Note to British retailers: don't try to take on America

Did anyone really think Tesco could do it?

When Tesco announced it was going to take on America, I thought, ‘When will they ever learn?’ and waited for the Yorktown Bugler of 1781 to sound the retreat all over again.

This escapade by the UK’s biggest retailer was always destined for disaster, and so it has proved as Tesco is forced to write off a cool (reported) £1 bn – money they now urgently need at home to invest in the underperforming original UK business.

The record of British grocers and other retailers in the Land of the Free is littered with failures: remember M&S’s ill-fated venture? That’s the M&S which was a penny bazaar in Manchester, then became a wardrobe for the ladies of Middle England, before turning to food, where it was the first ever retailer to put an acceptable chicken Kiev on the nation’s dining tables.
 
Then it screwed up in America when it bought Brooks Brothers, a purveyor of up-market (in America, that is!) men’s suits, shirts and ties – the sort of offerings which would be considered offensive in Savile Row. The suits were surely cut by lumberjacks and the shirts were made by tent-makers. (Don’t even talk about the ties!)

M&S had made a bad mistake, and the bugler sounded the retreat.

Then J Sainsbury had a gamble and lost their shirt too, with something called People’s Stores, before the Bugler was called on once again.

But when the mighty Tesco said it was going to sell frozen chips and carrots in California, everyone had forgotten its rivals’ track record. Tesco, however, wasn’t going to spend zillions on an acquisition – it would build from scratch, with a new brand – called, after endless market research, "Fresh & Easy".

Well, the chips and carrots never took off, and are now definitely off the menu.

The shares rose on the announcement, leaving that Old Sage of Omaha rubbing his hands with glee: he had bought the discounted shares, but not the chips and carrots.

What is it about America, and British grocers? Here are some of the answers: British retail management doesn’t work there; they can’t bully suppliers there like they can here, in our much smaller market; the distribution logistics are far more complicated – bigger distances, more media outlets for adverts, far greater shopping around for price; much less consumer loyalty, and so on. Then you are only ever working on tiny margins – just 3 per cent, which get easily squeezed at both ends.

The only British retailer to make a bit of a success in America that I can recall – as they didn’t end up a loser, at least – was British American Tobacco.

Having wrung every ounce of profit from the addictive nicotine, before it was realised that cigarettes were just cancer-sticks, it then joined the trend towards conglomerates, so-prevalent in the 1960s-80s, and went into insurance and financial services, and retail in America: it acquired established chains like Marshall Fields in Chicago and Saks Fifth Avenue, both profitable department store chains, and sensibly left the incumbent American management in charge.

When the stock market M&A teams had made two generations of income from creating such conglomerates – remember Hanson, BTR, Pearson, Williams Holdings? – the mood music changed again and the next generation made the same fees in reverse, by taking it all apart again...

Such are the City’s fashions and its zero added-value. The City’s new love affair was with single product/sector companies, with global markets and expertise who knew exactly what they were doing – like Tesco.

So, it is worth pondering which sectors of the British economy have made real money in America. One starts with pop music, actors, TV and films – entertainment is the second biggest industry in America, and in export terms too, only behind defence.

And the UK has done well in defence in niche sectors – BAE, Rolls-Royce, Smiths Industries, Dowty-Messier, Cobham, Chemring and so on – which all depend on world-beating technology. Banking and financial services have their fair share too.

Cars have been hopeless in the past, but now Jaguar Land Rover is the fastest-growing marque in the world, and doing well in America too, as are those hardy perennials Rolls-Royce and Bentley.

And certain non-computer parts of the digital world, such as mobile phone services, and luxury brands too – Burberry, Barbour and fashion generally – and the advertising that goes with it.

Anything except frozen chips and carrots, in fact.

This article first appeared in Spear's magazine

Photograph: Getty Images

Stephen Hill writes for Spear's

Cameron in Nuneaton. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why fewer of us want a long-term relationship ... with a political party

In 2015, 38 per cent of voters backed a different party to the one they supported in 2010. So what does the rise of swing voters mean for British politics?

For decades political parties have competed furiously for one of the great prizes of British politics: the affections of the swing voter. It wasn’t that long ago that there were relatively few political swingers: until the 1990s, fewer than a quarter of voters would switch parties from one election to the next.

Yet that once relatively rare breed is becoming increasingly common, which means party campaigners are going to have to come up with new tactical thinking. The British Election Study survey panels, conducted episodically over the last fifty years, are unique in that they are able to track the same voters from one election to the next, unlike more conventional opinion polls that only look at a snapshot of voters at a given time. Using these studies, you can identify the percentage of voters who switch their vote from one party to another between each pair of elections since 1966 when such data was first collected.

In 1966 only around 13 per cent of voters had changed their minds since the previous election in 1964. Since then, the proportion of swingers has been steadily increasing, and by 2015, 38 per cent of voters backed a different party to the one they supported in 2010.

The increase in swing voters is pretty consistent. The only exceptions are between February and October 1974, when (understandably) fewer voters changed their minds in eight months than switched in the preceding four years, and between 1997 and 2001, when the electoral dominance of New Labour under Tony Blair held back the tide for a time. These two exceptions aside, the increase has been constant election-on-election.

A lot of vote shifting can go on even between elections where the overall result remains stable. In 2001, for example, more people switched votes than in any election before 1997, with a surprising level of turmoil beneath the surface stability. While these largely cancelled out on that occasion, it set the stage for more dramatic changes in the parties’ votes later on.

So British voters now seem more likely than ever to jump from party to party. But who exactly are these swingers? Are they disillusioned former party loyalists? Or have British voters simply stopped getting into a serious relationship with the parties in the first place? We can get some insight into this using data from the yearly British Social Attitudes Survey, looking at the number of respondents who say that they do not identify with any of the political parties (party identifiers tend to switch much less often) when they are asked ‘Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a supporter of any one political party?’ and then ‘Do you think of yourself as a little closer to one political party than to the others?’ if they say no to the first question. The graph below combines data from 1984 to 2013. Each line represents people who were born in a different year. Higher lines mean that there are more people who do not identify with a political party. So, for instance, voters born in 1955 started with very low levels of non-identification (22 per cent), which have gradually risen to 44 per cent in the latest survey. Most of the lines on the graph go up over time, which shows that almost all generations are falling out of love with the parties.

However, an acquired taste in swinging among the older generations is dwarfed by the promiscuous younger generations – shown by the dashed lines – most of whom never form an attachment to a party at all. Each generation in the data has been less committed to the parties than the previous generation was at the same age, with around 60 per cent of the youngest generation – those born since 1985 – expressing no attachment to any political party.

Since most of this change has been a generational shift, it may be a long road back for the parties. Loyalty to parties is often handed down in families, with children inheriting their parents’ commitment to a party. Now that this process has broken down, and younger generations have lost their attachment to parties, they may in turn pass on this political detachment to their children.

The majority of younger voters have simply never grown up with the idea of getting into a long-term relationship with a political party, so they may never settle down. Many Labour MPs were outraged when it turned out that lots of the new members who joined up to vote for Jeremy Corbyn had voted for the Green Party just a few months before, but this may simply reflect the political approach of a generation who see parties as needing to earn their vote each time rather than commanding lasting, even unconditional loyalty.

If Britain’s newfound taste for swinging isn’t going to disappear any time soon, what does it mean for party competition? In the past most people had settled partisan views, which seldom changed. General elections could be won by attracting the relatively small group of voters who hadn’t made up their minds and could very easily vote for either of the two main parties, so political parties based their strategies around mobilising their core voters and targeting the few waverers. While they worried about traditional loyalists not turning up to the polls, the parties could be assured of their supporters’ votes as long as they got them to the voting booth.

Nowadays, swing voters are no longer a small section of the electorate who are being pulled back and forth by the parties, but a substantial chunk of all voters. This helps to explain why politicians have been so surprised by the sudden rise of new parties competing for groups previously thought to be reliable supporters. The new parties that have entered British politics have also allowed voters to express their views on issues that don’t fall neatly into traditional left– right politics such as immigration (UKIP) or Scottish independence (the SNP). This in turn has posed a dilemma for the traditional parties, who are pulled in multiple directions trying to stop their voters being tempted away.

This may just be the start. If the number of swing voters stays this high, the parties will have to get used to defending themselves on multiple fronts.

This is an extract from More Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box, edited by Philip Cowley and Robert Ford.