Tuesday, 20 December 2011

The Latest Twist

What was it that challenger Roger French of Brighton & Hove said about The Big Lemon? “Another copycat competitor”? Well, not for much longer, it seems. This particular slice of Brighton bus actuality will shortly sour. In spite of French’s statements about competition and his welcoming of Lemon, he will no doubt be relieved to see the latest opposition pipped. Not that it was anything more than a minor irritant, really. Some would argue it creamed off term-time student business, and only when the going was good—avoiding holidays.

Indeed, the Lemon 42 was squarely aimed at students who have more of an affinity with price rather than quality. B&H, on the other hand, continues with a consistent quality across its entire operation. As French has stated on many occasions, you should never give quality away too cheaply. But that’s assuming everyone wants to pay for such a high-end service. Others may welcome something a little lower down the scale, hence Lemon and students.

But the problem for low-cost operators come when the quality service continues while matching the low-cost operator’s price. That’s what B&H started to do earlier this year on B&H’s parallel 25.

It’s hardly surprising, therefore, that Lemon squarely blames the opposition. Lemon feels that it has been “squeezed out” by lower fares and more frequent services. As is usual, the newcomer seems to think that it has more of a right than the incumbent. I just wonder what Lemon expected. But we’re about to enter the slightly braver (or slightly impotent?) new post-Competition Commission world. It’s hard to say what the Competition Commission will make of Lemon’s deregistration and the reasons given by the hi-vis operator.

It was in 2007 that it all started. Then, the Lemon 42 was a limited stop service from Brighton Station to Falmer Station. Lemon had high-minded hopes of using the 42 as a springboard for expansion as a community interest company across more of Brighton.

Launched by none other than a Green Party MEP, Lemon displayed its green credentials by using biodiesel that included refined, locally sourced kitchen oil waste. But its much older vehicles couldn’t match the Euro III, IV or V of its competitor fleet.

The former care home manager soon realised that operating an half-hourly commercial bus service was no easy way of printing money. Demand wasn’t as high as expected and by November 2007 Lemon was in trouble. Caught in the trap of not having sufficient resources to operate, yet facing a fine or loss of its O licence for willfully circumventing the 56-day notice period, Lemon actually asked its passengers to appeal directly to the traffic commissioner. About 150 responded. To many in the industry, this sounded a little naïf, unprofessional, if not down right brass necked. To its passengers, it seemed sensible and rational. Why should passengers understand the rules by which operators run their services?

Part of Lemon’s 2007 problems resulted from it being perhaps a little too candid with its drivers. Keeping them on board is one thing but once they caught a whiff of financial problems and a consequent major restructure, Lemon found that it had to add deserting staff to its list of problems.

To the end of January 2008, Lemon did cut its service but not without the attention of the traffic commissioner. It then paused and relaunched in February 2008 as a student-orientated service during university term times only.

Lemon introduced a number of gimmicks and unorthodox approaches, including appeals, to try to galvanise support

To its credit, Lemon had built up the 42 again to half hourly, to 0400, though still during term times. This, of course, is no match for the established B&H 25 (every 10 minutes, including night buses at this frequency during term times).

The next installment came in April 2008, when Lemon proved it was no less dependent on commodity prices than anyone else. It announced a nine per cent hike in the cost of the waste cooking oil it used.

In July 2008, Lemon stated it was suspending operations over the summer, to coincide with the universities’ term dates. It became clear that students were the main beneficiary of a cheaper, no-frills service, where cost was more important, to them, than quality. Lemon had also announced the launch of a membership scheme where you could join the Lemon and get free travel as your reward.

Fast forward to March 2011 and the rot really began after B&H announced lower fares on the 25. It had already begun to provide artics on the route, to cope with peak student flows. There was a bit of a backlash from either Lemon supporters or from those who distrusted B&H. And then last week, Lemon announced the cancellation if its 42. The 44 between hall and Brighton University (and city centre in the evenings) continues, as does its private hires.

Were I to take any lessons from this adventure, I’d say that you should never under-estimate the costs of entering bus service operation and over-estimate the likely revenue. Like a lot of competition in England, much’s relatively short-term in nature and unsustainable. And for a community interest company to rely on goodwill, students, gimmicks, unorthodox approaches and contributions such as membership is probably meringue pie in the sky. Some things are just best left to commercial operators.

12 comments:

N90734 said...

BBC News: 20 December 2011:

Deregulation fails to bring competition to bus market

A lack of competition in the UK's local bus market means poorer services and higher fares for passengers, according to the Competition Commission (CC).

"Head-to-head competition is uncommon," the commission said, as it announced new rules to open up markets.

Bus firms will be banned from "over-bussing" and other short-term measures designed to keep out new rivals.

They will also have to share bus stations with competitors and accept "multi-operator ticketing schemes".

"The reality is that in too many areas of the country, competition has stagnated and the incumbent providers know that they face little in the way of serious challenge," said Jeremy Peat, chairman of the CC's local bus market investigation group.

"As such, the incentive to increase services, innovate and even lower fares is absent."

~~~

The Big Lemon did start with grandiose and unrealistic plans, but then quickly focussed on one market - students, a market then largely ignored by the incumbent.

As pointed out before, students are usually fit enough to sprint onto a step-entrance bus and few possess buggies. What they are really bothered about is £££ or rather the lack of it.

The Big lemon was doomed as soon as Brighton & Hove decided to cut fares - after all, who has the longer pockets? And it will surprise no-one to see fares on the B&H service rise when the 42 finishes.

A failure of competition? Not really. The (financially) strong will always drive out the weak, even if the weak have innovated.

The real issue is whether on-the-road, head to head competition really makes sense in the bus market. Also,whether 'tinkering' with the market as suggested by the CC,in order to try to make the earth flat, makes sense too.

Anonymous said...

The lack of competition and anticompetative behaviour of the big players has been very evident for many years

Hopefully the Commission will not take action to improve competition and come down heavilly on the big players who crush small local comeptitors.



Cardiif bus are still to appear in court for their behavior hopefuly we will see some of the big players in court as they are the worst for anticompetative behaviour which for to long has been ignored.

As you say B&H having forced the competitor out will now increase fares and reduce the service. Standard tactics of the big boys

Anonymous said...

Big Lemon chose to go head to head with B&H and as Busing says, had an attitude of being 'entitled' to a cut of the passengers.

Why were they 'entitled' and why shouldn't B&H try to protect their business against someone creaming off punters during the peaks? OK - Big Lemon did start off by running their service to the station as a point of difference but there was no demand so they cut it back to simply parallel what B&H were doing.

If the cancellation was lodged last week, then the service should be back running after the New Year for a few weeks... somehow given past performance, I wouldn't be sure.....

RW said...

What the competition commission and many other commentators do not understand is that every route is a contestable market. This puts a minimum standard and maximum fare on the route, or risks actual on-street competition. However, this is not the main pressure on operators. Cars, shared taxis, walking and cycling put much more pressure on an operator than most putative competitors.
When an operator such as Big Lemon thinks another bus company is profiteering rahter than just not beings as good as it could be (not likely with B & H!), then it is certain to fail. Unfortunately, some tendered service policies can give an artificial boost to a low cost operator, damaging the incumbent leading to cuts and/or higher fares.

Anonymous said...

Market forces dear readers.If TBL was doing anything better,more popular,or different to the high quality operator it challenged,it would still be in business.

It didn't,and it soon won't be.

Pick your fights wisely.

Anonymous said...

All of this makes you wonder how committed the students are to "their" service, if a B&H bus appears before a Lemon will they get on it or choose to wait and give support to the "little man"?

It will be a shame if Lemon cuts back further or disappears totally, I think things like the way it tweets and just generally communicates with students in a way they can understand make it stand out. I don't really see B&H making great use of facebook and/or Twitter in the way that other firms can/have/do. Given the excellence of the Brighton & Hove website it seems a shame that a big firm in a University city doesn't grasp social media more

Anonymous said...

I gather that both of the operators were at the Universities at the start of the current academic year selling annual passes. Presumably Big Lemon will now be offering pro-rata refunds....?

Anonymous said...

The big players pretty much operate ss cartels (technically they are not as they don't actively collabrate it is more of a case of an informal agreement not to compete with each other on what they regard as their own territory

Anonymous said...

Just a cowboy outfit creaming off on a profitable route. His original aim was to operate services across Sussex (not just Brighton) but he never bothered once he thought he could make some easier money from students.

His initial research was highly flawed if he hadn't appreciated that he would be up against one of the most respected bus operators in the country.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Just a cowboy outfit creaming off on a profitable route. His original aim was to operate services across Sussex (not just Brighton) but he never bothered once he thought he could make some easier money from students."

Ah yes, there were to be regular, clockface, express services across Sussex (and to points just outside) including Petersfield to Brighton, Gatwick to Chichester, Crawley to Hastings, Tonbridge to Worthing, and Eastbourne to Chichester, to name just a few!

"His initial research was highly flawed if he hadn't appreciated that he would be up against one of the most respected bus operators in the country"

I don't think that mattered because he simply didn't expect them to retalliate.

Metroman said...

I know that operators always use the line about the competitor being the car/walking/not making th journey etc. However as a group, it is the arrival of another operator that is the most likely cause of a reduction in fares. Time and again, there are special offers introduced when others come in. This is evidence of monopolistic behaviour.

However, how much of this is down to a feeling of protecting one's territory against those who seek to make money off the back of it?

robert said...

There have always been those who have naively thought it was cheap and easy to run a bus or coach company. If things were simply done their way it would all work out............

This is evidenced in some of the negative comments that people make here at times. If its that easy why are they not running a bus company themselves and proving they are right?

Many tried after de-regulation and couldn't survive, and this was not always because of competition by other operators large or small. They just didn't understand the costs, problems and issues concerned.

Existing operators cannot be expected to sit back and allow a newcomer to cream off business and build a base which may then threaten them (and by inference part of the existing network). Anyone who doesn't understand that is as I say naive.