Give + Take

[Otta]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> I don't see anything wrong with moralising about 5k blown on a wedding dress.

Except that

1. ?5k wasn't blown on a dress, it was just "worth" that.

2. The dress was then donated to charity so that some money could be raised for a good cause (as well as someone else getting to have the dress for their wedding, although by your logic you'd question their values too for wearing a ?5k dress, even if they'd got it for a couple of hundred in a charity shop).

3. This thread was never meant to be about wedding dresses.

4. NewWave posted to highlight the breast cancer aspect, and you totally eclipsed that, so bravo.

But no, I don't think you'll ever see anything wrong with anything you ever say, however many other people suggest that you're wrong. And for that reason I won't comment further because it's the online equivalent of repeatedly headbutting a brick wall.

[edcam]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

It's a forum.

> People have different views.

So stop moaning when others disagree with you.

[legalbeagle]

Sad to see people generally didn't like this shop. Every time I went in there I found nice things, not too expensive, and with really lovely helpful staff (lots of whom were volunteers). Always a shame when someone tries to do something well meaning and different and it doesn't work out. Hope they have luck with whatever their next venture is.

[Loz]

NewWave Wrote:

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

> Give and take were more than just a 'posh' charity

> shop-a portion of the money went to breast cancer charities

Does anyone know what a 'portion' means? Those people that stick plastic bags for clothes through your letterbox donate a 'portion' of the proceeds to charity, but it's pretty tiny portion, more to make you forget it's a private profit making company rather than actually doing the charity much good.

[Alec John Moore]

You'd have to look at their audited accounts I suppose to get a specific answer to how much here's the link to the explanation of their business model.

http://giveandtakeshop.co.uk/#how-does-it-work

[edhistory]

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05651354/filing-history

[Sazzle30]

It would be interesting to know what the percentage they gave to charity - was anyone told when they donated/part exchanged an item how much went to the charity.

I'm assuming they weren't registered with the charities commission as they weren't a charity themselves but a ltd company. You'd think they would have made the information easy to find on their website - maybe that would have brought in more customers/donations and kept it going.

Edited - I've had a look at their website properly, my understanding is this :

They sold 3 types of things:

1. New items (candles/frames) items had ?1 added to the retail price which went to charity

2. Donated items 100% of retail went to charity (good news)

3. Part ex items - individual comes in sell their items - if sold the individual receives 50% credit voucher to spend in store - this is net after tax and they quote this equates to 33% off the gross retail value. No mention of any donation to charity.

This is a great business model.. Push the charity side which i feel is very limited to get people in who feel like they are doing their bit.

The majority of your stock is brought to you - you have no outlay from sourcing or purchasing stock (bar the limited new stock.

If anyone has asked you to sell on their behalf - you still don't have an outlay as you never give the cash just give them 'credit' which = a discount on the stock you've got for free.

At no point do need to state how much is being donated to charity as a result of the donated items and new item levy. Unless there is a clear donation to charity listed in the report & accounts on the Companies House website.

It doesn't appear to be as clear cut as popping into your usual charity shop. I wonder if like 'regular'charity shops they received a reduced business rates/rent

The only failing of this model I ca see and was probably their downfall Is that you have to rely on is customers buying up your stock on a regular basis and many people won't buy second hand clothing ( or the new phrase Pre-loved ) as there is a perceived stigma attached. Which is a shame as you ca get some amazing things second hand ( as my waldrobe, flat and garden can attest too).

* excuse my spelling

[James]

Obviously not a great business model if they went bust

[edhistory]

http://www.2010.voa.gov.uk/rli/en/basic/find/valuation/2010/9633919000/7898453000

[goldilocks]

The thing with this shop is that it isn't 100% of the sale price donations, it was 100% of the profit. There was never any transparency as far as I could see around how this was calculated and the accounts don't disclose their level of charitable giving vs turnover or profit. A more transparent business model may have made people less suspicious.

It always felt as though giving stock directly to charities is likely to yield a larger donation per item, and potentially even selling stuff on ebay and then making a donation to the charity. On the other hand, Give and Take probably made it easy for some to give to breast cancer charities and that ease shouldn't be underestimated.

[Sue]

Sazzle30 Wrote:

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

many people won't buy second hand

> clothing ( or the new phrase Pre-loved ) as there

> is a perceived stigma attached. Which is a shame

> as you ca get some amazing things second hand

Indeed. I got a fantastic handmade Zandra Rhodes jacket for ?25 from a charity shop.

But I feel whoever priced it should maybe have done a bit of research ......

[TE44]

Sue, if they researched it, I'm assuming you think

It was worth more, you may not have been able

To afford it. ?25 for a secondhand jumper is not

cheap.

[LondonMix]

She said it was a jacket not a jumper. 25 quid for a jacket is very reasonable.

[TE44]

My mistake although ?25 for a jacket, secondhand

is expensive, i suppose it depends on

what you spend on clothes. I'm assuming Sue thinks

she got a bargain. Someone who may spend that amount on a new jacket, would not see the bargain.

[Angelina]

affordability is subjective - as are the values of donations.

It certainly doesn't warrant making a judgement on whether it crosses a perceived personal boundary. It's actually quite offensive.

[kjs1]

Very offensive and incredible snobbery.

I wonder how well Blah Blah would take someone suggesting (s)he was a vacuous/pretensious/morally bankrupt person because (s)he lives in the designer area of ED? I see (s)he has already defended this stance on the basis of buying affordably - which is exactly what the lady she criticised did with her designer dress! Hypocrite much?

[Sue]

TE44 Wrote:

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

> Sue, if they researched it, I'm assuming you

> think

> It was worth more, you may not have been able

> To afford it. ?25 for a secondhand jumper is not

> cheap.

No of course I would not have been able to afford it, that's why it was a bargain :)

It's a really beautiful handmade Zandra Rhodes jacket - a work of art. I've only ever worn it once (for my sister's sixtieth do) because I'm afraid of spilling something on it.

It wasn't from Give and Take, though. I assume they'd have had a bit more nous and priced it a lot higher, though I have no idea what it's worth - I've never seen anything like it before.

I bought it because it was beautiful, not because I needed a jacket.

Please don't start on me as well (I don't mean you, TE44) - the only other designer item I have is a very beautiful Ossie Clark dress from a sale in the early seventies. I still wear it.

But if I had more money I would so buy designer clothes. Not because they're expensive or to show off. But because in my opinion (depending on the designer) they are art.

Or perhaps people shouldn't spend their own hard-earned money on art either?

ETA: I agree it's offensive in the extreme to tell people what they should and should not be spending their money on.

[Loz]

kjs1 Wrote:

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

> I wonder how well Blah Blah would take someone suggesting (s)he was a vacuous/pretensious/morally

> bankrupt person because (s)he lives in the designer area of ED?

There's a 'designer area' of ED?

[Otta]

According to The Apprentice it's propa posh innit.

[monica]

Iv heard its going to be questionnaire. Forgive me if somebody has said this already, thread is too long to go back on :)

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

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

> According to The Apprentice it's propa posh innit.

I think that was Dulwich Village :))

[kjs1]

Loz Wrote:

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

>

> There's a 'designer area' of ED?

Have you seen the house prices? Effectively the whole of ED is designer, by Blah Blah's standards.

[Cedges]

For interest their accounts can be downloaded for free here

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05651354/filing-history

They're abbreviated as its a small company and don't really give away much. My only query would be what their circa ?10k of debtors at each year end related to. For a consumer retail business, debtors should be relatively low or non existent unless they are counting funds held by a credit card transaction provider. The alarm bell it sets off is if they were in fact bulk selling items to a 3rd party. Nothing wrong with that per se unless they were selling the donated items and not passing the proceeds to the charity. Without the fuller accounts you'd never be able to tell.

[edhistory]

> My only query would be what their circa ?10k of debtors

How about the tangible assets?

[LondonMix]

Debtors are money / funds people owe you--- you typically have them (or accounts receivable as they are more broadly known) when you supply a good or service that isn't immediately settled but rather invoiced. Invoices can normally be settled some defined period after the service has been performed. For a small retail business, its odd.