Notes from the UK

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve just made my annual pilgrimage to the UK. It’s also 30 years since I emigrated, and with each passing year, I arrive feeling more and more like a visitor – although I am “from” there, I don’t always feel I am “of” there.

The following notes are some brief observations, in no particular order, based on a relatively short trip (2 weeks), and I was only in the Greater Manchester and Greater London areas.

  • I flew from Melbourne to Manchester, via Hong Kong. My in-bound flight to the UK was carrying a large number of overseas students from China – not surprising, as Manchester has one of the largest Chinese communities in Europe, and the city also boasts a UK Top Ten University.
  • A pint of cask ale in the north west cost me an average of GBP4.00 – in London, it was more like GBP6.00. I know some employees receive “London weighting” or a “London allowance” to cover the high cost of living, but I doubt salaries in the capital are 50% higher than the rest of the country. (Regional variations in property prices are a different matter altogether!)
  • On the other hand, a sour dough loaf from a local bakery in the Peak District cost me GBP3.00 – I would generally pay about 50-60% more for a similar product in Melbourne.
  • The in-coming Labour government, having won a huge majority in July’s General Election, has already hit the buffers. A combination of unpopular policies (cutting pensioners’ winter energy rebates), strange priorities (a ban on outdoor smoking), off-key messaging (“doom and gloom” rhetoric) and sleaze (donations of clothes, tickets and spectacles for the new Prime Minister and his wife) have brought the post-election honeymoon period to an abrupt end.
  • Staying with politics, there was a lot of despondency, if not anger, about the political climate. Despite Labour’s overwhelming success at the polls, it was hard to feel any love for the new government. And after more than four years since Brexit, no-one was jumping for joy at the outcomes, as the alleged promises and benefits fail to materialise. If anything, businesses are suffering due to the loss of access to EU markets and/or the additional costs of exporting.
  • Thankfully, the riots that erupted a few weeks ago have dissipated, but it felt like the underlying tensions remain. As well as having been triggered by malicious rumours and blatant disinformation, the social unrest revealed confusion about national identity (and what it means to be “British”), combined with contradictory views on immigration, multiculturalism and globalisation.
  • Meanwhile, the UK taste for “foreign” food continues unabated, along with a love of overseas holidays.
  • Despite producing some of the best television dramas in the world, UK content makers continue pumping out aging soap operas, stale game shows, endless talent contests and questionable reality TV. So, much like the rest of the world!
  • I paid GBP114.00 for a return train ticket from Manchester to London, which seems expensive for a 2.5 hour service. Both my outbound and return journeys were delayed by more than 15 minutes. Thanks to “Delay Repay”, I received a total of GBP42.00 in compensation. I can’t help thinking that the train and rail operators should focus on improving their services, rather than overcharging and delaying passengers, in the hope that the effort to claim is not worth customers’ time.
  • When visiting London, I usually use an Oyster card. This time, I forgot to take it – but thankfully, passengers can use contactless payment methods on trains, the Undergound and even short trips on buses (just remember to touch on and off with the same card on each journey!)
  • The autumn weather was especially mild, enabling me to indulge in long walks in the countryside, followed by a mandatory pint or two in a local pub (that great “British” institution!) Sadly, a combination of Covid lockdowns and changing social patterns means that many pubs have reduced their opening hours, or closed their doors for good.
  • As Australia’s near-duopolistic supermarkets face legal action for alleged misleading and deceptive price discounting, I’m reminded of the amount of choice UK shoppers have between supermarket chains, and across product ranges. No doubt that more competitive markets in Australia (for grocery shopping and beyond) would help alleviate the cost of living – but that requires structural and other changes for which successive Federal governments have had no appetite.

Next week: Does age matter?

Cooking the books?

Posted on by
Reply

Over the many years I have been writing this blog, I have often commented on the publishing industry, from my personal experiences, to industry trends and future outlook. The recent collapse of Australia’s online bookseller, Booktopia, prompted me to revisit the topic.

First, a declaration – I am an unsecured retail creditor of Booktopia. Orders for books I  paid for in advance of their publication dates still have not been fulfilled. Obviously, I am not alone; there are about 170k retail creditors, owed a total of $15m. That is an average of about $90 per creditor, although some retail customers are owed more than $10k.

Second, Booktopia’s total debts of around $60m are nearly one third of annual turnover ($198m in FY2023). In FY2022, annual turnover was $240m. Clearly, this was a business in decline, and in financial trouble.

Third, I should have been alert to the problems when I enquired about my outstanding orders, shortly before the administrators were called in. I knew the books had already been published, so I wanted to know when to expect them. This was part of the reply I received, in mid-June:

“We have been experiencing difficulties procuring new stocks from our supplier lately, we are so sorry for the delay.”

Fourth, it transpires that publishers, wholesalers and distributors were experiencing payment delays from Booktopia. Suppliers were reducing or cutting off their credit lines, and declining to supply more stock unless the existing debts were cleared. The administrators are doing their best to realise any remaining value of the business, including a trade sale of Booktopia (as a whole, or as parts). The assets include warehouse stock (some of which may still be owned by the publishers/wholesalers), customer lists, technology, goodwill and other IP. But it was made pretty clear at the first creditors’ meeting that unsecured trade and retail creditors should not expect to get their money back any time soon, and certainly not in full. (A total of $15m in secured debt will get preference, including employees.) So even if the unfulfilled but paid-for stock can be located, there is no apparent obligation for outstanding orders to be completed. In fact, the administrators were suggesting that retail creditors should contact their banks or credit card providers, to see if they could recover their money via those channels. (Which is why insurance premiums, card fees and bank charges go up, of course.)

I don’t understand why Booktopia’s retail and trade debts were allowed to get to such a high percentage of their turn over. Book publishing and distribution shouldn’t be that hard – either the book is in stock at Booktopia, and can be sent immediately, or it is available to order from suppliers and can be fulfilled within a reasonable time. For books that have not yet been printed, surely the customer’s money should be held in some sort of escrow account, and the cash not accessible by the seller or recognised as revenue until the order has been completed?

Of course, books go out of print, and customers may have to wait for a re-print or a new edition. Or the industry needs to consider print-on-demand solutions. Funnily enough, that is one of the key recommendations of the Ad Rem report on the Australian publishing industry (“The Australian Book Industry: Challenges and Opportunities”) in 2001….

Next week: Notes from the UK

 

 

Ticket scalpers? Blockchain could fix that!

Posted on by
Reply

Music fans of a certain age and demographic have been complaining loudly about the use of “dynamic pricing” when trying to buy tickets for their favourite band’s highly anticipated reunion tour. (There must be a pun in there about “Don’t book online in anger”?)

Part of the rationale given for using a demand-based pricing system is to disincentivise scalpers. The higher the cost of the ticket in the primary market (not the same as the ticket’s face value), the smaller the potential mark-up in the secondary market. Except that some tickets with a face value of $150 were priced at $450 at the box office, only to be re-advertised in the secondary market for several thousand dollars. In other words, the touts have simply increased their margins, in response to the so-called dynamic pricing mechanism.

Without offering any sort of apology or mea culpa, the said band have now announced additional tour dates, tickets for which will be allocated and sold in a form of ballot. Stop me if you think I’m being cynical, but by quickly adding dates to an existing tour itinerary, it shows that the band knew there would be excess demand, because it’s not that easy to reserve major (and highly profitable) venues, even 12 months in advance. And if they can run a ballot system now, why couldn’t they have done that in the first place?

All of which simply shows how out of touch bands like this are with technology and market dynamics. In short, ticket sales and allocations could have been achieved far more equitably if the band and their promoters had chosen to use blockchain, crypto and web3.0 solutions.

Here’s a simple list of options that could have been used:

1. Issue all tickets as NFTs (non-fungible tokens)

2. Limit the number of tickets per digital wallet and/or the number of wallets per ticket buyer

3. Ensure the use of soul-bound tokens to link wallet ownership and ID to specific individuals (to limit the number of tickets per wallet, and to limit the resale of tickets)

4. Run social media campaigns, quests and airdrops to allocate and distribute tokens that entitle holders to a place in the ticket queue – e.g., the more active a wallet holder is in the band’s fan community, the higher their chance of securing a priority place in the ticket queue

5. Pre-publish the expected ticket price ranges, and enable wallet holders to vote on the minimum/maximum price they would be willing to pay (using something like Snapshot)

6. Cap the amount an NFT-based ticket can be sold for in the secondary market or write the token smart contract to allocate a percentage of the resale value as a commission to the ticket issuer

Of course, the UK competition regulators are taking a close look at this ticketing fiasco, to see if so-called dynamic pricing breached fair trading or other consumer protection laws. If punters were not aware that they may have to pay far more than the advertised or face value of a ticket, this would appear to be unfair and unconscionable conduct. It’s potentially a form of under-quoting – advertise the ticket at a artificially low price, then force buyers to pay well over the face value at the actual point of sale (under the guise of “market demand”), knowing full well that the fans had little or no choice in the matter.

One final thought – knowing the volatile history of this band, the chances are that the concerts (or at least some of them) may be cancelled. Hopefully, the ticket agent and box office operators won’t be counting the advance ticket sales as recognised revenue, rather they are required to hold the funds in a verified escrow account until the performances are delivered and the ticket revenue actually earned….. (again, something that could be easily factored into a smart contract – no release of funds until the loud-mouth sings?).

Next week: Cooking the books?

 

 

 

Unintended Consequences?

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, Melbourne City Council banned e-scooters for hire. The City’s Lord Mayor argues that the current trial needs to be re-set, as a result of increased traffic violations and personal injuries. So far, similar trials running in other local government areas adjacent to the City will continue, but they will no doubt be seeking to ensure the hire schemes are implemented and managed in a responsible, compliant and sustainable fashion, when the trials expire.

Despite the promised (and welcome) benefits of e-scooter hire schemes, I have yet to see current data that would support their continued operation. E.g., has the introduction of e-scooters reduced either the overall number of cars on the road, or the number of short car journeys under 2km?

I can see that e-scooters are probably popular with shift workers, largely because public transport services do not run at the times these commuters need them or where they need to go.

As well as living close to the City, I live in an adjacent LGA that is running a similar trial, so I have plenty of anecdotal evidence of the downside.

It’s not just users riding on pavements and in pedestrian-only areas with little care for those on foot. Many riders are carrying passengers (unlawfully) and choosing not to wear helmets (also unlawful). There appear to be a large number of joy riders, who often leave vehicles strewn across footpaths, rather than parking them responsibly. Then there are the helmets discarded without care or thought. Many of which probably end up in landfill, especially if they have been cracked or damaged through misuse. (A few months ago, I spoke to a Melbourne City Council street cleaner, and he admitted that if helmets are discarded like litter, they go into the general waste collection.)

I also see e-scooters for hire being lined up by their operators outside pubs and bars. I get that we don’t want people to drink and drive, but riding an e-scooter while drunk is hardly the answer!

I suspect that the obvious problems and misuse could have easily been anticipated, and even mitigated. Here are just a few suggestions:

1. Require all ride-share customers to have appropriate insurance. This could be done via the operator apps, and/or via a subscription model.

2. E-tag all helmets as well as the scooters themselves, so operators can keep track of their property. If I was an investor in these companies, I’d be concerned that they aren’t protecting their assets!

3. Require users to pass some sort of proficiency test – including basic road rules, and traffic regulations.

4. As well as limiting the vehicle speed, disable any e-scooter that is being driven on pedestrian-only footpaths or other “out of bounds” areas. The City of Melbourne and surrounding LGAs now have extensive cycle lanes, so there shouldn’t be any excuse for riding on pavements.

5. Consider attaching breathalysers to each scooter and applying weight limits on vehicles (to counter the problem of passenger over-loading).

Finally, the use of contributory negligence in assessing potential damages should be a default position. Indeed, any rider who causes an accident, injures a pedestrian or damages another vehicle or property, directly or indirectly as a result of the rider’s misuse or negligence should result in strict liability for all damages.

Next week: Ticket scalpers? Blockchain could fix that!