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

High Street Blues

The trading that occurs in the run up to Christmas is very crucial to retailers even in the "normal" years. It allows them to make up for the losses they might have incurred over the year and helps them prepare financially for the coming year. 2008 has been, by any standards, anything but a normal year. Huge banks have become small banks, some have been swallowed up by bigger banks, some have merged with other banks while some have disappeared altogether.

Little surprise then that the past few weeks have been really tense for the retailers. The number of shoppers visiting the shops have decreased. As a result, retailers have been forced to cut their prices to attract shoppers. According to Experian, the number of shoppers during the weekend, the last weekend before Christmas, was down by 8.7% as compared to last year. However, the number of shoppers yesterday were up 13.6% as compared to the same Monday last year.

It's a bit unfair to compare the two corresponding Mondays because last year the Monday was Christmas Eve. The kind of shoppers who go shopping on Christmas Eve are generally those looking for food items or ingredients for their Christmas dinner, last minute shoppers or those looking for last minute bargains.

Even though the number of shoppers increased, it still remains to be seen how much revenue that translates into. The main reason why more consumers went out to shop perhaps has a lot to do with a last minute heavy discounts by retailers in desperate attempt to attract shoppers. According to the accountants Ernst & Young, the average discounts were 40%, up from 38% last year. It means that even though people had more shopping bags in their hands, the retailers wouldn't have made a lot of money from that.

Although the high street is seeing a decline in the number of shoppers, according to Hitwise, the number of people visiting the websites of high street retailers has increased. Between Dec 18 and Dec 21, traffic to online retailers(including internet-only and high street) increased by 2.2% on average as compared to last year. Websites of high street retailers saw their traffic increase by 2.7% on Saturday and 5.9% on Sunday as compared to last year.

When it comes to prices, mostly the online retailers clearly have an advantage over their high street rivals. But their biggest drawback is that the items have to ordered before a certain date to ensure that they are delivered in time for Christmas. On the other hand, the websites of high retailers allow the shoppers to book their products online and pick them up instore. It may not be cheaper than the internet-only retailers, but it certainly is more convenient. One of the put-offs of shopping on the high street before Christmas is clearly having to navigate through crowded streets and aisles holding your shopping bags. It is also very hard to compare prices across different retailers and browse the items leisurely.

The rise in the number of shoppers will definately be of some relief to retailers. But it will by no means make up for the dismal sales and revenues they have generated over the past few weeks. Woolworths and MFI have gone bankrupt and Whittard of Chelsea is said to be on the brink of administration. And it is clear that more will have the same fate in the new year, what remains to be seen is who they will be.

BizEasy

Sales rise amidst the credit crunch

According to figures released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the volume of sales between September and November rose by 0.5% as compared to the three months before it. This may not sound good, but compared to all the doom and gloom and the difficulty of obtaining credit, it does sound good. Also, the value of weekly sales in November were 2.9% higher than in November last year.

However, the high street retailers beg to differ with the figures. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) said that the figures released by the ONS were optimistic and painted a "rosy picture" of the current difficulties. According to BRC's own findings, the sales value actually fell by 0.4%. Experian reported that the footfall (the amount of traffic generated by shoppers visiting the stores) in stores for the first three days of the week had decreased by 11.5% compared to last year.

It seems hard to believe that the increase in the volume in sales could have lead to a increase in the value of sales. After all, the increase in the volume of sales is largely due to a wave of heavy discounting by the high street retailers, especially after Woolworths slashed its prices to get rid of its stock. It is likely that the spectacular and well-publicised offers by retailers would have made some reluctant consumers go out and spend. It is also equally likely that many who generally would have waited for Boxing Day sales have instead done their shopping before Christmas since they feel that the discounts offer good value for money. After all, there is a limit to the amount of discounts that the retailers can offer before it starts eroding their profits. So many consumers may feel that the discounts are as good as they are going to get. If this is true, what would happen is that the average amount of sales during the Christmas period hasn't really increased, but the shopping has been concentrated to a few weeks before Christmas.

The reason for this difference in figures, according to Reuters, is that the figures of "the ONS figures capture internet shopping more fully". According to the ONS, the value of online sales was £220 million in November and it accounted for 3.8% of the total retail revenues. According to Experian, its company Hitwise which is an online competitive intelligence service, found that the websites of high street retailers had 22% more visits than its internet-only rivals. This could explain why the sales have increased even though the number of shoppers visiting the stores seem to have decreased.

Many shoppers percieve the prices of online retailers to be cheaper than their high street counterparts. And this has been shown to be true in most cases. After all, they do not have to worry about expensive overhead costs like rent and sales staff. However, many shops on the high street nowadays allow their customers to haggle and bag bargains, and this is not available to online shoppers.

It would be interesting to see the figures of the overall retail sales before and after Christmas since that would allow us to see the whole picture.
1&1 Webhosting

BizEasy

Inflation? Worry about Deflation instead.

It was announced today that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) fell by 0.4% from 4.5% in October to 4.1% in November. The CPI is the official measure of inflation used by the Government. The biggest factor for this fall is being attributed to the fall in crude oil prices. The average price of petrol was 95.2p. On the other hand, prices of fresh fruit and vegetables and non-alcoholic beverages is said to have risen compared to last year.

Although the drop is good news, the rate of inflation is still twice the official target of 2%. So, Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England put pen to paper and wrote a letter to the Government explaining why the rate of inflation had not hit the target. The governor of the Bank of England is required to write a letter to the Government whenever the rate of inflation is either 1% above or below the target and explain the possible action the BoE might take to solve it. However, Mervyn King feels that the next time he has to write a letter to the Government, it may not be about the reasons for inflation, but deflation instead.

Save Money on your Electricity Bill with uSwitch.com

What are Inflation and Deflation?

Inflation is regarded to be a bad thing since it means a rise in prices, which is a bad thing for shoppers. Then, deflation must be a good thing, right? In the short term, yes it is. In the long term though, its a dreadful thing. To understand why a drop in prices is such a bad thing, one has to understand the meaning of the terms "inflation" and "deflation" and its causes. Inflation is the general increase in prices or, it is the decrease in the purchasing power of money. There are two possible causes; either the cost of production has increased, like the cost of raw materials or labour, or demand is out stripping supply. Take for example a rise in price of a NintendoWii games console. This may be due to a rise in the cost of materials and parts and workers who produce it. Or it could be that the number of units available is less than the number of people wanting to buy it, so the price goes up. Around Christmas, it is likely for the latter to be true. It wouldn't be unusual around this time to find a NintendoWii on eBay at twice its retail price.

Deflation is the persistent decrease in prices. This happens when supply outstrips demand which could happen due to a surge in productivity. Or, like in the current climate, consumers rein in their spending which means that shops have to cut prices to entice customers to spend. If this happens a couple of times, it creates an anticipation of further cuts in the future. So, although consumers may have the purchasing power, they postpone certain purchases since they would be cheaper in the future. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy where consumers postpone their spending thinking that there would be price cuts, and sure enough, shops cut the prices to persuade shoppers to loosen their purse strings. Good news for shoppers, bad news for businesses. Businesses experience cash flow problems and their staff would have to accept a pay cut or even lose their jobs. So, debt becomes expensive because one owes the same amount of money, but has less income to meet it. Signs of deflation can already be seen on the high-street. Retailers are offering massive discounts, the likes of which are usually seen after Christmas, because they are desperate to clear their stock. And the consumers know this and know that further discounts will follow eventually.

It will be interesting to see how Mervyn King and the Government will go about coaxing the shoppers to spend their money.

All the latest phones FREE on T-Mobile exclusively online
BizEasy

Cool to be Frugal

According to Andy Bond, the Chief Executive of ASDA, its now becoming cool to be frugal and not so cool to be frivolous and wasteful. He feels that consumer's shopping habits are changing and a new generation of shoppers who are thrifty are emerging as the credit crunch begins to bite even further.

So what does this really mean? It means that consumers will now focus more on products that offer them value for money and will aim to eliminate waste. Value for money doesn't really mean something that is priced less or discounted. It is actually something that offers satisfaction and quality for its price. Consumers will increasingly try to differentiate their "needs" from their "wants" and think carefully if they really need something or do they just want it. For example, ASDA noted that consumers are beginning to shift from buying ready meals to buying ingredients and cooking at home. People are also beginning to mend or fix items rather than getting rid of them and buying new ones. Cobblers, for example, have seen their business increase since consumers are coming in to get their shoes mended rather than splashing out on a new pair. A quick search on Google Trends showed that visits to the comparison site moneysupermarket.com and myvouchercodes.co.uk which lists voucher codes across a variety of stores had more than doubled.

What's really interesting is the 40% increase in the number of people who are ignoring best-before dates and consuming the product rather than throwing it in the bin once it is past its sell by date. Perhaps the increase has also something to do with the numerous reports on saving money on television featuring people who regularly consume food, as long as it looks fit, well past the best before date. Consumers are also freezing leftover food rather than wasting it and sales of bottled water and smoothies has also been said to have decreased since many are opting to fill tap water and eat fresh fruit instead.

It is important then that retailers spot this trend and adjust their business models accordingly in order to survive the downturn. Thrifty consumers would focus on long term value and would be willing to spend a little bit extra on an item that is likely to last longer than buy something cheaper in price which would also be cheaper in quality and hence not last as long. Rather than reducing prices on cheap Christmas stocking fillers that perhaps wont even last till next Christmas, retailers should instead focus on reducing prices on items that actually are of some use to the consumers. Also, thrifty consumers are less likely to buy items on impulse which retailers greatly depend on. So, businesses should make sure that they are really operating on a low cost model which aims to eliminate waste as that would be the only way that they would be able to offer low prices and good service at the same time.

AVG Internet Security offers Anti-Virus, Anti-Spam, Web Protection & Firewall - comprehensive protection for your PC. Get protected

BizEasy

HSBC to increase its lending

The World’s Local Bank HSBC announced on Monday that it aimed to lend next year roughly two times the amount it lent to homeowners in 2007. For this purpose, it has set aside around £15 billion. In an environment where banks are becoming increasingly reluctant to lend money, HSBC hopes to increase its market share by lending, thereby getting a huge slice of a, albeit, small market. It is also hoping that its customers will continue to bank with it even when the climate improves, because they will remember that HSBC was there for them when all the other banks closed their doors. This will mean that when the market does get bigger, they will effectively have a huge slice of a huge pie.

So, how can HSBC afford to increase its lending when other banks have had to be injected with capital by the taxpayers. HSBC is one of the few banks thathasn't gone to the taxpayers cap-in-hand asking for a cash injection, it is in fact well capitalised, according to its CEO Michael Geoghegan . According to its spokesperson, HSBC doesn't have to depend on the two main sources of finance that the banks that were bailed out depended on- the money markets and UK depositors. It will instead fund it internally using its reserves. The reason why other banks are lending less money is because they don't have enough money to lend.

Find. Compare. Save. at Kelkoo.co.uk Click here

It is true that last Thursday the MPC (Monetary Policy Committee) cut the base rate by 1% to 2%-the lowest it has been for years. However, the primary source of finance for most banks is not by borrowing from the Bank of England, but from the money markets. The rate of interest in the money marketshasn't gone down at the same rate as the base rate. Hence, the cut in the base rate is unlikely to make the cost of borrowing money any cheaper. Another source of finance for banks is their customers' deposits. However, in recent years, the levels of savings in the UK is said to have decreased. The cut in savings rate by the banks is unlikely toentice people into put their hard earned cash into banks, except for those whom the interest paid is their income.

HSBC also announced a £1 billion fund for lending to small businesses. Small Businesses that are fundamentally sound and only experiencing cash flow problems are the kinds of businesses it is hoping to lend to. The reluctance of banks to lend to sound businesses has been it the news recently, forcing numerous businesses to cease trading just because they have a cash flow problem and not because their business model is fundamentally flawed. The increase in the number of small businesses going bankrupt no doubt puts the jobs of many people at risk and leads to fear amongst those that are in employment. Small business owners, no doubt, will welcome this announcement which will be akin to a lifeline being thrown at them when they are in dire straits.

It has stressed, however, that the lending criteria will still be strict. In other words, they are not planning to throw money at anybody who asks for it.

Even if this announcement does not completely restore confidence, any good news is welcome in these gloomy times. It is unlikely that any other major bank will come forward and increase its lending in the near future, no matter how much Brown, Darling orMandelson threaten or cajole them into doing so. In a way, one cannot blame the banks which have been bailed out for being reluctant or in their words, "careful", of lending. On one hand, they are the subject of many a joke and their "irresponsible" lending is being blamed for all this mess, and on the other hand, they are being pushed to lend at levels of last year.The money which has been lent to the banks on behalf of the taxpayers has not come cheap, the banks have had to pay a hefty price for it.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com/

Retailers embrace VAT cut

The cut in the VAT announced last week by the Chancellor initially didn’t receive the reception that he might have been perhaps hoping for. News reports, newspapers and websites were filled with comments against the idea of the VAT cut, some being funny, and some downright ironic. Most were along the lines of “10p saving! Whoopee!”

However, over the weekend, it looks like many retailers are whole-heartedly embracing the VAT cut. Not because they like to go through the trouble of having to change the prices and labels and the IT systems. But because it gives them another reason to slash their prices, much more than the 2.5% VAT cut. But, why do they need a something like a VAT cut to give them a reason to slash prices? Surely, they can do it without that.

Yes they can. And many, like M&S and Debenhams, did a fortnight ago when they had a one-day only “spectacular” sale. Having yet another “spectacular” sale nearly three weeks before Christmas would give the impression that they have a lot of left over stock which they are desperate to sell. Although many shoppers would flock the stores to bag the bargains, which many have been doing due to the ongoing sales, many would stand back and wait for the prices to drop even further – a clear sign of deflation.

Hence, the cut in VAT, although not significant on its own, has provided the retailers with a timely reason to slash their prices further, using the VAT cut as a “mask” for doing so. Some companies, however, like BT and Virgin Media have decided to pass only the 2.5% cut to their customers.

But, how do single price retailers like Poundland, 99p Stores, or numerous other independent single price retailers pass on the VAT cut to their customers? After the VAT cut, an item costing £1 would then cost:
117.5% = 100p (The VAT is already added to the final selling price)
1% = 0.85p
115% = 97.87p (new price)
Poundland wouldn’t be able to rename itself as 97pLand for a period of 13 months, and the slogan “Everything’s £1” would then be deemed misleading. The only other option is for such businesses to increase their profit margins, which is not a bad thing, but they cannot take the advantage of being able to advertise the fact that they are passing on the VAT cut to their customers. Or, they could sell products that they wouldn’t have been able to in the past, as it would’ve been priced above £1, but can now since the cut in VAT allows the price to be £1.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com/

Woolworths goes into administration

The high street retailer Woolworths, fondly known as Woolies, has been forced to go into administration after it failed to find a buyer to snap it up for a nominal £1. So, why didn’t anybody buy it, surely £1 for a whole company seems like a bargain? That’s because the buyer would have not only acquired Woolworth’s assets (things it owns), but also its huge liabilities (money it owes), £385 million to be exact.

So, what is administration and when does a business go into administration? With regards to business, it is when a business doesn’t have enough funds to trade, also known a cash flow crisis. Cash flow is not the same as profitability of a business, but refers to the cash flowing into and out of the business. If cash coming in is less than the cash going out, then the cash flow is negative and it means that the business does not have enough funds to meet the current liabilities, like creditors and suppliers.

Up to 50% now on at House of Fraser – click here to shop

However, going into administration isn’t still the end of the story for Woolworths. In fact, administrators, in this case the accountancy firm Deloitte, protect the company from creditors seizing stock to pay off the money that is owed to them. The administrators are trying to find a buyer for Woolworths, failing which it will be forced to go into liquidation. This is where the administrators try to sell off the assets to recover any money they can to pay off the debts. Woolworths competitors are dreading this because although it will mean less competition in the long term, since there is one less player in the market, in the short term, it will mean a price war during Christmas as the administrators will slash prices to sell off all the stock.

So, is the reason for Woolworth’s difficulties due to the credit crunch? Well, the increase in household bills has meant that consumers are spending less. This is evident from the fact that Woolworth’s like-for-like sales have decreased whereas their costs have increased leading to increased losses. Many analysts say that Woolworth’s difficulties should come as no surprise, as Woolworths didn’t have a clear brand image, what its brand stood for, and its purpose in the market. Additionally, suppliers of Woolworths found it expensive to insure themselves against the risk that it wouldn’t be able to pay them and hence, Woolworths had to pay upfront for the supplies, unable to take advantage of buying on credit that some of its competitors enjoy.

Woolworths has around 815 stores and employs around 30,000 employees. If the business does go into liquidation, all these employees stand to lose their jobs. Also, the businesses that supply to Woolworths will also suffer losses. The question many people are asking is why isn’t the Government bailing Woolworths out, after all, it did bail out the banks. Well, the Government can’t bailout every business in difficulty; it’s a natural business process where the one with the weakest business model fails hence making the others stronger due to decreased competition.

Other than its retail business, Woolworths Plc. also owns Entertainment UK and 2Entertain. Entertainment UK specialises in the supply of CDs and DVDs to retailers such as Tesco, Zavvi, W H Smith, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and of course Woolworths itself. EUK is said to be a profitable business and the administrators are looking for a buyer for it as well. If EUK is shut down, it will no doubt affect the retailers it supplies, especially during the crucial trading period of Christmas. BBC Worldwide and Woolworths Plc., on the other hand jointly own 2Entertain, and there are talks of BBC Worldwide buying Woolworth’s share of the business.
It has also been reported that MFI is also going into administration, and it looks like a few more will follow, certainly after Christmas. If you want to see Woolworth’s Interim report for 2008, click here.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com/

First the Chancellor giveth, then the Chancellor taketh away.

Yesterday, the Chancellor Alistair Darling announced in his Pre-Budget Report the much talked about 2.5% cut in the VAT, bringing it down to 15% from 17.5%. In the same breath, he also announced an increase in income tax for those earning £140,000 and above. From April 2011, people falling into this income bracket will have to pay income tax at the rate of 45p.

The cut in VAT is to come into effect from the 1^st of December. This leaves ample time for businesses to revise their prices and change the all the labels in the stores, but at the same time, being just in time before the Christmas shopping.

So, how will the change affect the prices? Will a loaf of bread or a bunch of carrots be any cheaper? No, because food products do not attract VAT. Surely, utility bills as a result will go down. Sadly, no because the VAT on utilities such as gas and electricity already have a lower rate of VAT charged at 5%. A cut of 2.5% doesn’t look as if it will make a huge difference in prices, especially compared to the generous 20%, 35%, 40% discounts offered by the retailers already.

To find your cheapest energy provider click here.

Then, the motive behind the cut is to give confidence to the consumers to go out and spend. But, confidence cannot be used to pay for a brand new PlayStation 3, can it? You need something else, namely, money. The primary reason why people are spending less money on the high street is because they have very little surplus left over after paying the high utility and food bills. And those who have enough surplus choose to save it for a rainy day.

That’s because it’s almost impossible to see a news report nowadays without it mentioning yet another company announcing job cuts. This creates uncertainty among those who are employed about the security of their jobs. Those who have recently been made redundant have no choice but to save money. But those who have a job also save since they don’t know how they are going to put food on the table next month or meet their mortgage repayments.

Another thing that’s hard to miss in a news report is an interview with the boss of a SME (Small & Medium Enterprise) business who has been denied a loan from his bank, or has had his overdraft facility cancelled. This leads to cash flow problems which means the business cant pay its staff, pay its utility bills, or even buy raw materials to maintain production. In addition, creditors, who owe money to the business, are unable or reluctant to part with their money. As a result, staff numbers have to be cut down adding to the number of unemployed across the country.

How can such news create confidence?

Perhaps, the Chancellor should look at reducing the VAT temporarily on utilities, or even get rid of them for the time being. More importantly perhaps, he should make sure that SMEs, who are perfectly healthy, should have access to loans and overdrafts at a reasonable cost to maintain their cash flow. After all, the SMEs are not asking for charity, just for funds which they are prepared to pay back with due interest. It makes sense for the Government to ensure that businesses that are perfectly sound to not go bankrupt just because they do not have enough cash or credit to meet their current liabilities. After all, the SMEs employ a lot of people in the private sector of the economy and contribute to the Treasury in the form of National Insurance and Corporation Tax. Since people are employed, it saves the Government the trouble of have to pay job seekers allowance, hence reducing its outflow.

So, it is perhaps job security and income security that will encourage the consumers to go out and spend, as Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown along with countless retailers are eagerly hoping, fingers crossed.

But it seems highly unlikely that the cut in VAT will have the intended purpose of instilling confidence among the consumers and going on a spending spree, but for the sake of the economy and the countless people who are unemployed, lets hope its not all in vain. The high earners are certainly hoping for it, since they are going to be paying for it, come 2011.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com

http://www.moolanomy.com/998/money-hacks-carnival-39/

All the latest phones FREE on T-Mobile exclusively online