Mary Portas take on dying High St's

Generali

Like any other leisure activity, people need a reason to do it. As the internet becomes more accepted by more people as a good way to do your shopping, shops will need to give their customers more reasons to come to see them.

It's no fun going into Boots or Woolies (RIP) to be served by a grumpy teenager in a grubby environment - I might as well go to Tesco as at least that way I can get my loo roll and tinned tomatoes at the same time.

However, if the local town has a festival on (eg those travelling 'French' or 'Italian' markets) or perhaps a couple of clothes shops get together to do a fashion show in the evening or whatever then it gives people a reason to get off their sofas and go to the local shops. Most people I think would accept the fact that they pay a little extra for their purchases as the cost of going to a fun event (just as many people willingly pay higher prices for a pie or a burger at the soccer or cricket).

Retail isn't dead but retailers will have to work more creatively to get customers to spend money with them.

Mr_Mumble

If I have £10 to spend on bits and bobs do I:

1. Drive to the local supermarket with free parking; or
2. Drive to the town centre and spend £1 to park.

Its a no-brainer and it was only ever hinted at in the programme. A family member with a handful of small outlets has given up on two town centres after the councils thought it was a bright idea to increase parking costs and remove car parking spaces. The only discussion on car parking was how it wouldn't help Dunstable if you paid people £1 to park. "Horse" and "bolted" come to mind, you may as well have talked about being paid to go to Sellafield.

The final sentence of the programme from Ms Portas was a call to arms for independent retailers to "work together and really focus on what the customer wants". Except the independent retailer can rarely do what the customer wants since it requires council officals to make an area attractive to visitors and bureaucrats to stop the red tape allowing small business-people to compete on a level playing field with the big.

The programme was such a mish-mash, not even trying to split up the causes of the downturn into, say; structural (the internet, pedestrianisation); cyclical (recession); or frictional (high rent).*

The poor mum & dad who were spending their retirement savings to help their daughter keep her shop open, oh my! The parents needed to know whether the business was viable long-term or not. If the business wasn't viable then mummy and daddy would be helping their daughter far more by telling her to shutter the business and give her the money to retrain. Of course this required "detail" and fc123 is so right here. The BBC no-longer provide a "public service", this programme would have been fine for a commercial channel but the commercial channel would have done it better by at least mentioning the partial culpability of government! It is outrageous that the very consumers who could be helping out these small independent retailers with their money have £140 less to spend because they're threatened with jail if they want to watch TV without paying for mediocre programming such as Mary Portas: Save Our Shops!

*. Structural/cyclical/frictional are the delineations for types of unemployment and I'm sure retail gurus know better ways of describing reasons for the downturn but they seem apt to me!

fc123 wrote:

The main reason is changing shopping habits and the domination of oligopolies within food, furniture and clothing.

fc123, enjoyed your detailed post (I then watched the programme with increasing frustration!) but I can't agree with this. Even in food there is no effective oligopoly with new entrants such as Aldi, Lidl and Netto along with enterprises that have been expanding at a good pace such as Waitrose, Co-op and even M&S. A reasonable range of food is also cropping up in more general bargain stores - the likes of Wilkinson's, Home Bargain and Poundland.

dopester

wageslave wrote: »

In fifty years time only the extremely rich and the bitterly poor will use real shops.
We will live in interesting times

You think? I still think tech advancement is progressing at a rapid rate.

Yet even these possibilities are tame compared to what may well lie ahead. It may be possible in the future to adopt the techniques now used in genetic coding to build molecular computers, and then set them to work in molecular engineering.

As unlikely as it may seem, a supercomputer could be possible in a form so tiny that it would fit comfortably in a single human cell. Such molecular computers would make possible the construction of numerically controlled assemblers for manipulating matter at the atomic level - what is known as nanotechnology.

As long ago as 1959, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman spoke of "the possibility of manoeuvring things atom by atom." He declared then that it would prove to be "a development which I think cannot be avoided."

This perhaps unavoidable science would have unavoidable megapolitical consequences. Human control over nature at the molecular level implies a new, post-industrial strength magic. Scientists who study nanotechnology believe that within decades self-replicating molecular "machines" will be able to construct practically anything the heart desires - almost without assistance from human labour. Intimate objects - from an automobile to a baked Alaska - could be programmed for assembly in much the same way that living organisms are programmed by genetic encoding, built cell-by-cell, or molecule by molecule.

- goes on to highlight the risks, if such power was not under adequate control.... as the tech-heads who might be able to bring this about, or perhaps their company, could wield possibly absolute power and control over the entire world if they chose to.

dopester

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

fc123, enjoyed your detailed post (I then watched the programme with increasing frustration!) but I can't agree with this. Even in food there is no effective oligopoly with new entrants such as Aldi, Lidl and Netto along with enterprises that have been expanding at a good pace such as Waitrose, Co-op and even M&S. A reasonable range of food is also cropping up in more general bargain stores - the likes of Wilkinson's, Home Bargain and Poundland.

Yes.. but those low-end retailers are competing with one another, with lower-margins, and looking for volume for their profits. They are also targeting those with less money to spend. Those who are under more financial pressure.

Not everyone has lost their purchasing power - or wealth.

An independent would be crazy to try and compete at the lower-end. A shop selling low-grade food at low prices, at low margins --- also competing against your Aldi, Lidl, Nettos, Co-ops... and now according to you... Wilkinsons, Home Bargain and Poundland.

About a decade ago someone clued-me-up to cheap food production - really really put me off.

Whereas... approached carefully, an independent food-retailer may have a better chance competing at the higher end - against main retailers like Waitrose or whatever.... to make a good return on their business- where you can add higher margin, with customers who have higher spending power and who still command quite a lot of wealth.

During the 1930s, there was a big increase in the per capita consumption of what were known as luxury foods. Consumption of citrus foods jumped as did ice cream and beef. This will have analogs in the next depression.

dopester

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

If I have £10 to spend on bits and bobs do I:

1. Drive to the local supermarket with free parking; or
2. Drive to the town centre and spend £1 to park.

I occasionally drive to an independent grocer... half-a-mile away from village centre... no other shops around... (previously awarded Best Rural Retailer & Best Traditional Retailer)... as I value quality foods, with good service and knowledge behind the foods they stock. Don't mind paying an extra premium for it.

Seem to do alright for themselves, with frequent passing trade - in a wealthy area.

Not all independents are doomed.

dopester

Generali wrote: »

Retail isn't dead but retailers will have to work more creatively to get customers to spend money with them.

Is it true there are now some self-pay tills at some M&S stores? You scan your own items through or something? What kind of shopping experience is that?

I mostly agree with you - but for the independent, marketing especially, together with product range, is of critical importance. Providing the economy doesn't totally collapse... emphasis on style, fashion, advancement, improvement - or for food, quality.

Smaller independents.. best to target the higher-end - higher margins imo, or innovation products with lower margin sold worldwide via internet stores.

A close relative.. reading fashiony magazines... they are taken in. The adverts.. the celebs, the stories. There must be many others like her.... and prepared to pay the premiums to those companies getting in to their minds.

People love shopping.. not all have to be dragged from the sofa... but yes, independents need something extra about them.

When demand falls as it does in a depression, competition for the remaining customers is abnormally intense. This was especially true in the thirties in fields enjoying dynamic growth, such as tobacco products, gasoline sales, and better processed foods.

When the depression began, for example, gasoline was sold from tankers at railheads. Crankcase oil was scooped from large drums. There was practically no service. Within a few years, this was totally changed. New stations were designed. Service attendants ran to greet each customer. They washed windshields, checked oil-levels, and put air in their customers' tyres. They also offered repair facilities, credit services, "service with a smile" ect. As gasoline retailers sought to outdo one another, they invested large sums in marketing and capital improvements. Oil company advertising costs alone in the mid-thirties amounted to 20 percent of the value of gasoline purchases.

In light of this experience, another depression should be viewed as an opportunity to compete. Depressions are periods when brand loyalties in practically any product line are up for grabs. This means that advertising is important for positioning and repositioning products. Companies that trade on identifiable brands will be vulnerable to new competition, especially if they sell cheap products that are technologically easy to produce.

Coca-Cola's lock on the cola market, for example, was challenged in the depression by Pepsi, which originally was a low-cost competitor. This is a matter to bear in mind when reviewing your portfolio. Companies with big names but weak balance sheets, may not survive. Brands that do not go hand-in-hand with superior products will not be worth premium prices.

dopester

Generali wrote: »

It's no fun going into Boots or Woolies (RIP) to be served by a grumpy teenager in a grubby environment - I might as well go to Tesco as at least that way I can get my loo roll and tinned tomatoes at the same time.

Any independent trying to compete with very similar products to what the major retailers like Tesco, Asda, Aldi, Lidl, M&S, Waitrose are selling... they are under pressure from the start.

Smaller Spar + Co-Op + Newsagent chains in the suburbs... can get away with it to a certain degree, with a premium, but then you are competing against them. If they are not already in the area you're considering.. why not?

A smaller independent needs an edge, in what they stock to sell, and how they sell it.

A guy I once knew had a shop selling ladies wigs (from £100-ish to some really expensive ones at over £1,000.. )... with one main shop that afforded him a comfortable lifestyle. There may be increased competition in that line today (don't know, and more of an internet take-off since.. but that sort of thing a lady might want to try on in an understanding shop... for the money involved doesn't matter so much to what it may give to the person who has a hair-loss condition).. but that principle of what you sell, marketing, location, premium/margins, and how you sell it.

You can't rely on just "the local factor".. as I think DD was suggesting a few weeks back when he was asking for feedback on his idea of buying a shop for retirement income (cause the property is a bargain now)... selling kid's shoes.. "because it is quite a drive from that village to nearest main Asda/Tesco."

Relying on the fact you're local alone, that convenience, will not bring in many customers willing to pay a premium, for standardish items.

Not when your target market is lower-end under increasing pressure financially.

That target market is probably more likely to go the extra distance to Tesco/Aldi when they need to get a bulk shop of things. Go on ebay for second-hand, go to a dress-agency (where people take their good-condition unwanted clothes/shoes and the shop takes a commission if they sell)... jumble sale, car-boot, accept hand-me-downs, trade with others, for kid's shoes.

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Retirement income from property?

The shop thing was considered because it is in a good location on the high street and is only £80k - though would need renovating and fitting out for the two flats & shop space. My missus is the driving force for this as she loves renovating/decorating and we have excellent links to builders, plasterers, and other tradesmen. She is toying with the idea of opening a shop herself. There are no children's shoe shops in that village and the nearest is about 20 miles away.

As we know from our own experiences as parents, childrens shoes have a high turn-over, are not cheap and any caring parent wants to make sure that their children's shoes fit those rapidly growing feet correctly. Certainly this is not a product that I'd feel comfortable buying of the internet. We also know from experience that dragging children around busy shopping centres can be a very wearing experience. We use our village high street a lot already, and the appeal of just popping into a shoe shop with the kids straight after school or on Saturdays.

When my missus mentioned the kids shoe shop idea and showed me the shop that was up for sale, I was a little dubious (I still am), but I think her idea has definite potential. It'd certainly provide us with a second income stream and get her back into the work environment.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1675603

Doesn't matter. What people have to spend matters. Those who have less money to spend find other ways to get past kids needing bigger shoes, without paying local independent.

michaels

Got to agree 100% with Mr Mumbles.

Our town centre (St Albans) used to be a typical market town with a little service road on the high street with 1 hour free parking right by the shops and my wife would often stop off to pick up a few bits. In their wisdom the town council decided to pedestrianise the whole of this area to give a huge pavement area - to shop now requires queueing to go in to a multi storey carpark, trekking to the shops and of course paying a fortune for the privilege. Not surprisingly instead we do all our shopping at the edge of town retail areas.

Harry_Powell

openside wrote: »

Then there are people like me who never in a million years buy something from a catalogue or internet site without seeing it in the flesh first!

I'm the same, but only for certain products. I buy clothes/shoes and fresh food in shops because I like to 'feel' the quality. I buy consumer goods like a PC, stereo, TV, DVD, etc. online once I've researched the product (again online).

I can't even remember the last time I went into a music/DVD shop or an electronics shop (i.e. Dixons or PC World).

misskool

dopester wrote: »

Is it true there are now some self-pay tills at some M&S stores? You scan your own items through or something? What kind of shopping experience is that?

I prefer self scan tills, I can scan and pack my items and pay by credit card without waiting for a slow checkout person or someone who takes an age to pay. I don't have much me time and when I have to do necessary things, like shopping for food etc, I would much rather have them over and done with as quickly as possible.