Sorting out the BBPA

The sudden departure of the chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association has prompted widespread debate over the future direction of the pub industry’s biggest trade association. Now is as good a time as any to address concerns over its effectiveness and structure. What is clear is that Rob Hayward was removed from his role by his paymasters – the industry companies – after a prolonged period when the group seemed to lack a coherent strategy and leadership, patience seemed to snap. It seems certain that Michael Turner, the executive chairman of Fuller’s and current chair of the BBPA, played a hand in showing Hayward the door, and will now lead the search for a successor. That new incumbent must personify a new energy and clarity of purpose that the BBPA desperately needs. The organisation must be more decisive and more proactive. In the past, it was a no brainer for the sector’s big companies to be part of the BBPA. Today that is no longer the case and reinvention is required. If all that sounds overly critical of the previous regime, it must be pointed out that the recent Axe the Tax campaign, spearheaded by the BBPA, has been a very positive success. The campaign has galvanised support for pubs and brewers among a wide audience, although given that our esteemed chancellor is losing money all over the place, a retrenchment on duty this April would represent a classic triumph of hope over expectation. While beer tax is clearly something that the whole industry is aligned on, one of the biggest questions is this: does the BBPA need to be split into the British Beer Association and the British Pub Association? Aside from the perpetual grumblings about its general performance, there is a growing feeling that it is possibly no longer fit for purpose because its objectives have become clouded. Some think that it should be carved up given the divergence of interests between brewers and pub companies on some issues. The most obvious point of difference is supermarket pricing. The BBPA has been hampered in the debate over whether or not it is responsible for the nation’s biggest grocers to be retailing beer at a price point beneath water, largely (we think) because the brewers don’t want to upset their off-trade customers. That said, a break up (just yet) would probably be a mistake. Common sense would suggest that makers of beer and retailers of beer should have more shared interest than not. Perhaps the organisation should be given more time before pressing ahead with the nuclear option. The danger of creating two organisations from one – and the general danger of having too many organisations – is that sector companies can’t support them all and, perhaps more importantly, the industry would lose even more voice. There would be potential for more mixed messages, and even less clarity. It is why the training body British Institute of Innkeeping should explore ways of folding in the activities of the FLVA now that Tony Payne is retiring. It’s even been suggested to me by several people that the industry should consider getting in bed with the supermarkets because on the big food and drink issues, “we’ll all be hammered the same”. A step too far perhaps, but certainly getting around the table with the supermarkets would not do any harm. While there is unquestionably room for improvement at the BBPA, another important exercise in all this is for Turner & Co to consider what success looks like. Part of the frustration at the lack of achievement by the BBPA in getting the industry’s message across stems from the industry’s diminishing voice. The sector is big, it’s important, but it is fragmented. The BBPA was born in a bygone era of mega integrated brewers and pub operators. Since the Beer Orders the direct lines in to power have perhaps fragmented away. Unlike the supermarket sector, where a handful of companies run the sector, it is no longer possible for Downing Street or Whitehall to talk to the industry via five or six chief executives. Perhaps this is part of the problem. Now with the licensed on-trade industry, the words “herding” and “cats” spring to mind. It is very difficult to talk with one voice. There is no clear message for government to latch on to. An interesting line doing the rounds on the government’s flip-flop on the amount of duty levied on spirits at the last budget is that Paul Walsh, the chief executive of Diageo, had a relatively long conversation on the telephone with Gordon Brown, before it was announced that the duty increase would be halved – but just for spirits. Perhaps it is this sort of influence the industry craves – and lacks. So – while things must change at the BBPA – it is important that who ever it is that takes the helm, they are given clear attainable goals and a bit of time, before a complete and ‘nuclear’ overhaul becomes the obvious option.