Restaurants and children…

Nowadays more and more children are eating at restaurants with their parents. Whilst this can be great for the restaurateur, there can also be problems.

On the positive side, allowing children into restaurants with their parents should bring more family customers into the restaurant but on the negative side, if the children misbehave or run around causing chaos then some customers will be put off spending time in the restaurant.

If you head to a child friendly restaurant such as the fast food giant McDonalds then you would expect children to be children and to be loud, excitable and bouncing around.

But what about if you run an upmarket, select restaurant with clientele who are looking for a quiet time to relax over a good quality meal and fine wines. Boisterous children could damage the image and banning children from the restaurant would be a bit extreme.

Antonio Ferrari, the owner of an upmarket restaurant in Padua, Italy has come up with a novel approach to encouraging good behaviour amongst the junior member of families visiting for a meal.

He has introduced a “polite children discount” which offers 5% off of the bill if children are well behaved.

The Times newspaper quoted Mr Ferrari saying “We are not set up for kids – we have no crèche, the spaces are tight, bottles can be knocked over and we have a clientele that spends a bit of money to be tranquil while eating well.”

Has it been a success?

Well, one thing’s for sure and the discount hasn’t been offered that often.

In the 6 months the scheme has been active, there have only been 3 occasions the polite children discount has been offered.

Goodbye tax advisors?

Do you know anyone who works in tax?

If by any chance you are in Australia then if I ask you this question in 5 years’ time, as a result of Ailira the answer may well be “no, as no-one works in tax”.

“Who is Ailira?” I hear you say.

Ailira is the brainchild of Adelaide based tax lawyer Adrian Cartland and stands for “Artificially Intelligent Legal Information Resource Assistant”.

Mr Cartland created Ailira to help people with their tax affairs and believes that she could eventually replace human tax agents.

He told the Australian Business Review that “Your tax agents will probably be gone within five years”.

What was interesting was that although to a certain extent Ailira functions like a search engine, you can ask it tax questions in the same way that you would ask a person who works in tax.

Mr Cartland said that “The one thing we had difficulty with is that people are so used to doing keyword searches that they struggle to ask a question as you would to another human.

“So we did some upgrades of Ailira’s interface to encourage people to treat Ailira like a human, more in plain English.”

That’s an interesting phase “plain English” as anyone who has worked in tax or studied tax will appreciate that it’s not always possible to explain tax in plain English as the tax laws can be pretty complex.

Still, good luck to Mr Cartland and importantly, good luck to Ailira who by the sound of things may well be doing a lot of work in the future.

Unexpected delivery…

Traditional retailers are facing a lot of challenges nowadays.

If you’re selling items from a shop for example you’re facing the challenge of the ever-increasing number of people buying things online. Small retailers can find it hard to compete with the big players like Amazon who have the advantages of economy of scale and brand awareness.

In addition, some products are tricky to deliver.

Take wine for example. If you order a bottle or box of wine online and it’s delivered to you at home, what’s going to happen if you’re not in?

What’s going to happen to that box of wine if it’s left by your doorstep or with your thirsty alcoholic neighbour?

Garcon Wines, a London based vintner has come up with a novel approach to overcome this problem. They have introduced a wine subscription service which delivers wine in specially designed bottles which can be posted through the letter box.

The plastic bottles are long and slim, and come in post-box friendly sizes so after a hard day at the office you can return home and find that bottle of wine you’ve been looking for.

Admittedly, finding the wine in a plastic bottle in a cardboard box which has been posted through the letter box and is on the floor isn’t quite the same as being poured a nice glass of wine whilst relaxing in the sunshine on holiday but changing the packaging design to help with distribution is a nice idea by Garcon Wines.

I’m sure a lot of people will drink to that.

Should you be worried?

Last Friday it was the 13th and for a lot of people the 13th is considered to be an unlucky day.

“Friggatriskaidekaphobia” is the medical term for the fear of Friday the 13th and although it looks like the type of word that you’d get if your cat walked across your computer keyboard it affects a number of people and in extreme cases these individuals will refuse to leave their home on Friday the 13th.

Another tricky to pronounce word is “triskaidekaphobia”.

This is a fear of the number 13 and could have interesting implications for the valuation of property.

A report recently released highlights that if you’re thinking of buying a property in the UK then you may well be able to pick up a bargain if the property address has a number 13 in it.

According to a survey by property website Zoopla, the current average value of a house in the UK with the number 13 in it is £291,038.

This is nearly £9,000 less than the average property value of £300,012.

It’s also been reported that more a quarter of UK streets don’t have a number 13 address as some local authorities have banned the use of number 13 in new housing developments.

So, whilst people who currently own properties with 13 in the address may feel a bit cheated, if you don’t suffer from triskaidekaphobia and are looking for a potential bargain then the £9,000 saving could be quite attractive.

Not very ethical…

When is a bribe not a bribe?

US bank JP Morgan Chase thought they had the answer to this question. Unfortunately for them (but fortunately for all the hard-working ethical people out there..), the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department saw through their plans and found them guilty of violating the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

JP Morgan designed a scheme which they hoped would help them win lucrative contracts in China.

Their plan was to offer highly paid jobs to individuals who were not qualified for those particular jobs.

“Why would you pay excessive amounts of salary to people who weren’t capable of doing their job?” I hear you say.

Well, the answer was that those people they were going to pay the high salaries to were relatives or friends of government officials and those officials were in a position to offer lucrative contracts to JP Morgan.

So, in summary if JP Morgan had offered money directly to the state officials it would clearly have been a bribe. Instead, they thought they could get away with it by paying excess salary to family and friends of the officials. Over a period of 7 years, approximately 100 interns and full-time employees were employed who were connected to foreign government officials.

This enabled JP Morgan to win or retain $100 million in revenue.

A clever plan. Or at least they thought it was.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department thought otherwise though and started investigations back in 2013.

The Department of Justice called the scheme “bribery by any other name” and at the end of the investigation JP Morgan had to pay $264 million to settle the claims.

In the end, a highly unethical and very expensive way to try to win and retain clients.