High street retailers teeter on the brink

With every rent day, the threat of redundancy.

"Lady Day" might sound like a nice day at the races but traditionally it was the Feast of the Annunciation, and the first of the four traditional English quarter days. The "Lady" here being the Virgin Mary. Falling on March 25, Lady Day was even New Year’s Day up to 1752.

Every rent quarter day brings speculation that another retailer will go under, especially after the first quarter day on 1 January this year heralded the administrations of HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster. Yet there were notably fewer major administrations following the most recent rent quarter day at the end of March.

Of course, a rent day does not automatically trigger retail insolvencies. The high profile casualties we have seen since October, with the exception of fashion retailer Republic, have been retailers with a business model that has been challenged by the e-commerce market, such that the delivery method of their core products to customers has fundamentally altered. They cannot survive on the scale they operated in previously in a principally bricks and mortar operation. (Republic’s failure in February was because it was burdened by too many loss-making stores as customer’s buying habits became more budget focused, rather than being challenged by technology.)

In general, this isn’t the case of a fashion retailer buying the wrong ranges for a few seasons or failing to brighten up its stores. They face a technology competitor to their business model that is far greater than any business competitor. These challenges cannot be dodged and a rent day bill might just be the last straw, but is not the cause.

The number of stores closed by retail high street chains in Britain has soared over the past 12 months and the start of this year felt like the end of 2008 when Woolworths collapsed. According to research by the Local Data Company, there were a total of 7,337 store closures in 2012. It seems the retail world has just had another "clear out" this year.

Those are stark statistics but completely relatable when you factor in two big phenomena threatening the high street. The first is technology via the internet, the second, the significant expansion of out-of-town shopping centres, which has made it almost impossible for local high streets to compete.

The cost of parking is one reason the high street cannot compete with out of town shopping. Moreover, 30 years ago, high streets had butcher’s shops, greengrocers, off-licences, chemists and a range of clothing and fashion retailers. Retailers with financial clout have moved out to the shopping centres – and more will follow this year and next. The anchor stores are deserting the high street, as shown by the number of retail chains closing their stores there. This leaves the shops that remain in an even more difficult predicament.

Despite these challenges, high-street retailers can still prosper if they adapt. All too often in my job I see management sticking to what they know – what was once a successful formula – in the face of all the evidence telling them they need to change. Unfortunately, by the time we are called in, it’s usually too late. As individuals’ shopping habits change, retailers must too. That means multi-channel buying – not just static internet buying – but mobile shopping as well. Online does not have to be completely divorced from bricks and mortar. Shops and online can work well together. “Click and collect” has given a life line to stores such as Argos. John Lewis has excelled in using technology to get people into their shops.

Many stores have become too big and inefficient, unable to attract the footfall in relation to rent. Retailers can instead reduce the size of their stores and operate them like large vending machines. A customer can go in and put their card in a giant jukebox – where they can pick a film or return it for example. If they are late, it automatically charges their credit card. There are ways for retailers to continue to prosper with some restructuring.

Those shops that remain may benefit from the others’ decline and closure. Despite the headline cases, corporate insolvency rates remain historically low, especially when contrasted with previous recessions and periods of recovery. Low insolvency rates are good for employment, which is a key concern following the many retail administrations. In fact just under half of jobs in the major retail insolvencies survived the administration process in 2012.

However, while businesses exist in distress and corporate insolvencies remain low, the economy continues to stagnate. A healthy economy requires activity at both ends of the economic cycle – it needs business growth and expansion, as well as the recycling of capital following business failure. The high street can survive if it changes and adapts, and deals with greater challenges than the quarterly rent bill.

This story first appeared on economia

Photograph: Getty Images

This is a news story from economia.

John Moore
Show Hide image

The man who created the fake Tube sign explains why he did it

"We need to consider the fact that fake news isn't always fake news at the source," says John Moore.

"I wrote that at 8 o'clock on the evening and before midday the next day it had been read out in the Houses of Parliament."

John Moore, a 44-year-old doctor from Windsor, is describing the whirlwind process by which his social media response to Wednesday's Westminster attack became national news.

Moore used a Tube-sign generator on the evening after the attack to create a sign on a TfL Service Announcement board that read: "All terrorists are politely reminded that THIS IS LONDON and whatever you do to us we will drink tea and jolly well carry on thank you." Within three hours, it had just fifty shares. By the morning, it had accumulated 200. Yet by the afternoon, over 30,000 people had shared Moore's post, which was then read aloud on BBC Radio 4 and called a "wonderful tribute" by prime minister Theresa May, who at the time believed it was a genuine Underground sign. 

"I think you have to be very mindful of how powerful the internet is," says Moore, whose viral post was quickly debunked by social media users and then national newspapers such as the Guardian and the Sun. On Thursday, the online world split into two camps: those spreading the word that the sign was "fake news" and urging people not to share it, and those who said that it didn't matter that it was fake - the sentiment was what was important. 

Moore agrees with the latter camp. "I never claimed it was a real tube sign, I never claimed that at all," he says. "In my opinion the only fake news about that sign is that it has been reported as fake news. It was literally just how I was feeling at the time."

Moore was motivated to create and post the sign when he was struck by the "very British response" to the Westminster attack. "There was no sort of knee-jerk Islamaphobia, there was no dramatisation, it was all pretty much, I thought, very calm reporting," he says. "So my initial thought at the time was just a bit of pride in how London had reacted really." Though he saw other, real Tube signs online, he wanted to create his own in order to create a tribute that specifically epitomised the "very London" response. 

Yet though Moore insists he never claimed the sign was real, his caption on the image - which now has 100,800 shares - is arguably misleading. "Quintessentially British..." Moore wrote on his Facebook post, and agrees now that this was ambiguous. "It was meant to relate to the reaction that I saw in London in that day which I just thought was very calm and measured. What the sign was trying to do was capture the spirit I'd seen, so that's what I was actually talking about."

Not only did Moore not mean to mislead, he is actually shocked that anyone thought the sign was real. 

"I'm reasonably digitally savvy and I was extremely shocked that anyone thought it was real," he says, explaining that he thought everyone would be able to spot a fake after a "You ain't no muslim bruv" sign went viral after the Leytonstone Tube attack in 2015. "I thought this is an internet meme that people know isn't true and it's fine to do because this is a digital thing in a digital world."

Yet despite his intentions, Moore's sign has become the centre of debate about whether "nice" fake news is as problematic as that which was notoriously spread during the 2016 United States Presidential elections. Though Moore can understand this perspective, he ultimately feels as though the sentiment behind the sign makes it acceptable. 

"I use the word fake in inverted commas because I think fake implies the intention to deceive and there wasn't [any]... I think if the sentiment is ok then I think it is ok. I think if you were trying to be divisive and you were trying to stir up controversy or influence people's behaviour then perhaps I wouldn't have chosen that forum but I think when you're only expressing your own emotion, I think it's ok.

"The fact that it became so-called fake news was down to other people's interpretation and not down to the actual intention... So in many interesting ways you can see that fake news doesn't even have to originate from the source of the news."

Though Moore was initially "extremely shocked" at the reponse to his post, he says that on reflection he is "pretty proud". 

"I'm glad that other people, even the powers that be, found it an appropriate phrase to use," he says. "I also think social media is often denigrated as a source of evil and bad things in the world, but on occasion I think it can be used for very positive things. I think the vast majority of people who shared my post and liked my post have actually found the phrase and the sentiment useful to them, so I think we have to give social media a fair judgement at times and respect the fact it can be a source for good."

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.