Hamish Champ: How would you change the pub industry?

Last week I met someone who works for the Licensed Trade Charity (LTC) and I took the opportunity to ask about the organisation's work and its support network.

In the course of telling me about the good work the charity does for ex-licensees in distress the individual told me the LTC had seen a marked increase in the number of people approaching the organisation for help in recent months.

The worrying thing was that a growing number of calls for assistance were coming from experienced licensees, many of whom have run pubs for years without any major problems, but who were now finding life very tough indeed.

The smoking ban, the economy and the attitude of pubcos towards their licensees were all contributory factors behind the rise in the number of people seeking help, apparently.

These are things I've heard more and more of in recent months. The smoking ban is of course hitting traditional wet-led boozers. The consumer downturn is affecting everyone but the very well off. And some pub owners are said to be piling on the pressure while turning a deaf ear to pleas for help.

Such comments are often accompanied by calls for the beer tie to be removed in order that licensees to can better compete in a tough market, to wit the Fair Pint campaign, etc.

Those bitterly opposed to the power of the large pubcos are no doubt rubbing their hands as such companies' share prices fall faster than the air temperature in a well-maintained pub cellar.

Some go further, believing the demise of the pub-owning behemoths is but a few months away. As property prices fall, rents are becoming unsustainable and the model folds in on itself, the beer tie making way for a more equitable system.

Interesting stuff. As such I am genuinely interested to hear people's views on one key question.

Let's assume the pubco/beer tie model does fall into the sea. What would replace it?

If one did away with the pubcos how dramatically would the problems of the industry be solved? If the pubco model were indeed to be removed, as some clamour for, would pubs currently closed actually be trading, perhaps because a more realistic rent was being charged?

Or would such pubs be shuttered anyway because no one could - or would - be able to make them viable?

I'm not defending - or indeed attacking - the pubco system. I'm merely posing the question.

Would supposed Robber Pubcos be replaced by Robber Banks? Instead of pubcos demanding upward-only rent reviews in their lease agreements, would there be banks pressuring lessees for monthly mortgage payments? Or would this be soothed by the ability to buy beer at a price deemed more competitive than the one currently being levied by existing pubcos?

I've previously run on The Publican's City pages articles by licensees who have come up with alternatives to the current system; for example Mike Smith's recent thoughts on what could effectively become a franchise environment.

I'd be interested to hear more suggestions on how things might be done differently. I know you're busy running your pub and perhaps too busy trying to make a living to come up with the salvation to the industry's ills.

But if you've any thoughts on the matter drop me a line. How would you do things differently and what do you think the result would be?

In the spirit of fairness I'd also like to hear from anyone who is satisfied with their pubco and the support they provide. If your pubco has done a good job for you, let me know.

And if you work for a pubco, what do you think? Is the criticism levelled at the large pub owners and their staff off the mark? If so, why?

There are more than 16,000 pubs out there owned by the Big Three alone. Just how good or bad is​ it?

Email me at hamishc@thepublican.com