Benchmark 5yr average
1. Argos 2. B&M
3. Home Bargains 4. Screwfi x
5. The Range 6. B&Q
7. Al Murad 8. Toolstation 9. Wickes
10. Homebase 11. Robert Dyas 12. Axminster
13. Charlies Stores 14. Wilkinson
15. Gardiner Haskins 16. Trago Mills 17. Taskers 18. Leekes
19. Tile Giant 20. Topps Tiles
Latest year
2019 THE DIY MARKET SUPPLEMENT STAFF COSTS: HUGE VARIATION - 1 year -2 years 10.3% 10.2% 10.9% 10.2%
- 3 years 9.9%
11.6% 11.3% 11.6% 11.4% 11.6% 12.2% 12.9% 12.6% 12.6% 11.7% 12.8% 12.1% 12.4% 13.0% 13.4% 13.3% 13.2% 13.6% 13.2% 13.0% 13.5% 13.2% 13.6% 13.6% 13.3% 14.4% 16.0% 14.8% 13.4% 13.7% 15.1% 15.9% 15.1% 14.6% 14.6% 15.1% 15.0% 15.8% 15.1% 15.1% 15.6% 20.7% 14.8% 13.2% 14.2% 16.2% 17.7% 17.7% 17.9% 14.2% 17.4% 18.3% 16.8% 13.0% 19.7% 17.6% 17.9% 18.2% 17.5% 17.1% 17.8% 16.3% 17.5% 18.4% 18.2% 18.4% 19.0% 18.2% 17.4% 17.7% 19.6% 20.5% 20.1% 19.6% 18.8% 21.6% 21.5% 22.5% 21.9% 20.2% 21.7% 22.5% 21.5% 21.4% 21.7% 22.4% 23.4% 23.2% 21.9% 21.1% 24.4% 25.3% 23.9% 25.0% 24.3%
Source: DIY Week analysis of fi led company accounts I t’s easy to understand
why Argos has the lowest staff costs of any of these businesses. With very little in-store display, no customers wandering
the aisles in search of specifi c products, and no expectation of expert advice, Argos simply doesn’t need as many people on the fl oor. And it’s equally easy to understand why Topps and Tile Giant have the highest costs, because exactly the opposite applies: most people choosing tiles are going to want expert advice and guidance, and almost every transaction is likely to be time- consuming.
But in between, there are issues that
aren’t to easy to understand. Why, if Topps and Tile Giant need to spend 24.4% and 22.4% of sales respectively on staff costs, why does Al Murad (also a tile specialist) get by on only 14.4%? Why does Taskers – a mainstream DIY
14 DIY WEEK THE DIY MARKET SUPPLEMENT
superstore operator – need to spend 21.6% of revenue on salaries when Homebase spends only 15.6%, Wickes spends 15.1% and B&Q spends a mere 13.5%? Why are Toolstation’s staff costs averaging 15.1% over the past fi ve years, when Screwfi x’s are only 12.8%? Read across the lines, too, and it’s
clear that retailers haven’t been cutting back on salaries. Comparing the fi gures in the latest year with the same fi gures fi ve years earlier, spending on salaries as a percentage of sales has gone up at 12 of our 20 retailers: Homebase, Dyas, Al Murad, Home Bargains, Topps, Trago Mills, Leekes, Tile Giant, Charlies, Toolstation, Wickes and Argos. The highest rise was at Homebase, up from 15.1% to 20.7%, although this is of course almost certainly because the decline in sales over the same period has been even greater than the decline in salaries. Dyas looks like a particularly good place to work: spending on salaries rose from
13.6% of sales fi ve years ago to 17.7% in the latest year. Among those where salary spending declined (The Range, B&Q, Taskers, Gardiner, B&M, Axminster, Screwfi x and Wilkinson), the majority were changes of less than 1%. Wilkinson looks like the only one of our 20 where there has been a real eff ort to cut back: the salary bill dropped from 18.7% of sales fi ve years ago to 16.3% in the latest year. Overall, we take this as an encouraging indicator. The DIY market has been fl at in recent years, and with home ownership continuing to decline there’s little chance of improvement in the short term. Traditionally, one of the retail trade’s primary responses to challenging market conditions has been to turn off the recruitment tap, but there’s no indication that this is happening now. It may be a fl at market, but Britain’s DIY retailers seems to have come to terms with it.
www.diyweek.net
-4 years 10.1%
11.9% 11.1% 13.2% 13.4% 13.5% 13.9% 15.5% 14.8% 15.1% 13.6% 19.1% 17.4% 18.7% 19.5% 19.2% 21.8% 21.4% 22.4% 23.5%
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
