Wednesday 31 July 2013

More panic in Leeds...

****

Last year (according to the figures in Wikipedia at least) over 25 million people trooped through Leeds station on their way to work, to shop or to enjoy Leeds celebrated nightlife. And in that same year 0.00089% of those passengers injured themselves:

In the past year 179 people have been injured at Leeds, and Network Rail said most incidents occurred when people lost their balance after a night out drinking.

Revellers have fallen off platforms, down stairs and escalators and slipped on the station concourse.

Injuries suffered included fractures, cuts and bruises.

Apparently this is a 'high' figure (although the BBC don't report any comparative figures from other stations) and is entirely due to booze:

Ahmed Abdalla, 20, said: "It's the city centre, people are drunk everywhere. From the afternoon they start, early drinking, partying all the time.

"They should be more careful, it's stupid. They're putting themselves and people around them at risk. It's mostly young college boys, uni boys, and girls sometimes."

Network Rail have panicked and are putting up posters telling people to be careful when they're smashed out of their brains. This is to cope with about three incidents a week.

Seems like another moral panic. What is it about Leeds and moral panic?

....

"They wanted vodka" - a lesson in misplaced moral panic

****

Chris Snowdon samples an article about alcopops (remember them) from the BBC and notes that, for once, the article is considered and that it contains some pertinent statistics. Chris notes this one especially:

Consumption of alcohol, having reached a peak in 2000, is declining in the UK. The number of people who never drink is rising. Alcohol sales are falling, with a drop of as much as 6-10% in the past 12 months, according to retail analyst Mintel. 

We are a remarkably abstemious lot and none more so than today's young people. Far from the popularly imagined idea of endless binge drinking, collapsing in heaps and general dissolution, young people are like this:

 "The image of the younger drinker going out and getting drunk is not very cool anymore," 

And this impression - from the folk at Mintel who have no interest at all in manipulating or distorting statistics - is backed up by the evidence:

Men and women of all ages are slowly curbing their excesses and drinking in moderation, according to the annual survey from the Office for National Statistics, which covers England, Scotland and Wales.

It suggests that heavy drinking is falling, abstinence is rising, and young people are leading the drive towards healthier drinking.

The decrease among some groups even pre-dates 2002, with men aged 16-24 drinking 26 units a week on average in 1999 and just 15 units a week in 2009, according to the ONS figures.

However, it was the observations of one academic quoted in the article (OK he's a sociologist) that most struck me:


Sociologist Dr Alasdair Forsyth believes that even in the 1990s the impact of alcopops on young drinkers was greatly exaggerated. During his research in that period he asked young people what alcohol they had consumed and whether they became drunk on that occasion. 

"The proportion saying they were drinking [alcopops] increased but the proportion saying they were getting drunk decreased."

Forsyth and fellow researchers found vodka and white cider were the real culprits.

"It was the complete opposite of what was said in the panic," he argues. "The alcopops were too expensive for the teenagers. They wanted vodka. They weren't interested in lemonade." 

The sweetest irony in all this was that, had we not destroyed the alcopops market with misplaced moral panic, we might have had fewer drunks not more.

 .....

Tuesday 30 July 2013

Squirrels with the plague? We're doomed!

It seems that the squirrels* have got the plague. Or rather the fleas that carry the plague:

Health officials in Los Angeles have confirmed this week that a squirrel found in a National Forest in California was infected with plague.

As a precaution parts of the Angeles National Forest near Wrightwood have been closed since Wednesday.

Visitors were ordered to leave the park after the creature was trapped in a routine check. Officials have said no individuals in the area have been infected with the disease, which is known as the Black Death.

Forget bird 'flu, should we be panicking about squirrel plague? We're doomed I tell you. Doomed!

*The picture above is a North American Grey Squirrel. For the record the plague carrying squirrel isn't one of these and doesn't live in your local park. At least not yet! The carrier squirrel is one of these:


....


Monday 29 July 2013

What to do next? Is Sheffield City Council making the wrong decision?

****

Town and City centre developments are looking pretty fragile as business propositions, us folk in Bradford still sit, fingers crossed, awaiting action from Westfield over the Broadway site. And meanwhile in Sheffield:

Developer Hammerson today announced it was pulling out of long-awaited plans for a new retail quarter in Sheffield.
 The company said it has agreed with Sheffield City Council that it "would end its development agreement" on proposals for the Sevenstone scheme.

The scheme - just cracking open the egg when I was in Sheffield doing my Masters - has been stalled since 2008 "because of the recession" (no mention of the longer-term trends in retail here). It seems to me that this decision from Hammerson reflects the reality of retail investment - other than in exceptional circumstances it's simply not viable right now.

However, Sheffield City Council, wedded to the 'shiny regeneration' model like most big city councils has this to say:

Leigh Bramall, the city council’s cabinet member for business, skills and development, said the authority was still committed to developing Sevenstone.

He said: "The people of Sheffield have waited long enough for a new retail quarter.

"We have the land assembled, utilities in place, have established the level of funding available, and methodology to inject the funding to undertake supporting public works.

"We have confirmed a scheme is viable and so we will now be seeking a new development partner to move the project forward in the shortest time possible."

I wish the city luck with this approach and, knowing the politics and institutional myopia that so restricts regeneration, hope they find a new development partner.

My question is this. If Hammerson - not exactly a small or insignificant developer - can't make the development stack up with an anchor like John Lewis and the promise of £45 million in public subsidy, what makes the Council think another developer will fill the void?

Perhaps a different approach would help us all rethink the regeneration of City centres?

....

Should we end the subsidy of newspapers?

****

OK I hear you - what subsidy? There is no subsidy of newspapers and nor should their be.  Except that some people believe that newspapers (and books, and children's shoes and jaffa cakes) are subsidised:

Dwarfing this is an estimated £4bn p/a subsidy on the direct consumption of petrol, gas and coal through a reduction in VAT from 20% to 5%.

Yes I know, this author - drawing on a piece of egregious research from some folk called Oxford Energy Associates - is talking about domestic fuel. But I guess that is no different from the zero rating of food, publishing and children's clothing?

The truth is that this argument - used again and again by green sorts to excuse the actual subsidy of renewable energy - is a load of old cobblers. A subsidy is where I give you money to reduce your costs not where I reduce your (and lots of other businesses') rate of taxation.  Unless, of course, that rate of tax is set to be negative when it is a subsidy.

We do not subsidise fossil fuels not even a little bit. We give producers tax breaks on exploration and development just as we give pharmaceuticals businesses tax breaks on R&D and manufacturers tax breaks on investing in new plant. And these aren't subsidies either. Neither is a hypothetical (and doubtful) estimate of the externalities related to carbon dioxide emissions. These may well be such externalities but their existence is not a subsidy.

If we're to have a debate about whether energy should be subsidised (it shouldn't be) let's have that debate about the actual subsidies rather than some make-believe ones dreamt up by people with a direct vested interest in the continuing subsidy of renewable energy and the promotion of a particular policy response to climate change.

....

An interesting point about the licensing of private landlords:

****

An idea that is (sort of) national policy for the Labour Party. Here's Ben Reeve-Lewis (not exactly a natural pal of rapacious private rental sector (PRS) landlords):

...if you go down the strict, blanket licensing route, you can forget building a partnership approach with the PRS community.

Whereas the social lettings agency route is based on building bridges and understanding, the licensing approach is a blunt tool that I would argue damages more than it helps...

Councils need PRS landlords more than they need councils and to entice them over we need to offer a hell of a package that will work for the PRS community.  And in the working of it, councils will find it easier to police what is going on.

Ben goes on to say that the selective licensing approach (which we have - to Bradford's leadership's credit - twice voted down at full council) damages the relationship between the PRS and Councils to the detriment of the market and one assumes the tenants.

Ben concludes by despairing at the killing off of partnership approaches to lettings and the impact of the licensing approach championed by Newham Council:

The damage caused to schemes that are trying to build bridges and work with the PRS carries further than the borough boundaries of Newham and confirms endemic fears of many in the landlord community that councils are simply looking on the PRS as a huge cash cow.

Battle lines are beginning to get drawn and personally, I predict a civil war between town halls and the PRS if blanket licensing becomes the idea virus that it is threatening to become.

...

Sunday 28 July 2013

Density and intensity...about the modern city.

****
This is Shanghai from Rob Whitworth on Vimeo.

OK it's a great video intended to show the City at its best, it doesn't include the dark side, the bad buildings, the deprivation, the people without papers living on the fringes of developments. But it shows a city that's alive - buzzing with activity and opportunity (often despite the preferences of the stifling People's Republic bureaucracy).

Contrast this with the images we see of Detroit - emptyness, dereliction, inactivity and a poverty of spirit that seems to scream out; "there is no hope."





Whatever we do to make our cities work, it's clear that density and intensity are essential. And that this doesn't come from the managerialism of government, from licenses, controls and taxes. As one observer points out about Detroit:


[The] per capita tax burden on City residents is the highest in Michigan. This tax burden is particularly severe because it is imposed on a population that has relatively low levels of per capita income.

The City’s income tax… is the highest in Michigan.

Detroit residents pay the highest total property tax rates (inclusive of property taxes paid to all overlapping jurisdictions; e.g., the City, the State, Wayne County) of those paid by residents of Michigan cities having a population over 50,000.

Detroit is the only city in Michigan that levies an excise tax on utility users (at a rate of 5%). 


The answer - or perhaps something that just gives cities a chance to succeed - is to allow them to chop taxes, to tear up regulations and to prefer that crowded wonder of the market to deliver growth. The secret lies in allowing people to do things rather than finding reasons to stop them. To let people have the fruits of their own success to spend, to invest, to play with. And to eschew the planning and second-guessing that municipal authorities so love.

In Shanghai there's a fantastic model of the city showing how it will be in the future. However, almost from the moment of its completion this half-acre model was out of dat - no maglev, no new city and a seemingly endless parade of identical tower blocks. Shanghai show that, even with planning, a city can fight back and deliver growth, change, innovation and excitement.

The most frightening thing here is that we see pride, excitement, dynamism and change in China - a communist state - and dereliction, destruction, depression and decay in the land of the free. And that should be a wake up call to us all.

However much we wish to pretend otherwise, too much of our 'regeneration' does not work.

....

Saturday 27 July 2013

Public health? Focus on the real problem please....

****

The Association of Directors of Public Health (let's call them Nannying Fussbucket Central) has issued a grumpy statement explaining why they threw all their toys out of the pram and are screaming their toddler heads off. It includes this comment:

"Both standardised packaging and minimum unit pricing (MUP) are evidence -based interventions..."

The sole evidence (or should I say computer model) supporting MUP is rapidly unravelling (and alcohol consumption especially amongst the young continues to fall) and there is no evidence at all supporting the theory that shiny packs make children more likely to take up smoking other than the reasonable observation that we'll pick a colour over a plain pack when given that choice.

More to the point - the public health point that is - while the nannying fussbuckets are doing this:

These measures will primarily protect the future health of children...

The real public health problem is out there - and the public health people don't know why it's happening:

Around 600 more people – mainly elderly – have died every week so far this year compared with the average for the last five years, official figures show.

Since early 2012 there have been 23,400 more deaths than would have been expected in England and Wales.

This could be related to a series of bad winters, it could be the reductions in adult social care provision and it could be because public health's obsession with drinking in recent years has meant we've simply switched attention from the real health problems in society.

So perhaps, instead of throwing tantrums about government policy choices, these great public health brains might care to focus on the real problem?

....

Friday 26 July 2013

Sorry Archbishop but you're wrong...you won't beat Wonga by having moneylenders in church halls

****

The new Archbishop is off at a gallop gleefully sticking his neb into all and sundry including the iniquities of the down-market credit business and it's Arch-Demon, Wonga. To give the Primate his due however he didn't promise to force the government to change the law - a welcome break from the seemingly eternal lobbying that has plagued the church since 'Faith in the City':

“We’re not in the business of trying to legislate you out of existence; we’re trying to compete you out of existence”. 

And the boss of Wonga - good capitalist chap that he is - responded by welcoming the competition and the extension of choice in the consumer credit market. All this has been a little spoiled by the silly business of the Church having invested some of its billions in the evil that is Wonga.

Let's be clear, I think the Archbishop is wrong. Not in wanting to encourage credit unions as an 'ethical' alternative to payday lenders, nor in seeing that the solution lies in extending choice rather than in the more usual regulation and restriction. No, the Archbishop is wrong because he doesn't appreciate the realities of the market he intends to enter (well sort of enter - more support of encourage really).

The interest rates (leaving aside all the macroeconomics for a minute) that lenders charge are made up of three things: the more or less fixed cost of setting up a loan, the lenders margin and what we can call a guess at the risks involved (i.e. how many borrowers will default and owing how much). Now we can do a little about the first two things but not much so, if we are to reduce the amount charged we have to reduce the risk of financial loss.

Assuming there is no government subsidy or underwriting of the risk (and guessing that the Archbishop doesn't intend to stick the Church's assets on the table) and no realistic surety, the effect of reducing risk is to reduce the number of people who can borrow. Or, to put it another way, to exclude the very people who are most at risk from loan sharks and other assorted folk peddling loans.

So credit unions with limited assets have to focus on low risk lending - not at all the market in which the Archbishop wants them to operate. If the Church is to compete with the payday lenders it must canonise one of them - we would need St Wonga.

This little headline grabbing initiative is great PR, brilliant politics and poor business. If the church wants to do something to reduce the need for lenders like Wonga the way to do this is to help reduce the reasons why vulnerable people use them. And to do this the Church should build on the work already being done out there by organisations such as Christians Against Poverty - working in local neighbourhoods to advise people on how to avoid debt, how to budget and how to get out of the mess once you're in it. And, while credit unions have a role in all this, they really aren't the solution.

If every church had a debt advisor or two plus a little relief fund, the chances are that thousands of people might be guided away from the risks of short-term borrowing. Rather than compete, the Church should simply remove Wonga's market.

....

Wednesday 24 July 2013

...they do want the government to fix prices in their favour though...

****


We believe in freedom of speech and artistic expression. We don’t believe in mindless censorship.

This is the wonderful Brew Dog, of course, speaking about the Advertising Standards Authority. So it's a shame that their view on minimum pricing is so illiberal and self-serving:

The proposals will mean that the multi-national corporate hammerheads no longer allowed to discount their liquid cardboard to embarrassingly pathetic levels it will act to level the playing field in the off trade. Craft brewers can’t, and shouldn’t, discount their beers and sustain losses. With less of a price differential now in the off trade between industrial and craft beer it will be far easier for the consumer to trade up to awesome craft brews

So much for believing in choice and freedom (although I love the beer).

....
The proposals will mean that the multi-national corporate hammerheads no longer allowed to discount their liquid cardboard to embarrassingly pathetic levels it will act to level the playing field in the off trade. Craft brewers can’t, and shouldn’t, discount their beers and sustain losses. With less of a price differential now in the off trade between industrial and craft beer it will be far easier for the consumer to trade up to awesome craft brews. - See more at: http://www.brewdog.com/blog-article/brewdog-backs-minimum-pricing#sthash.gFpG6bsC.dpuf



“We believe in freedom of speech and artistic expression. We don’t believe in mindless censorship.
Read more at http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/07/24/brewdog-responds-asa-those-mother-fukers-don-t-have-any-jurisdiction-over-us#0zmcl8rJoPq3WzuD.99

Tuesday 23 July 2013

Integration and the shop as brand marketing....more thoughts on the High Street

****

When I came to Bradford, I came as an account executive at a direct marketing agency. And, back then, direct marketing was flavour of the season. The advent of databases, the collection, manipulation and analysis of information, and the idea that we could tailor our offer or appeal to the target consumer - these things made us the scientists of marketing set against the flash, braces-wearing 'above-the-line' folk making those useless TV adverts.

But direct marketing seemed a stale term, more akin to door-to-door selling than to the white heat of information technology. With all our profiling, multiple regression, expert systems and data-mining we rebadged the business - firstly as database marketing, then as relationship marketing - before realising that the unreliable, untargeted advertising was still there, our clients were still spending more on this than on letters and leaflets.

So integrated marketing was invented. Or rather it wasn't, we simply realised that the different bits of marketing activity needed to work together if the campaigns were to succeed. Our clients needed brand marketing as well as targeted marketing.

What's all this got to do with the high street, I hear you cry? Put simply bricks and mortar based retailing has to make use of on-line promotion and sales - we know this and every retail strategist worth his salt is focused on making this transition. But what we haven't appreciated is that this isn't a shift from real to virtual with the high street vanishing but the integration of different channels and their use for marketing as well as selling.

Here's Adam Stewart, marketing director at Rakuten’s Play.com:


“Our view from the marketplace is that there is going to be a form of humanity, and consumers are still going to be interacting with the high street,” he said, explaining that consumers will always prefer to look and feel products and connect with retailers on a face-to-face basis. “What Rakuten’s Play.com is trying to do is be able to offer the services so that high street retailers can have the services without the massive costs and infrastructure to build a digital proposition within a marketplace. So our position is very much not about Cannibalisation, but more about working together with the high street and being able to offer a digital proposition that works in collaboration with a tangible, physical, high street environment.”
All a bit wordy but, in essence, what Stewart is saying is that the virtual retail world needs the high street environment because customers crave tangibility. The problem is that those tangible retailers will struggle to succeed alone - the store becomes as much about brand development and promotion as it is a sales channel.

This can take the form of the spectacular - here's the Johnny Walker House in Beijing:



Diageo describe this as:

...the Johnnie Walker House serves to meet consumer demand for luxury with substance. Blending a bar, museum, retail outlet and an exclusive members club, the Johnnie Walker House Beijing is a response to the demand from Chinese consumers for in-depth knowledge, not only of the specific luxury brands they indulge in, but also of the broader categories the brands fall under.
If you want the more mundane you can check out Disney's presence in Walmart - for sure this makes sales but it's just as much about maintaining the ubiquity of Disney as a brand. Plus of course there's the wonder that is the Apple store - again there's no obvious need for a high technology brand to have a high street presence but the stores provide a strong brand impression in the real world (as well as flogging the odd iPad). When the new product launch comes along and all the fans want one it's better marketing to have all those fans queueing in the town centre than to have them invisibly poised over the 'enter' key on their laptop.

Just as importantly - and this matters in thinking about our centres - the customers that the brand owner wants in his store aren't simply any old customer who wanders by - here's Stewart again talking about retail banking:

 “A very good, corporate, customer, with a high lifetime, probably wants to go in to see a bank manager, and banks need to be able to facilitate that conversation and offer a good service,” Stewart explains. “But a customer who is churning on zero per cent credit cards, banks want them to interact digitally."
Just as Diageo wants high net worth customers in the Johnny Walker House, the future high street success wants high spending, high end customers - the every day buyer can shop from his computer and have it delivered or collect from the Post Office. In town retailing becomes an event, an orchestrated, animated marketing promotion. The customers walking into you shop are there because you've invited them - to a product launch, an anniversary, a preview. They're dressed up to party not slouching round the shops in jeans and an old t-shirt.

Inside you'll get them to engage on-line even more - to like the Facebook page, to follow on Twitter, to join an on-line club for the best customers. And they'll go away and become your best sales people - bragging and preening about the brand urging their friends to get involved.

This integration will be - for retailers - the essence of success. Without a strong on-line presence the retailer cannot compete once over a third, perhaps half, of retail sales are virtual. But that isn't enough - the best retailers will see the shop as one of their essential marketing tools, as a place of rewards, celebration and excitement. As the thing that captures the idea of that brand as fun - as leisure and pleasure.
....





“Our view from the marketplace is that there is going to be a form of humanity, and consumers are still going to be interacting with the high street,” he said, explaining that consumers will always prefer to look and feel products and connect with retailers on a face-to-face basis. “What Rakuten’s Play.com is trying to do is be able to offer the services so that high street retailers can have the services without the massive costs and infrastructure to build a digital proposition within a marketplace. So our position is very much not about Cannibalisation, but more about working together with the high street and being able to offer a digital proposition that works in collaboration with a tangible, physical, high street environment.”
Read more at http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/07/22/true-value-customer-rakutens-playcom-marketing-director-why-understanding-customer#A2BGjJzbeSo66TWI.99