Fremantle Markets - Ann Meyer and grand visions

Ann Meyer put people offside right from the beginning. Another business was reduced in size to make way for her coffee shop. She moved someone else’s stock from the coolroom and took over that space; the tenant left the market because of that shabby treatment and the newly announced rental increases.

Soon after, Ann introduced herself as the new Business Development Manager. People came out of her introductory meeting seething with anger. She took a hard line and said she was not there to talk about the past or problems or to answer questions. Basically it was “I’m here to speak and you are here to listen”. That was incredibly insensitive considering that the stallholders had just heard of the rental increases and felt betrayed and afraid.

It was generally understood that the Murdoch brothers had employed her to avoid the angry conflict that was festering; she was now the ‘go to guy’ and the Murdoch’s referred everything back to her. She was generally disrespected and disliked and many of the changes she instigated had dire effect on previously well run, successful businesses.

No one has ever mentioned a good idea that Ann Meyer implemented but there are many accounts of extreme chagrin at the detrimental changes she has made. What enflames everyone most of all, is that she over-rides experience, logical argument and even obvious facts by quoting or stressing her research. She is often mimicked with statements like, according to my survey, my data says, our market research, due to customer demand…

Her coffee shop was taken over by her daughter. There has been a lot said about ‘conflict of interest and nepotism’ and a lot of animosity has brewed as the daughter took over prime positioning and other advantages.

What I find most interesting about this shop is that it should reflect the validity of Ann’s qualifications and must be an example of how a shop should be run and how successful a shop can be according to the management’s expertise, positive attitude, qualified research and visions of their 21st century innovation. One would think that this shop would be a prototype for all others to aspire to – wouldn’t one?

Without even going into the fact that the coffee shop is for sale and everyone is really angry that a casual stall is for sale, when permanent stalls can’t sell and are being walked away from, let’s compare advantages and disadvantages.

The first point is that not only is this a casual stall which has only operated a little more than a year but the sale comes with an exclusive right to take over a permanent shop which has never even been occupied by the girl. The previous owner was ousted after paying around $30,000 for only ½ the space. He has recently walked away with nothing. How is it that his shop becomes her asset?

This might make her sale look more secure or more appealing but on closer inspection a potential buyer would find that that space needs to be fitted out and equipped according to regulations. I would estimate they would be looking at another $50,000 to do that.

Currently the girl is in a casual location of 3X3 metres. If you put a table at the front and side that gives you enough space to work in equivalent to a baby’s playpen. The rent on this little space is $100 per day. If the buyer takes on the permanent shop it is probably triple that size so I assume it would be at least double that rent.

The casual 3X3 shop is for sale for $20,000neg. If you take on the permanent shop your outlay would be around $70,000 plus rent around $600 per weekend. My figures are rough of course, but close enough for this estimation I am sure.

According to the girl, her profit is around $1,000 per month or $250 per week. If you round that out at 8 hours a day, trading 3 days at the market, and include another 8 hours to do all the things that need to be done to run the business, you have around 32 hours work. That means you make around $8 per hour!

The minimum basic wage for an employee would be twice that. Who in their right mind would pay $20,000 to do that? This of course, this is only if you take the 3X3 casual. I can’t imagine that anyone would take on a lease with the larger shop based on these figures.

I must also add that the figures did not include outgoings, insurances, car, phone or office expenses and other costs that would be usual in running a business so I do believe that the profit was exaggerated.

So, if this is the baby of Ann Meyers and Jamie Murdoch; with all of that management advantage, market research, the questionnaires, positive/professional attitude, retail experience, expertise and grand visions for everyone – then let the proof be in their puddings.

On another note though, I will add, that a potential buyer contacted Jamie Murdoch and enquired about the 5 year lease and also asked for information about the 3 month trial. The request was ignored. An EOI was sent instead. A second request to see a copy of the lease was also ignored.

Yes, you get to buy the coffee shop but you are only given a 3 month trial – and then… (???)

If this is the outcome for the ‘favoured one’ then what hope does anyone have?

For the latest post:http://sonyagreen.blogspot.com