Marks and Spencer support new 'Hooters' in Bristol

[JessinAvalon]

Dear all
This is my first post on here so I hope I am doing this right!

I live in Bristol and, last week, 'Hooters' was granted a licence to open in the city centre. The site is virtually opposite 3 apartment blocks, the lower floors of which are social housing and children are living in them.

What's most disappointing is that Marks and Spencer are leasing the site to 'Hooters'. They have been e-mailed by many concerned people to ask if they will reconsider leasing the building but they have just replied saying it is a "commercial decision" (as if that makes it ok!). In Sheffield, a 'Hooters' didn't even make it to application stage because the developer (Ask Pizza) realised that it would be better not to be associated with a company like 'Hooters'.

Marks and Spencer don't seem that concerned, however. Although they have signed up to the "Let Girls Be Girls" Mumsnet campaign they are not concerned about a company which sells merchandise including babygros which say "Future Hooters Girl" and "Does my butt look big in this?"

I have written to Marks and Spencer telling them that I won't be shopping in their stores again. If you feel strongly about this, please e-mail:

[email protected].

'Hooters' tries to sell itself as a family friendly restaurant but it is anything but. The Hooters in Nottingham attracts mainly stag parties and football fans. Hooters Girls take part in bikini contests and iced wet t-shirt competitions (the t-shirts are put in the freezers before the girls wear them). 'Hooters' has links to Playboy magazine....I could go on.....

I think Marks and Spencer should be shamed for facilitating this company's expansion into Bristol. They are selling women and girls down the river by leasing to this company and all just to make a "quick buck".

Thanks everyone.

There's going to be a Hooter's in Bristol!?

Thanks for the tip-off...

If it's any consolation Hooters opened in Birmingham and were gone in 6 months, only so many stags eating burgers whilst looking at tits available, not enough to cover the rent i guess.

Atlas.....'eh? Each person has to sign a waiver about 'hostile' environments, basically having to put up and shut up if they are harassed. I wasn't claiming to speak for each and every girl's experience of working there. It is understood by the management and staff that normal rules do not apply. I wouldn't imagine there are explicit details as to what this actually means.

A genuine question - how many of you who are morally opposed to Hooters and would never take your children there, ( I think it's horrendous that it's touted as a family place btw) would not think twice about taking your children on holiday to Las Vegas?

Having been there last week, I can't imagine why people think it's suitable for a family holiday!
If you find Hooters offensive then for goodness sake please never go to Vegas, we had a fabulous time but it was awful to have to run the gauntlet of the "card snappers" every time we stepped outside the hotels - they push very explicit prostitute adverts under your nose, they gave them to children in buggies , even tried to give them to couples in full wedding garb! There are hundreds of these people shoving cards at you on the street and there are huge ( lorry sized) mobile billboards with pictures of near naked women offering "girls to your hotel room in 20 minutes".

A young couple we met at the airport thought it funny that they had collected hundreds of these cards to give to friends back home.

Hooters in Vegas looked incredibly sleazy from the outside, with rows of hooker "catalogues" ( with women from 18 - 60+ advertised [confused}) in cabinets lined up along the street outside - hardly a family friendly atmosphere.

I have never ever heard of anyone got to LV on a family holiday. I went 10 years ago and after 3 days i was over it, can't think why you'd take a child there other than maybe to see the white tigers show.

This was my e-mail to Sir Stuart yesterday:

Dear Sir S,

I was alarmed to discover that Marks and Spencer is contracted to lease premises to "Hooters", a company which has in the past described itself as a "breastaurant", in the harbour area of Bristol. Aside from the unsuitability of the location for families with children living and shopping in the area, this decision appears to be wholly at odds with your highly-publicised marketing of your brand as "ethical". I do not believe in wasting my time and yours repeating the many reasons why "Hooters" may not be a good choice for your company to be seen to be sponsoring (which you are clearly doing in facilitating their acquisition of business premises); many of these have been rehearsed in other complaints, which should by now have been passed up the management chain.

Those received by your Bristol department seem to have been met with a pro forma response that this is a commercial decision. As a normal professional person, I am shocked at the offhand way with which Marks and Spencer seems to try to fob off its consumer core base. Any fool can see that the ethically-rebranded Marks and Spencer has also traded for decades on its image as a family-friendly company with an emphasis on quality that appeals to middle class shoppers (principally women). Surely you do not need a letter-writing campaign to inform you that its actions here are likely to seriously damage its customer base in all directions.

Until Marks and Spencer terminates its agreement and publicly commits to practising what it preaches (as in your sponsorship of the Mumsnet "Let girls be girls" campaign) I shall not be shopping in any of your outlets any more. I write as someone who does nearly all the shopping for my household, and up till today spent about half of our food and clothing budget in Marks and Spencer's stores.

Yours sincerely,
Boognish

I got a response today.

Here's the response I got today from M&S:

Thank you for your email to Sir Stuart about the sub-letting of our former Simply Food store at Bristol Harbourside. I am replying on his behalf.

We have agreed to sub-let the site to Gallus Restaurants. This is a commercial decision and Gallus has received A3 business use permission from Bristol City Council for the property.

It has been reported that Gallus plan to open a branch of ?Hooters? in the property. I have noted your comments about Hooters, and your concern that the reputation of Marks and Spencer may be tainted by our arrangement with Gallus. I have also noted your suggestion that we may be part-financing the property as an incentive. I understand your concerns; however, we do not feel it is appropriate for us to comment on the Hooters brand and I'm afraid that we are unable to disclose the specifics of our store property deals. If contacted directly, Gallus Restaurants may be able to provide more information on their plans for the site.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views with us.

Kind regards.

Simon Hoskins

Executive Office
Your M&S Customer Service

( Tel: 0207 9354422

And?!!!!!

Until Sir S actually makes a serious response it's hardly worth reading them is it?

Still no reply for me! Been more than 48 hours. Must be the tricky policy question.

Come on M&S (I know you're reading this!) - how about a reply for me - email address similar to posting name here.

we need to keep on at him. This poor Simon chap is the indian and we need the cheif. He's trying to make out like they didnt know what gallus would do... its passing the buck in an epic fashion. Not what I'd expect from a company with such a reputation.

Why do they keep sending out the same response to people who have taken the trouble to write to them? It's a bit insulting and smacks of 'if we ignore them long enough, they'll go away'.

Sadly, I feel they've sold us down the river on this and won't forget it. I already boycott Tesco because of their refusal to cover up lads mags like Sainsbury's do and have just added M&S to the list.

I feel that they are being completely dismissive with this. If they are completely signed up and it was a mistake, then they could at least say so and make sure that it doesn't happen again. I'd respect them far more for doing that than for repeating, robot-like that it was a commercial decision, A3 planning use...blah blah blah....

Could a couple of mothers who feel strongly about this topic e-mail or send me a personal message (if that's possible on here)?

I have a favour to ask!

Thanks!

Dear Sir/Madam
I e-mailed a couple of weeks ago regarding the above and got the standard corporate response regarding 'Hooters' in Bristol. Since then, I have been watching with interest the threads on 'Mumsnet' in which the same responses have been posted in reply to the various questions that people have been asking.

I understand that Marks and Spencer regard this as a commercial decision. However, I am interested to know if the decision was made before Marks and Spencer knew about the connection between Gallus Management and 'Hooters'.

I am also interested to know if Marks and Spencer would have still entered into the agreement had they been aware of the connection (I am hoping not).

If it was a mistake, could Marks and Spencer not come out and admit this? And if it is too late to withdraw from the lease arrangements, could you not just come out and admit that it was a mistake and that, regretfully, it is too late to withdraw?

Presumably Marks and Spencer could still cancel the lease agreement? I accept that this will incur a financial penalty but would this be worth it to recover some of the loss in goodwill, harm to its reputation and the loss in business that the company will now suffer as a result of this arrangement? The number of people alone on Mumsnet who have said that they will be buying their food & clothes & furniture elsewhere and the figures they state must run into the thousands, if not the tens of thousands.

The impression that Marks and Spencer is giving at the moment is that it places commercial decisions ahead of all others, and that it doesn't care if it causes huge offence to a large part of its core customer base.

I personally feel disappointed that Marks and Spencer has entered into this agreement in the first place, especially after signing up to the Mumsnet "Let Girls be Girls" campaign. I don't see how, in all conscience, the company could continue to be a part of this campaign, as it clearly doesn't abide by the principles of the campaign when there is a bit of money to be made.

Some clarity beyond the standard response and a bit of honesty from Marks and Spencer would be appreciated. And perhaps Marks and Spencer should honourably resign from the "Let Girls be Girls" campaign if it is unable to abide by the principles that it has signed up to.

Regards
JIA

What's the betting I get "this was a commercial decision, A3 business use, please direct all concerns about Hooters to Gallus....."

Jess I've emailed you to see what the favour is.

Thanks both - have e-mailed you.

I'm feeling quite sorry for Simon - this is the response I got yesterday:

"Thank you for emailing Sir Stuart about the subletting of our former Bristol Habourside Simply Food store. As a member of his personal team, I'm responding on his behalf.
I'm sorry you've been disappointed with our decision to sub-let the site to Gallus Restaurants, who reportedly plan to open a branch of Hooters there.

I also note you're concerned about the responses some of our customers have received regarding this issue. I can assure you that all contacts we receive from our customers are taken very seriously and all comments are noted.

While we do not feel it is appropriate to comment on the Hooters brand, I understand you feel any arrangement between us and Gallus will taint M&S's reputation as an ethical retailer. As stated, I have recorded your concerns but feel we cannot add anything further.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind regards "

So I've just gone back with:

"Dear Simon,

Thank you for replying. I am sorry that you don't feel able to say anything positive about Marks & Spencer's decision - or their current inability to stand up and match the stance they've taken by joining mumsnet.com's "Let Girls be Girls" campaign.

I shall hope that the Chairman revisits this decision soon.

Thanks and regards"

This is a horrible situation, Hooters is only one step up from a lap-dancing club and arguably more insidious as it promotes sexualised entertainment as 'the norm' and 'family'. Personally I'd be up for joining a rota of women who include a large contingent of over-60s, wearing our least sexy clothing, and block-booking tables every night eating and drinking the minimum spend til their core clientele give up, their profits fail to materialise and they move on. I don't think it would take that long actually.

Of course if they're serious about being a family option we could also turn up with our toddlers - ideally those with discipline problems - and have one cup of tea over 2 hours every day.

And I bet Hooters web managers are rubbing their hands in glee at the extra hits they have been getting, mostly from people who had never previously heard of them.

Unfortunately, no publicity is bad publicity, for a firm like that....

Not if they've clicked on these, they won't be:

www.hootersbristol.com

www.hootersbristol.co.uk

To anyone who doesn't want to click on the links, you will like them I promise!