THOSE who do their shopping at Marks & Spencer will begin to notice a big change lurking among the soft drinks, confectionery, beer, laundry, personal care, and pet food. The ubiquitous M&S labelled goods will be sharing space for the first time with other well-known brands.
It marks another break of tradition at M&S, which would not accept credit cards until the late 1990s – when it also resumed advertising on television after a near-20 year break.
The arrival of Coca-Cola, Kellogg's and Kronenbourg – some of the 400
proprietary brands that will be extended beyond two trial regions – signals the end of an era. It may also be regretted by some M&S loyalists, who would have preferred it to retain a point of difference. Now it will resemble any other store, perhaps becoming a little downmarket, or what one commentator described as "Primark & Spencer".
However, M&S is not going into this without some careful price checking and quality control. It says the selected brands will "complement" the M&S range and no M&S branded product will be replaced. The brands coming in will be in those categories where M&S has a low market share or no own-label equivalent.
The company is presenting this as extending customer choice. Clearly, it does. But it also ensures M&S does not lose out in a fiercely competitive grocery sector. Latest figures from research agency TNS show M&S's share of the food sector declining from 3.7 per cent to 3.5 per cent.
No wonder Sir Stuart Rose, M&S's chief executive, wants to bring about change, despite a better-than-expected set of figures yesterday. He is worried about a possible rise in VAT over and above the restored 2.5 per cent from January, and he must fear that those at the premium end of the food chain would suffer the most.
Worthy of attentionAMID the storm of the banking crisis, the Holyrood inquiry into the way forward for the sector has got a little lost and overlooked.
The Bank of England sniffily dismissed the Holyrood committee as a body to which it was not answerable and refused to be questioned. Others have been less pompous and more willing to answer their case.
Whether the outcome will amount to much is another matter. It has to be feared that the economy committee's deliberations will be compiled into a report that will be slipped into a file in the enterprise office, where it will be forgotten.
But let's hope something good comes of it and that it can remind those in lofty positions with the power to bring about change that all parts of the UK deserve a hearing and some answers.
Yesterday's resumption of the investigation focused on the small business sector and the nagging complaint that the banks are still not giving smaller firms a proper service.
It is a long-running issue and no surprise that the Office of Fair Trading, which appeared yesterday, was asked to look into it. But it must be doubtful that anything much will come of it. The OFT's representative said the request would be considered, but it was pointed out that the Competition Commission had already done exactly that.
Its findings did nothing to back up the claims of thousands of frustrated small-business owners.
But will the competition authorities stage another investigation? Almost certainly not.
However, they will have got the message that this – and other matters – remain a problem and that it is not just an issue for the City of London and Westminster.
