Seems like B&Q are feeling the effects of the down turn in the
consumer sector, 400 'office' jobs cut last week and now 22 stores to
shut and some B&Q Warehouses to be down graded to Mini Warehouses and
floor space to be 'marketed' to other retailers - didn't Home Base go
down that road? Ho, hum, how long before the Home Depot rumours start
again...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4247762.stm

and (whatch any line wrapping)

http://www.kingfisher.co.uk/index.cfm?section=English&area=Investors&content=Latest_press_releases&dup=en_news&viewid=438&link=interim2005/140905_announcement.htm&wide=true

<quote>
Thirdly, B&Q will close 22 stores in markets already well served by
other B&Q stores. Around 16 of B&Q's larger Warehouse stores will be
converted to the new mini-Warehouse format, releasing space which
will be marketed to other retailers. This will represent a reduction
of around 7% of total selling space. With B&Q stores already
accessible to most of the UK population and property costs inflating
significantly, future store development will focus principally on
revamping existing stores and opening new lower cost, higher return
mini-Warehouses. The new management expects to be able to transfer
most of the staff affected to other stores.
</quote>

":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote in message
news:43293643$0$37852$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...

> Seems like B&Q are feeling the effects of the down turn in the
> consumer sector, 400 'office' jobs cut last week and now 22 stores to
> shut and some B&Q Warehouses to be down graded to Mini Warehouses and
> floor space to be 'marketed' to other retailers - didn't Home Base go
> down that road? Ho, hum, how long before the Home Depot rumours start
> again...


Was in the Bletchley B&Q 2 days ago looking specifically for 75mm guttering
in a length longer than 2m.  It's for a conservatory, and I want one length
so that there are no (leaking) joints in the future.  I'll now go elsewhere,
and B&Q will be the loser.
Couldn't find some other items either e.g. rotating laser level, nor petrol
strimmers with a proper brushwood capability.

Prices seemed OK on what they did have, matching or bettering web based
prices on the few I checked out.

-- 
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

Malcolm Stewart wrote:

> Was in the Bletchley B&Q 2 days ago looking specifically for 75mm guttering
> in a length longer than 2m.


Go to New City Heating: http://tinyurl.com/cxx2o

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:54:33 +0100, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


> Seems like B&Q are feeling the effects of the down turn in the
> consumer sector, 400 'office' jobs cut last week and now 22 stores to
> shut and some B&Q Warehouses to be down graded to Mini Warehouses and
> floor space to be 'marketed' to other retailers - didn't Home Base go
> down that road? Ho, hum, how long before the Home Depot rumours start
> again...
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4247762.stm
> 
> and (whatch any line wrapping)
> 
> http://www.kingfisher.co.uk/index.cfm?section=English&area=Investors&content=Latest_press_releases&dup=en_news&viewid=438&link=interim2005/140905_announcement.htm&wide=true
> 
> <quote>
> Thirdly, B&Q will close 22 stores in markets already well served by
> other B&Q stores. Around 16 of B&Q's larger Warehouse stores will be
> converted to the new mini-Warehouse format, releasing space which
> will be marketed to other retailers. This will represent a reduction
> of around 7% of total selling space. With B&Q stores already
> accessible to most of the UK population and property costs inflating
> significantly, future store development will focus principally on
> revamping existing stores and opening new lower cost, higher return
> mini-Warehouses. The new management expects to be able to transfer
> most of the staff affected to other stores.
> </quote>


The march of Screwfix from strength to strength must be a lot of
consolation - and also partly to blame!

-- 
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk 
Gas fitting FAQ  http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:22:47 +0100, John Cartmell wrote:


> In article ,
>    Ed Sirett  wrote:
>> The march of Screwfix from strength to strength must be a lot of
>> consolation - and also partly to blame!
> 
> The blame is on the sheds that turn out not to have what you want. I went to
> B&Q on Tuesday with a list of items that should have left me 50GBP lighter -
> and ended up paying just 2.38GBP. They won't make a profit if they don't have
> the goods.


BTW how much of that 50 GBP was in the s/fix catalogue?


-- 
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk 
Gas fitting FAQ  http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

"Ed Sirett"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.16.19.11.08.586137@makewrite.demon.co.uk...

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:22:47 +0100, John Cartmell wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> > The blame is on the sheds that turn out not to have what you

want. I went to

> > B&Q on Tuesday with a list of items that should have left me

50GBP lighter -

> > and ended up paying just 2.38GBP. They won't make a profit if

they don't have

> > the goods.
>
> BTW how much of that 50 GBP was in the s/fix catalogue?
>


Which is also probably another reason why B&Q stores are feeling the
pinch, IOW, the left hand not knowing that it's cutting off the right
hand....

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:33:08 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:


>
>"Ed Sirett"  wrote in message
>news:pan.2005.09.16.19.11.08.586137@makewrite.demon.co.uk...
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:22:47 +0100, John Cartmell wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> >
>> > The blame is on the sheds that turn out not to have what you
>want. I went to
>> > B&Q on Tuesday with a list of items that should have left me
>50GBP lighter -
>> > and ended up paying just 2.38GBP. They won't make a profit if
>they don't have
>> > the goods.
>>
>> BTW how much of that 50 GBP was in the s/fix catalogue?
>>
>
>Which is also probably another reason why B&Q stores are feeling the
>pinch, IOW, the left hand not knowing that it's cutting off the right
>hand....
>



The equation is pretty simple.

The retail stores are more expensive than the industrial warehouse per
square metre.

Therefore, it makes sense to offload excess retail space by disposing
of properties or subletting to other retailers who will pay the higher
rents.

The gamble is the extent to which retail customers will switch to
buying from B&Q on line or Screwfix, but for the most part these are
lower margin lines.

Increasingly retail space only makes sense for higher margin items, so
this is a sensible strategy.


Keep in mind that Kingfisher is the world's third largest DIY retailer
after the American Home Depot and Lowes by quite some margin, so they
can afford to lose some market share provided that the financial
situation can be matched to market conditions.


Since Homebase have stores selling all sorts of crap and Focus sell
pet stuff and even used to sell bunny rabbits, it's not unreasonable
for Kingfisher's B&Q operation to diversify.    The interesting thing
will be whether they do it more effectively than the others.


-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message 
news:o6imi15ug3o2mmftcdpcekeff6esh2re8s@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:33:08 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Sirett"  wrote in message
>>news:pan.2005.09.16.19.11.08.586137@makewrite.demon.co.uk...
>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:22:47 +0100, John Cartmell wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>> >
>>> > The blame is on the sheds that turn out not to have what you
>>want. I went to
>>> > B&Q on Tuesday with a list of items that should have left me
>>50GBP lighter -
>>> > and ended up paying just 2.38GBP. They won't make a profit if
>>they don't have
>>> > the goods.
>>>
>>> BTW how much of that 50 GBP was in the s/fix catalogue?
>>>
>>
>>Which is also probably another reason why B&Q stores are feeling the
>>pinch, IOW, the left hand not knowing that it's cutting off the right
>>hand....
>>
>
>
> The equation is pretty simple.
>
> The retail stores are more expensive than the industrial warehouse per
> square metre.
>
> Therefore, it makes sense to offload excess retail space by disposing
> of properties or subletting to other retailers who will pay the higher
> rents.
>


Far be for me to suggest how Kingfisher(B&Q) might rent out
their excess space ... but I've oft wondered about (say) Dulux etc.
Now, I don't know about you ... but I don't suddenly think 'why don't
I paint that wall ... ???? !': No; painting is part of a 'It's about
time we 'did' that room' strategy. We trog off down to (say) B&Q and
purchase (say) Ten pounds of paint - but B&Q need to have thousands
of pounds worth of inventory, just so I'll be able to choose the paint
I happen to want - off which Gordon Brown will get over a quid - and
perhaps B&Q make a quid on the deal. It might make more sense for
B&Q to say to Dulux ... you may rent space in our store for xxx -
you supply the inventory; you take the gamble on having the stuff
in stock when this punter decides to paint the walls.




> The gamble is the extent to which retail customers will switch to
> buying from B&Q on line or Screwfix, but for the most part these are
> lower margin lines.
>
> Increasingly retail space only makes sense for higher margin items, so
> this is a sensible strategy.
>
>
> Keep in mind that Kingfisher is the world's third largest DIY retailer
> after the American Home Depot and Lowes by quite some margin, so they
> can afford to lose some market share provided that the financial
> situation can be matched to market conditions.
>
>
> Since Homebase have stores selling all sorts of crap and Focus sell
> pet stuff and even used to sell bunny rabbits, it's not unreasonable
> for Kingfisher's B&Q operation to diversify.    The interesting thing
> will be whether they do it more effectively than the others.
>
>
> -- 
>
> .andy
>


-- 

Brian

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:o6imi15ug3o2mmftcdpcekeff6esh2re8s@4ax.com...
<snip>

>
> The equation is pretty simple.
>
> The retail stores are more expensive than the industrial warehouse
per
> square metre.
>
> Therefore, it makes sense to offload excess retail space by
disposing
> of properties or subletting to other retailers who will pay the
higher
> rents.
>
> The gamble is the extent to which retail customers will switch to
> buying from B&Q on line or Screwfix, but for the most part these
are
> lower margin lines.
>


Yes, but there lies the problems, what about the not so few who
either have no access to such online stores [1], yes many people will
use the online shop if their local store does close or doesn't stock
what they want but there will be many who will not - I would just
either drive the 12 mile round trip to by local Homebase shed or use
the long established builders merchants (who deliver free BTW).

[1] either no computer / web access, refuse to pass CC details over
the net or have no means to enter into an online transaction even if
they wanted to.


> Increasingly retail space only makes sense for higher margin items,
so
> this is a sensible strategy.
>
>
> Keep in mind that Kingfisher is the world's third largest DIY
retailer
> after the American Home Depot and Lowes by quite some margin, so
they
> can afford to lose some market share provided that the financial
> situation can be matched to market conditions.
>


But companies still need to stock what people want, not what they
just *think* can make a quick profit (which seems to be the way that
B&Q are trading ATM), I / suspect / many people are buying from my
local B&Q because it's the only local 'DIY store', the only other
option now are the 'trade' outlets or a 12 mile round trip to
indifferent DIY sheds.


>
> Since Homebase have stores selling all sorts of crap and Focus sell
> pet stuff and even used to sell bunny rabbits, it's not
unreasonable
> for Kingfisher's B&Q operation to diversify.    The interesting
thing
> will be whether they do it more effectively than the others.
>


Or just end up in decline, like many of the DIY sheds, my 'local'
Focus seems half empty all the time, half the floor space in my
'local' Homebase is given over to home furnishings or leisure
products - nice 8k GBP Hot Tub on display...

"Brian Sharrock"  wrote in message
news:%JPWe.23654$Aa1.22714@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...

>
<snip>
>
> Far be for me to suggest how Kingfisher(B&Q) might rent out
> their excess space ... but I've oft wondered about (say) Dulux etc.
> Now, I don't know about you ... but I don't suddenly think 'why
don't
> I paint that wall ... ???? !': No; painting is part of a 'It's
about
> time we 'did' that room' strategy. We trog off down to (say) B&Q
and
> purchase (say) Ten pounds of paint - but B&Q need to have thousands
> of pounds worth of inventory, just so I'll be able to choose the
paint
> I happen to want - off which Gordon Brown will get over a quid -
and
> perhaps B&Q make a quid on the deal. It might make more sense for
> B&Q to say to Dulux ... you may rent space in our store for xxx -
> you supply the inventory; you take the gamble on having the stuff
> in stock when this punter decides to paint the walls.
>


It would probably be cheaper to give Dulux the floor space, and then
be paid a proportion of the sales profit, as it is I suspect that
they work on some sort of 'sale or return' anyway - traders will not
be happy if they buy thousands of pounds of paint from Dulux (and
their new year colour scheme) only to find that Dulux have made a bum
choice as to what was going to be in fashion that year. IYSWIM?

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:38:35 GMT, "Brian Sharrock"
 wrote:



>
>Far be for me to suggest how Kingfisher(B&Q) might rent out
>their excess space ... but I've oft wondered about (say) Dulux etc.
>Now, I don't know about you ... but I don't suddenly think 'why don't
>I paint that wall ... ???? !': No; painting is part of a 'It's about
>time we 'did' that room' strategy. We trog off down to (say) B&Q and
>purchase (say) Ten pounds of paint - but B&Q need to have thousands
>of pounds worth of inventory, just so I'll be able to choose the paint
>I happen to want - off which Gordon Brown will get over a quid - and
>perhaps B&Q make a quid on the deal. It might make more sense for
>B&Q to say to Dulux ... you may rent space in our store for xxx -
>you supply the inventory; you take the gamble on having the stuff
>in stock when this punter decides to paint the walls.
>


It is common in the retail sector for manufacturers to help with the
merchandising of their products, using financial means as well as
having people go along to help organise displays and train staff.

Regarding paint, of course this is why there is a trend towards paints
mixed at time of sale.  It gives the customer more choice, the
inventory is less and you can charge more.


-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:03:43 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:


>
>"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:o6imi15ug3o2mmftcdpcekeff6esh2re8s@4ax.com...
><snip>
>>
>> The equation is pretty simple.
>>
>> The retail stores are more expensive than the industrial warehouse
>per
>> square metre.
>>
>> Therefore, it makes sense to offload excess retail space by
>disposing
>> of properties or subletting to other retailers who will pay the
>higher
>> rents.
>>
>> The gamble is the extent to which retail customers will switch to
>> buying from B&Q on line or Screwfix, but for the most part these
>are
>> lower margin lines.
>>
>
>Yes, but there lies the problems, what about the not so few who
>either have no access to such online stores [1], yes many people will
>use the online shop if their local store does close or doesn't stock
>what they want but there will be many who will not - I would just
>either drive the 12 mile round trip to by local Homebase shed or use
>the long established builders merchants (who deliver free BTW).

>
>[1] either no computer / web access, refuse to pass CC details over
>the net or have no means to enter into an online transaction even if
>they wanted to.


I would suspect that there is a fairly high correlation between people
without internet access and lack of ability to spend money anyway.

People who have internet access but won't give CC details over secure
electronic transaction services to reputable traders have their own
agenda and I don't see a reason to accomodate them.

The retailers aren't charities.

Mail order has existed for decades, and on-line business is really
only the latest variant of that.



>
>> Increasingly retail space only makes sense for higher margin items,
>so
>> this is a sensible strategy.
>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that Kingfisher is the world's third largest DIY
>retailer
>> after the American Home Depot and Lowes by quite some margin, so
>they
>> can afford to lose some market share provided that the financial
>> situation can be matched to market conditions.
>>
>
>But companies still need to stock what people want, not what they
>just *think* can make a quick profit (which seems to be the way that
>B&Q are trading ATM), I / suspect / many people are buying from my
>local B&Q because it's the only local 'DIY store', the only other
>option now are the 'trade' outlets or a 12 mile round trip to
>indifferent DIY sheds.


Stock profiles are controlled by a number of factors.  Certainly it
isn't a winning proposition to stock vast ranges of low margin/cost
items in competition with other local stores.    If people will buy
the quick profit, high margin items and not having the low margin ones
doesn't discourage people from visiting, then a store will reasonably
do that.

I am sure that your analysis is right.    My nearest DIY store is a
Focus.   I tend to avoid it because choice is limited and the staff
are rude and surly.   I will tend to use it for a known commodity item
like a paintbrush that I want quickly, but that's about it.

If I can plan a project a reasonable time ahead, I'll order the
materials from Screwfix or similar.    If it's not possible to do
that, then I will tend to use B&Q, even though it's further to go
simply because it is large enough to be more likely to have all I
want.   I don't want to spend time going from store to store.

So for me, if B&Q destock things that I want to buy beyond a certain
point and I have to go elsewhere too much, then I wouldn't go there to
consider the things at higher margin and value that they may like to
sell me.






>
>>
>> Since Homebase have stores selling all sorts of crap and Focus sell
>> pet stuff and even used to sell bunny rabbits, it's not
>unreasonable
>> for Kingfisher's B&Q operation to diversify.    The interesting
>thing
>> will be whether they do it more effectively than the others.
>>
>
>Or just end up in decline, like many of the DIY sheds, my 'local'
>Focus seems half empty all the time, half the floor space in my
>'local' Homebase is given over to home furnishings or leisure
>products - nice 8k GBP Hot Tub on display...
>

I agree.  That's entirely possible.    It depends on how smart they
are.    Homebase and Focus have loyalty programs to at least try to
profile customer purchases, but I am not convinced that they have used
them properly.


-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:f8nni1loba1m9q4ff19p89eghvlh2a108t@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:03:43 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> >Yes, but there lies the problems, what about the not so few who
> >either have no access to such online stores [1], yes many people
will
> >use the online shop if their local store does close or doesn't
stock
> >what they want but there will be many who will not - I would just
> >either drive the 12 mile round trip to by local Homebase shed or
use
> >the long established builders merchants (who deliver free BTW).
>
> >
> >[1] either no computer / web access, refuse to pass CC details
over
> >the net or have no means to enter into an online transaction even
if
> >they wanted to.
>
> I would suspect that there is a fairly high correlation between
people
> without internet access and lack of ability to spend money anyway.


Rubbish, my brother is not short of money but has no internet access
at home, out of choice...!


>
> People who have internet access but won't give CC details over
secure
> electronic transaction services to reputable traders have their own
> agenda and I don't see a reason to accomodate them.
>
> The retailers aren't charities.


Yes quite true, but they do need to do what the customer wants to
some degree, loose your customer base and you're a 'has been'...


>
> Mail order has existed for decades, and on-line business is really
> only the latest variant of that.
>


You really seem to think that 99.99999EEEE of the population have
internet connections *at home*, that is simply not true, many people
still *don't* have either the means to access web sites or can't /
won't use online transactions.


>
> >
> >> Increasingly retail space only makes sense for higher margin
items,
> >so
> >> this is a sensible strategy.


It's not if you're not then attracting the customer to enter the
store in the first place!


> >>
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that Kingfisher is the world's third largest DIY
> >retailer
> >> after the American Home Depot and Lowes by quite some margin, so
> >they
> >> can afford to lose some market share provided that the financial
> >> situation can be matched to market conditions.
> >>
> >
> >But companies still need to stock what people want, not what they
> >just *think* can make a quick profit (which seems to be the way
that
> >B&Q are trading ATM), I / suspect / many people are buying from my
> >local B&Q because it's the only local 'DIY store', the only other
> >option now are the 'trade' outlets or a 12 mile round trip to
> >indifferent DIY sheds.
>
> Stock profiles are controlled by a number of factors.  Certainly it
> isn't a winning proposition to stock vast ranges of low margin/cost
> items in competition with other local stores.    If people will buy
> the quick profit, high margin items and not having the low margin
ones
> doesn't discourage people from visiting, then a store will
reasonably
> do that.


But that is the point, many of the quick profit, high margin items
are of the impulse purchase type, people having gone into the store
to buy some other low margin/cost item that they know will be in
stock, remove those low margin/cost items and you risk loosing the
'passing trade' that buys those quick profit, high margin items...
People don't tend to go to DIY sheds just to see what's in stock /
browse around.


>
> I am sure that your analysis is right.    My nearest DIY store is a
> Focus.   I tend to avoid it because choice is limited and the staff
> are rude and surly.   I will tend to use it for a known commodity
item
> like a paintbrush that I want quickly, but that's about it.
>
> If I can plan a project a reasonable time ahead, I'll order the
> materials from Screwfix or similar.    If it's not possible to do
> that, then I will tend to use B&Q, even though it's further to go
> simply because it is large enough to be more likely to have all I
> want.   I don't want to spend time going from store to store.

<snip>

I suspect that many people, especially those who have limited time to
spare, just go directly to were they know what they want will be in
stock (or can be ordered with ease),be that a local shed, trade
merchant or online store.


>
> >
> >>
> >> Since Homebase have stores selling all sorts of crap and Focus
sell
> >> pet stuff and even used to sell bunny rabbits, it's not
> >unreasonable
> >> for Kingfisher's B&Q operation to diversify.    The interesting
> >thing
> >> will be whether they do it more effectively than the others.
> >>
> >
> >Or just end up in decline, like many of the DIY sheds, my 'local'
> >Focus seems half empty all the time, half the floor space in my
> >'local' Homebase is given over to home furnishings or leisure
> >products - nice 8k GBP Hot Tub on display...
> >
> I agree.  That's entirely possible.    It depends on how smart they
> are.    Homebase and Focus have loyalty programs to at least try to
> profile customer purchases, but I am not convinced that they have
used
> them properly.
>


I don't think that you can 'profile' DIY purchases in the same way as
you can food sales etc., to much will be of the distress purchase
type whilst other sales will be of the 'once-a-lifetime' type or
yearly purchases, I suspect that the retailers know that and are
linking into loyalty schemes purely as a way of enticing customers
into the store.

In article <432bd462$0$8012$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
   :::Jerry:::: <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:

> But companies still need to stock what people want, not what they
> just *think* can make a quick profit (which seems to be the way that
> B&Q are trading ATM), I / suspect / many people are buying from my
> local B&Q because it's the only local 'DIY store', the only other
> option now are the 'trade' outlets or a 12 mile round trip to
> indifferent DIY sheds.


The only reasons that B&Q have got my money recently is because of:

sheet materials that I cannot reasonably get elsewhere;
being able to have 'hands-on' items before purchase;
wide range of lighting.

Of course I have purchased other items whilst there but there are better
ranges of some of B&Q's 'natural range' that I can buy from Screwfix or Argos.
 B&Q have some good ideas but don't seem to be able to implement them
properly. Our larger local store (we have a choice of three) has room set
aside for demonstrations yet I have never been in store whilst a demonstration
is going on.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@ followed by finnybank.com	  0845 006 8822
	Qercus magazine	FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527		www.finnybank.com
	Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Quite a number of good points!!


> I don't think that you can 'profile' DIY purchases in the same way as
> you can food sales etc., to much will be of the distress purchase
> type whilst other sales will be of the 'once-a-lifetime' type or
> yearly purchases, I suspect that the retailers know that and are
> linking into loyalty schemes purely as a way of enticing customers
> into the store.


	B & Q have lost the plot. An example is that the local store (together 
with Focus and Homebase) have gone over to 0870 numbers. I therefore 
don't bother to phone them to check stock availability or for other 
information, I use one of their usually cheaper local competitors. 
Toolstation is now cheaper than Screwfix, with equivalent or better 
delivery albeit with a more limited product range. I also buy quite a 
lot from CPC, whose delivery is frequently unbelievably fast, 
particularly when I do not want to be dragged out of bed, clutching a 
cup of coffee, at 8.00am!!

	I can only agree on Focus and Homebase, one has no idea of what it 
wants to sell, the other is rapidly approaching MFI. I made the mistake 
of buying a spare cheap and cheerful wheelbarrow from Homebase last 
week( I only buy cheap ones, because once they are covered in cement and 
concrete, after the task in hand, it is then economic to throw them on 
the tip!!) The product is a design failure, the strap which stops the 
legs from spreading hits your feet when the barrow is loaded, and the 
frame has not been extended around the wheel at the front, making it 
difficult to tip over forwards. No one had ever tried to use the 
product, or they wouldn't be selling it!   However, when it is thrown on 
the tip, it will not be a great financial loss. It does however 
demonstrate the problem of diy shops selling products which are not fit 
for purpose, because they are out of contact with their customer base. 
Interestingly enough, Wickes could not supply a wheelbarrow as they had 
sold out, and all other shops were selling the same product as Wickes at 
a higher price. Screwfix IIRC could not supply!

	Regards
	Capitol

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:19:07 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:


>
>"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:f8nni1loba1m9q4ff19p89eghvlh2a108t@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:03:43 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
>> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> >
>> >Yes, but there lies the problems, what about the not so few who
>> >either have no access to such online stores [1], yes many people
>will
>> >use the online shop if their local store does close or doesn't
>stock
>> >what they want but there will be many who will not - I would just
>> >either drive the 12 mile round trip to by local Homebase shed or
>use
>> >the long established builders merchants (who deliver free BTW).
>>
>> >
>> >[1] either no computer / web access, refuse to pass CC details
>over
>> >the net or have no means to enter into an online transaction even
>if
>> >they wanted to.
>>
>> I would suspect that there is a fairly high correlation between
>people
>> without internet access and lack of ability to spend money anyway.
>
>Rubbish, my brother is not short of money but has no internet access
>at home, out of choice...!


I did say "high correlation" not that it was universally true.

If you look at data from the National Statistics Office, Dataset HIA3,
(Household Internet Access by gross income deciles), it is quite
clear.

			1998-99	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03 P
Lowest ten per cent	3	6	7	10*	12
Second decile group	1	3	5	13	14
Third decile group	2	4	12	15	23
Fourth decile group	3	6	17	26*	31*
Fifth decile group	4	15	26	33*	42*
Sixth decile group	7	15	32	43*	48
Seventh decile group	10	22	43	51*	57
Eighth decile group	16	28	49	60*	69*
Ninth decile group	19	38	60	67	74*
Highest decile group	32	48	73	80	85*
All households 1	10	19	32	40	46



>
>>
>> People who have internet access but won't give CC details over
>secure
>> electronic transaction services to reputable traders have their own
>> agenda and I don't see a reason to accomodate them.
>>
>> The retailers aren't charities.
>
>Yes quite true, but they do need to do what the customer wants to
>some degree, loose your customer base and you're a 'has been'...


The question is which customers are the ones wanted.   



>
>>
>> Mail order has existed for decades, and on-line business is really
>> only the latest variant of that.
>>
>
>You really seem to think that 99.99999EEEE of the population have
>internet connections *at home*, that is simply not true, many people
>still *don't* have either the means to access web sites or can't /
>won't use online transactions.


I didn't say that at all.   See figures above.   In May of this year,
13.1 million households (55%) could access the internet from home and
almost two thirds of adults had used the internet in the previous
three months.    If the bottom three income decile groups are taken
out, the figure is probably closer to 75% of adults.




>
>>
>> >
>> >> Increasingly retail space only makes sense for higher margin
>items,
>> >so
>> >> this is a sensible strategy.
>
>It's not if you're not then attracting the customer to enter the
>store in the first place!


Of course.



>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Keep in mind that Kingfisher is the world's third largest DIY
>> >retailer
>> >> after the American Home Depot and Lowes by quite some margin, so
>> >they
>> >> can afford to lose some market share provided that the financial
>> >> situation can be matched to market conditions.
>> >>
>> >
>> >But companies still need to stock what people want, not what they
>> >just *think* can make a quick profit (which seems to be the way
>that
>> >B&Q are trading ATM), I / suspect / many people are buying from my
>> >local B&Q because it's the only local 'DIY store', the only other
>> >option now are the 'trade' outlets or a 12 mile round trip to
>> >indifferent DIY sheds.
>>
>> Stock profiles are controlled by a number of factors.  Certainly it
>> isn't a winning proposition to stock vast ranges of low margin/cost
>> items in competition with other local stores.    If people will buy
>> the quick profit, high margin items and not having the low margin
>ones
>> doesn't discourage people from visiting, then a store will
>reasonably
>> do that.
>
>But that is the point, many of the quick profit, high margin items
>are of the impulse purchase type, people having gone into the store
>to buy some other low margin/cost item that they know will be in
>stock, remove those low margin/cost items and you risk loosing the
>'passing trade' that buys those quick profit, high margin items...
>People don't tend to go to DIY sheds just to see what's in stock /
>browse around.


That depends on the lines.   The seasonal items and kitchens and
bathrooms seem to be frequented by people meandering around.




>
>>
>> I am sure that your analysis is right.    My nearest DIY store is a
>> Focus.   I tend to avoid it because choice is limited and the staff
>> are rude and surly.   I will tend to use it for a known commodity
>item
>> like a paintbrush that I want quickly, but that's about it.
>>
>> If I can plan a project a reasonable time ahead, I'll order the
>> materials from Screwfix or similar.    If it's not possible to do
>> that, then I will tend to use B&Q, even though it's further to go
>> simply because it is large enough to be more likely to have all I
>> want.   I don't want to spend time going from store to store.
><snip>
>
>I suspect that many people, especially those who have limited time to
>spare, just go directly to were they know what they want will be in
>stock (or can be ordered with ease),be that a local shed, trade
>merchant or online store.
>


Of course.



>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Since Homebase have stores selling all sorts of crap and Focus
>sell
>> >> pet stuff and even used to sell bunny rabbits, it's not
>> >unreasonable
>> >> for Kingfisher's B&Q operation to diversify.    The interesting
>> >thing
>> >> will be whether they do it more effectively than the others.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Or just end up in decline, like many of the DIY sheds, my 'local'
>> >Focus seems half empty all the time, half the floor space in my
>> >'local' Homebase is given over to home furnishings or leisure
>> >products - nice 8k GBP Hot Tub on display...
>> >
>> I agree.  That's entirely possible.    It depends on how smart they
>> are.    Homebase and Focus have loyalty programs to at least try to
>> profile customer purchases, but I am not convinced that they have
>used
>> them properly.
>>
>
>I don't think that you can 'profile' DIY purchases in the same way as
>you can food sales etc., to much will be of the distress purchase
>type whilst other sales will be of the 'once-a-lifetime' type or
>yearly purchases, I suspect that the retailers know that and are
>linking into loyalty schemes purely as a way of enticing customers
>into the store.
>

Although the payouts are not really any higher than for food.


-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Andy Hall 
wrote:

> Therefore, it makes sense to offload excess retail space by disposing
> of properties or subletting to other retailers who will pay the higher
> rents.
> 
> The gamble is the extent to which retail customers will switch to
> buying from B&Q on line or Screwfix, but for the most part these are
> lower margin lines.


Meanwhile Screwfix are now starting up a chain of trade counters ...
just a pity that the nearest is a little too far for convenience.

-- 
Tony Bryer SDA UK  'Software to build on'  http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

On 17 Sep 2005, :::Jerry:::: wrote

Re:


> But that is the point, many of the quick profit, high margin items
> are of the impulse purchase type, people having gone into the store
> to buy some other low margin/cost item that they know will be in
> stock, remove those low margin/cost items and you risk loosing the
> 'passing trade' that buys those quick profit, high margin items...
> People don't tend to go to DIY sheds just to see what's in stock /
> browse around.

 
I'm amazed that retailing never seems to cotton on to this:  it's not 
as if it's a new phenomenon.

Wunceponatime, when British Gas -- as a monopoly -- had high street 
stores, you could go to the back of the shop and pay your gas bill to 
someone sitting behind a teller's wicket.

The front of the shop was used to flog cookers and other stuff, and 
this (obviously) made a way higher margin than some poor shmuck sitting 
behind a wicket taking payments that were going to be made anyway.

So they abolished the wicket -- because it underperformed -- and 
pointed you to the Post Office to pay your bill, so that they could 
deploy their staff to sell cookers instead.  To punters who no longer 
bothered to come into the shop:  they couldn't pay their bill there any 
more, and there was no reason to go inside.  And then they wondered why 
the shops were losing money....

It's not a complex equation, and I really don't understand how 
retailers still get it wrong. (M&S is another example.  Don't get me 
started on the hunt for patterned long socks.)

Do the advisers at B&Q really think I'll make a special trip to check 
out their selection of home furnishings if they're no longer stocking 
the mundane stuff that I need to get?  (If I'm going to make a special 
trip to look at MFI- or IKEA-like shmutter, why on earth wouldn't I 
just go to MFI or IKEA instead?)

-- 
Cheers,
Harvey

"Capitol"  wrote in message
news:dghn2o$32t$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
<snip>
> difficult to tip over forwards. No one had ever tried to use the
> product, or they wouldn't be selling it!   However, when it is
thrown on
> the tip, it will not be a great financial loss. It does however
> demonstrate the problem of diy shops selling products which are not
fit
> for purpose, because they are out of contact with their customer

base.
<snip>

It's not being out of touch with their customer base, after all they
are still stocking the product, what they are out of touch with is
the product - as you say if anyone had bothered to inspect the
product they would not be selling it, all someone has seen is that
the computerised stock control says that they need to restock
wheelbarrows and have then gone and bought on price / profit margin
without though if the product does what it should.

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:reqoi1huv09akdkubuq7hlueqrbcbbbalp@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:19:07 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> >You really seem to think that 99.99999EEEE of the population have
> >internet connections *at home*, that is simply not true, many
people
> >still *don't* have either the means to access web sites or can't /
> >won't use online transactions.
>
> I didn't say that at all.   See figures above.   In May of this
year,
> 13.1 million households (55%) could access the internet from home
and
> almost two thirds of adults had used the internet in the previous
> three months.    If the bottom three income decile groups are taken
> out, the figure is probably closer to 75% of adults.
>


So 45 percent can't (access the internet from home), then there are
those who can't use the internet for online commerce, this figure is
bound to be higher than 50 percent (those that don't have internet
access plus those who can't use online commerce), if everyone
accessing the internet had CC's there would be no need for 'pay as
you go' accounts or BT payment via the phone bill. It's been a long
time since one *had* to have a CC to access the services of an ISP.

As for 2/3rd of the adult population having used the internet, some
of that access will be through internet cafe's, local libraries or
work / education place computers, many of those access points are not
conducive to online commerce (if not actually restricted).

I'm still of the opinion that, in the UK, there are more people
unable to use online commerce than there people who can.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:04:23 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:


>
>"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:reqoi1huv09akdkubuq7hlueqrbcbbbalp@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:19:07 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
>> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> >
>> >You really seem to think that 99.99999EEEE of the population have
>> >internet connections *at home*, that is simply not true, many
>people
>> >still *don't* have either the means to access web sites or can't /
>> >won't use online transactions.
>>
>> I didn't say that at all.   See figures above.   In May of this
>year,
>> 13.1 million households (55%) could access the internet from home
>and
>> almost two thirds of adults had used the internet in the previous
>> three months.    If the bottom three income decile groups are taken
>> out, the figure is probably closer to 75% of adults.
>>
>
>So 45 percent can't (access the internet from home), then there are
>those who can't use the internet for online commerce, this figure is
>bound to be higher than 50 percent (those that don't have internet
>access plus those who can't use online commerce), if everyone
>accessing the internet had CC's there would be no need for 'pay as
>you go' accounts or BT payment via the phone bill. It's been a long
>time since one *had* to have a CC to access the services of an ISP.
>
>As for 2/3rd of the adult population having used the internet, some
>of that access will be through internet cafe's, local libraries or
>work / education place computers, many of those access points are not
>conducive to online commerce (if not actually restricted).
>
>I'm still of the opinion that, in the UK, there are more people
>unable to use online commerce than there people who can.
>


I think that one has to split out those who are unwilling rather than
unable. 

For retailers, those in the lowest income groups are not the most
attractive customers.

So if one looks at those with access and who have spending power then
the numbers increase significantly, and the
"able-to-spend-but-don't-want-to-do-so-or-be-on-line" a small number
and not interesting to retailers anyway.


-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

|| I'm amazed that retailing never seems to cotton on to this:  it's not
|| as if it's a new phenomenon.

This is because, by and large, the management teams are made up of 
'professional managers' and not people who have spent time in the business. 
Most companies are run by complete wankers IMO.

Dave

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:af6pi11rftllj3b8nn4oh4p0r25ip1b60b@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:04:23 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> >news:reqoi1huv09akdkubuq7hlueqrbcbbbalp@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:19:07 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
> >> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> >>
> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >You really seem to think that 99.99999EEEE of the population
have
> >> >internet connections *at home*, that is simply not true, many
> >people
> >> >still *don't* have either the means to access web sites or
can't /
> >> >won't use online transactions.
> >>
> >> I didn't say that at all.   See figures above.   In May of this
> >year,
> >> 13.1 million households (55%) could access the internet from
home
> >and
> >> almost two thirds of adults had used the internet in the
previous
> >> three months.    If the bottom three income decile groups are
taken
> >> out, the figure is probably closer to 75% of adults.
> >>
> >
> >So 45 percent can't (access the internet from home), then there
are
> >those who can't use the internet for online commerce, this figure
is
> >bound to be higher than 50 percent (those that don't have internet
> >access plus those who can't use online commerce), if everyone
> >accessing the internet had CC's there would be no need for 'pay as
> >you go' accounts or BT payment via the phone bill. It's been a
long
> >time since one *had* to have a CC to access the services of an
ISP.
> >
> >As for 2/3rd of the adult population having used the internet,
some
> >of that access will be through internet cafe's, local libraries or
> >work / education place computers, many of those access points are
not
> >conducive to online commerce (if not actually restricted).
> >
> >I'm still of the opinion that, in the UK, there are more people
> >unable to use online commerce than there people who can.
> >
>
> I think that one has to split out those who are unwilling rather
than
> unable.


The base point is that a percentage are not using online commerce, it
doesn't matter why, just that they are not.


>
> For retailers, those in the lowest income groups are not the most
> attractive customers.
>
> So if one looks at those with access and who have spending power
then
> the numbers increase significantly, and the
> "able-to-spend-but-don't-want-to-do-so-or-be-on-line" a small
number
> and not interesting to retailers anyway.
>


In your warped opinion, IMO...

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:15:18 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:


>

>
>The base point is that a percentage are not using online commerce, it
>doesn't matter why, just that they are not.



It does to the retailers and other businesses.  If they cared out
universality of reach with their products and merchandising, there
wouldn't be detailed analysis of each carried out by market research
firms.  As it is, there are shed loads of data and businesses
certainly do try to target their activities to maximimise return and
profit.

If those on line don't represent a significant business opportunity
for them, why would they bother?


>
>>
>> For retailers, those in the lowest income groups are not the most
>> attractive customers.
>>
>> So if one looks at those with access and who have spending power
>then
>> the numbers increase significantly, and the
>> "able-to-spend-but-don't-want-to-do-so-or-be-on-line" a small
>number
>> and not interesting to retailers anyway.
>>
>
>In your warped opinion, IMO...
>


Well.... I didn't say that it was a good thing to have a section of
the population disenfranchised from access to more choice of products
and price competition, but that's the way it is.


-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:u7cqi1d5oobnlf3na74ocnonf99pu3tpug@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:15:18 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >
> >The base point is that a percentage are not using online commerce,
it
> >doesn't matter why, just that they are not.
>
>
> It does to the retailers and other businesses. <snip>


No it doesn't, the fact is that people are not using online commerce,
the reasons why and the solutions are beyond the retailers control so
they should be worrying about other thing that they can have an
effect on.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:58:03 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:


>
>"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:u7cqi1d5oobnlf3na74ocnonf99pu3tpug@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:15:18 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
>> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The base point is that a percentage are not using online commerce,
>it
>> >doesn't matter why, just that they are not.
>>
>>
>> It does to the retailers and other businesses. <snip>
>
>No it doesn't, the fact is that people are not using online commerce,
>the reasons why and the solutions are beyond the retailers control so
>they should be worrying about other thing that they can have an
>effect on.
>


To a large extent, they are beyond the retailer's control, although
some retailers do offer better prices for buying on line.

However, we do know that a large proportion of those not on line are
in the lower income and expenditure groups and the remainder are those
who don't see the value or just don't want to use E-Commerce.

The lower income groups are not so likely to be spending money on the
higher value and margin items anyway, so this leaves those who choose
not to be on line - perhaps 15-20% of the adult population max.

Then the question becomes how to reach them through the bricks and
mortar stores and indeed whether they are susceptible to marketing
anyway.   

Small market share increments in retail are significant, but this
group would be the hardest to reach.    Given that situation and
declining sales of existing products, altering the product mix to
include higher margin items that will appeal to those with more
disposable income and offloading some cost as well is a fairly obvious
choice.

-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:3b9ri1tn9bao1p46k3ve5fkr82v8agbhes@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:58:03 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> >news:u7cqi1d5oobnlf3na74ocnonf99pu3tpug@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:15:18 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
> >> <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The base point is that a percentage are not using online
commerce,
> >it
> >> >doesn't matter why, just that they are not.
> >>
> >>
> >> It does to the retailers and other businesses. <snip>
> >
> >No it doesn't, the fact is that people are not using online
commerce,
> >the reasons why and the solutions are beyond the retailers control
so
> >they should be worrying about other thing that they can have an
> >effect on.
> >
>
> To a large extent, they are beyond the retailer's control, although
> some retailers do offer better prices for buying on line.


They may well do, but if 'X' percent of people will not or can't use
online comerce it's more or less irrelivant.


>
> However, we do know that a large proportion of those not on line
are
> in the lower income and expenditure groups and the remainder are
those
> who don't see the value or just don't want to use E-Commerce.


Your point being what exactly, other than to suggest that those lower
down the income level don't spend money - which they clearly do.


>
> The lower income groups are not so likely to be spending money on
the
> higher value and margin items anyway, so this leaves those who
choose
> not to be on line - perhaps 15-20% of the adult population max.


Can you cite a reference as to how you come to that conclusion, why
do you assume that those on a lower income don't buy higher value and
margin items - they might not buy so often granted.


>
> Then the question becomes how to reach them through the bricks and
> mortar stores and indeed whether they are susceptible to marketing
> anyway.


Of course they are just as susceptible to marketing, ISTM that you
really don't 'know' the people you are talking about, you seem to be
making some wild and wide open assumptions. Do you really think that
those in the top 1/3rd of the income scale would even bother with
places like B&Q?


>
> Small market share increments in retail are significant, but this
> group would be the hardest to reach.    Given that situation and
> declining sales of existing products, altering the product mix to
> include higher margin items that will appeal to those with more
> disposable income and offloading some cost as well is a fairly
obvious
> choice.
>


Only as long as those people use the stores.

As it is, having been into my local B&Q today, and seeing how they
have dragged out every odd bit of tatty stock from all the corners of
the store room, I suspect that their problems are very deep...

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

|| As it is, having been into my local B&Q today, and seeing how they
|| have dragged out every odd bit of tatty stock from all the corners of
|| the store room, I suspect that their problems are very deep...

Exactly the same in my local one as well, piles & piles of complete tat in 
the main.

Dave

Andy Hall wrote:

> For retailers, those in the lowest income groups are not the most
> attractive customers.
> 

	Very false reasoning. Any customer with cash is a better proposition 
than one with either a credit card or a cheque. The best customer is one 
with no money, because you can sell not only the goods, but also the 
money to pay with! As a retailer you need any customer you can get over 
your doorstep. Higher income customers are frequently not the best 
margin generators. Tesco's and Dixons grew to their present size by 
selling mainly to low income customers.

	Regards
	Capitol

Andy Hall wrote:
     Given that situation and

> declining sales of existing products, altering the product mix to
> include higher margin items that will appeal to those with more
> disposable income and offloading some cost as well is a fairly obvious
> choice.
> 

	Sainsbury's and M & S tried this, the results can be seen in their 
share price. It takes a few years to show for a big operation, but it 
really is the best way to wreck a company other than purchasing an 
American operation! I have a golden investment rule of always selling 
any British company's shares when it buys a US one. I've on average 
saved myself losses 2-3 years down the line 90% of the time!

	Regards
	Capitol

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:53:57 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:


>

>> >they should be worrying about other thing that they can have an
>> >effect on.
>> >
>>
>> To a large extent, they are beyond the retailer's control, although
>> some retailers do offer better prices for buying on line.
>
>They may well do, but if 'X' percent of people will not or can't use
>online comerce it's more or less irrelivant.


Only for those people, not for the retailer.

If the retailer chooses not to address these people because the market
opportunity is too small and there is lower hanging fruit, then that's
his (calculated) choice.     There doesn't have to be universality of
supply.


>
>>
>> However, we do know that a large proportion of those not on line
>are
>> in the lower income and expenditure groups and the remainder are
>those
>> who don't see the value or just don't want to use E-Commerce.
>
>Your point being what exactly, other than to suggest that those lower
>down the income level don't spend money - which they clearly do.


Of course they do.  The question is on how much, what, how and where.
If that correlation is poor for the retailer, he can simply choose to
put his efforts elsewhere.




>
>>
>> The lower income groups are not so likely to be spending money on
>the
>> higher value and margin items anyway, so this leaves those who
>choose
>> not to be on line - perhaps 15-20% of the adult population max.
>
>Can you cite a reference as to how you come to that conclusion, why
>do you assume that those on a lower income don't buy higher value and
>margin items - they might not buy so often granted.


One can look at family expenditure figures from the ONS.

In the 2003 data (last available), the spend as a percentage of income
on household goods and services (closest to what a DIY store sells) is
7-8% almost regardless of income.

However, taking the lowest 3 deciles, the expenditure is 11, 12.70
and 17.60 respectively on a weekly basis.

For the top 3 deciles, it's 36.70, 44.40 and 71.90

National average across all income groups is 30.20.


Not surprisingly, across a range of consumer durable product types
there is much higher market penetration of some in higher vs. lower
income groups.  For example:

Over 80% of the lowest and highest decile income groups have a washing
machine, central heating and a telephone.

However, it's 90% vs. 20% for home computers, 90% vs. 35% for tumble
dryers and 70% vs. 10% for dishwashers, 90% vs 10% for internet
connection......


These are national figures and of course there are regional, age and
other factors in them.








>
>>
>> Then the question becomes how to reach them through the bricks and
>> mortar stores and indeed whether they are susceptible to marketing
>> anyway.
>
>Of course they are just as susceptible to marketing, ISTM that you
>really don't 'know' the people you are talking about, you seem to be
>making some wild and wide open assumptions. 


Not at all. The figures are there.

From the marketing perspective, you have to be able to reach your
target customer.   It's a little difficult to reach somebody who
doesn't have an internet connection with a marketing message delivered
via a web site.    My point was that somebody who goes out of their
way to avoid a major form of communication but does not have economic
limitations on access has an agenda for doing so.



>Do you really think that
>those in the top 1/3rd of the income scale would even bother with
>places like B&Q?


I do.   However, the only reason is for convenience and likelihood of
getting everything in one place when I haven't had time to purchase in
advance from an on line source.



>
>>
>> Small market share increments in retail are significant, but this
>> group would be the hardest to reach.    Given that situation and
>> declining sales of existing products, altering the product mix to
>> include higher margin items that will appeal to those with more
>> disposable income and offloading some cost as well is a fairly
>obvious
>> choice.
>>
>
>Only as long as those people use the stores.
>
>As it is, having been into my local B&Q today, and seeing how they
>have dragged out every odd bit of tatty stock from all the corners of
>the store room, I suspect that their problems are very deep...
>

Well.....   There was a 10% reduction on everything weekend.  That's
enough to get people into the store.   Having done that, it's the
perfect opportunity to clear stock.

This seems to me to be a reasonable way to address excess and slow
moving lines.   I would be more concerned if they kept it in stock for
an extended period.


-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:00:21 +0100, Capitol
 wrote:


>
>
>Andy Hall wrote:
>     Given that situation and
>> declining sales of existing products, altering the product mix to
>> include higher margin items that will appeal to those with more
>> disposable income and offloading some cost as well is a fairly obvious
>> choice.
>> 
>	Sainsbury's and M & S tried this, the results can be seen in their 
>share price. 


I know.   I didn't say it was a *good* idea, but it does appeal at
first sight to bean counters.



>It takes a few years to show for a big operation, but it 
>really is the best way to wreck a company other than purchasing an 
>American operation! I have a golden investment rule of always selling 
>any British company's shares when it buys a US one. I've on average 
>saved myself losses 2-3 years down the line 90% of the time!
>


I agree and have done exactly the same on several occasions.

The opposite way around seems to work rather better on average.


-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:50:58 +0100, Capitol
 wrote:


>
>
>Andy Hall wrote:
>> For retailers, those in the lowest income groups are not the most
>> attractive customers.
>> 
>	Very false reasoning. Any customer with cash is a better proposition 
>than one with either a credit card or a cheque.


That depends on what you are selling in what volume and with what
margin.



> The best customer is one 
>with no money, because you can sell not only the goods, but also the 
>money to pay with! 


That's certainly true.



>As a retailer you need any customer you can get over 
>your doorstep. 


That depends on whether they are buying what you want to sell.


>Higher income customers are frequently not the best 
>margin generators. Tesco's and Dixons grew to their present size by 
>selling mainly to low income customers.


That was the early strategy.  For a long time Tesco have taken a lot
of trouble to match stock profile to customer base geographically and
demographically.   This has been responsible for much of the growth in
recent years.




-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:g6fri116mdm6l9n2qh5hbgejrfrkd0ipou@4ax.com...
<snip>

>
> If the retailer chooses not to address these people because the
market
> opportunity is too small and there is lower hanging fruit, then
that's
> his (calculated) choice.     There doesn't have to be universality
of
> supply.
>


Whilst, in the case of people like B&Q, loosing sight of their base
custom...

Andy Hall wrote:



> That was the early strategy.  For a long time Tesco have taken a lot
> of trouble to match stock profile to customer base geographically and
> demographically.   This has been responsible for much of the growth in
> recent years.


I have to agree with you here.
For many years I was happy to shop at Asda. This was at the time it was 
run and owned by Associated Dairies. As soon as they sold out, the store 
went downwards.
Very soon, I learned that they were selling what they wanted me to buy, 
but not selling what _I_ wanted to buy.
They would move goods from aisle to aisle, drop goods that I wanted to 
buy etc. It took me just a few weeks to stop shopping there.
These days, if you look on an aisle devoted to prepared foods, you will 
find that they only sell their own brands. Choice? What choice?

Moving on to Tesco, they look like losing the plot as well. My local one 
has just been expanded by giving it an upstairs area. They are also 
brassing me off with them dropping lines that I like. (I am a green 
shopper and like organic things) If it continues any further, I reckon 
that I will move on to Sainsburies. At least the financial pages are 
saying that they are rising from the ashes at last. Apart from that, 
they do tend to have better totty roaming the aisle  ;-)

Dave

Rant over  :-)

Dave wrote:

> Moving on to Tesco, they look like losing the plot as well. My local one 
> has just been expanded by giving it an upstairs area. They are also 
> brassing me off with them dropping lines that I like. (I am a green 
> shopper and like organic things) If it continues any further, I reckon 
> that I will move on to Sainsburies.


Tell them so, by e-mail to as many contacts in the organisation
that you can find.

Chris Bacon wrote:


> Dave wrote:
> 
>> Moving on to Tesco, they look like losing the plot as well. My local 
>> one has just been expanded by giving it an upstairs area. They are 
>> also brassing me off with them dropping lines that I like. (I am a 
>> green shopper and like organic things) If it continues any further, I 
>> reckon that I will move on to Sainsburies.
> 
> 
> Tell them so, by e-mail to as many contacts in the organisation
> that you can find.


OK I'll try that and see if it makes a difference

Dave

Dave wrote:

> Chris Bacon wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> Moving on to Tesco, they look like losing the plot as well. My local 
>>> one has just been expanded by giving it an upstairs area. They are 
>>> also brassing me off with them dropping lines that I like. (I am a 
>>> green shopper and like organic things) If it continues any further, I 
>>> reckon that I will move on to Sainsburies.
>>
>> Tell them so, by e-mail to as many contacts in the organisation
>> that you can find.
> 
> OK I'll try that and see if it makes a difference


If lots of people did, it *would* make a difference - "don't
waste your complaint - use it".

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message 
news:t8kri1hpilovain139sv7m26nohu26uf7p@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:50:58 +0100, Capitol
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Andy Hall wrote:
>>> For retailers, those in the lowest income groups are not the most
>>> attractive customers.
>>>
>> Very false reasoning. Any customer with cash is a better proposition
>>than one with either a credit card or a cheque.
>
> That depends on what you are selling in what volume and with what
> margin.
>
>
>> The best customer is one
>>with no money, because you can sell not only the goods, but also the
>>money to pay with!
>
> That's certainly true.
>
>
>>As a retailer you need any customer you can get over
>>your doorstep.
>
> That depends on whether they are buying what you want to sell.
>
>>Higher income customers are frequently not the best
>>margin generators. Tesco's and Dixons grew to their present size by
>>selling mainly to low income customers.
>
> That was the early strategy.  For a long time Tesco have taken a lot
> of trouble to match stock profile to customer base geographically and
> demographically.   This has been responsible for much of the growth in
> recent years.
>


I've taken the trouble to 'demand/request' to see a 'manager'
[they wear suits] at my local Tesco and asked why they've dropped
items that I purchase from their shelves ? I'm referring to
small low value items ... after a while the items have reappeared
on the shelves ... adding "I only come here because you stocked XXXX
 and now that you no longer stock it I'll go to Sainsbury/Asda '
seems to invoke a response.

The stores only exist to satisfy customers ... no customers .. no stores!

-- 

Brian

"Brian Sharrock"  wrote in message 
news:WlCXe.7609$1A.2212@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message 
> news:t8kri1hpilovain139sv7m26nohu26uf7p@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:50:58 +0100, Capitol
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Andy Hall wrote:
>>>> For retailers, those in the lowest income groups are not the most
>>>> attractive customers.
>>>>
>>> Very false reasoning. Any customer with cash is a better proposition
>>>than one with either a credit card or a cheque.
>>
>> That depends on what you are selling in what volume and with what
>> margin.
>>
>>
>>> The best customer is one
>>>with no money, because you can sell not only the goods, but also the
>>>money to pay with!
>>
>> That's certainly true.
>>
>>
>>>As a retailer you need any customer you can get over
>>>your doorstep.
>>
>> That depends on whether they are buying what you want to sell.
>>
>>>Higher income customers are frequently not the best
>>>margin generators. Tesco's and Dixons grew to their present size by
>>>selling mainly to low income customers.
>>
>> That was the early strategy.  For a long time Tesco have taken a lot
>> of trouble to match stock profile to customer base geographically and
>> demographically.   This has been responsible for much of the growth in
>> recent years.
>>
>
> I've taken the trouble to 'demand/request' to see a 'manager'
> [they wear suits] at my local Tesco and asked why they've dropped
> items that I purchase from their shelves ? I'm referring to
> small low value items ... after a while the items have reappeared
> on the shelves ... adding "I only come here because you stocked XXXX
> and now that you no longer stock it I'll go to Sainsbury/Asda '
> seems to invoke a response.
>
> The stores only exist to satisfy customers ... no customers .. no stores!


Unfortunately not true. The stores exist to satisfy shareholders (as with 
all businesses). The more customers and profit, the more shareholder 
satisfaction so they will work on that. If they could produce the results 
with less customer satisfaction they would (as you have seen) -drop service 
until they squeak then crank it up a bit. Look at the piles of crap left in 
the aisles of Tesco 24hr stores late at night because they have to stock 
shelves when customers are there - doesn't make me satisfied but they are 
open and I'm still there (occasionally)!

I'm not particularly a Tesco basher (otherwise I wouldn't shop there) but 
the most malign influence of global food retailers is their effect on the 
supply side - customers get an advantageous deal overall - the suppliers pay 
the price.

Bob Mannix.


>
> -- 
>
> Brian
>
> 

"Bob Mannix"  wrote in message 
news:dgoevu$6qs$1@blackmamba.itd.rl.ac.uk...

>
> "Brian Sharrock"  wrote in message 
> news:WlCXe.7609$1A.2212@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>
big snip


>> The stores only exist to satisfy customers ... no customers .. no stores!
>
> Unfortunately not true. The stores exist to satisfy shareholders (as with 
> all businesses). The more customers and profit, the more shareholder 
> satisfaction so they will work on that.


I'll repeat; no customers ... no stores -> shareholders lose all their
'investment' -> Directors/Managers/Staff lose their jobs/bonus et.al.


>    ........................  If they could produce the results with less 
> customer satisfaction they would (as you have seen) -drop service until 
> they squeak then crank it up a bit.


That sound like a feedback mechanism to ensure the 'management'
react (quite quickly) to customers' demand.



>                          Look at the piles of crap left in the aisles of 
> Tesco 24hr stores late at night because they have to stock shelves when 
> customers are there - doesn't make me satisfied but they are open and I'm 
> still there (occasionally)!
>

I read the words ; in fact I understand what they mean individually ...
but I can't quite grasp what point you're trying to make.



> I'm not particularly a Tesco basher (otherwise I wouldn't shop there) but 
> the most malign influence of global food retailers is their effect on the 
> supply side - customers get an advantageous deal overall - the suppliers 
> pay > the price.
>


You don't have to shop there - unlike when I was growing up,
 and my mother was required to _register_ at a food store to obtain
'the rations' - you can purchase food from other (bijou) retailers
-OR- purchase Fair-Trade goods from ... ta,ra ... Tesco.

Do you _always_ choose to purchase the Fair-Trade coffee/tea/sugar/
bananas et.al. ....?

-- 

Brian

"Brian Sharrock"  wrote in message 
news:ytSXe.15038$QU3.9032@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

>
> "Bob Mannix"  wrote in message 
> news:dgoevu$6qs$1@blackmamba.itd.rl.ac.uk...
>>
>> "Brian Sharrock"  wrote in message 
>> news:WlCXe.7609$1A.2212@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>>
> big snip
>
>
>>> The stores only exist to satisfy customers ... no customers .. no 
>>> stores!
>>
>> Unfortunately not true. The stores exist to satisfy shareholders (as with 
>> all businesses). The more customers and profit, the more shareholder 
>> satisfaction so they will work on that.
>
> I'll repeat; no customers ... no stores -> shareholders lose all their
> 'investment' -> Directors/Managers/Staff lose their jobs/bonus et.al.
>


I'll repeat: they are there to satisfy shareholders - that doesn't make what 
you said about "no customers no stores" untrue.


>>    ........................  If they could produce the results with less 
>> customer satisfaction they would (as you have seen) -drop service until 
>> they squeak then crank it up a bit.
>
> That sound like a feedback mechanism to ensure the 'management'
> react (quite quickly) to customers' demand.
>
>
>>                          Look at the piles of crap left in the aisles of 
>> Tesco 24hr stores late at night because they have to stock shelves when 
>> customers are there - doesn't make me satisfied but they are open and I'm 
>> still there (occasionally)!
>>
> I read the words ; in fact I understand what they mean individually ...
> but I can't quite grasp what point you're trying to make.


There's a deal of difference between "unsatisfied" and "complaining" or 
shopping elsewhere. If they were wholly concerned about customer 
satisfaction they would be trying to ensure this anyway, without waiting for 
complaints, was the point I was trying to make (admittedly I could have just 
said that ;o)  ).

>
>
>> I'm not particularly a Tesco basher (otherwise I wouldn't shop there) but 
>> the most malign influence of global food retailers is their effect on the 
>> supply side - customers get an advantageous deal overall - the suppliers 
>> pay > the price.
>>
>
> You don't have to shop there - unlike when I was growing up,
> and my mother was required to _register_ at a food store to obtain
> 'the rations' - you can purchase food from other (bijou) retailers
> -OR- purchase Fair-Trade goods from ... ta,ra ... Tesco.


No I don't, but I was talking about cutomers in general, some of whom shop 
at Tesco because it's cheaper (in some areas). The influence of the large 
chains on the supply side would be unaffected by the presence or lack of my 
custom. Tesco have a huge market share and use it.


>
> Do you _always_ choose to purchase the Fair-Trade coffee/tea/sugar/
> bananas et.al. ....?
>

Not pertinent to the argument as I was talking about the general customer 
but FWIW: coffee - yes, tea - no, sugar - hardly ever buy any, bananas: 
usually> -- 


Bob

In article , Ed Sirett
 wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:22:47 +0100, John Cartmell wrote:

> > In article , Ed
> >    Sirett  wrote:
> >> The march of Screwfix from strength to strength must be a lot of
> >> consolation - and also partly to blame!
> > 
> > The blame is on the sheds that turn out not to have what you want. I went
> > to B&Q on Tuesday with a list of items that should have left me 50GBP
> > lighter - and ended up paying just 2.38GBP. They won't make a profit if
> > they don't have the goods.

> BTW how much of that 50 GBP was in the s/fix catalogue?


Most.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@ followed by finnybank.com	  0845 006 8822
	Qercus magazine	FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527		www.finnybank.com
	Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing