Companies That You Expect to Disappear Soon

[35B]

My 88 year old father has never used a computer or smartphone, neither does he have email. He also refuses to use self service check outs.

With respect, that is his choice. More to the point for whether a service is critical, there are certain things that can't be done online and require sending of letters, irrespective of personal preference.

 

[styles]

There is an option "3", possibly in combination with 1 and/or 2 which involves a very different approach to pay, contracts, working patters and benefits in order to reduce employment costs. (I deliberately offer no opinion on whether this is "fair" to Royal Mail staff.)

Yes, I intentionally left this one out! With such a strong unionised workforce, the result would effectively be reducing the service down to a barebones anyway because most of the week would be written off through strike action. Well, unless the government pushes even further anti-union measures through but I can't see that happening any time soon either.

However there is legislation which enshrines a presumption of delivery of First Class letters within two business days, which would presumably have to be amended if something like a delivery service only a couple of times a week were to be allowed - for First Class anyway, Second Class letters would not affect this. I think the legislation is pretty widespread, that’s to say it’s not just in a single Act, but dotted around the place.

Indeed - the USO and the scatterings of legislation would need to be changed. I'm not sure really how the public would feel about it and how contentious it would end up in the media. I expect support for it would be very poor amongst older voters at least, but maybe younger voters wouldn't really care because they think they don't need it to be a 6 days a week service with a 2-day 1st class delivery target? I mainly receive letters from HMRC, Companies House, and an annual statement from one credit card provider who is adament that the legislation says it must be posted, despite everybody else doing it be email. I wish these organisations would at least allow me to opt-in to email rather than post. Providing the likes of HMRC allow more time for people to respond to payment reminders etc before dishing out penalties, I wouldn't object to a once a week letter service.

My 88 year old father has never used a computer or smartphone, neither does he have email. He also refuses to use self service check outs.

Indeed, and this is why I think it's fair to continue to consider it critical national infrastructure. I just think the government either needs to nationalise it, heavily subsidise it (but then why even have it privatised as a natural monopoly?), or reduce the service so that it remains functional for those who need it such as your father, but significantly cheaper to operate.

I realise though this may be straying away from companies we expect to disappear soon though. Royal Mail likely isn't going anywhere because the government wouldn't let it surely.

 

[52290]

My 88 year old father has never used a computer or smartphone, neither does he have email. He also refuses to use self service check outs.

I'm 82 years old and have a smart phone and always use the self service check out where available. I would like a robot like Linda to look for my marbles.

 

[Broucek]

My 80-something MIL is great with tech and my 80-something own mother isn't

The point is that society is pretty harsh on people who are not comfortable using smartphones. And yet this is a time when a lot of policy is focused on inclusion (neuro-diversity, different racial and sexual group etc.). That feels inconsistent to me

 

[The exile]

Would anyone actually want to join this game though? If I were to try and start a letter processing service in the UK today, it would cost a fortune and to make my money back I'd have to charge many times higher than what Royal Mail do with their existing infrastructure,

Precisely. Get rid of cherry-pickers.

 

[WesternLancer]

My 80-something MIL is great with tech and my 80-something own mother isn't

The point is that society is pretty harsh on people who are not comfortable using smartphones. And yet this is a time when a lot of policy is focused on inclusion (neuro-diversity, different racial and sexual group etc.). That feels inconsistent to me

Point very well made - too much of the inclusion stuff is just words - when it costs to provide services to people who are excluded for various reasons organisations who are happy to take money off people (inc and esp tax money) - start making all sorts of excuses not to do so and trotting out figs from the Department of Imaginary Statistics that say 99.9% of people have 'access to the internet' etc etc

 

[The exile]

Point very well made - too much of the inclusion stuff is just words - when it costs to provide services to people who are excluded for various reasons organisations who are happy to take money off people (inc and esp tax money) - start making all sorts of excuses not to do so and trotting out figs from the Department of Imaginary Statistics that say 99.9% of people have 'access to the internet' etc etc

“Inclusion” tends actually to mean “inclusion of people I think ought to be included”. In itself it is very laudable, as are the people who work for it - at least they would be if they would accept that they have their own “blind spots” and might just occasionally be wrong, particularly in the matter of “technology is the solution to everything”.

 

[WesternLancer]

“Inclusion” tends actually to mean “inclusion of people I think ought to be included”. In itself it is very laudable, as are the people who work for it - at least they would be if they would accept that they have their own “blind spots” and might just occasionally be wrong, particularly in the matter of “technology is the solution to everything”.

further good observations.

 

[Dai Corner]

“Inclusion” tends actually to mean “inclusion of people I think ought to be included”. In itself it is very laudable, as are the people who work for it - at least they would be if they would accept that they have their own “blind spots” and might just occasionally be wrong, particularly in the matter of “technology is the solution to everything”.

I've found that if the motivation is there people will learn how to use the technology.

I gave my 88 year old mother and 91 year old stepfather a tablet computer recently. They already had internet for the sole purpose of her sending and receiving emails on an ancient laptop she refused to change as it 'would be too difficult to learn how to use a different one'. He's found he can sit in the coolest room in the house and watch cricket on YouTube and she's enjoying ordering her heavy groceries online instead of carrying them home.

 

[35B]

I've found that if the motivation is there people will learn how to use the technology.

I gave my 88 year old mother and 91 year old stepfather a tablet computer recently. They already had internet for the sole purpose of her sending and receiving emails on an ancient laptop she refused to change as it 'would be too difficult to learn how to use a different one'. He's found he can sit in the coolest room in the house and watch cricket on YouTube and she's enjoying ordering her heavy groceries online instead of carrying them home.

Some will, some won't - my late father (even as young as his 70s, and despite having used computers at work) simply could not wrap his head around tablets or mobiles. But I remain convinced that it was choice rather than capacity - he simply never saw it as important enough to justify the mental effort.

 

[Broucek]

“Inclusion” tends actually to mean “inclusion of people I think ought to be included”. In itself it is very laudable, as are the people who work for it - at least they would be if they would accept that they have their own “blind spots” and might just occasionally be wrong, particularly in the matter of “technology is the solution to everything”.

Yeah, the person of my age who is BAME/Gay/Neurdiverse/Sikh is more relatable than the old person who has made it impossible for me to afford to buy a home

 

[WesternLancer]

Yeah, the person of my age who is BAME/Gay/Neurdiverse/Sikh is more relatable than the old person who has made it impossible for me to afford to buy a home

If only it were that simple, you could buy a home.

 

[styles]

Slight update to my DIY shop example.

I needed some side cutters to get some door hinge pins out today. £3.99 in the local DIY shop. On Amazon the same style pair of cutters are over double the price, and I'd have had to have waited until tomorrow to get them. Plus I've supported a local businessman. I'm needing a hoe (a garden hoe...) and it looks like he'll be cheaper than anywhere else around as well. I can see how he stays in business - cheaper, local, knowledgeable, first-name terms, instant.

 

[Ken X]

Slight update to my DIY shop example.

I needed some side cutters to get some door hinge pins out today. £3.99 in the local DIY shop. On Amazon the same style pair of cutters are over double the price, and I'd have had to have waited until tomorrow to get them. Plus I've supported a local businessman. I'm needing a hoe (a garden hoe...) and it looks like he'll be cheaper than anywhere else around as well. I can see how he stays in business - cheaper, local, knowledgeable, first-name terms, instant.

Have you asked him for fork 'andles yet?

 

[styles]

Have you asked him for fork 'andles yet?

I have not

He was a little confused when I asked about the BS compliance of the locks I was buying (after which I went to buy from B&Q because that affects our insurance).

But other than that he's very knowledgeable. And I went in for a garden fork a few months ago, he didn't have any, but he said come back at 2pm and sure enough he'd got one from the wholesalers, and it's been decent ever since.

 

[duffield]

I got the train from Nottingham to Lincoln just to visit a hardware shop and buy some fine needle-nose pliers!

 

[dgl]

We're lucky in that we've got two Toolstation's, two Screwfix's, two The Range's, a B and M, Home Bargains, B&Q, three independent hardware shops, and various builders merchants within 15 miles if we want DIY stuff, plus a few garden centres if we want garden tools. It's rare, especially combined with Lidl and Aldi, that I ever need to go online to buy normal tools.

 

[styles]

We're lucky in that we've got two Toolstation's, two Screwfix's, two The Range's, a B and M, Home Bargains, B&Q, three independent hardware shops, and various builders merchants within 15 miles if we want DIY stuff, plus a few garden centres if we want garden tools. It's rare, especially combined with Lidl and Aldi, that I ever need to go online to buy normal tools.

I sometimes go to our local garden centre on a lunch break. No intention of buying anything, I just enjoy admiring the plants!

(I do hand over some money every now and then...)

 

[johntea]

Harvey Nichols is saved!

...The only problem being the saviour is Frasers Group

Harvey Nichols bought by owner of Sports Direct

The department store made famous by sitcom Absolutely Fabulous had warned it would cease trading.

www.bbc.co.uk

Luxury department store Harvey Nichols has been bought by the owner of Sports Direct, which warned a "significant restructuring" was needed to ensure the 200-year-old business remains sustainable.

Mike Ashley's Frasers Group will take control of the Harvey Nichols stores, including its flagship in Knightsbridge, as well as the international franchise.

 

[Ashley Hill]

If it’s anything like Sports Direct there’s no point asking for a refund in Harvey Nichols any more.

 

[jon81uk]

Although I can't find the reference now, one outlet did report that only London and Edinburgh stores will retain the Harvey Nichols brand with the others changing to Frasers. Which makes me wonder why bother, for example in Birmingham Frasers shut down the old House of Fraser store (previously Rackhams), why do they think rebranding the Harvey Nichols to Frasers will make it more desirable than the older store? Surely the Harvey Nics brand is better!

 

[Peter Sarf]

Exactly, I think it would be hard to find someone who has never used some form of computer now and almost everyone will have used the internet.
The days of posting letters are largely over.

I come across a few that I help.

My 88 year old father has never used a computer or smartphone, neither does he have email. He also refuses to use self service check outs.

My mother did use a computer and the messes I had to sort out......

With respect, that is his choice. More to the point for whether a service is critical, there are certain things that can't be done online and require sending of letters, irrespective of personal preference.

No. The choice may be there for many but as people get older it is harder to learn and adapt. Furthermore a growing proportion (as they get older) lose dexterity and eyesight. I help a few people with things that need doing online and I see different abilities as well as different attitudes.

BUT the most important concern I have is not whether they have the basic ability to do things on line if I help/teach them. What concerns me are the number that have a little knowledge and are wide open to abuse by fraudsters. You need to be more than just able to do things on line you do have to be savvy enough and quick witted enough to avoid being manipulated.

Old people are more likely to cope with iffy situations on the phone than online.

I was a programmer BUT I can see that if it is easy for me to do things online for myself it is also easy for someone else to do it for me (frauduently).

I have come across a few younger generation people who think online is easy and yet have come unstuck !.

My 80-something MIL is great with tech and my 80-something own mother isn't

The point is that society is pretty harsh on people who are not comfortable using smartphones. And yet this is a time when a lot of policy is focused on inclusion (neuro-diversity, different racial and sexual group etc.). That feels inconsistent to me

This is something a feel sad about.

 

[WesternLancer]

I come across a few that I help.

My mother did use a computer and the messes I had to sort out......

No. The choice may be there for many but as people get older it is harder to learn and adapt. Furthermore a growing proportion (as they get older) lose dexterity and eyesight. I help a few people with things that need doing online and I see different abilities as well as different attitudes.

BUT the most important concern I have is not whether they have the basic ability to do things on line if I help/teach them. What concerns me are the number that have a little knowledge and are wide open to abuse by fraudsters. You need to be more than just able to do things on line you do have to be savvy enough and quick witted enough to avoid being manipulated.

Old people are more likely to cope with iffy situations on the phone than online.

I was a programmer BUT I can see that if it is easy for me to do things online for myself it is also easy for someone else to do it for me (frauduently).

I have come across a few younger generation people who think online is easy and yet have come unstuck !.

This is something a feel sad about.

Very good post imho. Sums up key issues very well.

 

[35B]

No. The choice may be there for many but as people get older it is harder to learn and adapt. Furthermore a growing proportion (as they get older) lose dexterity and eyesight. I help a few people with things that need doing online and I see different abilities as well as different attitudes.

In the specific instance that I replied to, I remain convinced that it was a question of choice, not fundamental capability. My experience, not just of the elderly, is that “I can’t” is almost always a deflection from “I don’t want to do x”.

 

[The exile]

In the specific instance that I replied to, I remain convinced that it was a question of choice, not fundamental capability. My experience, not just of the elderly, is that “I can’t” is almost always a deflection from “I don’t want to do x”.

I don’t know how old you are - but suggest you review your answer when you’ve doubled the answer.

 

[35B]

I don’t know how old you are - but suggest you review your answer when you’ve doubled the answer.

In my 6th decade, and with enough experience of people defecting to “I can’t” when actually unfamiliar to stand by my view. That includes my late father, who had a blind spot for mobile devices that made him take the “can’t” position when he was perfectly intellectually and physically capable.

Acknowledging the role of choice here is important. Partly for helping people get past their own mental blocks, but also for businesses in understanding the behavioural choices of their customers - and designing to support them

 

[duffield]

The problem here is that concentrating on the fact that some people use "can't" as an excuse for "don't want to" deflects from the needs of those who genuinely "can't" and is used to steamroller over their objections and exclude them.

Let's suppose, just as an example, that everyone could afford or be given a smartphone in order to access government services. Let's say there's a 95% take up, but 5% say they "can't" use a smartphone. But it turns out, that if you twist their arms and make it essential, 3% of them actually, reluctantly, can. But 2% really, genuinely cannot. I get the feeling that some of the posters on here are quite happy to throw that 2% under the bus by relentlessly pointing to the 3% and saying "You see! They can do it! There's absolutely no need for any alternatives!"

 

[35B]

The problem here is that concentrating on the fact that some people use "can't" as an excuse for "don't want to" deflects from the needs of those who genuinely "can't" and is used to steamroller over their objections and exclude them.

Let's suppose, just as an example, that everyone could afford or be given a smartphone in order to access government services. Let's say there's a 95% take up, but 5% say they "can't" use a smartphone. But it turns out, that if you twist their arms and make it essential, 3% of them actually, reluctantly, can. But 2% really, genuinely cannot. I get the feeling that some of the posters on here are quite happy to throw that 2% under the bus by relentlessly pointing to the 3% and saying "You see! They can do it! There's absolutely no need for any alternatives!"

Turn that question around. Should services be provided on the basis of that 2%, and the other 98% be unable to benefit from the advantages because of that 2%. That's equally unreasonable.

Of course those who can't use a service in a particular way should be accommodated, and in a way that doesn't discriminate against them. Dealing with their needs requires some degree of proportionality, as well as thinking what their needs really are (how does a train operator address the needs of an elderly person with untreated deafness and AMD when he wants to book travel, for example?).

 

[WesternLancer]

Turn that question around. Should services be provided on the basis of that 2%, and the other 98% be unable to benefit from the advantages because of that 2%. That's equally unreasonable.

If you take tax money off them for services provided in some way directly or indirectly then I believe the answer to that is yes. Also yes for services that society deems you can not live without - eg water / energy, basic financial services

It's different if it is discretionary consumer products that you can live without.

 

[35B]

If you take tax money off them for services provided in some way directly or indirectly then I believe the answer to that is yes. Also yes for services that society deems you can not live without - eg water / energy, basic financial services

It's different if it is discretionary consumer products that you can live without.

Which then kicks in the second part of my question - what are the proportionate ways of achieving that outcome for that individual? I gave an example of someone I know, who has the same issues whether it's online shopping, ticket buying, or whatever else.

I suggest the real issue is not digital first, but the conspicuous disinvestment in alternative means of dealing with people that mean that those backups (in person, call centre, etc.) just don't work for people