WiFi locations

[Basil]

I'm glad you said that Brian, I thought the same but did not want to get embroiled on this thread. I find it amazing the lengths some people will go to justify greed and envy!! Bas

[Brian Kirby]

Frank

Too much to answer at length, so as briefly as possible, and at risk of boring others:

"Currently 5 million people of working age rely on some kind of state benefit - that must be about 20-25% of the working population!" And yet, we have the lowest rate of unemployment in Europe, so sommat doesn't add up here!  One would need to know a bit more about the source of the figures, the definition of a benefit, and/or the numeracy of the journalist.  Bet it wasn't the FT, though.

"As for your ludicrous Wal-Mart statement, you suggest that they could, if they wished, undercut Tesco et al but that they are happy with their minority market share! You obviously know nothing of the ethos of this company!  Now you're just being rude again!  However, Wal-Mart lives for profit, that is the essence of their ethos.  If it can turn a buck in UK, at a greater profit than in the US, it will do so.  Otherwise, why come?

In this country it has found that it is in the same high-tax, high rent situation of all of its rivals and look at the result!"  But, what is that result?  They make a profit by charging UK prices to UK consumers.  That is profitable for them.  If it weren't, they wouldn't have come.  They did their homework, they aren't daft!

"Yes, there will always be the exception but ask yourself this. If a certain brands of motorhome for example is much cheaper in Germany, why isn't that manufacturer cleaning up by selling his product in this country at prices far below his rivals? He would soon have a massive market share. Why content himself with selling a thousand when he could sell ten thousand when the increased volume would again, reduce all of his costs even more. Could it be that when he sets up such an operation in this country he knows full well that our taxes and other costs will level the playing field significantly."  Well (deep breath!) I think the true answer to this is mainly historic.  As a result of our inefficient and poorly managed industry, our prices, for vehicles especially, were higher than elsewhere in europe.  Post war, our car prices were set by the likes of Nuffield and Rootes etc.  They notoriously hired and fired labour, so lost their skills and loyalty base; they churned out poor quality, so ruined our reputation overseas as a manufacturer; they failed to innovate, so persisted with out of date products; and (with some indications of price collusion) they charged what "the market would stand", so generated high price expectations.  As gradually they became subjected to competition from better, cheaper, products from abroad, they began losing market share.  They then tried to play the "Buy British" game, and when that didn't work, were one by one taken over by the foreign competition.  Most are now closed, but their legacy of high price expectations lingered until it became noticed just how much less Fritz or Gaston sold his car for elsewhere, compared to UK.  Fritz and Gaston prevaricated madly about how much better the specification was in UK (well, they would, wouldn't they, look at the extra profit the higher prices were generating - milch cow UK, if not rip off Britain!) but, eventually, after a bit of tough talking by the EC they have been coerced into bringing the prices of cars in UK down to much the same levels as elsewhere Europe.  Oh, and even the poor old Japanese (who drive on the left anyhow, so didn't even have to set up those expensive right hand drive production lines) have found they can now sell cars in UK much cheaper that before.  How they must have laughed at our gullibility!

In the case of motorhomes, the same seems true now, as was previously true for cars.  We have been educated to expect high prices, and the foreign producers are happy to oblige.  Why don't they slash their prices to gain market share?  Why don't turkeys vote for Christmas?  Because, on the whole, it is more profitable to charge a higher price (no investment required, so far less risk), just as Fritz and Gaston did with the cars, than to increase production (which requires expansion, capital, and risk).  I have no idea what the UK dealer's mark up is, but I'm reasonably sure it is the manufacturers who start the price hikes with the "export" price they charge the UK dealers.  They all try to claim the UK spec is enhanced.  Well, it may be in terms of non flammable fabrics, but from my observations that is about all that is actually different.  So, how can German made motorhomes be sold in UK for £35,000 that can be bought in France for £30,000 and in Germany for even less.  Remember, this is 24/7 (no lunch break) UK competing with 8/5.5 (with one hour for lunch) Germany.  Answer, at least partial, because we've been educated to expect to pay the extra, and the Germans know that if we hadn't, they'd just have to work that bit longer.  So, they'll just continue charging us more than they'd pay themselves, for so long as they can get away with it, and continue with their comfrotable lifestyle.  And who can blame them?  It's our fault!

"What we do have is a rip off government, groaning under the weight of millions of surplus and unnecessary public-sector jobs which will one day sink this country's economy completely." Too party political for me!

Take care.

[mom]

Hi guys!  If I could butt in just a moment ;-) about the WiFi at Caravan Club sites, I also gave them a call and found out the following (some of which was already known)...

1. It isn't strictly BT Openzone, but it sort of is!

2. The pricing will be the same... £6 for an hour, £10 for a day, £40 for 30 days.  If you already have a £40 login/password from a previous session, say at McDonalds, then it will work online at the site.

3. Very few people in the Club know what is going on, my first call was answered by a sites assistant who spent 10 minutes proving to me that their were no sites doing this!

The sites currently on trial are...
Abbey Wood
Clumber Park (not quite yet)
Edinburgh
Moreton in Marsh
FerryMeadows
Hillhead

I think £40 for a month is steep, but it's better than 30 x £6!

Regards, mom

[Pat P]

Just before I left work we had a flyer from a wi-fi provider. It offered our business a wi-fi set up absolutely free! The only thing we could see that they got out of the deal was advertising. As we sit in Starbucks here using their free wi-fi we have to look at their advertising before we get stuck in. Is that too simple?? Almost every business over here offers free wi-fi to get you in the door. That is what all good business is about - getting people to think well of you and return again and again. I don't even like coffee but I go to Starbucks or Carribou coffee and buy some because they are offering me exactly what I want. Little Chef and Macdonalds have already seen the huge potential of offering free wi-fi. Perhaps the Camping and Caravanning Club should think about offering free wi-fi? As for Walmart - I think they may be after the 12% profit margin that our supermarkets work on as opposed to the 1-2% that Lidl and Aldi work on. Pat

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

[QUOTE]Basil - 2006-11-29 5:32 PM I'm glad you said that Brian, I thought the same but did not want to get embroiled on this thread. I find it amazing the lengths some people will go to justify greed and envy!! Bas[/QUOTE]

Some mistake here sir, it's socialists who are the masters of envy, not those of us who believe in a free-market economy!

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Brian Kirby wrote:

"Currently 5 million people of working age rely on some kind of state benefit - that must be about 20-25% of the working population!" And yet, we have the lowest rate of unemployment in Europe, so sommat doesn't add up here!  One would need to know a bit more about the source of the figures, the definition of a benefit, and/or the numeracy of the journalist.  Bet it wasn't the FT, though.

I rest my case.

http://tinyurl.com/y6mrvh

Of course though, as it isn't in the Guardian it will all be lies!

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

[QUOTE]Pat P - 2006-11-29 9:11 PM Just before I left work we had a flyer from a wi-fi provider. It offered our business a wi-fi set up absolutely free! The only thing we could see that they got out of the deal was advertising. As we sit in Starbucks here using their free wi-fi we have to look at their advertising before we get stuck in. Is that too simple?? Almost every business over here offers free wi-fi to get you in the door. That is what all good business is about - getting people to think well of you and return again and again. I don't even like coffee but I go to Starbucks or Carribou coffee and buy some because they are offering me exactly what I want. Little Chef and Macdonalds have already seen the huge potential of offering free wi-fi. Perhaps the Camping and Caravanning Club should think about offering free wi-fi? As for Walmart - I think they may be after the 12% profit margin that our supermarkets work on as opposed to the 1-2% that Lidl and Aldi work on. Pat[/QUOTE]

In its last financial year, Asda made a pre-tax profit of 3.81%. I'm not sure where you get 12% from. A two minute search on the web will get you accurate figures rather than speculation and rumour.

Tesco, which is a much more successful company, achieves pre-tax profits of just over 5%

Perhaps you are thinking of return on capital investment, which may well be up to 12% but that's not objectionable. I can get 5% by simply letting my capital languish in a building society. Risking it in a business should return a higher margin and will also create jobs and boost the economy.

http://business.scotsman.com/retail.cfm?id=1684942006

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Finally, my last word on this subject as I'm genuinely feeling guilty about taking this thread so off topic but I feel passionately about this constant and irritating habit that some people have of always blaming British business for what they insultingly call 'Rip off Britain'. What is even more annoying is that this remark came after a comment about the Caravan Club, which is a non-profit organisation dedicated to providing the best service for its members!

If anyone wishes to continue this debate with me they are welcome to do so (I love a good argument) but I'd be obliged if they'd post in 'Chatterbox' which I think is this forum's version of 'Off Topic'.

Thank you.

[Brian Kirby]

[QUOTE]Frank Wilkinson - 2006-11-29 10:20 PM

Brian Kirby wrote:

"Currently 5 million people of working age rely on some kind of state benefit - that must be about 20-25% of the working population!" And yet, we have the lowest rate of unemployment in Europe, so sommat doesn't add up here!  One would need to know a bit more about the source of the figures, the definition of a benefit, and/or the numeracy of the journalist.  Bet it wasn't the FT, though.

I rest my case.

http://tinyurl.com/y6mrvh

Of course though, as it isn't in the Guardian it will all be lies!

[/QUOTE]

Well, it is interesting.  Did you read at the Reform report itself, or just the newspaper item?  It is, as I suspected, the total numbers on one or other kind of state benefit, who should not be considered equivalent to the employable unemployed.  I assume the contrast is made for headline effect.  Even Frank Field was among those impressed, so I'm not quite sure where your Grauniad quip came in.  The report doesn't seem particularly biased one way or the other.  What the Telegraph latched onto was the total of all people of "working age" i.e. under 60 and over 18 (unless if full time education), who recieve some kind of state benefit.  This includes, for exemple disability benefit and maternity benefit, as well as housing and unemployment benefit.  I couldn't understand how the number could be so large relative to employment.  The answer, of course, is that although the employed foot the bill, it could never be the case that everyone in that group could be employed, or indeed, are employable.  The real question - but not I think for here - is how to reduce the number without creating unnecessary hardship or suffering.  Somewhere among that group will be dependent children, for example.  They shouldn't let journos loose on serious research work, they always degrade it for political effect!

Off topic, maybe, but very interesting.

Thanks