First retail ‘name’ to pop off 2018

[Henners]

I don’t quite get why you’re angry...

PH tends to be a tech savvy forum, it isn’t ‘the norm’. It should be no surprise to you that in the main people who were middle aged when the net came about aren’t necessarily as knitted into it as those born 20 years ago - who have grown up with it.

My grandparents - no idea about it, father - not too bad, I can use it, my kid will use it for more elements of their life than any of those before him in the family. Not rocket science is it - are you debating the point, or just not happy you might feel old?

As for the spending thing - commenting about what I see, apparently half are on some of benefit (benefits being more prevalent than 15years ago...), means that half aren’t... people grumble but we didn’t all get poor overnight.

[Henners]

Dandarez, a not surprising view given by Nielsen...

Also, why do you think I’m a millennial?

[saaby93]

Henners said:

Dandarez, a not surprising view given by Nielsen...

Also, why do you think I’m a millennial?

ugh
why do people have to be put in those boxes
Besides it shows almost half of so called Mileneels wont browse or buy online

[Henners]

everyone loves being put in a box, hell some people even cry out for labels.

What it does show though is the ability / willingness to use the web to buy by age, a trend which will continue. The split per bracket is quite hefty, one man’s almost half is another man’s nearly three quarters

At some point we’ll just have high streets of coffee shops and craft ale micro breweries.

Edited by Henners on Tuesday 3rd April 20:04

[Greg_D]

I suspect the model will change to one whereby manufacturers have a concession in a b+q type shed where they show off their products so the consumer can touch and feel them before browsing and buying elsewhere online.

[Alpinestars]

mouseymousey said:

I believe Bargain Booze is a franchise amd conviviality is a supplier. BB should survive even if conviviality doesn't. Personally I love BB stores. Great selection and usually cheaper than supermarkets. Would much rather support a shop like that than a supermarket as well.

Conviviality has got pre pack administration written all over it. Usual tuck up by one of the big firms taking massive fees and new owner getting a bargain all whilst shafting thier suppliers and maybe some staff.

I hope they can sort it out although I don't understand why the unknown tax bill was 30m and they are trying to raise 130m.

It'll be split up. Distribution vs retail.

[James P]

Henners said:

everyone loves being put in a box, hell some people even cry out for labels.

What it does show though is the ability / willingness to use the web to buy by age, a trend which will continue. The split per bracket is quite hefty, one man’s almost half is another man’s nearly three quarters

At some point we’ll just have high streets of coffee shops and craft ale micro breweries

Edited by Henners on Tuesday 3rd April 20:04

Sounds good to me. I’ll probably still order it online as well though

[Taaaaang]

Greg_D said:

I suspect the model will change to one whereby manufacturers have a concession in a b+q type shed where they show off their products so the consumer can touch and feel them before browsing and buying elsewhere online.

Is this even that necessary?

I will only buy stuff from companies online that make returning said items easy. I choose the items based on the pictures, descriptions and reviews.

Can't remember the last time I bought clothes in a shop...just order st loads and return the ones that I don't fancy. The wife does the same so it's not just a gender thing.

[skwdenyer]

Taaaaang said:

Greg_D said:

I suspect the model will change to one whereby manufacturers have a concession in a b+q type shed where they show off their products so the consumer can touch and feel them before browsing and buying elsewhere online.

Is this even that necessary?

I will only buy stuff from companies online that make returning said items easy. I choose the items based on the pictures, descriptions and reviews.

Can't remember the last time I bought clothes in a shop...just order st loads and return the ones that I don't fancy. The wife does the same so it's not just a gender thing.

Except that model is not sustainable.

Having sold wholesale and retail fashion in the recent past, returns rates are north of 33% for most online retailers. Free returns are the norm (for now). A great many returned garments are not re-sellable (no packaging, obviously worn, inadvertent marks, etc.) and there's no effective way of charging customers for non-re-sellable returns (credit card companies will not support charges in the face of customer chargebacks, for instance).

Without breaking any confidences, I saw one customer who would buy a whole slew (many £k) of garments at the start of the season, in multiple sizes. She would then return them all, only to re-buy those she liked come the sale.

The Distance Selling Regulations allow returns, but not free returns. The model is wholeheartedly broken.

Someone I knew a few years ago handled returns for a major consumer goods brand. All returns were simply sent to him (never for re-sale); he would fix any that were broken, and then re-sell online / to market traders / etc. at knock-down prices. The brand essentially wrote off the value of returns. That model is common - in one form or another.

Which of course means that the "real price" of your goods is considerably lower to account for the very large level of returns.

There is a widespread belief that mail order returns is fundamentally broken. For now, the costs of allowing returns is less than the cost of running bricks-and-mortar outlets, but only for so long - returns rates are on the rise again. I know of 2 national clothing etailers who have many large warehouses chock-full of returned goods - they appear not to want to write them off on their books, nor be seen to be creating waste, and are simply choosing to carry the storage costs for a few years...

The music will stop eventually. Or something will change. Better fit software and - perhaps - a ban on multiple size purchases might help somewhat. But the illusion that online is always cheaper to fulfill is slowly ebbing.

As a point of reference, research has shown that conversion rate in stores amongst those who actually try on clothes is around 67%, vs 10% for those who don't. 67% would fit with a 33% returns rate online.

A "bricks and clicks" strategy has the potential to work well. IIRC Monsoon decided to reverse a round of store closures for this reason, instead opening smaller "try and feel" outlets in market towns to drive online sales. John Lewis have also correlated closely store visits against online purchases and are refining their integrated model.

[DiscoColin]

skwdenyer said:

Except that model is not sustainable.
...
As a point of reference, research has shown that conversion rate in stores amongst those who actually try on clothes is around 67%, vs 10% for those who don't. 67% would fit with a 33% returns rate online.

There is another tangent to that part of the debate though. Shops appear not to carry anywhere near as much variety in their inventory as they used to for clothes. If you aren't a 32-36 regular than these days there is a solid chance that if you go shopping for a pair of trousers then you are going to be told by the shop that you will have to order them online anyway. With the shops themselves now often effectively rejecting in-store conversion it becomes a leap to argue that the mail order model is the one that is not sustainable?

There is a significant inventory management argument which appears to skew the economics back towards direct to customer distribution over retail premises - with the numbers for retail only making sense on a boutique scale range to address only the average customers in the middle of the bell curve and everyone out of the mass market sales being shunted to online?

[skwdenyer]

DiscoColin said:

There is another tangent to that part of the debate though. Shops appear not to carry anywhere near as much variety in their inventory as they used to for clothes. If you aren't a 32-36 regular than these days there is a solid chance that if you go shopping for a pair of trousers then you are going to be told by the shop that you will have to order them online anyway. With the shops themselves now often effectively rejecting in-store conversion it becomes a leap to argue that the mail order model is the one that is not sustainable?

There is a significant inventory management argument which appears to skew the economics back towards direct to customer distribution over retail premises - with the numbers for retail only making sense on a boutique scale range to address only the average customers in the middle of the bell curve and everyone out of the mass market sales being shunted to online?

Indeed, you're quite right.

What it does all help to do - thankfully - is help to burst the illusory bubble that online is cheaper to operate: by the time one has factored-in returns, losses, distribution, advertising, promotion, and so on (not to mention the constant march of tech to keep the online stuff looking contemporary and working with the latest platforms and avoiding the latest threats) then the costs are not actually all that different (for apparel).

Your analysis (which is very valid) would tend to point towards a model of using a physical presence to help drive online sales - try it on here, have it delivered tomorrow. I suspect that might also (being a face-to-face transaction) obviate some of the constraints of the DSR?

[skwdenyer]

So it turns out Conviviality's problems stemmed from a dodgy spreadsheet formula or two. Compounded by not budgeting for the £30m tax bill.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/managemen...

Not the first time, won't be the last, but reminds us all how powerful - and flakey - spreadsheets can be!

[Alpinestars]

skwdenyer said:

So it turns out Conviviality's problems stemmed from a dodgy spreadsheet formula or two. Compounded by not budgeting for the £30m tax bill.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/managemen...

Not the first time, won't be the last, but reminds us all how powerful - and flakey - spreadsheets can be!

My understanding is that they didn't have a consolidated/integrated reporting system. A function of acquisitions and "weak" controls.

[Digga]

Alpinestars said:

skwdenyer said:

So it turns out Conviviality's problems stemmed from a dodgy spreadsheet formula or two. Compounded by not budgeting for the £30m tax bill.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/managemen...

Not the first time, won't be the last, but reminds us all how powerful - and flakey - spreadsheets can be!

My understanding is that they didn't have a consolidated/integrated reporting system. A function of acquisitions and "weak" controls.

It's something often mentioned by our accountants, without discussing specific cases or breaching confidentiality rules, that they have clients of all sizes who have very little idea of how they are actually doing. IN extreme cases, the clients don't really know their position until annual accounts/audit is done by the practice. You can, therefore, quite easily see how money due to HMRC (for whatever liability) is spent before the final demand arrives.

[Alpinestars]

Digga said:

Alpinestars said:

skwdenyer said:

So it turns out Conviviality's problems stemmed from a dodgy spreadsheet formula or two. Compounded by not budgeting for the £30m tax bill.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/managemen...

Not the first time, won't be the last, but reminds us all how powerful - and flakey - spreadsheets can be!

My understanding is that they didn't have a consolidated/integrated reporting system. A function of acquisitions and "weak" controls.

It's something often mentioned by our accountants, without discussing specific cases or breaching confidentiality rules, that they have clients of all sizes who have very little idea of how they are actually doing. IN extreme cases, the clients don't really know their position until annual accounts/audit is done by the practice. You can, therefore, quite easily see how money due to HMRC (for whatever liability) is spent before the final demand arrives.

This is slightly different, in that I think each business knew how it was doing, and bear in mind its grown pretty quickly through acquisitions, but I don't think there was a full understanding at the "Group" level.

[alangla]

Alpinestars said:

mouseymousey said:

I believe Bargain Booze is a franchise amd conviviality is a supplier. BB should survive even if conviviality doesn't. Personally I love BB stores. Great selection and usually cheaper than supermarkets. Would much rather support a shop like that than a supermarket as well.

Conviviality has got pre pack administration written all over it. Usual tuck up by one of the big firms taking massive fees and new owner getting a bargain all whilst shafting thier suppliers and maybe some staff.

I hope they can sort it out although I don't understand why the unknown tax bill was 30m and they are trying to raise 130m.

It'll be split up. Distribution vs retail.

Looks like Matthew Clark has been sold off via a pre-pack - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43646700

[Alpinestars]

alangla said:

Alpinestars said:

mouseymousey said:

I believe Bargain Booze is a franchise amd conviviality is a supplier. BB should survive even if conviviality doesn't. Personally I love BB stores. Great selection and usually cheaper than supermarkets. Would much rather support a shop like that than a supermarket as well.

Conviviality has got pre pack administration written all over it. Usual tuck up by one of the big firms taking massive fees and new owner getting a bargain all whilst shafting thier suppliers and maybe some staff.

I hope they can sort it out although I don't understand why the unknown tax bill was 30m and they are trying to raise 130m.

It'll be split up. Distribution vs retail.

Looks like Matthew Clark has been sold off via a pre-pack - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43646700

Yep, agreed in principle yesterday. Retail business may also be a PP if a buyer can be found.

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

Digga said:

Alpinestars said:

skwdenyer said:

So it turns out Conviviality's problems stemmed from a dodgy spreadsheet formula or two. Compounded by not budgeting for the £30m tax bill.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/managemen...

Not the first time, won't be the last, but reminds us all how powerful - and flakey - spreadsheets can be!

My understanding is that they didn't have a consolidated/integrated reporting system. A function of acquisitions and "weak" controls.

It's something often mentioned by our accountants, without discussing specific cases or breaching confidentiality rules, that they have clients of all sizes who have very little idea of how they are actually doing. IN extreme cases, the clients don't really know their position until annual accounts/audit is done by the practice. You can, therefore, quite easily see how money due to HMRC (for whatever liability) is spent before the final demand arrives.

This is slightly different, in that I think each business knew how it was doing, and bear in mind its grown pretty quickly through acquisitions, but I don't think there was a full understanding at the "Group" level.

A la Steinhoff which continues to rumble on.

[jayymannon]

Carpetright seem to be struggling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43736535

[Henners]

jayymannon said:

Carpetright seem to be struggling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43736535

I was in last week and they had some deep discounting going on.


Given the lead time for a new carpet, 2-3 weeks in our case, I expect this story will result in them losing a few sales.