QWhat would the Government do without national retailers?
A As I listen to the Government or its appointed bodies talking about the evils of the large retailer, I struggle to reconcile their views with other elements of the nanny state. In World War Two everyone ended up healthier because they were rationed by scarcity. This has fortunately not been a problem for years, thanks to rapid access to cheap food brought about by retailers' central buying. However, the Government wants us to eat less salt, more vegetables, fruit, local and organic produce - and to use fewer plastic bags and reduce carbon footprint etc etc.
In 1939 the enforced change on the UK diet led to an increase in health because the Government focused on production and importing. Now it has no control over the supply chain. If it is to get anywhere with its objectives it will rely entirely on the goodwill of the same retailers it denigrates. If you want to have lower performing "worthy" products, their space will be funded by other, overperforming products. So the Government, in seeking change, is asking someone else to pay for it. We would like them to invest in change in-store. Put a fraction of the money they invest in commercials behind the shopper and get them to buy more. That will give smaller companies much greater long-term security from increased sales.
Colin Harper is MD at Storecheck Marketing
Has the number of customer complaints about the price of goods increased recently?
