Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A British friend who has lived in the US for 20+ years is visiting London with her children. She is a bit nostalgic and very fond of sweets and chocolate. I googled Hope & Greenwood, in the hope of sending her in the direction of their Covent Garden Shop.


The results of my Google search are a bit odd. When I click on the official H&G page, it seems that their shop in Covent Garden is no longer there, but Google hopes my friend might find what she needs in these other nearby locations (all illustrated with helpful pictures)


1. the Aldwych Theatre

2. The Real Greek

3. Toni and Guy


Well I doubt it, given that she wants to buy small bags of sweets and isn't in need of seeing a show, a mediocre Greek meal or a haircut.


So can anyone techy explain what kind of nonsense is going on here? I find it about as useful as my Samsung phone chosing to autocorrect x to xerox or X to Xmas every. single. time.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/160811-hope-greenwood/
Share on other sites

Although the page you were both looking at has the title "Hope and Greenwood | Covent Garden London" it's actually on someone else's site, www.coventgarden.london/hope-and-greenwood . The actual H&G website is http://www.hopeandgreenwood.co.uk (from which it ppears as if they're currently selling only via Sainsburys).
I used to find Google really useful, but I've been getting lots of rubbish search results over the last few months. Odd. I hope you find what you're looking for -- come back and let us Forumites know how it turned out. :) I'm intrigued by Sugar Mountain... maybe a trip to Forest Hill is needed! xx

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Now renamed to "The Monty Bojangles Company Ltd".

>

> ??



What, Hope and Greenwood or Sugar Mountain?


M&S currently fulfils my tooth rotting requirements, though admittedly you don't get the thrill of choosing extremely expensive chocs one by one and having them put in a pretty little box and tied up with a red ribbon.


ETA: But hey! If Hope and Greenwood hadn't gone, we would never have had Maison Dog.


Every cloud, etc ...

>> Now renamed to "The Monty Bojangles Company Ltd".

>> ??

>

> What, Hope and Greenwood or Sugar Mountain?


It looks more like a takeover of H&G by Monty B.

The owners of Monty B. acquired all the H&G shares in 2015 and became sole directors.

It remains to be seen whether they'll keep it on as a distinct brand.


That said, H&G Ltd was actually being run as a dormant company from at least 2008, and still was one in February 2016, so it's not itself been the trading entity.

Seabag Wrote:

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

> H&G took on a management person who steered the

> company into a brick wall essentially

>

> They never recovered from the impact

>

> Over diversification and egos ran amok




??? How did they over diversify?


??? Why did they keep this person on if things were going so badly wrong?

Sue Wrote:

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

>

>

> ??? How did they over diversify?


I suspect they moved away from the core business that had been a success. It's amazing how often something in this industry seems like a good idea, only to reveal itself as their own personal Stalingrad.


>

> ??? Why did they keep this person on if things

> were going so badly wrong?


I'd be willing to bet that the person concerned kept it covered up until too late. That's the risk in paying someone else to run your business.

The reality is you need grown ups at the expansion point. When you get biggger you need scale thinkers, and H&G ran a very thin operation initially.

However, when books and TV come along the ego can get a bit out of hand, with the old business of getting yor hands dirty seems to be below the creators. And the peril of forgetting where the original business core dollar is mined from is dangerous. Books and TV are basically PR exercises, not careers mostly.


Then add a layer of someone else doing your negotiations while youre off 'busy' then all hell breaks loose. Sadly they realised all this at the end, not when it was happening and redeemable.

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

    • It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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