Latest news with #HenryNicholls
Forbes
08-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Why Summer Promotions Could Boost Apparel's Recovery
The constant ebb and flow of tariffs in the news cycle has created a hyper-aware consumer who is ultra-sensitive to the effects that pricing changes may have on their wallet. This mindset represents a marked shift from earlier in the year, when tariffs were just hitting the headlines and many consumers remained unaware of potential implications. In fact, as of May, 71% of U.S. households expect tariffs to drive up prices — which is up 12 points from January, according to data and technology company Circana. (Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS / AFP) (Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP via Getty Images) When it comes to clothing, this heightened awareness can lead to a whole host of behavioral shifts. In the first quarter of this year, two-thirds of consumers said they would either trade down, delay, or altogether skip their apparel purchase due to potential price increases from tariffs. While price increases are nothing new in the apparel industry — in fact, prices have been increasing for the past three years — what was once a tolerance for price increases is transforming, and consumer behavior is changing along with it. From Want to Need: The Behavioral Shift So, why is it that consumers are expecting to change their apparel shopping behavior now, when they've been feeling price pressures for the past few years? The answer lies in evolving consumer needs. In the one to two years following the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers ravenously replenished their wardrobes. It happened in waves that aligned with consumers' needs: first it was the basics like bras and underwear, next activewear, and then swimwear and tailored pieces. When inflation hit consumers' wallets, they didn't have to trade down in apparel and hunt for promotions because they had recently replenished their wardrobes. They either bought something if they wanted it, or they didn't buy at all. What's different now is the replenishment cycle has gone full circle and the 'need' factor has returned. Consumers have gone a few years without replenishing some of their must-have items, causing a fundamental change in shopping behavior. The shift from "want" to "need" is causing more of a focus on price. The Summer Promotional Opportunity As we enter the season of summer promotions across retail, apparel has the chance to be one of the better performing categories. Industries like beauty and tech often dominate during these timeframes as consumers pinpoint specific deals for desired items. However, we may see more of an opportunity for apparel as consumers wait until the price is right, or at least more desirable, to replenish basics, activewear, or other put-off categories. We have been seeing a bit of a shift toward promotions in recent weeks. In the 13 weeks ending May 31, the average promotional depth in apparel remained relatively flat, but the sales of promoted items grew by 2%, compared to last year, outpacing sales of full-price items. We are seeing sales of promotional items increase for replenishment categories like underwear, sweatshirts, and sleepwear. These upcoming promotional weeks remain an opportunity for seasonal apparel. "Buy now, wear now" has shifted to "need now, buy now," which not only aligns with weather needs, but lifestyle needs as well. Consumers shopping for an upcoming vacation may buy swimwear a week before, as opposed to the month before. Kids' apparel, especially, is experiencing increased sales of promotional apparel, with boys' and girls' promotional apparel up 16% and 9%, respectively. This presents a significant opportunity for retailers to highlight seasonal apparel and even get ahead of some back-to-school needs. The Innovation Imperative While the opportunity remains, it wasn't too long ago that the apparel industry found itself all too reliant on promotions to move sales. Consumers played promotional chicken with retailers, waiting out for those steep discounts. While promotions will play a role the back half of 2025, it is imperative that the industry doesn't fall into a discount loophole. The challenge for apparel brands and retailers is striking the right balance: meeting consumers' heightened price sensitivity while maintaining the innovation and newness that drives long-term category growth. Those who can navigate this delicate balance will be best positioned to capture the tariff-aware consumer's attention and wallet share in the months ahead.
Scotsman
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Gender Scotland: 7-day ultimatum over 'action' on Scottish same-sex toilet access
Sex Matters is threatening to sue the Scottish Government. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Gender critical campaigners have sent a further 'letter before action' to the Scottish Government, calling on ministers to make a statement on its policy around access to toilets in government properties. Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against which went to the Supreme Court, are threatening a lawsuit against Scottish ministers. The latest letter has demanded action by a deadline of Wednesday next week. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Members of the For Women Scotland campaign group celebrate the Supreme Court ruling about the definition of the word 'woman' (Picture: Henry Nicholls) | AFP via Getty Images The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What the latest letter says The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter, we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.' The letter notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities. The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'. The Scottish Government's position A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling. This includes the establishment of a short-life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation, which may be impacted by the judgment. 'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government. This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.' Commenting on the campaigners' letter, Scottish Conservative MSP Tess White said: 'The SNP Government must stop dragging its heels. 'The Supreme Court ruling was crystal clear, and so was the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's guidance in the wake of it, so there is no excuse for the SNP failing to comply fully with the law now. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Indeed, their failure to do so is leaving the Scottish Government and its public bodies open to the legal challenge Sex Matters are threatening.'
Scotsman
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Gender Scotland: 7-day ultimatum over 'action' on Scottish same-sex toilet access
Sex Matters is threatening to sue the Scottish Government. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Gender critical campaigners have sent a further 'letter before action' to the Scottish Government, calling on ministers to make a statement on its policy around access to toilets in government properties. Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against which went to the Supreme Court, are threatening a lawsuit against Scottish ministers. The latest letter has demanded action by a deadline of Wednesday next week. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Members of the For Women Scotland campaign group celebrate the Supreme Court ruling about the definition of the word 'woman' (Picture: Henry Nicholls) | AFP via Getty Images The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What the latest letter says The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter, we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.' The letter notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities. The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'. The Scottish Government's position A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling. This includes the establishment of a short-life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation, which may be impacted by the judgment. 'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government. This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.' Commenting on the campaigners' letter, Scottish Conservative MSP Tess White said: 'The SNP Government must stop dragging its heels. 'The Supreme Court ruling was crystal clear, and so was the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's guidance in the wake of it, so there is no excuse for the SNP failing to comply fully with the law now. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Indeed, their failure to do so is leaving the Scottish Government and its public bodies open to the legal challenge Sex Matters are threatening.'
New Statesman
01-07-2025
- Business
- New Statesman
The troubled welfare bill has passed – but at what cost?
Photo by Henry Nicholls -After removing the central point of the welfare bill – cuts to Personal Independence Payments – it passed this evening, 335 votes for and 260 against.. Now, Labour MPs have given their stamp to a bill that bares little resemblance to the cuts to benefits the government originally proposed when this process began. Stephen Timms, the social security and disability minister, announced the latest big concession from the government to the rebels just before 6pm. Shortly after, Andy McDonald, the fierce old Corbynite MP used a point of order to claim that it was no longer clear what MPs were voting on: 'So I ask the question, what are we supposed to be voting on tonight', he asked incredulously. 'Is it the Bill as drawn, or another Bill, because I'm confused. I think people in this chamber will need that clarification.' Another MP joked that she went out for a banana and by the time she came back, the bill had completely changed. It was a moment of chaos that could have come at any time during the Theresa May premiership – except Keir Starmer's government has a working majority of 165. The past six days have been torturous for the government. Last week, more than a third of Labour MPs backed a reasoned amendment which aimed to scrap the bill. Ministers were pushed out onto the defensive. Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting were locked in negotiations with rebels, trying to bring them round to supporting the bill. The Deputy Prime Minister, who is cementing her position as one of the government's most influential cabinet ministers, still couldn't do enough to prevent the big concession we saw this evening. In the run up to today's vote, the government offered the rebels two concessions: pushing back the implementation of the cuts to Personal Independence Payments to November 2026 and announcing a review of the assessment process to be conducted by Steven Timms. The Work and Pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, originally told MPs the review would report in Autumn 2026, but this was met with consternation that if the changes to Pip were set to come in at the same time – what would be the point of the Timms review? Those changes to Pip are gone now. They may never come back before the Commons, leaving the Treasury with a £2.5bn hole in its spreadsheets. Liverpool Wavertree MP Paula Barker spoke for many on the backbenches when she described the way this bill played out as 'incoherent and shambolic'. This vote followed hours of impassioned debate from both sides of the Commons. Marie Tidball, the only visibly physically disabled MP was openly emotional in her contribution, 'I cannot support the proposed changes to Pip,' she said, 'and since April I have been engaging with government at the very highest level'. Tidball said she would vote against the bill. One thing was clear, even in the contribution of some of those who said they would be voting for Kendall's reforms: most MPs are cognisant that this was intended to be a cost-saving measure. Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, argued 'the whole origin of this bill was a demand to save £5bn'. He added: 'I simply say this is a ridiculous situation that the secretary of state has put us in. Withdraw the bill now.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This was a hollow victory for the government. Even though the bill passed, and these reforms will eventually be implemented, the management of its passage has been damaging. Many rebels are furious over how they were treated by senior members of the government (whether those who voted against will face any consequences remains to be seen). Starmer will need to do a lot of crisis management over the coming weeks to repair Number 10's relationship with the PLP. If not, who's to say any future disagreements between this Labour government and its backbenches won't be one hundred times worse. But in some ways, it is also a serious failure for Starmer and his project. While some rebels are furious with how they have been treated, they also likely feel galvanised after winning this war of contrition with the government. In sustaining pressure on the government, they have succeeded in moulding these reforms to their own agenda. Following the concession that no changes would be made until the Timms review had reported, one MP told me simply, 'amazing'. The government have been backed into a corner. With the money saved by these reforms slashed in half, Labour will likely have no choice but to raise taxes in the Autumn, something they have repeatedly failed to commit to. The money will need to come from somewhere. Over to you, Rachel Reeves. Related
Scotsman
25-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Scotsman
Here's what it's like to be 'cancelled' for your beliefs amid trans debate
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... What does it mean to 'cancel' a writer? Is a 'culture' of cancellation really happening? Are the numerous tales of 'houndings' of mainly female authors solely a problem for the individuals targeted? Or, as many have long suspected, are these new trends harming the sustainability and integrity of the wider publishing world? Addressing such questions is the impetus behind a new report, Everyday Cancellation, commissioned by SEEN (Sex, Equality and Equity Network) in Publishing, in partnership with human rights organisation Sex Matters. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Written by researcher Matilda Gosling, the report is a shocking compendium. It details how an entire literary ecology of writers, publishers, and literary institutions have operated to effectively shut out 'gender critical' (GC) writers, editors, and others in publishing. Campaigners celebrate the recent Supreme Court ruling about the definition of the word 'woman' (Picture: Henry Nicholls) | AFP via Getty Images Discrimination, harassment and self-censorship It is impossible to cover the extent of its findings in a short column. But I would urge anyone insisting that 'cancel culture doesn't exist' to digest it. Reading the tales of self-censorship, discriminatory policies, and internal harassment of some in various publishing houses, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that GC views are shared by the majority of the UK population. Those views can be summarised as: women, as a category definition, are adult human females, and this definition is vital for women's cultural and legal protections. Additionally, such writers question the speed at which the counter view, known as 'gender identity ideology', which views 'woman' as a social category rather than a fixed reality, has spread rapidly throughout society. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad READ MORE: Why UK Supreme Court gender ruling is a historic setback for trans rights The number of books pushing this controversial set of ideas in children's publishing is a key concern highlighted in the report. Reflected back in prize lists and which writers are invited to conduct school visits, publishing houses are aiding a contested belief system being taught to young people as fact. As literary agent Matthew Hamilton says, this is clear evidence of 'indoctrination'. I am one of the case studies in Gosling's report. Like Hamilton, and only five others, I waived my anonymity. This is not due to any particular bravery. 'For most of history, 'Anonymous' has been a woman,' Virginia Woolf said. I simply refuse the silence this cultural atmosphere has imposed on so many. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Open hostility in much of literary world GC viewpoints are perfectly ordinary. They also concur with the law of the land. This was clarified with finality by the recent Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland versus Scottish ministers. But in much of the literary world, there is open hostility against anyone who expresses them. Even if my views were not certain on this issue, I would still find the treatment meted out to GC authors unacceptable and often frightening. I have told my own 'hounding' story many times; it is difficult to summarise its intensity. I first tripped the wire in 2019, setting in motion a profoundly isolating, years-long period of near-constant harassment, culminating in the loss of my entire former livelihood as a poet and literary events programmer. What is often not realised is that my hounding has never ceased, despite my having successfully written my way through it. Like many, I grow weary of highlighting every incident – but it is an extraordinary treatment to become used to. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ideology trumps sales The Everyday Cancellation report outlines the scaffolding that props up a literary-sector hounding: an individual is targeted for some 'misdemeanour'; institutions turn a blind eye or go along with it; those who hound are platformed and their targets ostracised; bystanders remain silent while self-censoring and fretting. Meanwhile, publishers push gender-identity titles that sell about 3,000 copies while giving six-figure advances to the trans-identified authors who write them. GC writers get comparatively small advances, and tiny publicity budgets, then sell – in some cases - hundreds of thousands of copies internationally, as was the case with Helen Joyce's Trans: Where Ideology Meets Reality. Ideological motivations are clearly trumping both the commercial interests of publishers, and the sensible programming decisions of festivals. This has long baffled those of us aware of these numbers. The report also contains a wake-up call for those who enjoy a bit of Scottish exceptionalism. Of the highlighted areas of particular concern? 'Children's publishing'. And 'Scotland'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sorrow for a world that could have been Arts funding body Creative Scotland, the report concludes, 'appears not to have given proper consideration to its public-sector equality duty', by implementing priorities that are discriminatory towards GC writers. Its stance is part of the reason that Scottish arts organisations in particular seem to be 'shaped by transactivism', given they follow Creative Scotland's lead. As someone so affected by this stifling cultural climate, I've thanks as well as sorrow for this sobering report. Thanks, because it confirms so fully what isolated and hounded authors have long known. Sorrow, as I wish for a world where it never had to be written. In that world, the anonymous author who reports being reprimanded by his agent for having a sympathetic GC character in his submitted (and rejected) manuscript has just gained a great review for a portrayal of a realistic older female protagonist. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The unnamed fiction writer who discovered her own publicist had tried to get her deplatformed from a book festival? She's sitting in an Author's Yurt somewhere, signing multiple copies. Publishers once again look for quality, sales, and not propaganda. Children are not being pushed wholly confusing views. A books world focused on quality, grappling difficult issues, and doing so with creativity. It's a world I once knew. I hope this report will chip away at the forces that destroyed it, and that 'Anonymous' can one day write freely, without such fear and punishment.
