Music price comparison site

The internet is filled with dozens of sites that let you compare prices of things like car insurance, utilities, credit cards and even meerkats. Such sites are popular since they allow the consumer to get the best possible deal without the hassle of going to each individual store and comparing prices. Well, there is a new comparison site, imaginatively named Comparedownload.com, that allows you to compare the prices of music downloads from different stores like 7digital, Amazon, Tesco Digital, We7 and iTunes.

Do something amazing, support WSPA

Comparedownload.com is the first website in the UK that allows music fans to compare the price of music downloads and seems to have stumbled upon a gap in the market that seems so simple and obvious now that its mentioned. The website's founder, James Bott, says that it was the frustration of having to search through different sites for the cheapest price for music downloads that lead him to develop this website.

According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), only 5% of total music downloads are done so legally. This means that there is a huge market for legal downloads if the other 95% are tapped into. If the market potential for online downloads is indeed so huge, why has it taken so long for a site that allows the consumer to compare prices of downloads to be launched? And that too this isn't a venture by some business seeking to exploit a gap in the market, but the result of someone's frustration and need.

Maybe its because there aren't enough sites selling music legitimately that have huge catalogues that can be compared. The reason for that is perhaps that its too hard for sites trying to sell music legitimately to bring all the record companies together and convince them to allow a website to sell their songs. And if the website doesn't have a wide collection of songs, customers will obviously not come. The other quick and simple alternative is file sharing, which of course is illegal.

There is of course another alternative, buying a CD. But what if you only want one single, and not the whole album? Also, it’s a lot less convenient than downloading music. CD sales, according to the IFPI, dropped by about 15% last year. Of course, the music industry will be quick to put the blame for the drop on illegal file sharers who want to listen to music, but pay nothing for it. But I don't think that all those who share music do so because they are heartless or get some sort of pleasure by “stealing” someone's work, as they are often portrayed. I think it’s a bit hasty to attribute the drop in sales of CD's to online file sharing. Maybe its because the way people view music and the way they want to obtain their favourite music is changing.

Recent surveys suggest that an increasing number of people who previously got their music from file sharing are switching to legitimate music streaming sites like Last.fm, We7 and Spotify. But the business models of such music streaming is completely different from those of the music companies. Music companies want to charge the consumer for each individual download and control how many times the music is moved around whereas music streaming sites view the delivery of music as a service that would allow revenue to be generated by displaying relevant ads and through sales of complementary products like merchandise, tickets to gigs, etc. The biggest hurdle again for such streaming services I think are record labels that may need a lot of convincing to let the sites stream their music. Many are sceptical about streaming sites generating significant revenue that would compensate for the drop in CD sales.

To a certain extent, I think that it’s fair to say that the music companies are victims of their own greed and their inability to view the internet as a means of diversifying rather than viewing it as a threat to their business. There are a huge number of online retailers selling all kinds of things from books to computers and they have been operating for quite some time now. Yet, the number of online music sites are still quite low and only now beginning to increase. No wonder then that although you can buy pretty much anything on the web, it’s still relatively hard to buy music legally. It must be so hard to get them all on board and agree on particular business model that it takes somebody with utter determination and nerves of steel with financial backing to achieve a deal. Imagine the kind of problems that Steve Jobs must have faced of convincing each and every record company to make their catalogue available for sale when Apple was planning to launch the iTunes store.

£5 off at LensWay.co.uk

BizEasy

Can BingHoo really take on Google?

Microsoft and Yahoo announced a strategic alliance which will see Microsoft power Yahoo's search engine using algorithms from its Bing search engine while Yahoo will oversee the management of Microsoft's advertising space.

This may be good news to businesses and organisations that buy ad space with search engines. Microsoft and Yahoo have very little share of the online search market individually, but together, they might have a share which may make it worthwhile for marketers to buy ad space from Microsoft-Yahoo.

Steve Ballmer said that this partnership would give users a real choice in a market dominated by one company. In other words, he hopes this deal will allow Microsoft and Yahoo to challenge or perhaps even end Google's dominance in the online search market. That's really weird coming from the head of a company that has enjoyed unrivalled dominance in the operating systems market. Not only that, it also has a big slice of the web browser market with its Internet Explorer and also the office applications market with its Office Suite. So, he shouldn't be complaining about users not having a choice since anybody who buys apc has a copy of Windows thrust upon them since it is pre-installed. Only those with enough technical know-how really have a choice since they are able to install a Linux distro.

Discounted Job Posting - Get 15% off on Yahoo! HotJobs

Maybe he is complaining because Microsoft hasn't got the bigger slice of the online search market. And if its offering choice that Steve Ballmer is after, I think the users already have a choice and make a conscious decision to use Google and since price has nothing to do with it, as they all are free to use, it all comes down to quality and brand awareness of each product. In a way, by Microsoft partnering with Yahoo, it is perhaps reducing user's choice since Yahoo Search will now be a repackaged version of Bing which is really Windows Live Search with some make up on.

So, once Bing starts powering Yahoo's search results, how will it exactly challenge Google's dominance? Will users suddenly start using Bing and ditch Google? That's the same as asking if a large number of users will suddenly start ditching Microsoft's Windows in favour of Google's Chrome OS.

I think that the problem is more to do with the image of each brand. Google is synonymous with online searches. So much so that the act of searching something online is commonly referred to as “googling”. In the same manner, Microsoft's Windows is almost considered to be an integral part of the computer. So much so that many users that buy netbooks that come pre-installed with Linux OS prefer to do a clean install of Windows XP.

So, if Microsoft and Yahoo really want to take on Google in the search engine market, they should perhaps focus on a marketing campaign to inform, remind and reiterate to the users what their brand stands for. Something along the lines of Microsoft's “I'm a PC” campaign which was meant to be an answer to Apple's “Mac and PC” ad campaign.

Overall, I think this partnership will not be that beneficial to Yahoo in the long term, it will only be beneficial in the short term as a survival strategy. For Microsoft however, this could be a chance to diversify and depend less on its traditional business model of charging users to use their software and start focusing on providing applications online and generating revenue by displaying advertisements. This is even more important since Google is slowly encroaching into Microsoft's territory by offering free, albeit with less functionality, alternatives to Microsoft's Office applications and have recently announced the launch of their own operating system, Chrome OS.

Award-winning Software from AVG identifies and stops threats before they become a problem – download now

BizEasy

RIP FSA?

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, said that the Conservatives planned to get rid of the Financial Services Authority if they were to win the next general election. Under their plan, the FSA would be renamed to the Consumer Protection Agency and would be responsible for consumer issues while the Bank of England would have overall power and would also be responsible for monitoring and regulating the banking sector. This move would abolish the tripartitie system consisting of the FSA, the Bank of England and the Treasury which was set up in 1997 by the then chancellor and now Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

Leaving the pros and cons of such a policy on one side, I don't think it's right to announce definite plans of what would happen to the FSA if the Tories were to win power. That is because it diminishes FSA's authority now when it is trying to regulate the banking sector as nobody will then take them seriously because everybody knows that the FSA's days are numbered.

Blockbuster.co.uk FREE unlimited DVDs for 1 month

Think of a CEO that announces that he is to step down after a year and names his successor. Who do you think will hold the real power now, the CEO or the person who will succeed him? A leader with a sword over his head doesn't have any significant power as everybody in the organisation will listen to the new guy who will eventually be in power.

Rather than really bring about a change in the banking regulation, it seems that by announcing their plans, the Tories are trying to earn some political brownie points by taking advantage of Gordon Brown's unpopularity.

Even though it may be obvious from the numerous polls and the general sentiment amongst the public that the Conservatives are going to win the next election, it does not mean that they have won the election and are in power. The mainstream media are increasingly interpreting the phrase “if the Tories win the next general election” as “when the Tories win the election”.

The thing is, whether we like it or not, Gordon Brown is still the Prime Minister and the problems plaguing the financial sector have to be dealt with now, by those who are in power now. By announcing that the FSA is doomed and the media hanging on to George Osborne's every word, it affects the authority that the people in power have when they try to be though with those running the financial institutions.

So when you read the headline “FSA warns banks over long-term bonuses” in the Financial Times, you don't picture a strict headteacher warning a student, but instead picture a lion without any claws or teeth in a zoo letting out an inaudible whimper rather than a ferocious roar. If the regulators and policy makers have no authority, how is the change to be brought about. It's no wonder then that some of the financial institutions, which not less than a year back, were on the brink of collapse and some even went to the government cap-in-hand asking for financial help are now announcing record profits and are still trying to pay bonuses even when the so called “bonus culture” has been criticized by the regulators, the prime minister and the chancellor for hastening the speed of the financial mess.

Sure, its necessary for the public to know the policies of each party to enable them to make an informed decision about whom they will cast their vote. But for a political party that is desperately trying to distance itself from the negative publicity from the MPs expenses scandal and hoping to win the next general election, it doesn't seem right when it tries to capitalise from its opponent's unpopularity and kicking him while he is down.

MONTHLYOFFER - 40 free prints for new Snapfish customer

BizEasy

Google's new operating system

Google announced on its blog that it is going to launch its own operating system next year based around its web browser, the Google Chrome. The Google Chrome OS will initially be targeted at the netbook market. It will be open source and based on the Linux kernel. Since it’s a Google product, it’s going to be free as well. The blog claims that the new OS will be light weight and more focused on getting the user onto the internet within seconds of booting up rather than waiting minutes for the computer to load.

This step is perhaps the next best logical step for Google since the online world is its home ground. Right now, it depends on other providers providing the user with a platform-the OS and the browser-to get onto the internet and access its services. It solved part of the problem last year by launching its own web browser with the hope that it would come together with all its online applications to provide an integrated experience to the user.

£5 off at LensWay.co.uk

So, an operating system that is oriented for the internet would be ideal for a netbook since such devices with low processing power are likely to be used for things like accessing the internet. However, totally depending on the internet to provide all the functionality assumes that the netbook would be constantly connected to the internet. The most popular method of accessing the internet through a netbook is by using a dongle that connects to the internet via the mobile 3G network. Although such dongles can be obtained cheaply through deals, which include the dongle and the netbook, such deals have incredibly small download allowances. Since there would be a lot of exchange of data with the internet, the download limit would be quickly reached. So, Google should not only work with manufacturers to get its OS onto their devices, but also with the telecommunications companies and explore new ways of providing cheap internet access with huge download caps where the cost is subsidised by advertising-Google’s main business.

The news media are referring to Google’s announcement as “Google taking on Microsoft”. I think that’s a bit premature to think that Google’s new OS,which depends on cloud computing, will offer all the functionality and applications that Microsoft’s operating system, which largely depends on software hosted locally, can provide the user. Especially since all we have from Google is an announcement, and not an actual product that can be tested, compared and bench marked.

That is not to say that Microsoft shouldn’t be worried about Google’s OS. That’s because currently, users that want Windows on their netbooks are offered Win XP and not Vista. The other alternative is a Linux based OS. Most users prefer XP although its expensive and old because they are familiar with the user interface and have apprehensions about switching to an unfamiliar system. That is why Linux distributions, most which are free and some of which already offer a light weight OS some as small as 50Mb, do not have many users since they are seen as being complicated and “techie”. But with a popular name like Google attached to it, it wouldn’t take long for these apprehensions to go away and for users to start switching to Chrome OS.

It would be interesting to see how Google goes on to monetize its operating system. Microsoft of course gets its revenue by charging a huge price to those who wish to use its operating system and so does Apple to those who wish to use its OSX, although its not so pricey. Linux distributions depend on a community of developers and some organisations get their revenue by providing support to businesses that use Linux operating systems and also by providing customised solutions. Google will obviously fall back on its core competency-its advertising business. That’s how it currently generates most of its revenue, by advertising to those that use its products.

Like in most cases, at the end of the day, it all depends on how Google execute their plan. If they become complacent and start thinking that anything that has the Google brand attached to it will become popular, their OS may not turn out to be a Windows killer. It will be interesting to see what the end product looks like when the beta version is released later this year.

And if any of its previous products are to go by, expect the Google Chrome OS to be in beta till the year 2020.

Latest deals on lastminute.com

BizEasy

50% Income Tax

The increase in the rate of income tax for the high earners seems to be the most talked about topic of this year's budget. The tax applies to all those who earn £150,000 or more. Add to that the National Insurance contribution and it equates to more than half of one's salary. The aim of this rise, according to the chancellor Alistair Darling, is to contribute to the Treasury coffers to make up for the huge amounts of public sector borrowings, £175 billion this year itself.

But it looks like the aim of this move is to gather support from the majority of the public who seem to hold all those who earn huge amounts of money responsible for all the mess that the economy is in. A poll by the Times newspaper shows that 57% of the respondents back this increase in tax. The accountancy and tax experts will definitely see a rise in business since they will have many clients asking them to look for loop holes allowing them to dodge the tax. And who will then pick up the bill? The hard working majority of course.

A lot of measures have been introduced in the budget to help people, like the scheme for the 18-25 year olds, £2000 car scrappage scheme, ISA allowance, etc. But its one thing to announce something and another thing to actually implement it.

But, its not whats in the budget that's important, but what wasn't included in the budget. If the money coming in is less than the money going out, it may be OK to borrow money in the short term to cover that deficit. But somewhere along the line, cuts in spending will have to be made. There is no clear indication where those cuts will be made.

Spyware Doctor FREE Scan

To make a start, how about the MPs themselves cutting back on the expenses that they claim from the tax payer. I mean claiming back 88p for a bath plug, how ridiculous is that. Its like almost mocking the tax payers. It is understandable that an MP from, say Newcastle, should be able to stay in London when performing his duties and expect the tax payer to pay for that. But that doesn't mean buying a second home and pocketing the profit made from it. Its means lodging in a hotel during the stay. And if the MPs really care for the taxpayers, why not take a pay cut? Its not a lot to ask. Many workers have taken a pay cut in companies so that their colleagues can keep their jobs.

The Treasury estimates that it will spend £119 billion of the £671 billion on Health services this year. How about asking those who drink excessively and then take up the resources of the NHS when their bodies cant take it to pay for the service. How about allocating resources to curb rising obesity so that money doesn't have to be spent on treating illnesses arising from it. Distributing garden tools and seeds across the schools would provide physical exercise and free produce as well.

People who currently receive help paying their fuel bills could be provided with subsidies allowing them to purchase energy efficient appliances such as electric kettles. This would reduce the energy used which would reduce the bills which would reduce the amount payed by the Government. Subsidies over 50% could also be provided to buy solar panels which would make homes that receive fuel allowance self sufficient which means that they wouldn't be requiring the help from the Government.
There are many other ways that the money can be spent efficiently by the Government. Asking a group of over-paid Government consultants isn't going to help, ask the public for ideas. I am sure that a lot of constructive ideas will emerge.

In hindsight, if the Government had spent their money wisely when it was coming in and saved for a rainy day, there might have been a bit of buffer that the Chancellor could have used. We instead ended up with no savings and a massive hurricane instead of a rainy day. The budget doesn't seem to be based on sound economics, but on hope and a prayer. If the Chancellors own figures are to be believed from last year, we should be in a recovery sometime soon. But instead, we are still in a deep recession. Yet, he hopes the economy will grow by 3.5% in two years time. How? Manufacturing is affected despite the weak pound and the financial sector is not as big as it used to be. Who will then lead the recovery?

Even if the figures are somehow achieved, it is still better to plan for a slow growth and be pleasantly surprised by the massive growth than to plan/hope for massive growth and then get it spectacularly wrong.

Free .uk domain names with 123-reg web hosting, InstantSite and Ecommerce packages Buy Now!

Budget 2009
BizEasy

Market Research

Watching the candidates of The Apprentice talk about themselves misleads one into feeling that not only are they the best, but that they are the best of the best of the best when it comes to running a business and that Sir Alan Sugar should feel lucky that they are willing to work for him. Yet, when it comes to doing a task, they forget the most basic of business concepts.

As seems to be the norm these days, the task involved designing a portable piece of fitness equipment for, surprise surprise, the cash strapped consumer. It was clear from the beginning that the whole task was about the product. It is no surprise then that team Empire, which came up with a Gym-in-a-box idea failed to sell even one unit to two of the three retailers they pitched to. The candidates failed to realise that the perfect product isn't one that tickles their own fancy, or one which their family would like to buy, but one which addresses the needs of the consumer, hence filling a possible gap in the market.

Both teams failed to conduct even basic market research to help them develop their product. Team Empire should have realised that creativity wasn't their strongest bit and rather than sit around the table bouncing useless ideas of each other, they should have sent two people to the local gym to talk to the members there about the kinds of products they would like to buy and what price they were willing to pay for it. Another team of around two people could have scoured the internet looking at the products that their competitors were selling at that price level. After all, the task was about designing a product for consumers who were finding the gym membership too expensive and were looking for low cost alternatives. Who better to ask about the product than those who are going to buy it in the end.

All your BBC Favourites from the BBC Shop.com

Their lack of research was also evident in their pricing strategy. It felt as if they had just closed their eyes and picked the figure of £29.99 randomly for their product. At that price, there are numerous alternatives in the market which are certainly better looking if not better value for money. Even the promotional material, including the pictures, looked like something that came out of a secondary school student's Media Studies project.

Although team Ingnite failed to do any market research either, they still won the task and were offered a deal of exclusivity by John Lewis. One of the reasons why their product succeeded was perhaps because it was simple. Their opponents product was a case of "Jack of all Trades, Master of None", like a new mobile phone which offers to make you a cup of tea and take your dog for a walk. Ignite's product was also more pleasing to look at and truly portable.

Two days to come up with a concept, build a prototype and pitch a product is indeed a tall order and both the teams did that with a lot of patience and commitment. Was firing Majid the right decision? Its not for us to decide. After all, this isn't a talent show, its a long job interview and Sir Alan should keep those whom he feels would be right for his organisation.

The Apprentice on BBC iPlayer

BizEasy

Ryanair

Ryanair, it seems, is very good at attracting negative publicity every time it comes up with a cost-cutting measure to "decrease the air fare for all its customers". Its latest one is a plan to charge its passengers £1 for each time they want to use the in-flight toilet.

It doesn't look as if it really makes commercial sense for Ryanair though. After all, it doesn't give free drinks on board its flights, passengers are expected to pay for them. That means that consumption of liquids is decreased in the first place, which means less number of people would be using the toilets anyways. Or as Rochelle Turner from Which?Holiday pointed out, passengers may end up buying less over-priced drinks on board because they will then be charged to relieve themselves of it. This would make the move counter-productive.

Latest deals on lastminute.com

I am sure it would cost a considerable sum of money to install a coin slot machine in each of its toilets on each of its flights. How many £1 paying people would it take for them to cover that cost? And if the whole idea is to lower the air fare, how much would it lower it? Its not as if the maintenance cost of the toilets depends on the number of times it is used. The toilets would cost the same if they were used ten times or just twice. The only variable cost, if Ryanair is really counting its pennies, would be stuff like the toilet paper and soap. So why not just save their passengers the hassle and the negative publicity and offer them for free, like what all airlines do currently?

Ryanair's spokesman was quick to reassure that they had no immediate plan to implement this, but felt that their move was justified since passengers were already used to paying for toilets at bus and train stations. Well, toilets at bus and train stations are used by more people than a toilet on a plane. And in addition to generating enough revenue for maintenance, another reason why passengers are charged at stations is to discourage misuse of the facilities.

Last week Ryanair announced that by the end of this year, it would be replacing the check-in counters at the airports with manned baggage drop-in area. All customers instead would be expected to check-in online. According to Ryanair, about 75% of its customers are checking-in online currently. In that case, it does make commercial sense to get rid of check-in counters since only 25% of the passengers are using it. The cost saved on staff could genuinely help reduce the fares.

Thomson Holidays & Flights - Click Here

Ryanair is by now used to being in the news for all the wrong reasons. The most recent one being its staff engaging in an unpleasant exchange with a blogger who thought he had found a bug on Ryanair's website. Rather than apologize to the blogger, Ryanair instead said that they had no time for "idiot bloggers". Idiot or not, that is not the best way for an organisation to talk to its stakeholders. Of course, this all wont result in passengers suddenly switching Ryanair for another airline. Far from it. In these though times, more people would be attracted to the cheap price and not the customer service. Still, those within Ryanair that come up with the cost cutting measures should spend some time now pondering over their public relations.

"Spend a pound to spend a penny" said Michael O'Leary yesterday. If they don't learn where to draw the line for the cost cutting, it may end up being "Penny wise and Pound fool" for Ryanair.

BizEasy

Deposits Fall by £2.3 billion

According to the figures released by the BBA (British Bankers Association), deposits in the high street banks fell by £2.3 billion in January alone.

One of the reasons for this is that people who have lost their jobs are having to use their savings to supplement the loss of their income. Even those who are still employed, but have been forced to reduce their working hours or accept a pay cut, have to withdraw from their savings to meet the shortfall. Those who bought houses when the prices were at their peak are having to use their savings to bridge the gap when their mortgage nears renewal. Many are also dipping into their savings to pay off their credit card bills from Christmas and other unsecured loans.

Also, with the base rate at 1% most high street banks are offering almost no significant rewards to savers for their money. There is almost no incentive for people to save. So, those with savings are looking for alternative forms of investment, something that will at least give them a rate of return above or at least matching the inflation rate.

Free Audiobook Downloads - 14 day Free Trial

A typical banking model is banks borrowing money from savers in the form of deposits and lending that money out to borrowers in the form of mortgages, loans, credit cards, overdraft, etc. The bank charges the borrower a fee, in the form of interest, for the sum of money that is lent out. The bank gives the depositor a reward, in the form of interest, for allowing it to use its money. The fee that the bank charges the borrower is slightly higher than the rate which it pays out to its depositor, and the difference is pocketed by the bank.

Banks are still finding it difficult to borrow from the money markets. And even if they can, its going to be really expensive, which means that the extra cost would have to be passed on to the borrower. So, if deposits are decreasing and savers are withdrawing more money, banks have very little to fall back on. Also, savers have, to a great extent, lost faith with the banks. They will no doubt feel that their hard earned cash is being used to pay bonuses and reward failure.

Reliable web hosting from Yahoo! Web Hosting - 25% off for a limited time!

It seems like banks will have to go a long way in winning the trust of the consumer and offer more than the paltry rewards to attract their savings. Without the deposits, they'll find it really hard to fund the lending. Unless, of course, the name of the bank is Northern Rock which has access to the pockets of the taxpayers. Northern Rock was nationalised and was lent some £28bn by the Government last year. It payed back most of it, around £18bn, by forcing its existing customers to move to other providers. This week it pledged that it would offer new mortgages which will be worth around £14bn over the next two years. It most certainly wont be anywhere near the 100% it used to offer.

The overall sentiment seems to be that if bankers want their customers' money, they will have to work really hard to get it, because the customers would rather spend it on themselves than paying the bankers to spend it for them.

BizEasy

Throwaway Fashion

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has launched a "Sustainable Clothing Action Plan" co-inciding with the London Fashion Week to highlight the increasing problem of "fast fashion". Apparently, UK consumers buy around two tonnes of clothes every year, and throw away a massive 1.2 million tonnes of them every year.

Rapidly changing fashion trends means that many consumers have to keep on buying new clothes to keep their wardrobe up-to-date and to compete with their friends and peers. This means that new clothes are worn only a few times and as trends change, are then consigned to the bin.

Of the two million tonnes of clothing bought every year, only 300,000 are recycled. If the majority of the clothes are worn only a couple of times, surely more of them can be recycled. Due to the current economic crisis, donations to charities has dropped. Consumers are cutting back on their spending. If more clothes that are in a good condition are donated to the charity shops, they can then sell them on to consumers looking for a bargain which results in a win-win situation. The charity shops get their revenue, consumers can bag a bargain and there are less clothes ending up in the landfill site.

One of the reasons why consumers can afford to keep on buying new clothes and then throw them away is partly due to ready availability of cheap fashionable clothes on the high street. However, many fail to see the real story behind the cheap price tag. An investigation by BBC's Panorama last year revealed how Primark's suppliers used factories with unfair standards and also child labour to provide the consumers on the high street with cheap fashionable clothing.

Jane Milne, who is the business environment director of the British Retail Consortium, said that retailers should be "applauded, not criticised, for providing customers with affordable clothing, particularly during these tough economic times". Sure, if the low prices are due to a better, more efficient production technique. But not if someone less unfortunate than us halfway across the world is subsidising the cost for us by being exploited and made to work in unfair conditions.

BizEasy

Unemployment nears 2 million

According to the figures released by the Office of National Statistics, unemployment in the UK rose to 1.97 million this January. This is marginally short of the 2 million predicted by many economists. But with the string of job cuts announced by many businesses like Barrats, Virgin Atlantic, JJB Sports, Royal Mail, this year, there is no doubt that the unemployment figures will bypass 2 million very shortly.

Not to be out done, RBS is doing its bit to add to the unemployment figures. It announced this week that it would be cutting 2,300 jobs. Yet, it is planning a £1 billion bonus package. Why? To retain their talent or they will go elsewhere. Where would they go, when most banks are reducing their staff numbers? When unemployment is increasing, to have a decent job itself is a bonus. Another reason being given to justify a bonus is to reward their staff who have worked hard. No doubt, hard work should be rewarded. But not using the £20 billion lifeline it has received from the taxpayers. And if bank employees should receive a bonus, shouldn’t the doctors and the nurses and the teachers and the army personnel and many others receive a bonus for their hard work as well?

To use the public’s money, which was supposed to be lent to the businesses, to remunerate staff is insulting to those who have lost their jobs and those whose returns on their savings have been eroded. If the head of the banks are indeed impressed and overwhelmed by the hard work of their employees, then they must reward them by putting their hands into their own deep pockets, not the taxpayer’s.

NatWest, owned by RBS, in recent months has launched a MoneySense advice campaign across its branches advising its customers how to manage their money and their debt. This is rather amusing. The very banks that lent more money than the value of their deposit base are trying to teach their customers how not to spend beyond their means. Perhaps the top executives at RBS and other banks should take some time off their busy schedule and pop down to their local NatWest branch and learn a thing or two about managing money and cutting their costs.

BizEasy

Donate to WSPA here

Comet to charge suppliers for shelf space

According to the Financial Times, electronics retailer Kesa, who owns Comet, has asked its suppliers to pay up to £15,000 for the pleasure of having just one of their product lines displayed on Comet's shelves. Why? Well, according to Comet's commercial director Bob Darke, its because of the tough economic times.

Comet must be stocking 100s if not 1000s of products. Do they really think that all the suppliers will pay a huge fee for each and every product displayed? They would have to sell hundreds of units of each product range just to make up this fee, let alone pay their direct and indirect costs. This would be a great strategy if (a) the economy was booming and (b) the amount of product ranges out stripped the amount of shelf space available. It would allow Comet to stock the most profitable product and earn a nice fee at the same time. Sadly though, the economy is not booming nor is it likely that suppliers are dying to have their products displayed on Comet's shelves. Suppliers may in fact be forced to increase their prices to meet this fee otherwise it would add to the heavy losses that they already would be suffering from or they might even have to withdraw their product ranges entirely.

In an economy which is officially in a recession, increasing one's prices is not exactly the best strategy. Everyday there are news of more and more job cuts. Even those who have jobs are spending less because they are worried that they might lose their jobs. At such times, consumers are likely to focus more on necessities and forget about the luxuries. And plasma tvs and mp3 players are not exactly as important as bread and milk such that people will be forced to buy them.

Kesa is not alone, almost all retailers are affected by the tough economic times. Many supermarkets deal with it by squeezing every last penny out of their supplier's profit margins. Others buy on credit and exert their purchasing power by paying their suppliers after a long time. The supplier has no choice, he has to either accept it or lose the order. But I dont think anybody, not lest at this time, would charge their suppliers for shelf space.

I think Kesa's move is akin to digging one's own grave. It might as well just hand over its market share on a silver platter to its rivals.

Gas bills too big? Switch with Which? The independent energy service you can trust.
BizEasy

Hidden Cost of Redundancies

The number of people unemployed is rising everyday due to firms going bankrupt or businesses making some of their staff redundant as part of a "cost-cutting measure". However, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) warned yesterday that redundancies could in fact prove to be a false economy for businesses.

It estimates that the actual cost of redundancy could reach up to £16,000 for each employee made redundant. This figure takes into account the redundancy payment and the costs involved in recruiting and training replacement staff. But, redundancies can also lead to lower staff morale because when employees see some of their colleagues being made redundant, they fear about the security of their own jobs. This leads to a drop in their productivity which in some cases would lead to the business losing its competitive edge over a period of time. The CIPD's figures doesn't take these factors into account.

For most businesses redundancies are the most straight forward ways of cutting down costs in the short term. Less staff means less wages to be paid each month. Although analysts and bankers and politicians cannot agree on how long it will take for the economic condition to improve, they all agree that it will improve in the near future.

When the situation does improve, a business should be in a position to meet the upsurge in demand if it wants a share of the increasing market. This does not only mean having enough number of staff, but staff that are properly trained and equipped with necessary skills to help them do their jobs to the best of their abilities and be efficient. So, when employees are made redundant, they take the skills that they have acquired at the firm's expense with them and this is another indirect cost to the business.

When the economy is booming, there is demand for staff from businesses who want to grow. For those businesses that require staff with special skills, this could prove to be a costly affair because people with those specific skills might be hard to find. Also, if people with a particular skill are in high demand, the business would have to be prepared to pay a higher salary or offer lucrative perks or else the prospective employee might end up working for the competitor.

Most businesses have a Human Resources Department which looks at the company's long term objectives and then works out the staffing needs like the kind of staff required, the kind of skills required, etc., to achieve these objectives. Rather than just making staff redundant, businesses looking to grow in the near future should perhaps evaluate their long term goals and view the currently unemployed people as a pool of highly skilled employees and recruit them cheaply to make the best of the up turn. To help realise the true cost of redundancy, the CIPD has created a formula for employers.

Real cost of redundancy = (n ×R) + (x ×H) + (x ×T) + ny(H + T) + Wz(P - n)

Where:
• n = number of people made redundant
• R = redundancy payments
• x = number of people subsequently hired
• H = hiring costs
• T = induction/training cost
• y = percentage quitting post redundancy
• W= average monthly staff salary
• z = percentage reduction in output per worker caused by lower morale
• P = number of people employed prior to redundancies

BizEasy


Get 30 free prints of your digital photos