Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Of course every business is interested in profit.

The more successful retailers also invest in their businesses too.

Which also means they care a little more for their customers and

the overall shopping experience.


As an analogy that appears current:

The uplands pub was a business but as it hadn't invested in it general upkeep

started to look run-down. The now famous Actress turns up and tarts the place up

you have successful business again.


For sure though, some people just want i pint and that is i guess what you're saying you were happy to have a pint in the old Upland... maybe?

Pearson Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the fact is more that they (Iceland) are

> more interested in PROFIT than customer experience

> or brand perception.

> As such they are not prepared to pay for a refurb.


Customer experience and brand perception have a direct influence on profits so I'm absolutely certain that they will have considered how the ugliness of the building is seen by their customers. I suspect, as with a number of other budget stores, their branding requires the fronts to be a little down market. An upgrade could put off some of their customer base. It looks cheap so the natural reaction is to anticipate that what it sells will be cheaper than elsewhere. I buy some things there. I wouldn't buy any more just because it looked prettier.

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The only Primark I know is the one in Peckham.


There are a few more than the one in Peckham.


Number of Stores Trading at 4th October 2010


Ireland - 38


Spain - 18


UK - 144


The Netherlands - 1


Portugal - 2


Germany - 2


Belgium - 1


Total - 206

peterstorm1985 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Customer experience and brand perception have a

> direct influence on profits


My point exactly!


so I'm absolutely

> certain that they will have considered how the

> ugliness of the building is seen by their

> customers.


I doubt it. As others have alluded to, it's a 'cash cow'

They have a large store portfolio.

I would simply assume ED is not very high on their refurb priority list.

Furthermore, they are owned by Bauger/Glitner/Landsbanki consortium who as we all know have very little cash left.


I suspect, as with a number of other

> budget stores, their branding requires the fronts

> to be a little down market.


Rubbish. That's no excuse for a high street retail to have a shoddy un-kept shopfront.

Londis doesn't even have as bad a shopfront.


An upgrade could put

> off some of their customer base.


Absolute rubbish.... Would you really not go into your favorite store if they upgraded their shopfront.

Upgrades do not have to be expensive or even look expensive for that matter. It is no more than a fresh lick of paint.


It looks cheap so

> the natural reaction is to anticipate that what it

> sells will be cheaper than elsewhere.


That's actually true.

But there is a big difference between 'looking cheap', which can also look clean and smart btw.

And just looking dirty, old and dated.... which is exactly what Iceland is.


I buy some

> things there. I wouldn't buy any more just because

> it looked prettier.


You might not, but i refer you to my earlier post/analogy to the Actress/Upland.

A refurb does generate renewed interest and results in increased business, fact.

Man I wish I could be sure the "not right for the area" type posts were windups or not - because if they genuinely believe that I would soooo go to town


pearson is correct - the building itself = fugly but apart from that who cares. - And it's no uglier than the police station or the co-op pharmacy across the road


But there is a difference between wanting to tart a place up and being and out and out snob

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Man I wish I could be sure the "not right for the

> area" type posts were windups or not - because if

> they genuinely believe that I would soooo go to

> town


^ I'm with you on that!


> pearson is correct - the building itself = fugly

> but apart from that who cares. - And it's no

> uglier than the police station or the co-op

> pharmacy across the road

>

> But there is a difference between wanting to tart

> a place up and being and out and out snob


Just for the record, i'm not being a snob :)

I think the original post may have been a wind-up, but strangely there seems to be several serious posters backing her up.


Some people seem to think that East Dulwich is something it's not. And others want to turn it into something it's not. And others cannot accept that not everyone in the area has disposable income.


Clapham and Fulham both have Iceland stores, by the way. So if those are the areas people aspire to... perhaps you're closer than you thought!

One of the things that makes East Dulwich a place that I want to live is that it's a right old mix of posh, ordinary, special and the odd bit of slightly downmarket, like Iceland. Take away any element of that, and it'll just turn into any old suburb of London that is either a bit posher or more mundane.


Anyway, I'd like to see how some of those who think the area would benefit from only having posh, more expensive food shops would cope living here if they lost their jobs and suddenly had to make their budget stretch to feed their families... it can happen to the best of us.

I think there may be two arguments running along here, getting somewhat confused:-


Argument 1 - Iceland isn't the 'right sort' of outlet for Dulwich - which I suspect is refuted by its continued, and I assume profitable, presence. If ED people are using it (which I think they are) then it's the 'right sort' of outlet for ED


Argument 2 - The Iceland building, layout, 'street face' etc. is unaesthetic and ugly, and could be improved This is clearly a matter of taste, but I must admit my heart doesn't leap with joy when I see it. Clearly Iceland has a house style, and it can hardly re-build a perfectly functional building just because it's ugly, but anyone has a right to ask for a pleasant environment in which to live, and the Iceland outlet in Lordship Lane doesn't really contribute much to the beauty of the road, indeed, in my opinion, does detract from it; not that it's the only one to do that in the road.


So, a 'class' argument, and an aesthetic one. One I suspect certainly started as a wind-up - the other may have legs. Where things have gone pear-shaped is where people suggest that the Iceland offer (because it isn't posh) is therefore intrinsically ugly. 'Posh = beautiful; demotic = ugly' is not a nice place to be, in my view.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thanks for all of the thoughts. I have a letter from searches which outlines the scope of work but doesn't mention any work guarantee as far as I can see. I agree that next step is to check directly with the major works team. Tim .
    • I thoroughly recommend Jay from JK Electrical Contractors who is an NICEIC registered. NICEIC is the UK's leading certification body for the electrical contracting industry and conducts regular audits and assessments on all its members. It is the specialist trade body which certifies professional electricians.  Jay completed the installation of a 19 way consumer unit for us and works to the highest standards and our entire electrical installation is now fully compliant with 18th Edition of the electrical wiring regulations. Before installing the new CU he traced and corrected faults that had developed over the last 25 years -some of which were my DIY bodges that were non-compliant.  We now have an installation that is 100% safe and  reliable . His contact details are :- 0208 150 6450 [email protected] Here is what he installed for us.
    • I fully support this petition, however it will need to be shared far & wide to be effective. Also there is always a huge amount of interest / objection during the festival, but not so much when they start consulting for the next one, usually around January. It's crucial that everyone that has been impacted makes their voice heard then.  A couple of points which may be good to include in the wording (if it is still possible to amend?) - The total tickets sold are way more than 3000. The licence allows a capacity of up to 9,999, but this may include staff & performers etc. The published attendance for 2024 was:  Friday – 8,999 / Saturday – 9,512 / Sunday – 9,422 So that's c.28,000 people trampling & littering our park over three days - people who have no need or desire to take any care or consideration of our park.  - Gala claim for 2024 that "62% of all ticket holders were from Southeast London and 18% of these were from hyper-local postcode areas SE15 and SE22." So a bit of maths shows that means that around 89% of attendees were not what most people would term 'local'... - Gala have ambitions / plans to extend the number of event days to 6, over two weekends. They applied for a licence for this in 2024, but then withdrew it. Instead they added a "free" event, billed as a community day, to the existing 3 day festival, thereby increasing the event days to 4.  This would appear to be an attempt to set a precedent for increasing the number of event days, and it's inevitable that they will attempt to secure the 6 days they desire for 2026, to increase their profits further. Two weekends in a row of noise, disturbance & disruption would be unacceptable, plus an extra c.18,000 trampling & littering the park... - The site size has been increased. The claim is that it is to compensate for lost storage space due to recent flood alleviation works, but the area has increased by more than the area lost, and appears to have been used for attendee activity rather than site storage. Gala have often stated that the festival can only be located in the park because the footprint has been designed specifically for that area, and yet this year the footprint had been amended & extended without any apparent issues. Surely this proves that it could be relocated?  Apologies, I just can't help going into rant mode on this issue, but hopefully some of the above may be helpful in increasing the argument presented by the petition?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...