Some decisions make so little sense, you must write about them to understand the situation. Business decisions, I find, make less sense than those which are personal: it is not just that making money can involve surmounting moral ambiguity, making money is the reason to do anything at all. Whatever the implications, the arrangement I am attempting to parse here sounds surreal, if not dubious.
Inevitable derision followed the rebranding of the high street stores of booksellers, stationers and newsagent WH Smith as TG Jones, following the chain’s sale to the private equity group Modella Capital in 2025. WH Smith, whose stores remain in train stations, airports and hospitals, did not include use or licensing of their name in the contracts signed, except in the continued selling of their stationery range. The attempt made to provide continuity with the old brand by choosing initials and a surname that mirror the original enough produce some sort of recognition, remains a bizarre move, but I can’t name a bookshop that doesn’t use someone’s surname.
Modella Capital, approaching a year since the sale, will be able to start closing unprofitable stores, after a moratorium period in the contract ends. In the shops I have visited, only the name above the door has changed, issues about tired decor and cluttered shelves remain unresolved. When the closures were announced, “The Guardian” newspaper reported that TG Jones owes £2.9 million to its owners in licensing fees to use the name “TG Jones”.
At the time, this was discombobulating. Surely, the chain could have chosen a further name they could use for free: QT Taylor? AB Brown? JD Williams? (The last is a catalogue, now online-based department store, so perhaps not.) Modella Capital had said “the forced name change from WH Smith has also negatively impacted consumer awareness”, but after stepping in to provide “The Guardian” with more context, no actual money is changing hands, and any licensing fees that have appeared on paper would be waived subject to a restructuring deal, to be approved with a lender.
But why do this at all? Why do anything like it? It reminded me of the ownership of record store HMV by another private equity group, Hilco, between 2013-19, which accrued payments to Hilco for operational and licensing purposes. Surely, if you wanted a payment from one of your subsidiaries, you could just mandate it. (I originally wrote “ask for it”, as if it were a benevolent act.)
After HMV fell into administration a further time in 2019, bought out by its current owner for just £883,000, the “His Master’s Voice” brand and Nipper the Dog were just about the only non-stock asset left to it - Hilco’s 2013 purchase of HMV was for £50 million. You want to accuse someone of profiteering, but making a profit remains the name of the game, no matter how it is achieved.
It just so happened that I needed a TG Jones in the last week, knowing they would sell a certain brand of gel pen without resorting to ordering online. It is “that store” for me, the name change being so clumsy it cemented the connection in my mind instead of severing it.
But with the TG Jones name not being there, and with any licensing costs, whether they exist to be paid or not, being linked to profits, is there any incentive to create value in that name, when that will only cost you more in the long run?
No comments:
Post a Comment