Wednesday, 26 March 2025

What goes around, comes around

The Manchester Evening News reports that the Sparking Clog pub in Radcliffe, Greater Manchester, has recently reopened after being given a unique “Two Door Pub” concept. The StreetView image above dates from last year and may not reflect its current appearance. I am informed by Tandleman that the pub was built in the late 1980s by Banks’s, who still own it in their current guise of Marston’s.
A Greater Manchester pub which closed its doors last month for a major refurbishment has reopened. The Sparking Clog pub in Bury has undergone a huge makeover with over £400,000 spent on the upgrade. The much-loved community pub in Radcliffe was temporarily closed for just under a month for the six-figure makeover. It has now introduced a unique “Two Door Pub” concept, as well as a refreshed bar area and a dedicated family lounge.

Located in the heart of Radcliffe, The Sparking Clog's new design divides the pub into two distinct areas: a 'vibrant' locals' bar and a 'warm, welcoming' family lounge. A central partition creates these separate spaces. The new bar area is complete with 4K big-screen TVs, TNT, and Sky Sports for guests to enjoy all the latest fixtures.

General Manager of The Sparking Cog, Gary Hanmer, said: “We can’t wait to show our wonderful guests the result of our refurbishment. “With the inclusion of new TV’s and sports channels, we hope our customers join us to enjoy this year's big summer of sports. We can’t wait to have our loyal customers back!” The Sparking Clog remains a dog-friendly locals pub, and also boats a beer garden, giving guests the option to drink and dine inside or alfresco.

All well and good but, hang on a minute, isn’t this “unique concept” simply reverting back to how pubs used to be a couple of generations ago? Back in the 1960s, most pubs had, at the very least , two separate bars, a public bar with plainer furnishings and a more down-to-earth atmosphere, where drinkers in working clothes would be served, and a more comfortable, sedate and genteel lounge. Back in those days, the beer was usually a bit cheaper in the public bar as well.

However, over the years, brewers steadily knocked their pubs through into a single room. This was in tune with the spirit of the age, being seen as more modern, inclusive and egalitarian. It also made supervision of the pub easier and, at a time when public bar prices were regulated by law, allowed the pub to charge the higher lounge prices throughout. It’s now relatively uncommon to find a pub with completely separate “sides” and, even where they do, the old price differential has disappeared.

The problem with this, though, was that it effectively turned the pub into a monoculture. It may have erased old-school class divisions, but it failed to recognise that customers might have different expectations of a pub, and want to pursue different activities. Very often, the old public/lounge split moved from one single pub to defining different pubs in an area.

I recall seeing a similar story a while back, about how pubs were moving back towards a more compartmentalised approach to cater for different customer needs. In particular it needs to be recognised that TV sport, while it undoubtedly attracts customers, results in a distinctively boisterous, male-dominated atmosphere that may deter many people. My local pub, while it retains a traditional layout, suffers from having giant screens in every room. It remains to be seen, though, how widely this concept will spread.

Looking back to the debate before the introduction of the dreaded smoking ban in 2007, one option that was mooted was banning smoking in any areas of pubs where children were admitted. This could well have led to a set-up very much like this, with a robust, boisterous, adults-only public bar and a sanitised, smoke-free, family-friendly lounge.

However, I can’t help thinking that this concept still fails to cater for a significant sub-section of pubgoers, those who are just looking for a quiet pint, a comfortable seat and a chat well away from both TV sport and screaming children.

Thursday, 20 March 2025

Five Years On

Today marks the fifth anniversary of that fateful day when Boris Johnson announced to the country that the pubs would be completely closed until further notice due to the Covid-19 pandemic. I contemplated going down to my local for a last hurrah, but eventually decided against it. This ushered in sixteen months of either total closure or varying levels of ever-changing and often ludicrous restrictions, which were not fully lifted until Monday 19 July 2021. Even after this, for whatever reason, a handful of pubs persisted with the old regime, including, shamefully, the current holder of CAMRA’s National Pub of the Year Award.

Do you remember when you were only allowed to visit a pub if you consumed a “substantial meal”, although a Scotch egg or a hot Panini would suffice? Or when you were required to put on a mask if you had to stand up to go to the toilet? Or pubs were forced to operate table service, with all bar sales banned? Or when you had to provide your details for contract tracing, resulting in a surprising surge in visits by Isaac Hunt and Mr R. Sole? Or when all the pubs were forced to close at 10pm on the dot, resulting in a massive crush on public transport, making a mockery of social distancing? Or when different areas were allocated in “tiers” of restrictions, meaning that pubs could be closed on one side of a street and open (after a fashion) on the other? And how a minority of licensees seemed to demonstrate overzealous enthusiasm in enforcing this nonsense? In Scotland, there was even a period where you could have soft drinks inside the pub, but had to go outside if you wanted an alcoholic drink.


Pubs have now been allowed to trade normally for over three and a half years, and have recovered much of the lost ground, but still seem somehow subdued and diminished compared with how they were in 2019. The British Beer and Pub Association have stopped publishing their regular beer consumption statistics, but it would not surprise me if on-trade beer sales in 2024 were at least 20% lower than five years previously.

The phenomenon of queuing for service at the bar has become increasingly common, although this must have come from behaviour in shops as, apart from a brief period in the summer of 2020, pubs were never allowed to operate bar service. The trade in pubs often visibly thins out after 9 pm, while previously they would be buzzing until 11 or later. And the switch to working from home has only been partly reversed, damaging the business of many pubs in town and city centres. Many small breweries seemed to bide their time during the period of lockdown, only to discover that their businesses were no longer viable in the colder climate they emerged into, resulting in a wave of closures.

Of course this spread to the whole of society, not just the hospitality industry. So-called “non-essential” shops were closed, and benches and children’s play equipment in parks taped over. In Scotland, it was even proposed to saw the bottoms off school doors to promote ventilation, although I’m not sure whether this was ever actually done. We got our first taste of the reality of two-tier policing, when the contrast between the treatment of Black Lives matter demonstrations and anti-lockdown protests was only too evident, not to mention the heavy-handed response to a gathering to mark the murder of Sarah Everard, who had been killed by a serving police officer.

The panoply of regulations, at the same time absurd and oppressive, was seized upon by every obnoxious, jumped-up jobsworth in society who took delight in exercising power over others. The role of Covid Marshal seemed ideally auited to anyone who had missed a vocation as a PoW camp guard: the kind of people who during the Second World War were denounced as “little Hitlers”. It became a living demonstration of the truth of P. J. O’Rourke’s saying that “Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history, mankind has been bullied by scum.” Pub licensees have always had a penchant for imposing petty rules, and sadly a small but significant minority saw lockdown restrictions as a golden opportunity to boss customers around.

A variety of sinister psychological techniques were used to promote public adherence to lockdowns, and howl down any criticism. This showed all too clearly how it is possible for a supposedly open and democratic society to acquiesce in totalitarianism. We became a society where people gleefully shopped their neighbours to the authorities and decried anyone daring to step out of line as “Covidiots”. This was chronicled in Laura Dodsworth’s coruscating book A State of Fear, which was published as early as May 2021.

The crisis wasn’t something that appeared and then blew over. Its impact is still with us in many ways today, as US beer writer Jeff Alworth explores in this blogpost, in which he draws a connection between the effect on the brewing and hospitality industry and wider society. It’s an interesting an thoughtful piece which is well worth reading, although I certainly don’t agree with all his conclusions.

It is important to point out that Covid and lockdown are different things. Covid is a disease, but the response to it, and how severe and long-lasting it would be, was a political choice. Lockdown was not an ineluctable consequence of Covid. Jeff in effect recognises this when he says “Blue states, where shutdowns were more common and durable, seem to be in worse shape.” Lockdown was not a single, indivisible concept; it was a deliberate choice from a range of policy options.

School closures, imperfectly and patchily substituted by online learning, have left many pupils really struggling and well behind with their education. Pausing a wide range of medical services has hugely increased NHS waiting lists and left many people with serious conditions still untreated. The social isolation of lockdown has carried on into the following years, reducing social contact and leaving people more lonely, often resulting in mental health problems. The costs associated with business support and furlough payments, and the reduction in tax revenues from reduced economic activity, have created a mountain of debt that continues to hang over the entire economy. All of these factors have combined to produce a far greater feeling of political alienation.

Jeff says “I personally offer blanket immunity to any public officials who made decisions in good faith with limited info—they were given impossible choices,” but I would strongly disagree. This may have been excusable in the very early weeks, when there was a general sense of confusion and lack of clarity over what was happening, but it wasn’t too long before the disastrous long-term consequences of lockdown had become all too clear. Many respected commentators were saying this at the time, so the argument that “we were doing the best we could with the knowledge we had at the time” does not wash. The cartoon below was published in early May 2020, less than two months in.

And this one entitled “The Second Wave”, although later, makes the point even more strongly.

It was often suggested at the time that there was a trade-off between saving lives and saving the economy, but except in a very short-term sense this is a false dichotomy. Without a healthy economy, in the longer term public health will suffer. And there was no clear correlation between the length and severity of lockdowns and public health outcomes. Sweden was the only major European nation not to have any kind of formal lockdown, but its results were somewhere in the middle of the scale, some better, some worse. And Peru, which had one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, also had one of the highest death rates. (I am not suggesting that there is a reverse correlation either, just that there is no clear link either way).

The fact remains that, five years after the start of lockdown, the Covid crisis has had profound, long-lasting and damaging implications across the whole of society. Yet people seem all too willing to memory-hole it, as it is just too uncomfortable to address. This goes far beyond the hospitality industry. As a society we are poorer, sicker, less well educated, and more isolated and more divided than we otherwise would have been. And most of that was a political choice.

Saturday, 15 March 2025

Pub pointers

A few days ago, I linked to an article by food writer Jay Rayner setting out a listing of sometimes uncomfortable home truths about the food and restaurant industries. I invited suggestions for similar points about the world of pubs and beer, and what follows is a collection of the best of these, some my own, some submitted by others. Most of these are thoughts on the running of pubs. Please note that I don’t necessarily wholly endorse all these points.

  • Always provide beermats. Nobody wants tables sopping with spilt beer.

  • People do not queue to be served at the bar of a pub.

  • Music should be played to suit the customers, not the bar staff.

  • Keep to regular hours and make sure they are well publicised, including displaying them on the door.

  • If you have a website or social media page, keep them up to date.

  • The hospitality business is about hospitality. Nobody wants to be served by miserable staff who think the job or the punters are beneath them.

  • If you must have seating at the bar, leave a dedicated space for people to be served.

  • If there’s a crush at the bar, customers feel much better if you’ve at least acknowledged their presence.

  • Don't leave doors open when it's cold.

  • Opening doors and windows on a sunny day does not warm the interior of a pub.

  • Italic script lettering painted on the outside wall of a pub is always a bad sign.

  • “Please wait here to be seated” has no place in a pub.

  • Seat reservations for drinkers should be a total no-no.

  • Nobody ever walked out of a pub because there were no posing tables.

  • Do not use your customers as unpaid quality control.

  • Compromising on cask beer quality is a false economy.

  • Price is about status not quality. If you like cask beer, the cheaper pubs get the turnover and have a better pint. If you find a pub full of working class blokes drinking pints of bitter and not Carling it will be a great pint.

  • Jam jars showing the colour of cask beers are a pointless affectation for regular beers.

  • Unless a customer is being obviously arsey, never quibble about changing unsatisfactory beer.

  • Serving beer in the wrong branded glass is worse than in an unbranded glass. Invest in some glasses branded with your pub name.

  • Throw away old scratched and pitted glasses.

  • Make the prices of draught beers clearly visible at the point of sale.

  • Any attempt to launch a lower-strength variant of an existing beer brand is doomed to failure, and may well end up undermining the parent brand.

  • Beers with seasonal themes such as Hallowe'en and Christmas are almost invariably disappointing, and too often guilty of appalling puns.

  • The culture of ever-changing guest beers militates against efforts to establish a price premium for cask ale.

  • Make sure you regularly clean and restock the toilets.

  • Avoid any establishment calling itself something “…and kitchen”

  • If you serve food, put menus out on the tables. Even if customers aren’t eating, they may read them and be encouraged to return for a meal.

  • You have to decide whether you are primarily a sports pub or a dining pub. You can’t be both at the same time.

  • Don’t serve sandwiches and similar snacks with chips as a default option – give customers the choice.

  • Treat tea and coffee as menu items, not bar items.

Thursday, 13 March 2025

Reflected glory

Anti-drink pressure group Alcohol Action Ireland have complained that advertising of alcohol-free beers is being used to circumvent more general restrictions on alcohol promotion. At first sight, this may come across as yet another example of being joyless wowsers, but actually in the context of their own terms of reference they do have a point.

It seems fairly self-evident that advertising of alcohol-free variants will to some extent reflect on the parent brand too. The two products cannot be seen as entirely distinct. This works two ways – if someone wants to drink an alcohol-free beer, they are likely to be motivated to choose one carrying the same branding as a familiar standard beer, while the promotion of alcohol-free variants contributes towards awareness of the overall brand.

Possibly one of the reasons why the previous bout of enthusiasm for low- and zero-alcohol beers fizzled out thirty years ago is that they tended to be stand-alone products like Barbican, Kaliber and Clausthaler, rather the ones sharing an identity with existing brands. It is also noticeable that the share of advertising devoted to alcohol-free beers is considerably great than their actual market share, as the manufacturers attempt to cultivate an image of being socially responsible. Much the same is true of the share of car advertising devoted to electric cars.

If the exact same products were marketed as something like “malt soda”, with no attempt to link them to alcohol brands or imply that they were in any way connected to beer, then these objections wouldn’t apply. Nobody claims that the existence of fizzy apple juice is an attempt to promote cider. But the fact is that they aren’t totally discrete products, and it is distinctly disingenuous to argue that the promotion of, say, Guinness 0.0 does not in any way contribute towards increasing awareness of the Guinness brand as a whole.

This is why alcohol-free beers are treated as age-restricted products, as they carry alcohol branding and are explicitly intended to ape alcoholic drinks, so could be seen as representing the promotion of alcohol to under-18s, something explicitly prohibited in marketing codes. And it is why candy cigarettes, which I remember enjoying as a child, have not been sold for many years.

The real battle is whether to restrict alcohol advertising as such in the first place. Once that has been conceded, quibbling about alcohol-free variants is just an ultimately doomed attempt to find a loophole. If you ban alcohol advertising, this logically follows, and it was never going to be a get out of jail free card for drinks manufacturers.

Tuesday, 11 March 2025

Food for thought

Food critic Jay Rayner (son of agony aunt Claire) has written a column in the monthly Observer Food Magazine for the past fifteen years. This has now come to an end, but to sign off he has given us a list of trenchant opinions about the food and restaurant industry, many of which will strike a chord with blog readers. Do read the whole thing – it isn’t paywalled – but here are some of the highlights:
  • Individual foods are not pharmaceuticals; just eat a balanced diet. There is nothing you can eat or drink that will detoxify you; that’s what your liver and kidneys are for.

  • People have morals but food doesn’t, so don’t describe dishes as “dirty”.

  • Fat is where the flavour is and salt is the difference between eating in black and white and eating in Technicolor, even if your cardiologist would disagree.

  • Brown foods and messy foods are the best foods, and picnics are a nightmare.

  • Most dishes can be improved with the addition of bacon.

  • All new restaurants should employ someone over 50 to check whether the print on the menu is big enough to be read, the lighting bright enough for it to be read by and the seats comfortable enough for a lengthy meal.

  • If a waiter has to explain the “concept” behind a menu there is something wrong with the menu.

  • The kind of wines that natural-wine fans adore smell of uncleaned pig’s bottom and are horrible.

  • And food should always, always, be served on plates. Not on slates. Not on garden trowels. Not on planks. On plates.
It might be interesting if someone could come up with something similar about the world of beer and pubs…