Apprenticeships are already a hot topic for this year’s general election. The prime minister’s announcement of 100,000 new apprenticeships is likely to be the first of many suggestions on how the government plans to support and upskill our nation. But, as many have already alluded to, the announcement fails to acknowledge the widely criticised apprenticeship levy or how he aims to tackle the fall in apprenticeship starts. 

 

In the seven years since the levy was introduced, it has come under much criticism and has been blamed for the fall in apprenticeship numbers. Total apprenticeship starts have decreased by 32% between 2016-17 and 2022-23. The true story is more nuanced.

 

While the levy isn’t perfect, there are several things we can do to make it fit for purpose. To improve how apprenticeships are both offered and operated in the UK, and therefore get better results for businesses and individuals, a more flexible approach is required.

 

Firstly, I would suggest a different approach to the 12-month minimum length of stay that was introduced in 2012. This legislation has been widely unpopular with employers and their apprentices, especially hospitality workers with plenty of existing experience, who would need to wait out the full year before they could qualify.

 

Changing these rules to allow previous experience, assessment time and initial programme set-up for each apprentice to count towards the 12 months minimum would make apprenticeships more attractive to both learners and employers. Better recognition of previous experience would improve completion rates. 

 

Operators, who know what’s best for their apprentices, should be allowed to decide the balance between on and off-job training for their staff, rather than the required evidence of 20% off-job training introduced in the apprenticeship standards at the same time as the levy. 

 

What’s more, these new apprenticeship standards do not allow training providers to be paid for blocks of work completed, only payments across the programme. Training providers should be able to work with employers to build and get paid for flexible schedules that work for seasonal hospitality roles, irregular study periods and non-linear business demands.

 

We know the hospitality industry is often a challenging working environment. Our staff work hard and put in the hours because of their passion, but they aren’t looking to make their lives harder. To make apprenticeships more appealing, we should work to eliminate some of the additional stress that formal assessments bring to learners. The unpopular and costly system of end point assessments needs to be reworked to include summative and formative assessments throughout the course of the programme. That would be the best way to prove competency over time through work-based study and remove the pressure around the end point process. 

 

Offering individually certified modules rather than a whole apprenticeship would be extremely attractive to employers who don’t need their apprentices to complete a whole programme of content that might not be relevant for their specific role. For example, an individual could complete a single module on food hygiene rather than committing to a full apprenticeship. With this module certificated, and prior experience recognised, the learner could add modules over time to complete the full apprenticeship, allowing them ownership over their own learning and flexibility for employers who need staff to be upskilled quickly.  

 

Finally, it’s well-known the English and maths functional skills pass requirements put many would-be apprentices off. English and maths requirements should be defined by apprenticeship, based on what is needed for each role. 

 

While the levy does have its own issues, including the clunky Apprenticeship Service system, they’re not insurmountable. The upcoming election provides a possible catalyst moment to rework the levy by introducing some flexibilities and leaning on training providers for their expertise, so that we can build an apprenticeship system that is fit for purpose – one that develops the skills that people and businesses need. 

 

Hospitality operators understand the value apprenticeships can offer their businesses. Indeed, hospitality was once the second largest sector for apprenticeships, but the rigid structure and complexities of facilitating apprenticeships isn’t serving the industry. Having highly trained, passionate employees is how we bolster our beloved industry, and how we nurture all the talent that lies within it. That’s why I feel so strongly about doing all we can to make the system as strong and effective as possible. 

Recent train journeys to and from Brighton, a morning coffee in Pret A Manger, a spell in the waiting room at my dentist’s and an early evening pint in my local pub all had one thing in common. It was the annoying use of mobile phones for conversations on speakerphone or people viewing videos at high volume.

 

I’ve previously highlighted my view that mobile devices have negatively impacted places like pubs, where random conversations among customers has been dramatically reduced by the habitual whipping out of the phone whenever anybody has a few seconds of downtime. It’s clearly become the crutch.

 

For many people in days gone by, it was the lighting of a cigarette that filled the gap when waiting for friends, or for non-smokers such as myself, I can recall it was fiddling around with beer mats. And rather annoyingly for the pub, this often involved me creatively tearing them up. Neither of these activities was particularly productive, but at least they did not induce people into a zombie-like state. Admittedly, I am slightly overlooking the fact that one of these habits can lead to an early death.

 

Maybe I’ve missed something, but haven’t headphones and ear pods supposedly been the solution to the problem of noisy mobile phone usage in shared spaces? For watching videos and such like, it has absolutely been the answer. As for conversations, yes, you do only get to hear one side of things, but this is acceptable in most cases. Sadly, I’m finding that for a growing number of people having the speakerphone on – at a ridiculous volume – is becoming their default. 

 

This phenomenon led to a particularly disappointing situation for me at Christmas when a child at the adjacent table in the dining room at The Ritz London was playing a game on a mobile device with the speaker at a level that was extremely intrusive. Having very politely asked the parents to turn it down, the response from the father was the verbal equivalent of two fingers raised vertically.

 

The hotel offered to move my mother and I on to another table, but this did not seem like the right solution when it was the other party clearly at fault. I suspect he was a bigger customer of The Ritz London than myself, and who knows, maybe he’d just blown £20,000 in the casino downstairs before the meal (I live in hope). We chose to leave the dining room altogether, and although my bill was reduced, it seemed that things could have been handled a little better by the hotel.

 

I am no great fan of rules and legislation. I’ve much more of a preference for the presently unfashionable free-market approach, but maybe hospitality companies need to get more of a grasp on customers’ developing behaviour with mobile phones and other digital devices. I’m not saying it is an easy one, but with my recent experiences and the advent of new technologies like artificial intelligence as well as a new generation of wearable devices looking likely to come into the market soon, then policies on device usage need to be given some thought.

 

It’s interesting that in 2019, when Sam Smith’s brought in a ban on mobile phone usage in its pubs, it was very much ridiculed by customers and the media as simply the actions of an out-of-touch eccentric owner. Its argument that it wanted to boost “social conversation person-to-person” was fair enough, but an outright ban was undoubtedly a draconian – and foolish – decision. It is simply not workable in an environment where mobiles are ubiquitous, and to be honest, have not been particularly disruptive in public spaces.

 

That is until now, I feel. I would hate to be seen as an equivalent crank as the owner of Sam Smith’s, but maybe he was on the right path. My recent experiences with speakerphones and high-volume behaviour is becoming the norm for many people, and unless hospitality businesses take some control of their environments by gently initiating some ground rules, then there could be many difficult situations on the horizon.

The new report from Dea Latis on women’s relationships with beer in the UK makes for a worrying, if not unsurprising, read. 2018’s Gender Pint Gap report should have been a wake-up call for the UK beer industry. It was ignoring women, 51% of the population, sustaining a breeding ground for sexism, misogyny and harassment, and missing out on opportunities to capitalise on the spending power and influence women have. So where are we now?

 

The big stat from the 2018 report was that only 17% of women in the UK said they drank beer regularly, one of the lowest percentages in the world. And despite the alarm bells, we remain in essentially the same situation – with a drop from 17% to 14% for women, and a relative drop from 53% to 50% for men. The gap is the same. So why do women continue to turn their backs to beer?

 

The UK beer industry used to actively offend women. Today, we just don’t talk to them. A total of 82% of women strongly agreed or tended to agree beer advertising was targeted at men – as did almost 75% of men. We’ve tackled the urgent changes needed around sexist beer names and pump clips. It’s time for the next bit of work. 

 

We need more representation of women in beer advertising. Where are they? Progress is so slow. Those responsible for beer advertising need to be more mindful that most UK breweries are male dominated, and we tend to construct our marketing in a way that is aimed at our existing majority.

 

It becomes an echo chamber, and that is where a lot of UK beer still exists. Ultimately, if more women work in beer industry roles, the advertising will shift. However, this is still not happening enough to shift the needle.

 

Calorific content featured in the 2018 report as one of the top barriers to women drinking beer, and it remains up there. Some of this is myth, driven by “beer being a man’s drink” for so long and the associated image of pint-swilling, beer-belly-laden men who appear not to care about their health nor appearance.

 

Since covid, health-driven choices have become increasingly prevalent, and to date, the beer industry hasn’t really done anything to address this and respond. We can better understand what influences modern consumers and learn lessons from the success of brands in alcohol free space to find some solutions here. We need to improve the image of beer.

 

A 250ml glass of 13% wine actually contains more calories than a pint of 4% beer. So why do women go for wine? Wine is presented as a drink with a stylish image and is considered to be an upper-class drink, so is therefore aspirational. It’s an image that women have bought into. With beer’s working-class roots, we are addressing a class and gender chasm, as well as trying to shake a negative and unhealthy image.

 

Dea Latis founder Annabel Smith talks about that word: “pint” – a word that is rooted into the UK “lad culture” that contributes to beer’s negative image. Women find the prospect of a liquid served in such volume and the associated image off-putting. Annabel suggests we should think about replacing the word with “glass of beer”.

 

Let’s look at gin. This is a drink that has been revived after being referred to as “mother’s ruin”, and today is one of the top drinks in the UK, with the market worth an estimated £2bn. It could be said, if gin can turn around in this way, so can beer.

 

Being considered and intentional about glassware is an easy win. Look at places like Belgium. It’s not only women who appreciate more elegant drinking vessels either – more men would likely choose beer if they were consistently told it isn’t only available in pints.

 

The British pint is going nowhere. I love a pint, but not all modern beer belongs in that measure, and knowing which beer to drink in what way is confusing to most people. This is why lager is by far the most popular choice of beer style – it’s easy to order and know what you’re getting; it’s arguably often more of a default than a preference.

 

We need to upgrade and expand the beer experience. This should include a new way of thinking that considers marketing, education, and presentation. We can then rebrand UK beer and build a new image that is more appealing to a broader range of preferences and better aligns with the motivations of modern-day society. Then, the industry can truly thrive.

As a business, we often have the onus put on us to fill in a request for information (RFI) document for our software. For those of you lucky enough never to have encountered this task, it is a document built by a company to ensure they get the right specification for the product they are trying to buy, and that it does everything that is required.

 

In theory, it is a great idea. Essentially, you are writing a list of what you want, and then ensuring that the supplier delivers. What could go wrong? Several things, actually. The first risk is that you learn an immense amount through the buying process. 

 

When you begin this process, you start with some key objectives – what are you looking to achieve and what specific functionality will help you to get there? But as you delve into different solutions, you learn the different capabilities of suppliers and the things they offer that you may not have thought to specify. So how do you adjust your list? Do you start the whole process again, with a new, longer list, or do you ignore what you have learnt? 

 

It is likely that in this process, you keep adding to the functionality and end up asking for everything that you might possibly want. But these lists do not necessarily bag you the best supplier. A company that does the basics excellently and has a great track record may be dumped for someone who skims the surface. The supplier might tick a box; it might say it does something, but knowing whether or not it really works is a pretty tough ask. That is where reputation matters more than anything else. 

 

I think there are a couple of areas where it is hard to make this judgement – service and ease of use. I was talking to a new customer (which is what prompted me to write this article), who told me of a supplier that came top of their RFI process. But there was so little customer service that operational issues could never be resolved. Saying and doing customer service are two different things. And of course, how do you judge ease of use? 

 

The easiest system to use is the one you use currently, and the further a system deviates from this, the harder it will be to use. You therefore can’t really judge a system for a while. I call it the day one versus the day 21 test. If something is still frustrating at day 21, it is an issue.

 

I have saved my biggest point until last, and that is benefits. An RFI can articulate features, and test against them to a degree, as outlined above, but it can’t assess the benefits. The benefits are all around where you are on your journey, how willing you are to adopt best practice habits, and how your supplier can help change those habits.

 

This isn’t normally in a document anywhere. There are plenty of well-documented examples of great new systems being introduced, only for the company to stick with the old system and work around the new system, creating even more work. On top of this, the departments further away from the change process are even harder to create the change in.

 

However, benefits are the only reason for the change in the first place, and all these benefits, in a perfect world, need to be set out and articulated. Cost saving benefits are easy to create in theory, but practically driving out the cost is far harder. Saving 25% of a job probably saves no job at all. Sales growth is, of course, the easy way. I wish I had a pound for the number of times a supplier has articulated the benefits in extra pints sold per day!

 

So, am I saying that RFI processes should be abandoned? I think I am. I think we should try to move to a world where we have requests for benefits, with those benefits being articulated through a short number of key items. For example, we moved from using Mailchimp within our restaurant business last year to using a hospitality-based system. It has taken some time to set up and get going, and we still have some way to go on getting all the automations set-up and optimised, but the benefits are really clear.

 

We are now able to send out customer e-mails (yes – our audience still responds best to e-mail, and we get a 40% open rate) incredibly easily and frequently. Since we started, our growth rate has increased. As always in this industry, we have to be incredibly focused on the projects that grow sales or save cost.