Fortunately Starbucks has competition and they would only be my choice of last resort for a cup of coffee.

I too spent a few years in marketing and never got brainwashed by its claims. Branding is a serious element in the process but there are many factors other than a logo which determine the success or failure of a product. If Starbucks feels the need to spend a fortune on a new logo it must be because its sales are flat or falling. And the reasons for that may not be solved by a new logo. In fact they are unlikely to be.

If you study Marketing it’s impossible to be brainwashed by the claims, surely?
Sales figures back up most of the marketing ideas which are banded around.
Starbucks, it don’t look like a big re-branding exercise…..it’s the same Logo – enlarged. Dropping the name off the Logo is usually used when they want to highten the importance of the logo (The opposite of the Football shirt con). But the Starbucks woman is what? An Angel? A peasant bean picker? They haven’t thought this through.

Football shirt. Make 30 different coloured kits so that people would have to look at the Sponsor to recognise the team. And, sell 30 different kits in the team shop!

In my local paper…not sure if it was a local story or a “Dead Donkey” filler…….two young nippers were moved on by the Police. They were 9 or 10.
The first one was up the road holding a sign which said “Speed camera”. The 2nd boy was beyond the camera, holding a bucket…and a sign which said “Tips”.

I believe that the penny short of the pound, was introduced when tills became common place, so that the person on the till had to open the till to give the customer a penny change instead of slipping the money into their pocket, without registering the sale.

You’ll have to back that up please. Every marketing guru or book plays the psycological selling card, that 1.99 is 1 not 2. It still works, items have in the past been priced at 1.99 and 2.01 in another branch. The 1.99 sold like hot cakes, 2.01 did not. “Sell to the weakest link” is a common term used, it proves out every time.

As for price banding in the pre decimal days, I seem to remember the 1s/9d 2s9d more than the 11s. Maybe it was around before decimalisation. I’ll get the Kotler books out!
I can’t properly remember shopping in the 60’s, I was sent on errands by my mum, who gave me a list and the correct money. Prices didn’t seem to change for months on end. My own half crown pocket money went on Sweets and/or a 2 bob Airfix model, those 1/72nd scale ones, in a bag with a card top!

So do I.
Price pointing crept over the Atlantic in the early 70’s, not long after decimalisation. If your cost recovery plus profit came out at a selling price of 2.01, it will be shelved at 2.99. So, the VAT rise will as you correctly say put it to 3.49 when in fact EVERY single retailer could afford to absorb this rise…..but that is not allowed in this rip off Britain. “The unacceptable side of capitalism” as one ex PM once quoted.

There is a backlash (Of sorts) to the X.99 pointing, Tesco are now doing the X.98 so they can “Truthfully” (Ha ha) say they are cheaper than Asda on nnn products. Morrisons have for a while been doing the X.97, X.27 lark.

I pay attention to Logo’s, having studied Marketing.
Yes they do matter, and many a company has fallen due to incorrect brand identification/ association/ Logo etc.

And the Starbucks 2011, it’s a bit Religious in a Christian way. It may pi55 off most of the non Christian World. Even though it’s the same female as last badge, it IS now the badge.
I only drink their stuff (And all the other brands likewise) when I have no other choice. £2.39 for a cup of coffee which costs them 6 to 10 pence to cover all costs! Effing outrageous.

Speed cameras have nothing to do with generating cash; they generate such an insignificant amount that no government would bother with them…

…but I agree that their record for improving safety is patchy at best.

As for prosecuting a motorist for warning others of a mobile speed camera, well, another example of the law being used disproportionally against the ‘law abiding’…

…I suspect if an illegal immigrant driving a car, without tax, insurance or a driving licence, had run-over and killed a twelve-year-old girl and then attempted to escape, dragging her along under the car, had flashed his lights near a speed-camera then the police would have been unable to prosecute him for anything for fear of infringing his human rights!

I jest…..nothing like that could ever happen in real life could it? :rolleyes:

Most counties split the income 3 ways. Health, Police and Local Authority. The health bit is often diverted to the Air Ambulance, Police bit to Police Helicopters. LA probably squander it as usual.
The cost of processing a £60 fine plus camera maintainance (Little now since digital came along) is a piffling amount compared to the vast income of a camera.
I’m all for torching them, like that Dutch fella.

Sorry PeeDee but I still don’t know where my sums are wrong.
you first quoted that
The Core price of £300 was £352 will now be £360. The punter is £8 worse off. 360/352 is 2.27%. Oh joy.

Now you say the rise is 2.13% 360 /352.5.

Yet when I try with the calulator 2.13% of 352.5 comes to 7.50825

So really what I am asking is how do we work out the proper percentage.
so I can check that each retailer is adding the correct amount to each item.

My initial point was rounded for conversational posting reasons.
The 2.13 is round to 2DP.
If you want to check a retailer, the correct formula is: –
New Price = (Old price/1.175) x 1.2

I was pleased to realise that as I logged on the works PC this morning, I had to read my last few Emails in order to remember what I was working on, way back on Dec 23rd!!! The memory loss was not booze related, this holiday I have had 1 glass of Wine and 1 glass of Brandy. I no longer like this job and was able to switch off and forget. And, we thought our baby daughter was going to die last Thursday so that somewhat re-aligned and prioritised a lot of thoughts!!