Memorable milestones in businessland

Some people claim to be able to remember the first time they smelled a honeysuckle or heard a nightingale sing. But many of my stand-out memories of 'first's are unashamedly commercial, and probably entirely alien to a younger generation that has been brought up with these institutions.

I remember my first visit to a supermarket. No, don't laugh. When I was young we did our food shopping in the evocatively titled Home and Colonial Stores. It smelled of spices, and you were served from behind a counter (sometimes by my auntie). Really. The first supermarket in Rochdale (as far as I'm aware) was a non-chain number by the name of Lennons. There was quite an excitement when it was opened. It made the news. It was probably no bigger than a Tesco Local, but it seemed immense, and the concept of helping yourself from shelves into a trolley was simply bizarre.

Moving on, I also remember my first encounter with McDonalds, I think at one of the first in the UK that had opened in London - my memory places it somewhere in the vicinity of Piccadilly Circus, but that could be iffy. When all we'd had before for fast(ish) food was table service Wimpy Bars and Fish and Chips, this was both alien and wonderful. Yes, McDonalds was exotic. Think on that and weep.

Perhaps the most surprising memory is a missing one. I can't remember my first visit to an Indian restaurant. Younger inhabitants of Rochdale might be surprised to learn that they just didn't exist there back in the 60s. We had a Chinese restaurant, but that was the height of exoticism when it came to eateries. (There were far fewer places to eat out, of course. The thought of a pub offering more than a curled up sandwich or a scotch egg would be laughable.) Some time between the age of 18 and 22 I had my first Indian meal, but I can't remember it, and that's irritating.

Am I uniquely business-minded in my 'first's memories, or do you have commercial reminiscences too? Do tell.

Image from Wikipedia

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog