|
|
Bossy Boots and Spoil Sports |
| |
Posted At: 07 May 2010 16:57 PM
Related Categories: Environmental, Retail Suppliers, Retailers, Social Commentary |
| |
So, Poundland and B&M have been selling Boots’ products on the sly then eh? Tut tut. Although, not really, because it was completely above board and everyone involved was aware…anyway…
Apparently a couple of students from Aberystwyth University uncovered the ‘labeling scam’ - as its being called - after buying a body sculpting cream from their nearby Poundland and discovering a rogue label underneath the existing (why would a ‘couple’ want body sculpting cream? Was the girl just too afraid to break the story alone or what?). For some as yet unknown reason, the label was removed and the Botanics branding was revealed, causing the nation to step back and take a collective gasp of horror! Or not, because no one cares – probably due to some small election thing that’s happening, or maybe just because it’s massively irrelevant to most people, who knows.
So, what most people would have done is keep it to themselves – they bagged a bargain right? At the most, they should have maybe told a few friends to get in on the action. It was clearly not in anyone’s interest for this story to be leaked, and I am dismayed at the fact that they decided bypass both of these options and go to the papers, probably motivated by the thought of some, ahem, monetary remuneration, for their story. Honestly, is everything for sale now? Why couldn’t they just be happy that they’d been lucky enough to discover this amazing cost saving tip?
Yes, I’m sure at least one of Boots’ many millions of customers will be outraged to hear that they’ve been ripped off, but that same customer is probably a) not even in Poundland's demographic and b) a bit naïve anyway, since I find it hard to believe that any creams cost anywhere near the £8 that Boots were charging for the product in question to make. (Said customer should’ve watched Gok Wans beauty tests – they’re all basically the same, no matter how much they cost).
The only people who have lost out here are the consumers, because I’m sure that this practice will now be stopped. Boots were right to sell off their excess produce rather than dumping it the oceans like many others would, and the company to whom they sold it would have clearly had to ask their permission to rebrand it. Poundland have confirmed that the supplier have an agreement with Boots, so they were obviously completely aware of where this ‘excess’ stock was going, and have used the ‘should be going abroad’ line to save face.
What I find more interesting than this silly labeling story is the ingenuity of the Poundland business model, and the way they have been able to offer many openly-branded products at such a low price, completely legally without compromising on quality.
Rather than being painted as ‘criminals’ maybe the two retailers involved should be commended on their ability to ‘think outside the box’ in an effort to recuperate some cost, provide the customer with a lower priced item and for attempting to save the environment! Honestly. Some people spoil it for everyone!
|
|
|
|
Charity Shop Chic |
| |
Posted At: 18 February 2009 11:45 AM
Related Categories: Environmental, Retailers |
| |
Charity shops date back to the 19th Century, when the Salvation Army began running second hand clothing stores to provide lower class urbanites with cheaper clothing. Their popularity increased during the Second World War as the efforts to raise money for the fight increased, and the first ‘modern day’ charity retail unit was opened by Oxfam in the 1940s. There are now over 7,500 across the UK, aiding charities such as the aforementioned Oxfam, British Heart Foundation, Bernados, Cancer Research and Help The Aged, amongst others.
While essentially the same ethos remains– selling contributed products and donating the profits to the specified cause – the nature of charity shops and their consumers has changed over the years.
Think charity shopping is all about tolerating that weird old person smell, and scrabbling through unorganised rails of lavender knit? Not really…
And as for the consumer…well, while 94% of the British public believe that charity shops are a good way to raise funds, and 78% have donated goods, historically, few would admit to having bought their wardrobe in the jumble. Until now…
Charity shop shopping has gone chic.
Reported in the news this week, £2,000 worth of Jimmy Choos left at an Oxfam store in Woodbridge, Suffolk, over the weekend. Unfortunately, it was just too far for me to travel, but never mind, it appears this isn’t a unique case! A quick Google brings up tens of stories about designer clothing being donated to charity shops across the country – shoes, clothes, accessories, you name it – and low and behold, the organisations in charge are catching on.
Oxfam now has three designer boutiques in London, specialising in second-hand designer clothing and items reworked by up and coming designers. And although the clothes in this boutique retail for more than items in traditional stores, the ‘charity shop chic’ trend is spreading across the country, with celebrity donations increasing the profile of the industry.
Coleen Rooney, Gwyneth Paltrow and Kate Moss have all donated items in the past, and apparently scouring the charity shops of wealthy suburbs is an age old secret of fashionistas on a budget. Having never been aware of the phenomenon before now, I feel slightly protective over my discovery, but nevertheless here are my top five shops in which to swag a bargain;
There are lots of articles on the web that containing lists like this so I won’t go on, but it is a genuine shock to me that you can find this stuff in those shops! Good job, celebrities and rich folk, more Jimmy Choos for meeee!
Finally, it goes without saying, a rebirth in popularity may be happening, but these stores still need people to donate – and not just designer goods either. The Association of Charity Shops website can help you find the shops in your local area, and provide guidance on what to donate.
|
|
|
|
Razors – not diamonds – are a girls best friend! |
| |
Posted At: 04 September 2008 11:44 AM
Related Categories: Environmental |
| |
I was completely astonished to read in the news yesterday that items such as nappies and razor blades could be taxed as luxury goods under Governments plans to cut waste.
A study by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggests that putting a crazy tax on these things – these ‘disposable’ things – might stop us using them. The idea - to cut waste - is great; I agree, we DO still value cheap and easy over environmentally friendly, but we also haven’t been given much of an alternative, so I feel that imposing tax before doing as such is slightly unfair.
Let’s look at disposable nappies, then.
Created by a Swedish paper company in 1942, disposable nappies were introduced to the US mainstream in 1949 by pharmaceuticals manufacture Johnson & Johnson. These days, they are largely made from materials such as sodium polyacrylate…which (and this is where the environmental problems begin) isn’t overly bio-degradable. So, some people might argue that chucking 8 million a day into landfill (UK only figures) is pretty awful and I agree, but I also say that cotton/reusable nappies are not an alternative.
A recent study by the Environment Agency concluded that they are no more eco-friendly than the disposable variety; the people who use disposable nappies are likely to be the same people who don’t have time to consider the environment. They’d opt for the quickest washer cycle - which is often the highest temperature, the quickest drying option - often the tumble dryer, and probably a softener (although I have it on good authority that you shouldn’t use these on towels – something about them preventing absorption) which comes in a big old plastic bottle that’s been transported in an artic lorry half way across the UK spurting diesel fumes all over the place as it goes.
It’s not about eco-junkies who will know not to do the above; it’s about every day, busy people, and as one of those people it makes me so mad that not a single penny will be spent on advertising the tens of brands of eco-friendly disposable nappies out there before such a tax is imposed.
It’s just constant scaremongering! “Stop using plastic bags, they’re awful! BUY this reusable bag instead, because heaven forbid we miss out on a prime opportunity for making more money!”, “pay a fiver for 1 razor blade (which actually IS an essential, because lets face it, no one wants either hordes of Neanderthal looking beardies roaming the streets all unshaven, or women with inch-long leg hair flexing their pins in a flowery summer dress) because we’re sure as hell not going to reduce the price of electric ones!”, and so on and so forth.
Inept Government. If you really want to save the environment, why not focus your efforts on the bigger issues like, I don’t know, our complete independence on non-renewable energy - not bloody plastic bags and razor blades!
|
|
|
|
Milk In A Bag - a revolution, or a fad? |
| |
Posted At: 11 June 2008 16:00 PM
Related Categories: Environmental |
| |
I think the powers that be may have gone a bit strange in the midst of this glorious weather; first Supermarkets take plastic bags away from us and then they give them back…for us to carry our milk in. That’s right, front runners in the eco campaign Sainsbury’s have announced the introduction of ‘milk in a bag’, milk packaged in a recyclable plastic bag designed for use in conjunction with a specially designed jug for pouring adaptation at home.
It’s hoped that the pouches, produced in partnership with Dairy Crest, will reduce packaging waste by 75%, and although I have to say I find the idea a bit hard to swallow (no pun intended) I do agree that any way we can save waste should be welcomed with open arms.
I wonder how far this will go, though – what about our dawn deliverers, the milkmen, for example? Instead of pallets, will they have to update their floats to incorporate hangers, reminiscent of the drip bag holders usually seen on our hospital wards!? If the majority of us are trying to save the planet by buying milk in a bag then I don’t see why the privileged few should be allowed civilised glass bottles anymore!
Nick Gammage, from the environmental organisation Waste and Resources Action Programme speculates “Another innovation we think is on its way is having a self-dispenser in supermarkets, where customers can take their jugs and fill up with milk actually in the store itself.”
We’ve had several suggestions in the office today on how to cut back even further, all revolving around cows being placed either directly into supermarkets or on milk floats, (enabling us to cut out packaging all together) but that leads into a whole new post about the morals of genetically modifying cows to enable them to pasteurise their milk themselves and I’m just not ready to go there!
What are your views on ‘milk in a bag’ – is it more hassle than its worth, or a sign of the new, eco-friendly, innovative future in store for retailing and everybody else involved?
(Credited sources: BBC News)
|
|
|
|
Those plastic bags again! |
| |
Posted At: 06 May 2008 10:37 AM
Related Categories: Environmental |
| |
The problem is not using plastics bags, it’s throwing them away!
Plastic bag usage is a bandwagon that everyone is keen to be seen riding, the government included. As ever, with the internet at our fingertips, it is possible to prove both the “truth” of the danger of plastic bags and that the headlines about environmental damage caused by plastic bags are works of fiction.
Rather than penalising people for a genuine need, perhaps we should instead be getting people to think first. Increasingly shop staff ask, “Do you want a bag for that?” – and it gives you the opportunity to think, actually, no I don’t.
And why, in any case, should we have to pay to advertise a particular retailer – they should be paying us! – particularly when you can buy other goods – your underwear for example – and not have to pay extra to transport your latest purchases home.
There will always be a genuine need for some sort of carrier bag and it will need a major re-education to get people to provide and carry around their own bags
The best way to get people to reuse their plastic bags is not to hit them in the wallet (quite frankly, anyone who can afford to buy their groceries in M&S, can afford a few extra 5ps too), but to hit their image. When taking a new carrier bag at the checkout, or indeed answering “yes, actually I do” in Boots, is seen as comparably irresponsible to smoking in public areas, progress will have been made. Want to be seen as socially responsible, morally aware and at one with the environment? Carry a wicker shopping basket!
|
|
|
|
Ethics and Retailing |
| |
Posted At: 21 February 2008 14:42 PM
Related Categories: Environmental, General |
| |
The words “ethics” and “morality” are derived respectively from the Greek and Latin words for “customs”. In a society of increasing diversity, without universally respected traditions and heritage, whose ethics are relevant?
In a purely market driven economy, the ethical stance of the target customer, constrained by the law of the land, would prevail. So, in response to a customer survey that showed ethical trading (i.e. treating suppliers equitably) is their top priority, all Co-op tea and coffee is to be Fair Trade. However, the same survey also showed that climate change interests only a very small number, but nevertheless, “the Co-op remains fully committed to supporting the global drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.
For private retailers, the ethics may be those of the owner. Hence a fascia that proclaims, “Your local, ethical deli”, has a policy that out of season, it stocks no red peppers, because that would involve air miles, but a loaf of bread costs over £3.00. Are these ethics only for the well-heeled?
For public companies, the ethics of stakeholders, (investors, suppliers, staff) and others (regulators, legislators and media), may be relevant. How else to explain Plan A, the high profile, and expensive, M&S response to the challenge of climate change?
As Michael Skapinker recently pointed out in an FT article about Corporate Social Responsibility, “Profit in good times and bad, is where any discussion of companies’ responsibilities should start. Without profit, there is no future for shareholders, employees or customers. But engaging with the community in the pursuit of profit has its place: indeed, it is essential.” A company can function only with the approval of its community. Or, in the light of the travails of Huntingdon Life Sciences, companies cannot function normally with the vociferous disapproval of even a small section of the community.
A student recently asked whether retailers will increasingly employ ethical brand strategies – as though the alternative is to have unethical strategies. The judgement is to decide whose ethics are to be taken into account. It would be logical for retailers to adopt an ethical stance to reflect their particular market position and circumstances. Perhaps ethics is another area where “one size fits all” is no longer appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|