We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Competition is a fine thing

My co-Samizdatista Brian Micklethwait has some comments on the fact that British retailers had a bad Christmas, and that people did not really get spending until the last few days, when shops had pre-Christmas sales and dropped their prices heavily. I think the real story is actually this one. Britain’s high street stores have horrible cost structures, which they have been able to get away with because they have traditionally faced relatively little competition. For this, as for almost everything, I blame planning laws. Large shopping malls – particularly large out of town shopping malls – barely exist in Britain, as their growth has been hindered by government on supposed aesthetic grounds, and to “prevent the ruin of our high streets”. Of course, the people who pay for this are consumers through high prices. Retailers charge high prices and pay high rents. Landlords pay high mortgages rates, and economic value is generally destroyed.

In the past few years, parallel retail channels (not just the internet, but that is the biggest one) have sprung up without the high cost structures and with much lower prices. Most people would actually prefer to shop in a store at Christmas time, as this makes it much easier to take goods back later and/or get customer service, but they will not do so if goods are dramatically more expensive. So, they hold off buying, playing a game of chicken, and eventually prices drop a couple of days before Christmas (however the internet retail sector has boomed right through the Christmas season). Economic theory is pretty clear that in a perfectly competitive market, retail prices approach marginal costs. In vaguer terms, the more competitive a market, the more prices relate to costs. The British retail market is certainly not a perfectly competitive market, but it is closer to one than it was a decade ago.

Inevitably, with collapsing margins come situations where shops can no longer afford to pay their rent. One would expect this to lead to either a fall in rental yields and ultimately retail real estate values, or a change in use of a lot of retail space from retail to residential or to offices, given that London’s residential real estate market is booming. A further possibility is of course an improvement in customer service, as bricks and mortar retailers attempt to provide additional value for higher prices. However, another possibility is that it leads to even stronger planning laws aimed at preventing this and further trying to “save our high streets”.

Interestingly enough, the stores that are suffering the most are probably not the quirky independent stores that the Evening Standard loves to champion as much as the less well run high street chains: shops that sell boring, goods that can be easily sold in bigger shops or over the internet. People like Dixons and Woolworths. Well run businesses, most notably Tesco, do fine of course.

Actually, come to think of it, the Dixons name has vanished from the High Street, as the stores have all been rebranded Currys, except for the airport stores, which are still Dixons. The answer to why this is is quite an interesting one. DSG International (aka Dixons Group) hit an interesting problem, which other retailers have also encountered when setting up internet businesses. One would think that an electrical retailer with high street stores would have certain advantages setting up an internet retailer. Because people have heard of them they are more likely to trust that they will still exist tomorrow. They can use the bricks and mortar stores to handle returns and after sales service.

The trouble with this in the electronics business in Britain is that internet retail prices are dramatically lower than high street prices. Customers who see a price on the internet from a brand retailer expect to be able to get the same price in a store of that same retailer. If they cannot do so, they feel cheated. Therefore Dixons was between a rock and a hard place. Either they made their internet prices so uncompetitive that they would not sell anything online, or they annoyed the customers of their bricks and mortar stores by refusing to offer them the same prices they offered online. The solution was to use the Currys brand (which they had long used for their out of town retail park stores) for their high street stores as well, and to use the Dixons brand merely for online retail. And for airport stores, as nobody expects prices in airport stores to be the same as elsewhere. On the website, they leave subtle signs that they are the same customer to reassure online customers that they can be trusted, but hopefully not enough to make potential bricks and mortar customers think that they are being cheated by not getting the same prices.

As another example: consider these three websites. One. Two. Three. They are all the same company, which is a big presence in the British High street. The first website is branded the same as the high street retailer, and offers more or less the same prices it does. The second website is clearly but less obviously connected to it, and offers lower prices. The third is less obviously connected to it still, and offers lower prices still. It is really quite clever.

8 comments to Competition is a fine thing

  • dearieme

    All very well, but the main reason I shun high street stores is that they are grotesquely overheated and I can’t bear to be in them for more than a few minutes. Plus they tend to blast me with bloody pop music.

  • ResidentAlien

    If I can’t get it at Walmart or online, I probably don’t need it.

  • RAB

    They’re just trying to get you to feel like a teenager Dearime!

  • James

    I find it unusual that the high street retail experiences of commentators have been uncompetitive, only to be beaten by parallel retailers and Internet retailers.

    I’m assuming that this is probably a Southern thing, as up here I’ve never really come across high street retailers being too restrictive in their dealings.

    Some are obviously better than others, and it is also true that retail park outlets can be more maleable, but still, a number of retailers in my experiences have been receptive to bartering and cold, hard cash.

  • Ham

    dearime, just be glad you don’t work in one during the Christmas holiday. I know all the words to fourteen different Christmas hits, but have forgotten most of everything else I thought I knew. I would much rather work in an Amazon.co.uk warehouse, so I wholeheartedly second Michael’s post.

  • Fraser

    I would much rather work in an Amazon.co.uk warehouse

    Ham, trust me, you don’t. 😉 We’ve been treated to 8 hours of all the Christmas “classics” every shift.

  • guy herbert

    Large shopping malls – particularly large out of town shopping malls – barely exist in Britain, as their growth has been hindered by government on supposed aesthetic grounds, and to “prevent the ruin of our high streets”.

    But in-town shopping (and other experiences) are even more restrained, if they are things the state in its local form does not approve of.

    Property Week had this story last week:

    The east end of Oxford Street is facing Compulsory Purchase Order action from Westminster City Council.

    The council has identified and made public a list of potential sites for redevelopment on the famous shopping street that it is prepared to compulsory purchase.

    It has earmarked eleven sites east fo Oxford Circus on Oxford Street that could be redeveloped into large retail-led schemes.

    At a cabinet meeting last week, attended by leader of the council Sir Simon Milton, the sites earmarked were agreed and will now go to public consultation.

    The threat of CPO action by the council is hoped to attract developers to the area and combat the issue of the disparate land ownership at that end of the street.

    Read the whole thing for the full horror. Note that private property is of no concern to a nominally Conservative council, when the consequence is things look a bit messy. The consequence might be less that, were it not for the massive intrusiveness of planning controls on what the existing property owners can do, and licensing laws in preventing a lot of the activities that might otherwise be permitted.

    Overseas readers may be surprised to learn that English planning law has (pace Michael) recently been considerably eased. But only for large development schemes, not for small buildings, controlled alterations, or changes of use.

    Camden Council and/or English Heritage might still prosecute my landlord if the colour of paint on my front door were to be changed without Conservation Area permission. I’m not sure whether it would also require listed building consent. Probably. My front door is not visible from any public place, or anywhere more than two yards away. Though “preserving visual amenity” is the pretext for such laws, it is not their function.

  • It’s also the case that councils, in their attempts at social engineering have driven people away from town centres.

    The introduction of pedestrianisation, one-way systems, residents parking schemes and the attempts to restrict cars have resulted in the growth of out-of-town and internet shopping.

    25 years ago, if you wanted 1 thing from 1 shop, you could park outside, run in and get it and be out again. You can’t do that any more, so town centres are less competitive for small purchases. It’s easier and cheaper to go to a retail park.