The other variable is the level of men's grooming. I see people who look like they have perfectly good haircuts going in for very small trims all the time whereas the once every six weeks is now abnormal
As some who does occasional research on the history of consumption and retail as well as modern patterns looking at directory/ telephone data is a great way to do things. But it is also important to add that as incomes have risen so the frequency of having ‘our hair’ and nails done may well have increased and having your hair cut become more of an event. Additionally some male hairdressers have moved to on line bookings over walk-ins and this may have spread customers more. My hairdresser has 15 minute slots but he tells me it can take him 5 to 30 minutes to cut hair depending on whether the shop is full or empty. So with walk ins and a queue he cut more customers hair than with a booking system. But why should he sweat himself if he can ‘satisfice’ as economists say. Male hairdressing can also provide a good living - there is a weekly and seasonal pattern. If a hairdresser does 40 haircuts on an 8 hour day and works a 5 day week with a 46 week year that is an income of £138,000 before tax and expenses at £15 a cut [I know prices vary]. So you could be empty half the week and still have a pretty decent income.
A change in the number of men who go to male barbers rather than unisex hair salons ( aging population plus hair loss equals clipper hair!) could be an additional factor.
Yes, I think there's lots of small structural things that can change a bit over ten years, which is why I'd be reluctant to ascribe all the growth to fraud, even at this apparently lower level
Excellent stuff, as usual. Just thought you might like to know that literally kicking tyres has a high probability of detecting an under-inflated tyre, provided you are wearing hefty shoes with a rigid toe area. Not a lot of people know this. It does not, of course, tell you anything about the merits of the vehicle. And it is much less reliable if all the tyres are under-inflated.
Actually I did factor it in (plus home haircuts) in the original tweet but didn't really get into it here. The point of the Fermi method is that it actually doesn't matter, if it's just a small fraction - you can always compensate for that elsewhere (2 months is probably too long a gap among people who do go to barbers for example)
What struck me most about the chart was not so much the actual values but the weird level of precision - for example, there were apparently precisely 2,953 barbers in 2015, and I found myself wondering how this level of accuracy was achieved. I also wondered what the exact definition of "barber" was - I am old enough to remember when a barber was an establishment frequented exclusively by men, in which you were normally asked if you wanted "anything for the weekend" after the haircut was complete. Presumably an increasing number of men frequent hair professional not falling under this concept of barber.
Looking at the FT article from which the graph came, I saw that they quoted "Green Street" and "Local Data Company" as sources. Having donned suitable protective gear I poked around in the app formerly known as twitter, and came across a guy, who seemed kosher, who told me that the numbers most likely came from a paid for private survey from these guys here: https://eu.greenstreet.com/products/data-analytics/retail-data/ How reliable their numbers are is anyone's guess.
He claimed to have used their services, and although not au fait with the barber question had used the food establishment section, which seems to be categorised by Major category / minor category - eg under the major category of "Cafes & Fast Food" you would find minor categories such as "Coffee shops", "Indian Takeaway", Pizza takeaway" and so on. Whether something like "Hairdressers / men's barbers" applies in the case of the FT numbers is again anyone's guess.
20 years ago our community had zero barbershops. I couldn’t understand where men got their hair cut. Then one opened and the queues were frustrating, you could guarantee wasting an hour waiting for a cut.
So two or three seemed about right. Also men are a lot more groomed than they were.
Nevertheless I do think the five barbershops we now have is too many.
This anecdotal evidence I think supports a lot of your analysis.
The other variable is the level of men's grooming. I see people who look like they have perfectly good haircuts going in for very small trims all the time whereas the once every six weeks is now abnormal
Sure, I think there has been some variation in behaviour, but not sixfold variation in ten years type variation!
I feel attacked.
As some who does occasional research on the history of consumption and retail as well as modern patterns looking at directory/ telephone data is a great way to do things. But it is also important to add that as incomes have risen so the frequency of having ‘our hair’ and nails done may well have increased and having your hair cut become more of an event. Additionally some male hairdressers have moved to on line bookings over walk-ins and this may have spread customers more. My hairdresser has 15 minute slots but he tells me it can take him 5 to 30 minutes to cut hair depending on whether the shop is full or empty. So with walk ins and a queue he cut more customers hair than with a booking system. But why should he sweat himself if he can ‘satisfice’ as economists say. Male hairdressing can also provide a good living - there is a weekly and seasonal pattern. If a hairdresser does 40 haircuts on an 8 hour day and works a 5 day week with a 46 week year that is an income of £138,000 before tax and expenses at £15 a cut [I know prices vary]. So you could be empty half the week and still have a pretty decent income.
That's interesting thanks - I hadn't totted up the possible income (though as you say, costs of premises, rates etc would add up significantly)
A change in the number of men who go to male barbers rather than unisex hair salons ( aging population plus hair loss equals clipper hair!) could be an additional factor.
Yes, I think there's lots of small structural things that can change a bit over ten years, which is why I'd be reluctant to ascribe all the growth to fraud, even at this apparently lower level
Excellent stuff, as usual. Just thought you might like to know that literally kicking tyres has a high probability of detecting an under-inflated tyre, provided you are wearing hefty shoes with a rigid toe area. Not a lot of people know this. It does not, of course, tell you anything about the merits of the vehicle. And it is much less reliable if all the tyres are under-inflated.
I didn't know that, but I might try it now!
Actually being one of them who’s never paid for a haircut for 30 years, don’t forget to factor in the bald guys!
#nevermesswiththebaldies
Actually I did factor it in (plus home haircuts) in the original tweet but didn't really get into it here. The point of the Fermi method is that it actually doesn't matter, if it's just a small fraction - you can always compensate for that elsewhere (2 months is probably too long a gap among people who do go to barbers for example)
What struck me most about the chart was not so much the actual values but the weird level of precision - for example, there were apparently precisely 2,953 barbers in 2015, and I found myself wondering how this level of accuracy was achieved. I also wondered what the exact definition of "barber" was - I am old enough to remember when a barber was an establishment frequented exclusively by men, in which you were normally asked if you wanted "anything for the weekend" after the haircut was complete. Presumably an increasing number of men frequent hair professional not falling under this concept of barber.
Looking at the FT article from which the graph came, I saw that they quoted "Green Street" and "Local Data Company" as sources. Having donned suitable protective gear I poked around in the app formerly known as twitter, and came across a guy, who seemed kosher, who told me that the numbers most likely came from a paid for private survey from these guys here: https://eu.greenstreet.com/products/data-analytics/retail-data/ How reliable their numbers are is anyone's guess.
He claimed to have used their services, and although not au fait with the barber question had used the food establishment section, which seems to be categorised by Major category / minor category - eg under the major category of "Cafes & Fast Food" you would find minor categories such as "Coffee shops", "Indian Takeaway", Pizza takeaway" and so on. Whether something like "Hairdressers / men's barbers" applies in the case of the FT numbers is again anyone's guess.
20 years ago our community had zero barbershops. I couldn’t understand where men got their hair cut. Then one opened and the queues were frustrating, you could guarantee wasting an hour waiting for a cut.
So two or three seemed about right. Also men are a lot more groomed than they were.
Nevertheless I do think the five barbershops we now have is too many.
This anecdotal evidence I think supports a lot of your analysis.
How many barbers work in each barbershops now? How many did many years ago?
Are we seeing vat registration limits and employer NI costs resulting in many barbershops owners only working in them themselfs without any staff?
You've convinced me! And love the old-style checking of the yellow pages.
Well that's good to hear, thanks!