiting with mounting terror waiting for the gold plated phone to ring.

And now we have another inquiry.

But hang on, didn’t we have one of those carried out only a year or so ago, by someone famous?  Yes, that lady off the telly, the one with the pointy finger and the knickers.  Now what was her name?

What exactly they expect to find from another inquiry is anyone’s guess.  The problems have already been laid in front of them and the best they could come up with was a talent show and a TV programme.

These problems haven’t gone away just because they’ve ignored them.  They certainly haven’t been made all better by dint of them handing out some cash to a few selected towns, even if any of them had actually got around to spending it.  In fact they’ve got worse.   Perhaps those extra holes in the high street and the additional number retail employees on the dole might have been a tiny clue.

After a raft of major high street collapses over the past few months one would expect them to take the information that they already have and run with it.  Come up with some radical solutions.  Show some leadership.  Or at the very least perhaps not make the situation worse by whacking an extra £170M on to the retail business rates bill in a little under 3 weeks.

4cb4d79ff03380305ca8697223c9c5badabf8999

This really does beggar belief.  It’s ‘Yes Minister’ politics made flesh.  Just keep inquiring but never actually DO anything.   Meanwhile throw billions at the banks and penny pinch on an industry that contributes around 11% to GDP when we ask if we could perhaps forgo a paltry amount in taxation, just this once.

Why don’t they just show us some respect and be honest?  Admit that they don’t give a toss as long as the tax money keeps rolling in and the retail cash cow keeps mooing.  I know it’s not politically expedient to say that, but at least we’d all know where we stand.

Right now that seems to be far too close to Vince Cable in the gents toilets of the last chance saloon, while he pisses on our shoes and tells us it’s raining.