Jobs & Education1 min ago
Amazon And 'the Death Of The High Street'.
32 Answers
There has been much hysteria in the media lately about the 'death of the High Street', and the blame seems to be laid entirely at the door of Amazon.
The media seems to be on a crusade against the on-line company because it feels that Amazon is sucking the life-blood out of personal retailing, and is also guilty of not paying anything like enough income tax, merely adding insult to injury.
My view is this - the 'death of the High Street' is rooted in the same social changes as the 'death of the pub' - people's shopping habits are changing, and Amazon, quite rightly, enjoys the increased income from those changes. But the fact is, it is consumers who are 'killing the High Street' because they shop on line, not Amazon - that is clearly putting the car before the horse.
As to Amazon's tax arrangements, which are highlighted by the media foaming at the mouth - Amazon is a business and its responsibility to its shareholders and it is beholden to maximise profit opportunities. If that includes taking advantage of lax tax regulations, then the fault for that lies squarely with the Inland Revenue, which should address the gaps that Amazon and others exploit perfectly legally.
The media seems to think that Amazon is breaking some sort of moral code that protects High Street businesses because they are a tradition. That is not how culture and society evolve - if they did, you would still see tailors sitting cross-legged in shop windows sewing away.
Time moves on.
What do others think?
The media seems to be on a crusade against the on-line company because it feels that Amazon is sucking the life-blood out of personal retailing, and is also guilty of not paying anything like enough income tax, merely adding insult to injury.
My view is this - the 'death of the High Street' is rooted in the same social changes as the 'death of the pub' - people's shopping habits are changing, and Amazon, quite rightly, enjoys the increased income from those changes. But the fact is, it is consumers who are 'killing the High Street' because they shop on line, not Amazon - that is clearly putting the car before the horse.
As to Amazon's tax arrangements, which are highlighted by the media foaming at the mouth - Amazon is a business and its responsibility to its shareholders and it is beholden to maximise profit opportunities. If that includes taking advantage of lax tax regulations, then the fault for that lies squarely with the Inland Revenue, which should address the gaps that Amazon and others exploit perfectly legally.
The media seems to think that Amazon is breaking some sort of moral code that protects High Street businesses because they are a tradition. That is not how culture and society evolve - if they did, you would still see tailors sitting cross-legged in shop windows sewing away.
Time moves on.
What do others think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I heard yesterday that the government is considering imposing an extra tax on on-line purchases in order to bring prices more into line with the high street. If they do I imagine sales from either will depend upon whether shoppers enjoy going to the shops or not. Either way they'll get what they want for a similar price.
Zacs-Master - // What do peoples shopping habits have to do with the death of pubs? //
I draw a parallel between the two -
Years ago, people went to the pub to socialise and drink together - now they stay at home and drink, and socialise on line.
Similarly, years ago people travelled into town and shopped, now they stay at home and shop on line - probably while they are drinking and socialising.
I draw a parallel between the two -
Years ago, people went to the pub to socialise and drink together - now they stay at home and drink, and socialise on line.
Similarly, years ago people travelled into town and shopped, now they stay at home and shop on line - probably while they are drinking and socialising.
I think we have it now so it's no longer feasible to have a shop. For example, to rent a shop in Hereford town centre, not a big shop it's £20k in rent p/a on top of that the business rates are roughly the same. So £40k p/a before you've even turned the lights on. Let's say you slog yourself to death and only employ one member of staff for 40 hours per week, that's another £20,000, and you have now not even begun buying, trading, utilities, travel, accountancy etc etc etc. Small shops cannot physically make enough money to cover what owning a shop involves, it's nothing to do with Amazon, it's to do with all sorts of social and political intricacies some of which are for the benefit of everybody like NMW.
Back in the day you could rent a ghetto shop reasonably cheaply, live above it, hire a apprentice on about 10p per hour and your business could thrive, now there are wage restrictions, you often cant live where you work and everywhere is being improved and gentrified, so it's purely financial based on new social norms.
Back in the day you could rent a ghetto shop reasonably cheaply, live above it, hire a apprentice on about 10p per hour and your business could thrive, now there are wage restrictions, you often cant live where you work and everywhere is being improved and gentrified, so it's purely financial based on new social norms.
The pub situation should act as a warning.
Even if folk buy mail/internet order they desire the local high street shops to be available. Two ways to achieve that, either use them more (but unilateral action is ineffective so that's unlikely) or arrange to level the "playing field" a little so shops remain viable.
Too late to be sad once they're gone.
Tax avoidance is a second issue, but when the rules allow ridiculous levels of avoiding the tax a company was expected to pay as it's fair share of the tax burden, it's fair enough changing the rules to correct that.
Even if folk buy mail/internet order they desire the local high street shops to be available. Two ways to achieve that, either use them more (but unilateral action is ineffective so that's unlikely) or arrange to level the "playing field" a little so shops remain viable.
Too late to be sad once they're gone.
Tax avoidance is a second issue, but when the rules allow ridiculous levels of avoiding the tax a company was expected to pay as it's fair share of the tax burden, it's fair enough changing the rules to correct that.
There’s actually a trend increase in licensed premises, year on year. The pubs which are closing are the ones being run by companies who don’t consider them worth investing in or are run by individuals who aren’t moving with the times. Town and city pubs are thriving and applications for new licensed premises continue to grow.
Maybe so, but not all live in the city; local high streets are also important. Most pubs that survive in the suburbs and country seem to become primarily cafe/restaurant places which happen to serve ale; or large, loud, cheap places one wouldn't choose to go to for a quiet drink. Many seem tied to chain food suppliers now instead of the breweries they were forced to break away from.
Anyway, still a loss whether pubs or shops. I'm not against measures to preserve both.
Anyway, still a loss whether pubs or shops. I'm not against measures to preserve both.
Most high Streets were on life support long before Amazon (and other online shopping facilities) rose to prominence. In my High Street unless you want to buy a house, have your hair cut, have a cup of coffee or shop in a charity shop, there's not much for you. It's been like it for years.
In order to survive, High Street shops have to provide something that online outlets cannot - service. They cannot compete on price so they must up their game in other respects to bring in the punters. And quite frankly most of them fail miserably. They employ poor calibre staff (mainly because they pay minimal wages) whom they train poorly (if they train them at all). The result is that many shop staff have no idea how to engage with their customers and often don't care if they live or die. Instead they prefer to chat to their colleagues about their social activities. The retailers, for their part, have dumbed everything down to the lowest price believing that customers will put up with almost anything provided the goods are cheap. It's little wonder that many people prefer to shop online. They are fed up with traipsing round shops (if they can find one selling what they need) to encounter surly staff and lack of stock. Instead they go online and find all the colours in all of the sizes, delivered to their door in a couple of days.
The government's stock response, of course, is to propose a tax to tackle the problem (this time upon Amazon et al). Wrong approach. People's shopping habits are changing and they are changing all the time. The out-of-town complexes hit High Streets two or three decades ago (for different reasons but also connected with customer convenience) but nobody proposed making them apply an additional tax to their sales. To use the argument that online companies (Amazon in particular) avoid tax is specious. As said above, all companies (and individuals for that matter) have a duty to pay as little tax as possible. This is good for them and their customers and has the added advantage of providing the government with less money to waste. If they want to raise more tax from the likes of Amazon they need to change the tax laws and not simply impose a selective purchase tax on end users to persuade them to shop in places they don't want to. They may find that their cure is snake oil. Even if they are forced to tax their customers, many online outlets will still enjoy plentiful custom.
In order to survive, High Street shops have to provide something that online outlets cannot - service. They cannot compete on price so they must up their game in other respects to bring in the punters. And quite frankly most of them fail miserably. They employ poor calibre staff (mainly because they pay minimal wages) whom they train poorly (if they train them at all). The result is that many shop staff have no idea how to engage with their customers and often don't care if they live or die. Instead they prefer to chat to their colleagues about their social activities. The retailers, for their part, have dumbed everything down to the lowest price believing that customers will put up with almost anything provided the goods are cheap. It's little wonder that many people prefer to shop online. They are fed up with traipsing round shops (if they can find one selling what they need) to encounter surly staff and lack of stock. Instead they go online and find all the colours in all of the sizes, delivered to their door in a couple of days.
The government's stock response, of course, is to propose a tax to tackle the problem (this time upon Amazon et al). Wrong approach. People's shopping habits are changing and they are changing all the time. The out-of-town complexes hit High Streets two or three decades ago (for different reasons but also connected with customer convenience) but nobody proposed making them apply an additional tax to their sales. To use the argument that online companies (Amazon in particular) avoid tax is specious. As said above, all companies (and individuals for that matter) have a duty to pay as little tax as possible. This is good for them and their customers and has the added advantage of providing the government with less money to waste. If they want to raise more tax from the likes of Amazon they need to change the tax laws and not simply impose a selective purchase tax on end users to persuade them to shop in places they don't want to. They may find that their cure is snake oil. Even if they are forced to tax their customers, many online outlets will still enjoy plentiful custom.
My wife saw a coat she liked online from Debenhams and travelled to the store to try it on, or at least have a proper look at it.
She couldn't find it, asked a member of staff and was told that they don't carry the full range in their (huge) store and to buy it online.
I needed a part for my gas fire last year and rang round several shops, none of whom had it in stock. I bought it cheaper from Amazon and it was delivered next day.
My local home brew store is a five minute stroll away, they also sell online with free delivery. I asked if there was a discount if I collected three wine kits (heavy and costing over £150) and was told no.
So I went on line and bought them £20 cheaper from a store 70 miles away with free next day delivery.
My inside leg is 34" and it is very difficult to buy trousers on the high street - so much easier to buy online, so I do.
It is also far easier to compare products such as washing machines or computers online than in store. The store staff don't have the knowledge and the information on the shelf is minimal. So I shop online.
Buying expensive goods online gives me many more legal rights to reject and return than buying in store, so I buy online.
It is far easier to check or uncheck a box on my screen to state I don't want an additional warranty or extras than convince the salesperson in the shop that I really don't want it.
I'm not pestered by chuggers, muggers, Big Issue sellers or beggars when I shop online.
I love online shopping and Amazon is only one of my preferred stores, far easier to shop around online than in the high street.
She couldn't find it, asked a member of staff and was told that they don't carry the full range in their (huge) store and to buy it online.
I needed a part for my gas fire last year and rang round several shops, none of whom had it in stock. I bought it cheaper from Amazon and it was delivered next day.
My local home brew store is a five minute stroll away, they also sell online with free delivery. I asked if there was a discount if I collected three wine kits (heavy and costing over £150) and was told no.
So I went on line and bought them £20 cheaper from a store 70 miles away with free next day delivery.
My inside leg is 34" and it is very difficult to buy trousers on the high street - so much easier to buy online, so I do.
It is also far easier to compare products such as washing machines or computers online than in store. The store staff don't have the knowledge and the information on the shelf is minimal. So I shop online.
Buying expensive goods online gives me many more legal rights to reject and return than buying in store, so I buy online.
It is far easier to check or uncheck a box on my screen to state I don't want an additional warranty or extras than convince the salesperson in the shop that I really don't want it.
I'm not pestered by chuggers, muggers, Big Issue sellers or beggars when I shop online.
I love online shopping and Amazon is only one of my preferred stores, far easier to shop around online than in the high street.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Trump's Cabinet Picks. What Do We Think?
News8 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
News29 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.