It is rare that I feel compelled to write like this, particularly with reference to a long term supplier, but I feel that the behaviour again of Sky in the past month further jeopardises their long term relationship with the pub trade.
In this age of economic austerity I find it incomprehensible that Sky can enforce what in our case at Fullers amounts to a 25% price increase for their services and then claim that their new tariff is still being developed.
Which other supplier could come to us with a) Such a disproportionate and unjustifiable increase; b) Have the temerity to falsely claim that many pubs will see a reduction; c) Say that their tariff is initially incorrect, and needs (unquantified) changes at an unspecified time?
Let me explain the facts for our business. We currently have Sky in 58 Managed Pubs. Sky claims that "charges will fall in 30% of pubs".
In our case charges will actually increase in 57 pubs by between 25 and 60% and will fall in just one pub.
Sky also infers that tenants will benefit from lower charges. Again, not true here, 90% of our tenants are all seeing big increases — some of up to 30%.
Looking behind Sky's press release given to the trade press, the actual detail differs greatly from the spin and I struggle to see who, other than Sky, are the winners from this new tariff.
Throughout this recession we have worked hard with our suppliers to maintain an excellent service and outstanding support, whilst keeping prices down.
Why is Sky different? The answer I'm afraid is that they have a market to themselves and are clearly set on exploiting this by maximizing their revenue from pubs irrespective of the damage that it will do to licensees.
Where does this lead to? Whilst I can't speak for the rest of the industry, I can say that Sky will have a reduced presence in the Fullers estate.
Simon Emeny is currently managing director of Fuller's Inns and will take over as group managing director in November.