Implementation of MUP was generally described by retailers as manageable and straightforward. Despite some expressions of anxiety and concern at wave one, these had generally abated by wave two, as retailers realised that only a proportion of their stock would be affected.
123
‘It was fine. Because we went through everything, there was only maybe half a dozen, a dozen prices that we had to change. But we were okay, majority wise.’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 3-5, wave two)
‘I’d say easy, easy.’ (Non-affiliated, SIMD 1-2, wave two)
As noted above (Section 4.2), around two-thirds of our sample were affiliated to a symbol group. For some of these affiliated retailers, MUP implementation was perceived as straightforward, as price adjustments were calculated by the symbol group and the retailer’s EPoS system was updated for them; in a few cases, retailers were also supplied with new price labels.
‘It's all connected to the tills, it's all done. It's all relevant, because that keeps us, as a shop, in the right side. And we don't need to worry about overpricing, or under-pricing, or anything…..’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 3-5, wave two)
Other affiliated retailers calculated and set their own prices, sometimes drawing on pricing advice, price lists or suggested RRPs provided by the symbol group.
Although this task could take some time, it was felt to be relatively manageable once they had worked out the formula and set up systems for checking the stock.
‘It took me a good four hours for me to go through my cabinet and I did check it one by one just in case. Budweiser packs, bottles and all that, I did check them one by one, I knew it would be okay, but you're still in doubt, well I better just double check it, you know what I mean.’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 1-2, wave two) Non-affiliated retailers, around a third of our sample, had to prepare for and
implement MUP themselves (although some did benefit from advice from external sources, see Section 4.4.2 below). These were sometimes quite small stores with a limited alcohol range, meaning that the work involved was not too burdensome.
‘We had to make a plan up; part of the licensing laws were to draw up… …to inform what staff training we had to give to our…well, our family, my children and how they’d know what prices…how they’d worked out, how they calculated the price of the bottle and make sure everything… So we had a worked out plan
124
and everyone knows how it works. But nothing really, it was just an
inconvenience – but a good inconvenience.’ (Non-affiliated retailer, SIMD 1-2, wave two)
The task of checking and adjusting prices was facilitated by the £0.50 per unit level, making the calculation of minimum unit price simple.
‘See, the thing is that, it’s easy. The unit price is written on the…every can or any…every bottle. If you pick up every bottle, there is a unit in there. So…and these are 50 pence per unit we have to sell that, increase in there. So mostly it is…it is 2.8 unit in a can, so we divide it by two, so we can’t sell it below then £1.40. That’s the thing. So we know what’s the price we have to sell it at.’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 1-2, wave two)
Generally, the factors which had influenced retailers’ decision-making regarding alcohol price setting prior to MUP (see Table 4.1 above) continued to be salient after MUP. Retailers continued to see advantages in buying price-marked stock after MUP in terms of transparency for customers, consistency with other local stores and competitive margins. Similarly, as had been the case before MUP, retailers varied in the extent to which they adopted RRPs, sometimes feeling that these were set too high; however, RRPs could be used as a basis for setting an appropriate profit margin:
‘The cash and carry normally give you, sort of, RRPs on everything and the margins are all over the place on different products but generally we try to run a 30 per cent mark up on anything across the whole board. So I mean if
something’s £6.89 we might round it off to £6.99 just to make it easier across the board. If it’s £4.79, maybe £4.99, but general rule of thumb is, it’s round about the 30 per cent mark. That will be minimum.’ (Non-affiliated retailer, SIMD 1-2, wave two)
Generally retailers said they had not altered prices for those alcohol products which were not affected by MUP, other than in line with any increases in wholesale prices. However, a few had used MUP, and customers’ expectations of price rises, as an
125
opportunity to increase prices of products not affected by MUP, such as Buckfast (see Buckfast Case Study, Chapter 6).
Retailers generally changed their prices close to the MUP deadline. A few described introducing some price changes over a slightly longer period, to familiarise
customers with the new prices: ‘Slowly, like…so the customer didn’t argue’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 3-5, wave two). Apart from calculating prices, the main challenges in implementing MUP concerned avoiding being left with price-marked stock, and with previously cheaper stock which would now become much more expensive. Some retailers described ‘selling through’ and ‘running down’ price-marked and cheaper stock and avoiding buying more at the wholesalers in the weeks prior to the deadline.
Some retailers did find themselves left with non-compliant price-marked stock after MUP had been introduced, and received advice from licensing officers on how to deal with this (see next section). Others described being stuck with products which had increased in price so much that previous customers would now be unlikely to buy them. Typically these products were spirits and high strength ciders. In some cases, retailers felt that these products would probably sell eventually, albeit slowly – one or two, for example, mentioned very loyal customers who would not drink
anything else. Others felt that the products would likely go out of date before they could be sold.
‘Just the cider. Two cases. … try and get rid of them and we can’t. We just can’t…. there is a date on them, 18 December. We’ll need to get rid of them by then.’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 1-2, wave two)
None of the retailers perceived that there had been an increase in shoplifting of alcohol since the introduction of MUP. A few commented that they felt they had to be more vigilant since the legislation came into force, in relation to customers of
products which had undergone a steep price rise, such as high strength ciders. However, only one retailer gave a specific example of a perceived increase in shoplifting which might be linked to MUP, and this was a perceived increase in the
126
theft of confectionery. The retailer attributed this to some customers now having to spend more money on alcohol and being less able to afford other products.
Some retailers perceived that there was a trade in illicit or counterfeit alcohol in Scotland, but only one felt there had been an increase in illicit selling since the implementation of MUP.
‘I know there’s people going down to [city across the Scottish border]. They used to go to France. Now they just go down to [city across the Scottish border] and they buy drink, alcohol and sell it cheaper, round the doors. You know, it’s black market stuff.’ (Non-affiliated retailer, SIMD 3-5, wave two)
In terms of legal cross border travel to buy alcohol, however, one retailer described how two of his customers mentioned having travelled to England to buy alcohol after MUP came into force.
‘I had a couple of customers who actually went to down to [place across the Scottish border] to buy the drink. …They said we’re going to go there, and we’ve got a van. … Somebody for a wedding actually went down there and bought it….I said, it’s not worth it at the end of the day…. they were saying, I saved 100 pound. I said, what about your petrol?’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 1-2, wave two) More generally, retailers felt that few people would be willing to make the effort to buy cross-border, as the inconvenience, including petrol costs, could potentially outweigh any savings*.