A Market Study of the UK Beer Industry - Research Proposal Example

ZOOMING IN ON THE UK BEER INDUSTRY: A MARKET STUDY OF SUPERVISORY AND MANAGERIAL PERCEPTIONS Introduction The announcement (Buckley, 2000) of the sale of the breweries of two of Britain’s biggest and oldest brewing companies (Whitbread and Bas), combined with the spate of consolidation and industry exits among small companies, has given the implicit impression that the British brewing industry is experiencing a decline. For instance, similar circumstances may be found globally. As Haddock (1999) purports, brewing profits have been on a downtrend as competition stiffens. Globalization is exerting impact on an industry that did not seem to be prone to its effects. Therefore, we are lead to the next best question: is the future of the industry set for domination by only a handful of key players or do lucrative and strategic opportunities still exist for small players? The current paper reviews if the UK beer industry is indeed experiencing a decline and presents the strategic facets of the British brewing industry in a strategic setting or context. The review of related literature begins with the changes that have befaced the industry within the last ten years. In the results and analysis section, there is a profound consideration of the factors that are distinct to the industry from the economic, strategic and marketing points of view. Following an assessment of these perspectives, the UK beer industry is consequently evaluated. Modifications in the regulation of the British industry and the strategic responses of management in the 1990s are then revisited. In addition, strategies for survival are likewise put forth. Secondary Research This review of related literature looks first, over the last ten years, at the far-reaching changes that have taken place in the beer and pub retailing division. This has involved major restructuring and ownership changes after a chain of mergers and acquisitions, connected to innovatory activity regarding the way in which pubs are valued, and presented to the public. These new methods to valuing pubs and entering the market are explained. It then examines the impact these changes have had on the people involved and their responses based on over 120 interviews over a three-month period. It considers the effect on senior managers, pub managers, and bar staff in two public house retailing companies following a major purchase by a foreign-owned financial services sector company in particular. Industry Background At the end of the 1980s, the structure of the UK Beer Industry was mostly one of vertical integration (see Crompton, 1998). Five of the “Big 6” brewing companies of Bass plc, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, Courage, Allied, and Whitbread were responsible for the entire course from buying the barley and hops, brewing the beer, supplying it to the pubs, and lastly selling the beer to the customer. With their huge estates of managed and tenanted pubs as well as their indirect control through Free Trade Loan and Grants, they controlled over 70 percent of the pub retailing market place (Guinness was, and remains, the exception, with no pubs.) For instance, Bass owned c.7500 pubs and had a Free Trade Loan portfolio of hundreds of millions of pounds in the late 1980s. They also enjoyed 20 percent of the UK beer market. The Government introduced the “Department of Trade and Industry Beer Orders”, following a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC), which was published in 1989. These declared that any brewer owning more than 2000 on-licensed premises (hotels, bars and pubs) had (before November 1992) either to stop brewing or sell, or lease free from any tie, half of the pubs they owned above the 2,000 limit the DTI imposed. The instantaneous consequence was dramatic for the large Brewers (see Preece, Steven & Steven, 1999; Preece, Steven and Steven, 2002; Millns, 1998; Gourvish and Wilson, 1994). They had to decide whether to stay in brewing, their principal business, or to dispose of large numbers of their pubs. Bass, for instance, decided at the time to stay in brewing and consequently had to reduce its estate by 2680 pubs in less than two years. The other national brewers also decided to put on the market thousands of pubs. All of these were bought by individuals, small businesses and large pub retailing chains, and it was during this time that companies such as Enterprise Inns and Wetherspoons were created. Pub retailing surfaced as a division in its own right. On the other hand, not all brewers decided to stay in brewing and some of the breweries were sold. Some of the brewers took the opportunity to think again about contracts and conditions of service as they reorganized their businesses. Bass, for instance, developed “The New Deal”, a highly individual contract with better pay combined with the derecognition of trade unions for collective bargaining objectives, even if the unions were allowed to hold on to representational rights. Derecognition was easily attained for union power had been substantially diminished in the sector by sub-contracting distribution. The old dominant alliance between general union draymen and white-collar staff had lost its industrial sway. At a time of great change in ways of working, pub managers and their staff no longer had a collective voice at a negotiating table. Times were tumultuous but the companies focused on in-company change as they adapted to their new structures after the 1992 deadline. Brewers and pub retailers reviewed their strategies for the future during the short period of consolidation in the mid to late 1990s. This relative lull on the industry front was followed by another episode of intense activity and multifaceted maneuvering as the major players realigned themselves in keeping with where they now saw their primary business. Scottish and Newcastle Breweries wanted to maintain a brewing operation but decided that branded outlets was the way forward in the pub sector. On the other hand, Whitbread decided to put up the Beer Company up for sale and also opted for branded retailing. In addition it created the Whitbread Pub and Bar Company from its unbranded pubs and although the “For Sale” sign did not go up instantly, none of the pub managers or bar staff had any reservations that they were being operated for eventual disposal as non-core operations. The following list sums up the restructuring in the industry since 1997 as the key players repositioned themselves for the new millennium. Allied Domeq (formerly Allied Breweries) got rid of their entire managed and leased estate of circa 3000 pubs to Bass and Punch Taverns Carlsberg Tetley sold its Burton Brewery to Bass Brewers Bass plc, now renamed Six Continents Retail plc, disposed of its entire brewering division to Interbrew of Belgium. Bass plc disposed of 1000 managed community pubs to Nomura, the Japanese Bank Bass plc disposed of the Bass Leasing Company of circa 1600 leased pubs Greenal Whitley disposed of its community pub estate Scottish and Newcastle Breweries disposed of 658 community pubs to Nomura and another tranche to the Royal Bank of Scotland Whitbread disposed of its Brewing division to Interbrew Whitbread plc disposed of its Pubs and Bars Company, managed and leased, to Morgan Grenfell Private Equity, part of Deutsche Bank Enterprise Inns acquired 429 pubs from The Laurel Pub Company Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries acquired Marstons, the brewers of Pedigree Ale and by the narrowest of margins survived a takeover bid from the Pubmaster group The Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry prior to the last election said that the Interbrew acquisition of Bass Brewers was not in the public interest, only to have his decision refuted by the courts. the new Cabinet Minister has said she approves of the deal if the new company disposes of the Carling and Caffrey Brand. These changes altered both the beer supply and pub retailing sides of the business and produced continuing instability in the working lives of thousands An examination of the present composition of the beer industry reveals that there are now five main players who account for 85 percent of UK production – Scottish Courage plc is the last of the UK’s large vertically incorporated breweries and pubs businesses with breweries in Newcastle, Edinburgh, Manchester, Reading, and Tadcaster. They purchased Kronenbourg (the largest brewery in France) in 2000, and also brew and supply a range of other brands which are sold in the company’s pub retailing company, where public house branding, as with beer brands, is seen as the way ahead. The company disposed of c.650 non-branded pubs to Nomura in 2001. The Executive Chairman reinstated their strategy of operating only large and branded retail outlets in the pub sector and continuing to brew and distribute beer in June 2001. The Belgian Brewer Interbrew, which purchased the brewery businesses of Whitbread and Bass (subject to EEC/UK government ratification) in 2000. Interbrew was already very profitable in the UK beer market with the No.1 premium lager, Stella, but this had been brewed in the UK for them under license by Whitbread. Carlesberg-Tetley, itself a product in the mid-1990s of the Allied Domeq disposal of Teltley and the latter’s ensuing unification with the brewing operation of Carlsberg, the UK arm of United Breweries of Copenhagen. Tetley in the ale sector and Carlsberg in the standard and premium lager segments are the company’s two key brands. The Guinness group, which with its Harp Lager supplementary and market supremacy in the stout sector commands some 10 percent of all UK beer sales in public houses. The American Giant Anheuser-Busch who purchased the former Watneys Brewery in London where they make and sell the market-leading brand in the Premium Packaged Lager Sector – Budweiser. The names of the beer suppliers changed but left the new “Big 5” with 85 percent of the beer production and only three percent of the pubs, all of which belong to S&NB due to the move from vertical integration. Regional Brewers own some 8,500 pubs, which is about 15 percent of all UK pubs, spanning from Burtonwood with 415 outlets to Greene King with 1,658. Since the peak year of 1978/9 when over 42 million barrels were produced the total UK market has declined by 18 percent. This, coupled with the ale to lager swing (now 64 percent lager to 36 percent ale) has resulted in 36 breweries being closed, including 19 in the last four years with consequential job losses. Let us now turn to the public house retailers, for if there has been a transformation in the organization and ownership of beer supply, there has been a revolution here: Allied Domeq has disposed of all its pubs Bass (now renamed Six Continents plc) has only 2000 Scottish and Newcastle Breweries Ltd has 1850 Whitbread has sold 3000 and kept only its restaurants and other branded outlets Wetherspoons has grown from 3 to 575 managed houses in 10 years Nomura, a Japanese Investment House is Britain’s biggest pub owner with 6,500 Punch owns 4,200 leased pubs and 1,000 managed houses Laurel Pub Company owns 2,500 Enterprise Inns owns 3,500 Greene King owns 1,658 Pubmaster owns 2,000 The movement towards branding, especially in the managed estates, continues to gather momentum, as does the transfer of community-managed houses to tenancies or leases. The brewers have either disposed of or churned their managed estates away to “High Street” outlets or restaurant operations or lodges from community-based businesses. A plethora of pub retailing companies which are largely lease businesses and who see themselves as landlords and, in some cases, wholesale beer suppliers has been created due to the ensuing disposal of their old community and tenanted estate. The days of the managed house as the “shop window of the brewery” have long since gone (Preece et al, 1999). The organizational transformation of pub retailing has, to a significant extent, been achieved by (i) a financial transformation of the sector into substantial lease-based companies, led by Guy Hands of Nomura and (ii) the formation of managed house pub retailing groups, led by Tim Martin of Wetherspoons. How has this come about? Hands is the UK CEO of the Nomura Equity Investment arm called “The Principal Finance Group”. His acquisition and change strategy was founded upon the principal that, they were excellent generators of cash, if the pub businesses of the brewers were nothing else. Cash, and the near sureness of cash flows from rent (little risk) and beer sales (slightly greater risk, but a pub with no beer cannot operate), and the succeeding payment by the lessee for the wholesale supply of beer is expected to be approaching, otherwise the tenant will get no more beer. The near certainty of these cash flows meant that Nomura had a new way of valuing pubs, which are measured by Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA). The old “site and bricks and mortar” plus annual barrelage conventional method produced one figure, let us say L400k, whereas theoretically capitalizing the “certain” cash flows would produce a higher figure, say L440k, and Hands and Nomura were successful in several pub-buying contracts using this methodology, to the extent that they are now the UK’s biggest public house owning group. Briefly, the financial strategy involves borrowing money on a short-term basis to acquire the pubs, and then (through a process called securitization) changing these loans into less costly means and long term instruments, as and when the estate confirms its EBITDA potential, and as a result, the reduction of risk which longer term lenders demand to securitize the debt. Basically, securitization is a method whereby future cash flow from the firm’s asset base, such as rental income from pubs, are used as economic backing for investment bonds on international bonds markets. They in turn help generate additional cash balances for further acquisition as these longer-term debts replace more expensive short term ones. As a result, the potential exists to move ever onwards and upwards in a pub-hungry spiral. Several start up companies have successfully embraced his financial methodology, also starting up, developing and growing lease-based pub retailing businesses in the wake of this financial revolutionary’s contribution to the transformation of the UK pub-retailing sector. In part redressing the balance has been the second “entrepreneurial hero” – Tim Martin of Wetherspoons. Martin is a lawyer by training and with the acquisition of one pub in north London, started his pub company over ten years ago. He now controls a business with a turnover approaching L500 million and profits of L44+ million, projected to grow by at least another 500 over the next five years from over 530 managed pubs spread throughout the UK. Wetherspoons gathered together very efficient pub acquisition and liquor licensing teams. The company was and is prepared to take any initial rejection of a license application in a magistrate’s court to the next level up, and many a local licensing bench opted for removing their objections because of potentially damaging higher court costs. They discussed positive deals with major brewers such as Scottish Courage to supply them with well-known branded beers and with several regional brewers to give them an attractive range of cask conditional ales. They also established major in-pub beer festivals, theme nights, curry nights, student nights, beer and burger offers and so on. The brewers have come to now possess a portfolio of high street city/town bars and key location food-led destination outlets such that with the exception of well-established privately-owned free houses, the best pubs are controlled by a few corporate giants due to the churning of their estate over a number of years. This ever-increasing buying power and monopolistic presence is a powerful warning to the hitherto near-monopoly power of the key brewers such as Interbrew, Carlsberg/Tetley and Guinness. These influential monopolistic and controlling presences can be traced back to a government intercession that was essentially unsound. The growth and development of oligopolistic/monopolistic presence in both the supply and retailing of beer through public houses is far from the intent of the 1989 “Beer Orders”, which was to remove a complex monopoly rooted in vertical integration. What is going on inside these new public house retailing companies and, in particular, how is the management of staff handled, and how does this differ from under the ancient regime? Laurel Pub Company Ltd.: A Case Study of One of the Key Players in the New Public House Retailing Sector This case study concentrates on one of the most recent acquisitions in the pub-retailing sector, from which was created a new company – Laurel Pub Company Ltd. which at October 29 had around 2,500 pubs, consisting of c. 1,870 leased and c. 625 managed houses. We will concentrate here upon the formation of the organization, the early employee resourcing and relations issues met by the company, how management addressed them, and the consequences for the staff. On May, 2001, Morgan Grenfell Private Equity, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank, purchased the 3000 pubs owned by the Whitbread Pubs and Bars division for L1.6 billion. These comprised roughly 1,300 managed houses and 1,700 leased pubs. Morgan Grenfell had announced, in March, that Ian Payne (previously the MD of Ladbroke Casinos and a former director of Bass Taverns) had been appointed the CEO of the new business. Payne had been working with Morgan Grenfell executives and the current Whitbread Management team to develop a strategic overview and operational plans for the new business. Detailed plans, proposals and arrangements were put in place with most of the work under the interim management arrangements being carried out by Whitbread-employed directors and managers, all of whom did not know at the time whether they would get a job at the new company, especially as within two weeks 429 pubs were sold to Enterprise Inns, in the provisional period between acceptance by Whitbread of the Morgan Grenfell offer and the deal becoming unconditional on the 15th of May, 2001. The CEO designate Ian Payne began to recruit his senior management team as soon as Morgan Grenfell became the preferred bidder. Some posts were filled by outside recruitment others by the current staff. A significant minority of managers and staff specialists would be out of a job because there were to be considerably fewer jobs in the new company. The first effect of the acquisition for senior managers and support staff, consequently, was the uncertainty created by the knowledge of imminent job losses and the ensuing demotivation. As a result, a significant question for Payne was how could they be motivated to carry on delivering sales, volumes, and profits for Morgan Grenfell once they knew this? The answer was simple-make failure to do so hugely expensive to them in terms of their final separation measures with the parent company. The severance terms were quite outstanding and exceeded any entitlements under constitutional redundancy legislation, even by the relatively generous standards of the beer business. They were ‘paid off’, as a Board member observed. “There is a kind of resurgence of pride in what you do based on – we’ll show these bastards – trying to deliver exceptional results with a sword of Damacles hanging over your head”, he added. And deliver they did. The Whitebread management team delivered results ahead of budget and ahead of the previous year in the short-term period from Morgan Grenfell’s announcement to the Laurel Pub Company “taking over your keys” of the business. A range of views as to why this was happening was offered in our interviews: -Our superiors are so busy chasing around trying to tidy their desks and getting information for the new bosses then attempting to sort out jobs that they are leaving us for ourselves. And you know when they let us be, we usually get on with it. -You have got to try and produce results or they might be considering transferring us to lease, I don’t care for a lease. -We are exceptional managers. All we need is some investments and we’ll be okay. All I ask of Ian Payne is to give us a chance. It is important to add that some excellent weather and several major sporting events which were shown on TV’s in the pubs also helped the company during this time. The new board were resolute that when they look over on May 15th there would no longer be an operations management team vacuity: it is essential that every pub manager know what was to take place in their pub and who was to be their immediate boss and boss’s superior, i.e. Operations Director. Considering the time scale involved, this meant that it was impractical for Laurel Pub Company to comply with the consultation responsibilities of the UK Employment Rights legislation, considering that the new operations management team was concerned. The company had the duty to consult all the parties over the next 30 days prior to making any immutable decision, considering that a considerable portion of the managerial workforce was to find their jobs unnecessary. However, if the developments were to continue without conforming with the consultation time-scales, then the company would have to reach individual arrangements with the managers concerned about the loss of their jobs. The company would have to “compromise them out”, in other words. Compromise Agreements dealing with cash payments above that of statutory or contractual obligations, are not uncommon in such instances. If the tight time-scales were to be attained, the CEO’s view was that this would have to be accepted. For the remaining jobs a thorough selection process was carried out using evaluation of the last years’ performance data; evaluation of managerial potential as reported in the annual appraisal; evaluation of the managerial competence and potential as measured by the findings of management development assessment centers for manager; numerical reasoning and verbal reasoning aptitude data; occupational personality questionnaire expert report findings and a criterion-based interview performed by a consultant. The criteria to be used in the interviews were sketch out in advance. These were: commercial awareness; organizational understanding; motivation and team building. Comprehensive notes were taken of respondents’ answers. These were then weighed against colleagues’ views, and those of their subordinates, obtained in separate confidential deliberations. No manager underestimated the importance of the process, knowing that they were being interviewed for their own jobs. The leased estate of the Laurel Pub Company has been left considerably same, not considering the growth in the number of Board members, senior and middle managers. There have also been no important developments here in employee relations terms. There are many reasons for this, not least that this fraction of the business was performing good on acquisition. On the other hand, the representative remarks below of leases demonstrated how they feel powerless as individuals and as a group to influence senior and middle management decisions, recognizing that they are now “mere devices” in highly power-driven and geared financial and property milieu: -“Well we have to be satisfied that it’s a German Bank and not a Japanese one – but what do they know about pubs in Liverpool?’ -“I used to be full of pride working for Whitebread for 20 years, now we have nothing.’ -“It’s all just Mickey Mouse numbers. How can they pay £1.6 billion in our name?” -“ Nothing! - is what can we do about it” -“We are just merchandise to be purchased and sold. I thought we were going to Morgan Grenfell, then I was told it was Deutche Bank; now my pub’s going to Enterprise – at least I think so.” However, a greater part of the concerns expressed related to what would happen when their leases came up for renewal. The managed house estate was not living in unstable times, whilst the lease aspect of the new business saw modest change. The Whitebread Pub Company had gone tenaciously down the route of brands and concepts and this has created in its wake Brand Managers, Supporting Band Managers, Brand Assistants and Marketing Analysts, counting to over 50 support staff jobs. This shows that from an operations management perspective, there was a considerable deal of marketing “interference” in operations and vice versa. Senior management had tried to resolve this through forming a matrix structure: it was an organizational mess, and the pubs and pub managers bore the consequences. Matrix management may be effective in complex multinationals functioning across numerous continents with a narrow range of products and/or services (see Child, 1984), but in the world of UK pub retailing it proved an organizational nightmare. The pub managers spoken to expressed the resulting insecurity, contradiction and “not knowing who to listen to”. The organizational reorganization resulted in the creation of three tactical business units led by an Operational Director, and each of them was allocated one marketing manager and one catering advisor. The rest of the jobs in the marketing function were unnecessary. Due to the more relaxed time-scales, the company went through the proper procedures, gave the required notification, and therefore did not have to “compromise out” any of their staff. Separate from the six people who still had a job, a considerable number of senior marketing teams decided on voluntary redundancy faced with the attractive terms of offer, while the rest were considered redundant. None of them was a member of a trade union, and in no case was there a representation by a union official. In the event, Marketing did not shake off as many jobs as initially expected, for it secured some purchasing and commercial jobs from a Whitebread head office team. But in total there were considerable job losses which somewhat mirrored the reduction in the total number of managed houses. For the pub managers and their staff the effect of the acquisition was felt most keenly by those whose managed house pubs were sold to lease companies. At a stroke they went from permanent pensionable employment with a large company to the uncertainty of self-employment – always assuming they were able to afford the lease and wanted to become leaseholders. In this instance, however, Laurel implemented a training and development program for Pub Managers acquiring leases for the first time so that they were able to move more easily into self-employment and leasehold management. On the other hand, on a more broad level sizeable managed house companies offer training and development for a career advancement. For pub managers this means the opportunity to ascend to larger pubs or in a different brand, to gain elevation to area or regional positions or, indeed, to move to other parts of the organization. For part-time bar staff a job ladder exists which allows some to progress to full-time pub management roles (Stevens, 2000). Suddenly these prospects were taken away. Methodology Methodology Research Design The present study utilizes a descriptive correlational research design, specifically determining bivariate correlation between the market factors and overall perception of decline of the UK beer market. In bivariate correlation, the degrees of the association between two variables in assessed. Such a relationship has a degree as determined by its magnitude, expressed as a number between -1 and +1, the so-called correlation coefficient. A zero correlation denotes the absence of a relationship. As the correlation coefficient becomes closer toward either -1 or +1, the relationship gets stronger until there is a "perfect correlation" at either extreme. In addition, the direction of the correlation is suggested by the negative or positive sign. A negative correlation indicates that as scores on one variable rise, scores on the other decrease. On the other hand, a positive correlation suggests that the scores move together in either direction, as both increases or both decreases (Davis, 2005). Bivariate correlation shall be used to establish relationships between the market factors and overall perception of decline of the UK market. Likert scale ratings between 1-5, with respondents asked to indicate their level of agreement to the statements presented in the self-constructed tool. A substantial part of the research required gathering qualitative data from running / historical records, particularly for the information on industry background and the changes that the industry has undergone from several years back. Moreover, qualitative data have been gathered from the interviews with some respondents following survey deployment and analysis. Subjects and Sampling Design The subjects shall include marketing / market research experts from the UK beer industry. They shall be purposively sampled using the following inclusion criteria: 1) should at least hold a supervisory level position in the beer company/industry for at least two years; 2) holds a marketing / market research related position to be able to give valid evaluations on the beer industry; 3) explicitly expressed consent in participating in the study. The following are the study’s exclusion criteria: 1) rank and file employees, even those belonging to the beer industry or to market-related positions within the industry; 2) lack of tenure in the current position (i.e. less than 2 years); 3) explicit expression of unwillingness to participate in the study. Procedure Secondary data have been gathered to provide a comprehensive background for the study. These were gathered through books, journals, and on-line sources. The researcher then deployed the questionnaire on pilot basis to about 10 respondents ensure both face and content validity. Concurrently, letters were sent to establishments or organizations related to the beer industry, requesting formal permission to conduct a study evaluating whether or not the UK beer industry is experiencing a decline. Once these establishments have given their go-ahead, the researcher proceeded to distributing the questionnaires purposively to qualified respondents. The first part of the questionnaire involved gathering demographic data, including: 1) age, 2) position, and 3) tenure. The second portion of the questionnaire inquired about their perceptions of the market factors affecting the UK beer industry. A final question pertained to their general evaluation of the status of the industry; that is, whether or not they perceive that the industry is indeed undergoing a decline. Following the quantitative data analysis, the researcher randomly sampled 10% of the total number of respondents, with whom he has conducted interviews to validate the initial survey results. Method of Data Analysis The demographic data yielded from the first part of the instrument were analyzed with the use of means, frequencies and percentage distributions. The correlation between market factors and overall evaluation of the UK beer industry were analyzed using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. This statistical tool is utilized to project the extent of association between two variables on an interval (or ratio) scale. Pearson, r can fall from 0 to +1.00 if the two scales are related positively (that is, in the same direction). On the other hand, it falls from 0 to -1.00 if the two scales are negatively correlated (that is, in opposite directions) (Brown, 2005). Moreover, the higher the value of r (whether positive or negative), the stronger the association between that market factor and the overall evaluation of industry decline. References Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-56 Brown, J. (2005). Statistics corner. Retrieved on January 12, 2006 from http://www.jalt.org/test/bro_12.htm Child, J. (1984). Organization: A guide to problems and practice. London: Harper & Row. Crompton, G. (1998). Well-intentioned meddling?: The beer orders and the British brewing industry In Wilson R. & Gourvish, T. The Dynamics of the International Brewing Industry Since 1800. London: Routledge. Davis, J. (2005). Correlational research methods. Retrieved on January 12, 2005 from http://clem.mscd.edu/~davisj/prm2/correl1.html De Chernatony, L. & McDonald, M. (1994). Creating Powerful Brands. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann De Chernatony, L. & McWilliam, G. (1990). Appreciating brands as assets through using a two-dimensional model, International Journal of Advertising, 8 (4), 111-19 De Chernatony, L. (1993). Categorizing Brands: Evolutionary approaches underpinned by two key dimensions. Journal of Marketing Management, 9, 173-88 Grouvish, T. & Wilson, R. (1994). The British brewing industry 1830-1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kotler, P. (1994). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning , Implementation, and Control, 8th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Lewis, C. and Vickerstaff, A. (2000). Positioned for success: branding in the Czech brewing industry. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(5), 341-52 Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press Preece, D., Steven, G. & Steven, V. (1999). Work, change and competition: Managing for Bass. London: Routledge. Preece, D., Steven, G. & Steven, V. (2002). Quality management in the public house retailing sector: A case study in Anthony, J. and Preece, D. (eds) Understanding, managing and implementing quality: Frameworks, Techniques and Cases. London: Routledge. Pribova, M. and Savitt, R. (1995). Attitudes of Marketing Managers towards markets and marketing. International Marketing Review, 12(5), 60-71 Rook, D. (1985). The ritual dimension of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 251-64 Steven, V. (2000). A stairway to the starts for unskilled women. Women in Management Review, 15, 20-29. MCB University. Vrontis, D. (1998). Strategic Assessment: the importance of branding in the European beer market. British Food Journal, 100 (2), 76-84 Webster, F. (2000). Understanding the relationships among brands, consumers and resellers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), 17-23 APPENDIX A – BEER INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE Dear Respondent, Greetings! Thank you for explicitly expressing interest in participating in the study investigating whether the status of the UK beer industry. Rest assured that your responses shall be held in utmost confidentiality and shall solely be used for academic research purposes. Directions: Completely fill out the demographic information requested. Next, read through each of the statements that follow. Indicate your level of agreement or disagreement to the statement by ticking the box that corresponds to your response. Be as candid as possible. Name: Company: Position: Length of Service in Marketing Role: 1.) There are developments that indicate efforts to undertake strong branding within the UK beer industry. □ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neither agree nor disagree □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree 2.) The Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) was published in 1989 which declared that any brewer owning more than 2000 on-licensed premises (hotels, bars and pubs) before November 1992 had to stop brewing or sell, or lease free from any tie, half of the pubs they owned above the 2,000 limit. I think this move has helped improve the beer industry on the whole. □ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neither agree nor disagree □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree 3.) Branded retailing is apparent among UK beer companies and has helped enhance the status of the UK beer industry in general. □ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neither agree nor disagree □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree 4.) The monopoly of only five main players that account for the production of 85% of UK beer is an acceptable / positive indicator of the status of the industry. □ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neither agree nor disagree □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree 5.) I feel that I belong to a strong and stable industry (i.e. the UK beer industry). □ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neither agree nor disagree □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree 6.) The sale of the breweries of Whitbread and Bas is a progressive move. □ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neither agree nor disagree □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree 7.) The consolidation and exits of small companies within the UK beer industry indicate that the latter is experiencing a decline. □ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Neither agree nor disagree □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree ***END OF SURVEY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. *** Read More