Search results

In the May/June 1982 issue of RDM we published an article by Stuart Eliot of UMIST which discussed the contribution that superstores can make to inner city areas. In this article Leigh Sparks develops some of the points made by Stuart Eliot, and in particular discusses the employment and locational policies of superstore retailers in more detail. However, there are considerable costs involved for retailers in opting for inner city location, as has already been pointed out by more than one major retailer. Occupancy costs — especially rates and car‐parking — are considerably more than the same costs in an edge‐of‐town location. There are also indirect costs in terms of the greater risks arising out of vandalism and shrinkage. Distribution and handling costs are, in general terms, lower in single‐storey stores which are more suited to edge‐of‐town locations. But, argues Leigh Sparks, why should retailers be expected to pay the cost of the government's inner city dilemma? The government should recognise the contribution that inner city superstores can make in employment and social terms, and extend inducements to retailers by way of capital expenditure and rates allowances.

For retail management as for management generally, it is essential to keep well informed of present and future economic trends. One might expect that with sophisticated computerised techniques, economic forecasting would be a great deal more accurate than it was, say, twenty years ago. But is this necessarily so? Stuart Eliot looks at some of the reasons why forecasts go wrong, and how useful they are anyway.

Since we last published a major feature on the Coops some two years ago — also by Stuart Eliot, the Coops have made some recovery. In fact, in the writer's view, they are undoubtedly moving in the right direction. Profitability is on an upward trend; member benefit schemes are offering an attractive alternative to the traditional dividend; and mergers and structural change (always the Coops' Achilles Heel) are proceeding quite quickly. And Coop superstores are now the third largest group in the UK.

The Cooperative Movement is nothing if not paradoxical. Viewed by some as a spent force, it is still collectively the largest retailer in the UK, with sales almost double those of its nearest rivals. Regarded by some as sluggish and reluctant to innovate, it was in fact the first retail organisation to test the new concept of self‐service, revolutionary in the post‐war years, and is today the third largest superstore operator in this country. But its weaknesses lie in the fragmented nature of the Coop movement itself — it is not in fact one entity but 135 retail societies, all completely autonomous, and some determinedly so. And it has still not resolved its central conflict: how to fulfil its traditional role in terms of social commitment to its members, and at the same time operate profitably in a highly competitive environment. In this special article Stuart Eliot examines the traditional strengths and weaknesses of the Co‐operative Movement; his conclusion is that all is not yet lost for the Coops — but time is not on their side.

In recent years the retail sector has witnessed a spate of merger activity, partly because some companies have been unable to solve difficult trading problems in any other way, and partly because other companies see acquisitions as the only way to achieve rapid growth. For example, there has been Habitat's acquisition of Mothercare; Argyll Foods' purchase of Allied Suppliers; the sale of Woolworth's in October 1982; and, at the time of writing, bids involving UDS and others. While all this activity has been going on, the Government has been coming under increasing pressure from both businessmen and its own backbenchers to clarify merger policy. In this article Stuart Eliot sets out to review current policy towards retail mergers and considers whether any amendments are desirable.

The search for new approaches to inner city problems has been stepped up following the recent disturbances in Brixton, Toxteth and Moss Side, but clearly (here is no simple solution. Certainly, the answer does not depend solely on the amount of money ploughed into the areas because, as Mr Heseltine has argued, “very large sums of public money are already being spent, and they do not always appear to have solved the problems of our cities.” Instead, any improvement is likely to come from a variety of sources — political, social and financial. This article examines the contribution that retailers can make.

Outlines the benefits of humour in the workplace. Briefly looks at the place of humour in advertising and the effect of it in areas such as attention, comprehension, persuasion and likeability. Discusses humour in the workplace and provides some suggestions for employers. Covers humour in training and concludes that modest investment in all these areas can bring benefits to the workplace.

For generations retailing has had to fight against its image as a second‐class occupation. Successive governments have tended to regard it as less important than manufacturing industry, and this view has been reinforced by careers officers who, in the palmy days when school‐leavers were in the privileged position of having an element of choice in their jobs, adopted a condescending if not dismissive attitude to “working in a shop”. If anything this attitude has been even more marked at graduate level; as our contributor writes, retailing has been generally neglected by universities, and even by many management centres and business schools. There are, of course, some exceptions. One of the most notable of these is the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology; UMIST was one of the first in the UK to develop courses in retailing, and these are described here in some detail. The author is only too well aware that there are a number of universities and polytechnics whose retail courses have not been mentioned in this feature; equally that there are personnel officers who will justifiably feel that they are not guilty of the charges levelled against them in the section entitled “Graduate Retailers”. We welcome correspondence from educational organisations or individuals who desire to put the record straight.