Ceramics and Globalization 9781474289917, 9781474289924, 9781474289900

Citation preview

Ceramics and Globalization

ii

Ceramics and Globalization

Staffordshire Ceramics, Made in China

Neil Ewins

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018 UK USA www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2017 © Neil Ewins, 2017 Neil Ewins has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.   ISBN: HB: 978-1-4742-8991-7   ePDF: 978-1-4742-8990-0     ePub: 978-1-4742-8989-4 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Cover design by Louise Dugdale Cover image: Spode, side plate, “Chicory Hymn,” flower pattern, designed by Kim Parker, earthenware, © 2006. Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Dedicated to Andrea, and our daughters Emilia and Estella.

Thank you.

vi

Contents List of Illustrations and Tables Acknowledgments

x xv

Introduction 1 Structure 6 Summary 7

Chapter 1

Globalization, the Ongoing Debate 9 Organization 10 Marketing, Consumption, and Meaning 12 Authenticity and Craft 15 Localism, Regional Competitiveness, and Resilience 17 Summary 19

Chapter 2

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics 21 Far Eastern Ceramics and their Influence 21 The Potteries, Staffordshire 22 UK Ceramic Bodies and Styles 24 Artists, Designers, and Marketing 25 Imports 28 The Perception of Far Eastern Ceramics 32 Deterritorialization and Copying Design 33 Changes in Production 36 Repositioning of Staffordshire Brands 40 Impact of the Far East on UK Ceramic Manufacturers 41 Changing Lifestyles 44 Decline versus New Businesses 44 Summary 50

Chapter 3

The Rise of Outsourcing UK ceramics The Outsourcing Debate in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries Far Eastern Outsourcing Profits and Outsourcing Employment in the UK Ceramic Industry Craft and Quality Issues Design versus Manufacture

53 54 55 63 65 67 68

Contents

viii

Place of Origin Debate 69 Uncertainty of Outsourcing 73 A Political Debate 74 Production Back in Staffordshire 75 Summary 76

Chapter 4

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on the Marketing of UK Ceramics 79 An Emphasis on the Staffordshire Brand 79 Attachment to “England” through Branding 82 “Made in China” and Celebrity Endorsement 83 Impact of Outsourcing on Backstamps 86 Attachment to “England” through Design and Decoration 87 Ceramic Objects of Deception 89 Denby and Compartmentalization 90 Summary 91

Chapter 5

Outsourcing and Its Impact on the Design Process 93 Hugh Saunders, Tableware Designer, Royal Doulton 93 Design Development Prior to Far Eastern Outsourcing 95 Outsourcing by Royal Doulton 96 Quality Issues 98 The Centralization of Design—Theory and Practice 99 Selective Outsourcing 101 New Technology 102 Summary 103

Chapter 6

Accentuating Place of Origin 105 Handmade 105 Emma Bridgewater 107 Perception 109 Royal Stafford 111 Design and the Marketing of “Difference” 113 Homogenization and Ceramic Design 114 Problems with Outsourcing 116 Royal Stafford’s Backstamps and Designs 118 Attitudes toward Backstamping 120 Denby, “Made in England” 121 Heron Cross Pottery 124 Repeat Repeat—Perception and Design Agility 125 Big Tomato Company 127 Summary 129

Contents

ix

Chapter 7

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand—The Retail Perspective 131 A Retailers’ Perspective 132 A Wedgwood Retailer in the North of England 132 Changing Demand 136 Perception of Wedgwood 136 Status Value 138 Wedgwood Pricing 141 Supply Problems 142 James Pirie of St. Andrews, Scotland 144 Place of Origin 146 Pricing 147 Thomas Goode, Mayfair, London 148 Summary 150

Chapter 8

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception 153 Constructs 153 Commemoratives and Collectibles 155 Goviers of Sidmouth 158 Royal Crown Derby 160 Caverswall China 161 Moorcroft 163 Hybrid Collectibles 165 The New English 166 The Figurine Collective 168 Devaluation 170 Portmeirion and Heritage 171 Exports and “Made in England” 173 Summary 177 Conclusion

179

References Index

187 198

List of Illustrations and Tables Plates Author’s collection, unless otherwise stated. Peter Craig Brown Photography, Newcastle upon Tyne. Plate 1 The New English, plate, “Crusades” pattern, bone china, from 2009, and The New English, cup and saucer, “Inkhead” pattern, bone china, from 2009. Plate 2 Spode, side plate, “Chicory Hymn” flower pattern, designed by Kim Parker, earthenware. Spode, mugs, “Sophie Conran, for Portmeirion,” porcellaneous, from 2006. Plate 3 Roy Kirkham & Co., mug, “Tuscany” pattern, bone china. Roy Kirkham & Co., mug, “Lifeboats,” bone china, c. 2010. Plate 4 Royal Doulton, tableware, “Orchard Hill” pattern, designed by Hugh Saunders, bone china, backstamp. Plate 5 Emma Bridgewater, side plate, designed by Mary Fedden, earthenware, from mid-1990s. Emma Bridgewater, mug, sponged decorated with hearts, earthenware, 2010. Emma Bridgewater, small mug, hand-painted Union Jack pattern, earthenware, 2010. Both mugs have a backstamp that was only used during 2010 (Casey et al. 2010: 37). Plate 6 Royal Stafford, plate and bowl, “Britannia” range, earthenware, c. 2009. Royal Stafford, mug, earthenware, c. 2010. Plate 7 Royal Crown Derby, dinner plate, “Chelsea Garden,” bone china. Royal Crown Derby, small dish, commemorating Royal Diamond Wedding, designed by June Branscombe, c. 2007. Royal Crown Derby, Collectors’ Guild ceramic paperweight, “Woodland Pheasant,” surface pattern designed by Louise Adams, c. 1998. Plate 8 The New English, Tectonic Plate, “Isabelle” (No.27) designed by Chrissy Angliker, bone china, c. 2010 (left). The New English, Tectonic Plate, “Beassiette” (No. 252) designed by Edith Lebeau, bone china, c. 2010 (right). The New English “Girlz 1,” coffee cup and saucer, designed by Camilia Prada, bone china, from 2009. The New English, “mug, Anatomica” range, designed by Lisa Turner, bone china, 2010 onward.

List of Illustrations and Tables

xi

Figures Chapter 2 Figure 2.1 Josiah Wedgwood, dinner plate, “After Willow” pattern, bone china, designed by Robert Dawson, 2004. Figure 2.2 Royal Doulton, cup and saucer, “Juno” pattern, fine china, and packaging, c. 1988. Figure 2.3 Josiah Wedgwood, cup and saucer, Bicentenary design, bone china, “Made in England,” 1995. Figure 2.4 Topchoice, cup and saucer, porcelain, made in China, 1997. Figure 2.5 Guangdong Drinkware, mug, commemorative of Prince William (depicting Prince Harry) and Catherine Middleton’s wedding, bone china, c. 2011. Figure 2.6 Berkshire China, plate, “Preston Guild 1992 Hutton Grammar School,” bone china, c. 1992. Staffordshire Fine Bone China, mug, bone china, hand-painted, c. 2003. Figure 2.7 Dr. Hugh Padley’s diagram showing the logic behind the production of hard-paste porcelain by HiFive, Staffordshire. Figure 2.8 Moorland Pottery and Sneyd Pottery, figurine, “Superlambanana,” earthenware, from 2009. Figure 2.9 Beverley Hewitt, jug, “The Garden” pattern, bone china, from 2005. Hewitt, cup and saucer, “The Flower Bed” pattern, bone china, from 2005. Hewitt, small jug, “Prince” pattern, bone china from 2010. Figure 2.10 The Sentinel, November 16, 2009. Tony Young, John Bromley and Peter Holland of The Figurine Collective.

24 27 28 31

35

38 38 39

47 49

Chapter 3 Figure 3.1 From l. to r. Wedgwood, cup and saucer, Home range, “Aztec” pattern, porcelain, and cup and saucer, “Eden pattern,” both from 1995. Figure 3.2 Imperial Works, Hanley, February 1999. Figure 3.3 Imperial Works, Hanley, August 2001. Figure 3.4 Whittard, mug, earthenware, c. 2010.

55 56 57 71

Chapter 4 Figure 4.1 Spode, mug, “Flowers of the Month” pattern, earthenware, with packaging. Copeland and Garrett, mug “Petite Rose” pattern, porcelain, from 2007.

80

xii

List of Illustrations and Tables

Figure 4.2 Royal Albert, cup and saucer, “Ruby Lace” pattern, bone china, c. 2008. Figure 4.3 Wedgwood, mug, “250th commemorative collection,” bone china, c. 2009. Figure 4.4 Johnson Bros., cup and saucer, “Fresh Fruit” pattern, porcelain, purchased 2008. Figure 4.5 Churchill China, dinnerware, The Designer Collection, Ports of Call, “Country Craft (sage),” by Jeff Banks, earthenware, purchased 2008. Queens, mug, Jamie Oliver’s “Drama Queen,” porcelain. Queens, mug, Cath Kidston design range, bone china. Figure 4.6 Price & Kensington, teapot, earthenware, c. 2010. Just Mugs Limited, espresso cup and saucer, earthenware, c. 2008. Figure 4.7 Rose of England China, set of three mugs, bone china, c. 2008.

81 81 83

85 89 90

Chapter 5 Figure 5.1 Photograph of Hugh Saunders at Royal Doulton, c. 1990. Figure 5.2 From l. to r. Royal Doulton, cup and saucer, “Fieldflower” pattern, stoneware, from 1976. Royal Doulton, cup and saucer, “Regalia” pattern, bone china, from 1987. Royal Doulton, cup and saucer, “Rossetti” pattern, bone china, from 2001. Figure 5.3 Designed by Hugh Saunders while at Royal Doulton, and outsourced to Thailand, c. 1995–97.

94

95 100

Chapter 6 Figure 6.1 Royal Stafford backstamp, c. 2009. Figure 6.2 Royal Stafford, tableware and mug, “Land of Hope & Glory” and “Royal Wedding” ranges, earthenware, for Marks and Spencer, from 2010. Figure 6.3 Barratts, cup and saucer, “Lincoln” pattern, pale cream earthenware, from c. 1988 onward for BHS. Figure 6.4 Denby, cup and saucer, “Mist” pattern, stoneware, c. 2012. Denby, salad plate, “Cherry” range, stoneware, c. 2012. Denby, mug, “Halo” pattern, stoneware, c. 2012. Figure 6.5 Heron Cross Pottery, teapot, “Hedgerow flowers chintz” pattern, earthenware, from 2009. Heron Cross Pottery, tankard mug, “Scattered blue heart,” earthenware.

112

113 116

122

124

List of Illustrations and Tables

Figure 6.6 Repeat Repeat, teapot, “Britannia” pattern, bone china, from 2009. Repeat Repeat, mug, “Silhouette” range, bone china, made in China, launched June 2008. Figure 6.7 Gloria Daniel-Washington, founder of Big Tomato Company at showroom, Longton, February 2012. Figure 6.8 Big Tomato Company, mugs, Classic range, “english rose” pattern, introduced in 2008, and “confirmed bachelor” pattern, 2009. All cream-colored bone china.

xiii

126 127

128

Chapter 7 Figure 7.1 Josiah Wedgwood, candlestick, cereal bowl, and coffee cup and saucer designed by Paul Costelloe, earthenware, from 1999. Figure 7.2 Josiah Wedgwood, cup, designed by Jasper Conran, earthenware, purchased 2009. Figure 7.3 Johnson Bros., teaware, “Eternal Beau” pattern, designed by Sarina Mascheroni, tableware, earthenware, from 1981. Figure 7.4 Maxwell & Williams, deep plates, “Moon Shadow” Cashmere range, bone china, from 2008.

133 142 144 146

Chapter 8 Figure 8.1 Royal Doulton, collectors’ plate, “Great Racehorses” artwork by William Nassau, bone china, from 1997. Royal Doulton figurine, “Diana” bone china. Figure 8.2 Trevor Johnson, owner and managing director of Caverswall China, Fenton, March 2012. Figure 8.3 W. Moorcroft Ltd., vase, “Sea Holly” pattern, designed by Emma Bossons, enamel decoration, earthenware. In background, Moorcroft catalog, 2007, illustrating a page concerning techniques and backstamps. This catalog also advertises the “Sea Holly” pattern. Figure 8.4 Spode Blue Italian, side plate, earthenware, manufactured by Portmeirion, Stoke, Made in England, 2011. Spode, Blue Italian, mug, porcelain, manufactured for Portmeirion in China, 2011. Figure 8.5 Hartley Greens & Co., Leeds Pottery, candlesticks, creamware, 2009. Burgess & Leigh (Burleigh), side plate, “Asiatic Pheasant,” transfer printed, earthenware, purchased 2011. Burgess & Leigh (Burleigh), small jug, “Calico,” transfer printed, earthenware, purchased 2011.

155 162

165

173

177

xiv

List of Illustrations and Tables

Tables Table 2.1

Table 2.2

Table 2.3

Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3

UK Ceramic Tableware Imports—porcelain and china. From the two largest European suppliers and the two largest East Asian suppliers, 1997–2000. UK Ceramic Tableware Imports—porcelain and china. From the two largest European suppliers and the two largest East Asian suppliers, 2000–05. UK Ceramic Tableware Imports—porcelain and china. From the two largest European suppliers and the two largest East Asian suppliers, 2006–10. UK ceramic exports to China—porcelain or china, 1997, 2000, 2005, and 2010. UK Ceramic Tableware Exports—earthenware, 2010, showing the largest five worldwide markets. UK Ceramic Tableware Exports—porcelain or china, 2010, showing the largest five worldwide markets.

29

29

30 175 175 176

Acknowledgments Without the kindness and generosity of the following individuals this book would not have been possible. I am extremely grateful to all those people who contributed and helped, including Louise Adams, Garry Biggs, Paul Bishop, Catherine Cable, Barbara Desax, Hugh Edwards, Lucie Ewins, Mark Faulkner, Gloria Daniel-Washington, Andrew Guest, Dr. Ian Jackson, Trevor Johnson, Ian Kirkham, Sebastian Lazell, Moira MacDonald, Pauline MacLeod, Elizabeth Moody, Gillian Naylor, Dr. Hugh Padley, Brett Phillips, Ruth Ratcliffe, Matthew Rice, Hugh Saunders, Tracie Shaw, Norman Tempest, and Tony Young. I would also like to thank Professor Brian Thompson, associate dean of Resources and Research, and Professor Flavia Swann, former head of Art, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland, for supporting this research project. For help, support, and advice, my thanks go to Professor Ewan Clayton, Professor Peter Davies, Dr. Jack Dawson, Tony Eddison, Dr. Andrew Livingstone, Dr. Jessamy Kelly, Dr. Juliette MacDonald, and Dr. Mike Pickard. My thanks also go to Professor Arabella Plouviez and the Ceramic Arts Research Centre University of Sunderland (CARcuos) for financially supporting photography costs, and to Rebecca Barden, senior commissioning editor, and Claire Constable, editorial assistant, Bloomsbury, for all their guidance. I would also like to extend my thanks to Peter Craig Brown Photography, Newcastle upon Tyne. A special thank you to Rodney and Eileen Hampson for their encyclopedic knowledge of the Potteries. Many thanks to Miranda Goodby, curator of Ceramics, Potteries Museum & Art Gallery, Hanley, and Gillian Robertson of Beamish Living Museum for granting me access to their archives. I am grateful to David Knapper and Pete Stonier of the Sentinel, Stoke, for kindly supplying copies of newspaper articles. Also thanks to the editors of Tableware International for providing back issues of their journal. Finally, I am grateful to Dr. Leighann Neilson, associate professor, marketing, Carleton University, Ottawa, and Program Chair of Conference on Historical Analysis and Research in Marketing (CHARM), for drawing my attention to marketing research and inviting me to take part in their Copenhagen Conference, May 30 to June 2, 2013. I am also grateful to Dr. Terrence Witkowski, California State University, and editor of Journal of Macromarketing for his help and advice with research concerning “country of origin” effects.

xvi

Introduction

Among the more fascinating features of the modern era has been the emergence of globalization. While the repercussions of globalization are widely debated, the purpose of this book is to focus on the UK ceramic industry, and the actual commodities it produces. The period examined is from the 1990s to c. 2010, when there was an unprecedented surge of ceramic competition from East Asia, leading to speculation that the future of the UK industry was uncertain (Buckley 2007: 215). Even more downcast was Emmanuel Cooper’s assessment that there had been a “collapse” of the Stoke-on-Trent ceramic industry due to the Asian production, although he recognized how the changing situation had inspired the influential ceramicist, Neil Brownsword, formerly of Wedgwood (2009: 131). Through Brownsword’s practice-based PhD, ceramic installations, videos, and a collaborative artists’ project located in the deserted Spode factory in Stoke, different ways have been found to respond to the heritage of the Potteries (Myland and Brownsword 2015). However, an assumption that there has been a straightforward decline, or collapse, of the UK ceramic industry does not encapsulate some of the more subtle ramifications of globalization. This book sets out to demonstrate that the impact of globalization is infinitely more complex. Globalization has affected marketing and design in different ways, especially as some aspects of the UK ceramics industry have continued production. Another impact of globalization has been the tendency of outsourcing production to the Far East or the Pacific Rim, causing considerable controversy because of job losses. This is a significant departure from traditional forms of UK ceramic manufacturing and has, in turn, impacted on marketing and, arguably, on perception and consumption. In a wider cultural sense, globalization provokes fundamental questions as to whether shifting production away from Staffordshire results in a loss of integrity. While it is feasible to move production to anywhere in the world, claims such as “Made in England” can no longer be made. In an article by Russell Jenkins entitled “End for an industry that once defined a region,” which discussed the Waterford Wedgwood firm, it was reported that Alison Wedgwood had declared: “Made in England has a huge cachet in Japan and China and India, South Korea and Malaysia—the middle classes in these overseas markets are buying a piece of English history, design and innovation, and the biggest mistake the Irish owners made was to ignore the fact” (The Times January 6, 2009). The views of Alison Wedgwood, wife of a direct descendent of Josiah Wedgwood, could be dismissed as being inclined toward hyperbole or sentimentality. The

2

Ceramics and Globalization

notion of “Made in England” may well have become irrelevant to the modern consumer. But it is interesting to note that as early as 1989 Frederique Huygen’s British Design: image & identity attempted to define the characteristics of UK design. He referred to “British design: Burberry raincoats, floral interior fabrics, Jaguars, Shetland pullovers, Dunhill lighters, and Wedgwood pottery. Tradition, respectability, and quality” (1989: 15). Clichéd as these may be, it is noticeable how the notions of tradition and quality have often been attached to perceptions of British design, and this interpretation does not entirely focus on surface decoration. Clearly, these interpretations of Britishness were expressed before the major implications of globalization. These issues have become even more pressing when it is considered that the UK ceramic industry has a distinctive regional identity, and heritage associated with Staffordshire. In addition, the products manufactured can still be extensively handmade and crafted and, on occasion, have collectible dimensions. The issues raised by globalization can be perplexing. If production is outsourced, it creates the need for new types of backstamping. This is straightforward enough, but the culture change does not end there, as cases of backstamps and surface pattern designs have emerged, within the period analyzed, which reinforce the fact that some production has continued in the Potteries. In this respect, globalization has affected consumption, marketing, and design right across the board, influencing the way manufacturers think about their products, and apparently how consumers view the commodities. Furthermore, there have been reports of Staffordshire manufacturers bringing back production to Stoke-on-Trent, previously farmed out to the Far East. In a China and Earthenware Key Note Report, it was even declared: For some years, Key Note’s Market Report Plus on China and Earthenware has questioned whether, by outsourcing production overseas, British pottery was scoring a spectacular own-goal, betraying the very heritage that is one of its greatest assets. Indeed, it seems this has been the case, with companies such as Churchill China and Portmeirion bringing some production back to the UK, while Emma Bridgewater, which prides itself on manufacturing solely in the UK, has flourished (2010: Executive Summary: 1).

As indicated by Key Note’s 2010 report, not all companies have capitulated to outsourcing production to the Far East. Emma Bridgewater, a firm based at Hanley, Staffordshire, reported record sales of £11 million for the year ending April 2010— an increase of 33 percent on the previous year (The Sentinel July 5, 2010). The Crafts magazine that is more accustomed to discuss studio ceramics rather than industrial production, also referred to the economic success of Bridgewater. One article stated, “It’s this very Britishness that defines the company—every piece is hand-made in Stoke-on-Trent, and Bridgewater herself has doggedly refused to outsource production overseas” (Qureshi 2010: 14). It is perhaps implied by this analysis that place of manufacture is central to the appeal of this particular ceramic product. If Emma Bridgewater’s wares had been handmade in China, it is unlikely that such an article would have appeared in Crafts magazine anyway.

Introduction

3

Bridgewater’s ability to still produce in Staffordshire appears to have captivated the attention of writers because of its lack of globalization in terms of the manufacturing side of production. Bridgewater is often portrayed as a survivor, with the impact of the Far East creating a refocusing of the issue of identity and place. Factory tours were introduced in 2008, and have apparently increased in popularity (The Sentinel April 11, 2009). Interestingly, a 2009 poster for Emma Bridgewater factory tours displays the ceramic products on potters’ work boards, loaded on a trolley. Historically, the concept of potters’ dozen relates to the number of pots that could be placed on these wooden boards, and then carried around the factory (Copeland 2009: 179–81). The instances of new, small companies that have specifically made use of a UK ceramic manufacturing base require greater analysis. Thus, intriguing sets of strategies have emerged in the UK ceramic industry. With rising Far Eastern imports, and the tendency of outsourcing production to East Asia, the question arises of why have some forms of UK ceramic production continued? Why have new ceramic businesses been established in Staffordshire, relying on local production, rather than utilizing production abroad, which is seemingly cheaper? Why has it been reported that some companies have brought aspects of their production back to Staffordshire? Although this type of behavior parallels a phenomenon that some economists have called regional resilience, why has the UK ceramic industry adapted and evolved in this way? One premise for explaining why some forms of tableware or decorative ceramic production have remained in the UK, and in the Potteries’ district of Stoke-onTrent, is a need to maintain manufacturing and design agility. Pragmatically, agility is affected when manufacturing is removed to East Asia and slowed down because of shipping times. Also, a geographical separation between design and manufacturing can be problematic, and it can be impractical, therefore, to always follow the route of shifting production. Another suggested issue is that consumers are still influenced by the heritage of UK ceramic production—particularly for premium and collectible ceramic products. What the UK ceramic commodity has come to represent socially and culturally still influences how it is treated and perceived by consumers. The cultural perspective (defined by Daniel Bell as “expressive symbolism and meanings” (1974: 12)) is part of the explanation for the complex behavior of the UK ceramic industry. As the American anthropologist Kopytoff has argued, for “the economist, commodities simply are,” there is also a “cultural and cognitive process” that needs to be recognized (1986: 64). Furthermore, the issue of how far consumption is a form of expression, definition, and display has been considered (Bauman 1998a: 30–32; McCracken 1990: 71–89). Perhaps, as ceramics have a variety of functions and the capacity to convey complex meanings, this accounts for why those involved in the UK ceramic industry have behaved in diverse ways, when subjected to the forces of globalization. Overall, while the UK ceramic industry can be progressive and global, this process of change is far from seamless. Those manufacturers who have explored outsourcing have faced a challenge of maintaining agility factors and potentially negotiating around consumer perceptions. What at face value seems a straightforward way to

4

Ceramics and Globalization

enhance profits by shifting manufacture to the cheaper places of production is not without its difficulties. Theoretically, the UK industry is an interesting case study of potentially an area of design that does not easily adapt to some of implications of globalization. The problematic issues created by globalization have not gone unnoticed by those interested, or those closely involved, in UK ceramics. A book entitled Ceramic Ambitions and Strategic Directions: Perspectives on the UK Ceramics Industry arising from a series of executives seminars organized by Staffordshire University Business School of 2000 refers to the scale of imports and outsourcing to the Far East (Jackson et al. 2000: 23, 66, 68). Key issues such as changes in lifestyle in the past 20 years are examined along with Moorcroft’s avoidance of outsourcing (2000: 10, 62–66). Padley and Pugh’s chapter even argues that the decline in the UK pottery industry should be seen as more cyclical and questions the extensive influence of shareholders in the industry (2000: 14–17). Therefore, it has often been recognized that different sets of strategies have emerged within the UK ceramic industry, but the way globalization has visually impacted on marketing and design needs to be recorded. Therefore, this book documents marketing and design strategies that reflect both the rise of outsourcing and ceramics that have emphasized the place of origin of UK ceramic brands. The focus of this book is on UK industrial tableware and ornamental ceramic production. It does not examine the hospitality side of the business, although it does mention Churchill China that produces for the hotel, catering, and retail markets. Incidentally, it has been noted by previous writers that the hospitality manufacturers, such as Dudson and Steelite, have maintained production in the UK (Carroll et al. 2002: 334–35; Harvas-Oliver et al. 2011: 383). There are other forms of ceramics “used” in a domestic context such as art or studio ceramics (Haslam 1975; Watson 1993). However, industrial ceramics are associated with serial production, use of mechanical aids, the emphasis on a brand name, and the separation between the designers and makers. For a long period, a large proportion of ceramic history publications have focused on the categorization of patterns, shapes, and dating. There are publications that tend to focus on particular factories, or ware types, aiding attribution, and the collecting of ceramics (Honey [1928] 1977; Godden 1974, 1985, 1990; Snyder 1997). While attribution and categorization of ceramic literature is useful for its nomenclature, design history modes of analysis have provided a model for this book: that is, design examples have been chosen, and various forms of evidence, underpinned by appropriate theory, are used to support interpretations (Forty 1986; Woodham 1997; Buckley 2007). It became apparent when originally starting this research that it was becoming harder for the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent, to collect UK ceramic brands that had been outsourced. In the past, it might be assumed that the role of a regional museum was to collect a representative sample of production peculiar to the locality, but the issues associated with globalization, such as deterritorialization and hybridization, have also raised interesting challenges for curating. The originality of this book is the inclusion of imagery that demonstrates how the marketing and design of UK ceramics have been affected by globalization—

Introduction

5

either reflecting the rise of outsourcing or emphasizing the UK place of origin. Backstamps and even surface pattern designs bear witness to the impact of globalization. The author has collected ceramics that are particularly relevant to the c.1990–2010 period, and while undertaking this research, has attempted to preserve how these products were presented to the consumer. Documenting how ceramics appear at point of sale, with or without detachable labels, was important for considering the consumer perception aspect of the research. Previous research has shown that in-store displays and packaging can influence choice (Foxall 1990: 14–15). Ceramic marketing and design might be interpreted in certain ways, but this research has revealed some important differences between what the ceramic example implies and the motivation of the manufacturer. Collected ceramics have been photographed, and a sample has been used wherever possible in this book. Additionally, ceramics were collected because they related to references made by manufacturers and retailers as to other influential, or competitive, brands from outside the UK. To establish and contextualize at what point the Far East became a major exporter of ceramics into the UK, ceramic import figures have been obtained from UK Customs and Excise records. The local press in the form of the Sentinel— printed on the site of the former Wedgwood factory at Etruria—also provided a commentary on the rise of imports, pottery collapses, outsourcing by Staffordshire manufacturers, and the creation of new firms. Both the Sentinel and Tableware International deal with the ensuing debate caused by outsourcing and usefully report cases of market research undertaken by Staffordshire manufacturers. Tableware International (formerly the Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review until 1970) was a monthly publication until 2003 and has been bimonthly from 2008, and this deals with a variety of international ceramic design developments. It discusses changes in ceramic demand and features new producers, trends, and exhibitions. Tableware International occasionally published articles concerning the relevance of place of production based on its own market research. A survey of retail catalogs from the 1990s and early 2000s provides evidence of changing trends in ceramic supply. While some ceramic designs might be illustrated in retail catalogs or Tableware International, this type of material does not show how the backstamping of ceramics was actually evolving. Different empirical perspectives are used to help address why some UK manufacturers have veered toward outsourcing, or have intriguingly maintained, returned, or started new ceramic companies relying on “local” production. This book uses the testimony of manufacturers to provide insight into attitudes toward outsourcing and alternately why local production was being relied on. In addition, the purpose of interviewing retailers was to get closer to the issue of perception. Based on references in the press and trade journals, a view often expressed was how place of production was increasingly of limited importance. Consulting retailers with long experience of selling ceramics was used as a way to double-check this assumption. Finally, the experiences of a ceramic designer were gathered to address how outsourcing had impacted on design practices. Thus, different opinions reflect a growing tradition of using oral evidence to inform our understanding of design history

6

Ceramics and Globalization

and art and design practice (Sandino 2006: 275–82; Sandino and Partington 2013). In broader aspects of design history, oral evidence is not an untried research method. For instance, Katrina Bill’s article “Attitudes Towards Women’s Trousers: Britain in the 1930s” in the Journal of Design History used interviews with women consumers in the Cleveland area (1993: 45–54). But briefly, Kitchin and Tate’s Conducting Research into Human Geography: Theory, Methodology & Practice, which describes an “Interview guide approach” (2000: 213–14), and Oppenheim’s Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement influenced how the evidence was gathered. Interviews are considered useful by Kitchin and Tate, if research is aimed at acquiring “experience, feelings and opinions” (2000: 213), and paradoxically, Oppenheim advises incorporating ambiguous statements into the questions, so that respondents can invest more time in determining meaning (1992: 180). There is always an issue of the value of interview, or oral evidence. Is it too subjective and anecdotal, since if there is a willingness to contribute to the issue or debate, does it already introduce a bias? How much qualitative evidence is required to gain insight into the issues being explored? In fact, the collected information reveals no shortage of conflicting views, which only increases the intriguing nature of the subject. While one has to be aware of some of the limitations of this type of evidence, it is hoped that the comments included in this book will themselves become interesting “historical” evidence, reflecting the responses to globalization at a certain point in time. It is felt that interviews could yield more honest and forthcoming responses to the changes taking place in the organization of the UK ceramic industry, which is difficult to determine from Manufacturers’ Annual Reports. In addition, collected views from a retail perspective could record changing attitudes and responses to ceramics—hard to replicate in the future. Finally, interviews would counterbalance attitudes in the Staffordshire press affected by the highly emotive issue of job losses caused by competition and outsourcing.

Structure Chapter 1 considers the broader discussions that are concerned with the characteristics of globalization and a range of theoretical and cultural implications. These views are juxtaposed with observations concerning the value, use, and meaning of ceramics, drawing attention to such complex issues of perceptions of authenticity, identity, and craft. Chapter 2 provides a contextual overview of the UK ceramic industry and of how it was historically influenced by the more advanced Chinese ceramic tradition. Although this book concentrates on how the UK ceramic industry has responded to the impact of the globalization from c.1990 to 2010, Staffordshire marketing tendencies have previously focused on craft, region, and heritage, even if stylistically ceramic design is a blend of cultural influences. It is believed that earlier forms of marketing have still influenced more contemporary perceptions. It considers how far the collapses of Staffordshire companies in the late 1990s and

Introduction

7

early 2000s were related to East Asian imports, but draws attention to how, despite competition, new, small businesses have emerged. Chapter 3 examines the rise of outsourcing by UK ceramic manufacturers, often associated with the consequences of Far Eastern ceramic competition. Some manufacturers experimented with shifts in production, and this chapter maps out the issues that have arisen from outsourcing as outlined by the Staffordshire press. It concludes by drawing attention to Staffordshire companies that were not outsourcing, and to press references which reported companies bringing back production to Staffordshire. Chapter 4 describes the actual impact of outsourcing on the marketing of Staffordshire brands in conjunction with the opinions of manufacturers who outsourced some of their production. This chapter identifies distinct types of marketing that have evolved since the 1990s. Chapter 5 is based on the experiences of a ceramic designer who witnessed the initial trials of outsourcing to the Far East. He was interviewed to determine whether moving manufacturing slowed down or created coordination problems in the development of design. Chapter 6 considers ceramics that emphasize through backstamps and surface designs that they are still manufactured in the UK. The theory explored in this chapter is that the impact of the Far East is not simply competition and outsourcing, but that the implications of globalization have encouraged UK manufacturers to design and market ceramics that are more pronounced in terms of expressing origins. In this sense, the impact of the Far East has implications for all aspects of the UK ceramic industry. Interviews were held with manufacturers who produce ceramics that appeared to accentuate the place of origin. Chapter 7 examines the retailers’ perspective and in a way addresses my own bias as a researcher interested in UK ceramics. Because outsourcing impacts on marketing of UK ceramic brands, the interest is whether retailers reported any consumer perception concerns when UK ceramics were manufactured in the Far East. Conversely, this chapter considers whether place of origin was irrelevant to consumers, focusing instead on low-priced, well-designed ceramics, perhaps endorsed by celebrities. Chapter 8 deals with the common ground that apparently exists between the attitudes of manufacturers and the views of retailers regarding the importance of place of origin. The motivation for some UK manufacturers to maintain production in the UK is influenced by certain perception factors, juxtaposed by insights from cultural theorists.

Summary It is intriguing to explore whether UK ceramics are in the process of evolving into a hybridized, globalized, even homogenized commodity or whether UK ceramics are made more complex due to the processes of design, manufacture, and perception. The impact of East Asian competition has not resulted in the complete collapse

8

Ceramics and Globalization

of the UK industry, nor has the impact resulted in all manufacturers exploiting cheaper places of production in Asia. Whatever the followed route, it has created a series of different manufacturing approaches and responses. In short, approaches which once seemed cogent have been questioned due to the impact of globalization, leading to various experiments in types of UK manufacturing, marketing, and design, increasingly moving away from a historical precedent. The motivation, the attitudes, and the visual responses all need to be documented, while it is possible to record them at this extraordinary point in time.

Chapter 1 Globalization, the Ongoing Debate

The change that has occurred in the UK ceramic industry is a form of globalization insofar as “local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.” This is how Anthony Giddens, professor of sociology, succinctly defined globalization in The Consequence of Modernity (1991a: 64). The purpose of this chapter is to consider a range of issues that have been linked to the diverse and complex implications of globalization. An analysis of these will provide a framework for comparing and contrasting the actual behavior of UK ceramic industry in later chapters. As early as 1974, P. W. Gay and R. L. Smyth’s The British Pottery Industry identified how it was becoming easier, due to new technology, to establish manufacturing abroad. Apparently, this had occurred in the areas of sanitary ware, tiles, and electrical ware production, and they already predicted that this tendency would begin to impact on the production of domestic ceramics, and “not only in cheaper ware” (Gay and Smyth 1974: 242). While movement in production could be possible at this stage, there was no discussion of the implications of these changes in terms of the speed with which to deliver the design, or of the response of consumers to the Staffordshire products made abroad. R.F. Imrie’s “Industrial restructuring, labor, and locality: the case of the British pottery industry” actually recorded how Wedgwood had acquired the Franciscan factory in California (1989: 14). However, as Chris Rowley of the Cardiff Business School pointed out, the Franciscan plant was not used for the production of Wedgwood’s own ware, although a Franciscan pattern was manufactured at Wedgwood’s Creative Tableware division in Britain (1992: 1648). Rowley published a series of papers concerning the structure of the UK ceramic industry (1992: 1645–50; 1994: 127–39; 1998: 21–34). From a business, economic, and strategic management perspective, there was a growing awareness of possible, as well as actual, changes occurring in the organization of the ceramic industry. While Rowley acknowledged that there were still craft skills involved in the industry, and how in the 1990s wares were sold to the United States on the basis of a “traditional ‘English’ image,” it was ceramic historians who began to speculate on how multinationalism might influence design (1994: 131, 133). Frances Hannah’s Ceramics: Twentieth Century Design of 1986 also identified the growth of UK ceramic manufacturers adopting multinational behavior, operating

10

Ceramics and Globalization

across diverse cultural and political boundaries, and potentially utilizing cheaper labor in developing countries. In this context, her last chapter, entitled “The State of the Art,” predicted a decline in ceramic designs adapted to different national tastes (1986: 100–01). It was argued that an “international style” influenced by the economic conditions would emerge. She predicted the movement away from pictorial forms to surface patterns that would begin to emphasize texture and color in an attempt to become culturally neutral. In this respect, UK ceramics were already being perceived as evolving into a globalized, even homogenized, commodity. Although Hannah also pointed out how Wedgwood had acquired Franciscan pottery of California in 1979, she did not explore the long-term implications of these kinds of developments, simply because her research was conducted in the 1980s (1986: 102). The important question remains with regard to this book: Did Hannah’s notion of an “international style” emerge in the c.1990–2010 period? In many ways, Hannah’s predictions coincide with the wider theoretical interpretations of globalization. It has been argued that an implication would be to present consumers with homogenized commodities (Dicken 2003: 10), which have increasingly become culturally “de-territorialized” (Appadurai 1996: 38; Lash and Urry 1994: 14; Tomlinson 1999: 106–49). Then, as Tomlinson’s Globalization and Culture points out, a further consequence might be: “The idea that globalized culture is hybrid culture has a strong intuitive appeal which follows directly from the notion of deterritorialization.” (1999: 141). In other words, apart from homogenization, a potential consequence of globalization would be the creation of new, hybridized identities and cultures. Likewise, design history literature has often been preoccupied with the crosscultural consequences of globalization (Barnard 2005: 151–61). In fact, a whole edition of Design Issues entitled “Design in a Global Context” examined fashion, architecture, industrial design, and graphics (Fiss and Clark 2009). Clark analyzed Hong Kong design (2009: 11–29), and Rovine studied how far cultural styles are discreet categories, when examining African and French fashion in a colonial context (2009: 44–61).

Organization Clearly, globalization would have a much wider range of implications. For example, Malcolm Waters’s Globalization identifies the tendency whereby Western manufacturers shift production to economically less-developed countries, in order to reduce manufacturing costs (2001: 71–73). This parallels tendencies found in the UK ceramic industry, the development of which is explored in more depth in Chapter 3. Day et al.’s “Britain’s last industrial district? A case study of ceramic production” actually referred to Royal Doulton building a factory in Indonesia. Day et al.’s research believed that the main debate in the industry, at present, “was keeping production in the UK” (2000: 11–12). However, as pointed out in an

Globalization, the Ongoing Debate

11

ECOTEC report entitled Strategic Analysis of the Ceramics Industry in Staffordshire of 1999, China was due to enter the World Trade Organization, and thus the debate about how to remain competitive, in the face of a further deluge of East Asian ceramics, would only intensify (1999: 41–42). The report was commissioned by a consortium that included the Government Office for the West Midlands, Stokeon-Trent City Council, and the British Ceramic Confederation (BCC). While some forms of strategic research considered whether the application of new technology could aid the UK ceramic industry (Campbell 1997: 237– 46), others focused far more on the possibilities of outsourcing. Carroll, Cooke, Hassard, and Marchington’s “The Strategic Management of Outsourcing in the UK Ceramic Tableware Industry” actually raised the central question, “Why are these firms so cautious about outsourcing?” (2002: 328). Staff from the Manchester School of Management undertook this research between 2000 and 2001, and it was based on empirical evidence gathered from manufacturers, unions, and the BCC. Although the chairman of the BCC believed that Stoke-on-Trent should continue to use ceramics as a “heritage” industry, coexisting with overseas outsourcing, other evidence from manufacturers viewed outsourcing production in Asia and the Far East as a way to survive (2002: 333). As an anonymous managing director of one Staffordshire manufacturer stated: “You have to forget all that crap about history. The area has to embrace the world” (Carroll et al. 2002: 341). Carroll et al. considered the “value-added” debate of manufacturing in the UK, often reflected in the use of the backstamp (2002: 333, 336, 340), but concluded: “Despite the long and close regional ties and traditions that have bound the industry together, such institutionalism is now being questioned as global competition and tightened cost structured become ever more prominent” (Carroll et al. 2002: 341). In short, Carroll et al. saw outsourcing as economically inevitable. Their research includes a breakdown of producers’ attitudes to outsourcing of the so-called “Hotel China,” “Fine China,” and “Domestic China,” although how these varying attitudes actually impacted on ceramic marketing and design, and perception still needs to be recorded. Interestingly, Carroll et al.’s research did not gather formation from a retail perspective. With an emphasis on a production-based methodology, there is limited scope to explore the consumption and perception side of UK ceramics. Perhaps the assumption was that the consumer is indifferent and passive, or, as Lash and Urry have argued in Economies of Signs and Space of 1994, meaning can be added to the product wherever it is manufactured (1994: 14–15). Lash and Urry’s analysis of “global sociology” only adds to the complexity of the globalization debate. Taking their cue from Baudrillard, Lash and Urry argued that “objects are emptied out both of meaning (and are postmodern) and material content (and are thus post-industrial)” (1994: 15). Based on Lash and Urry’s theories, designing and design aesthetics become more important than the process of production. Increasingly, it becomes the role of advertising to attach imagery and meaning to the products (1994: 14–15). Press and Cooper’s The Design Experience: the Role of Design and Designers in the Twenty-First Century expands on Lash and Urry’s theory in terms of design. As they stated:

12

Ceramics and Globalization The process of globalization, our increased mobility, and a greater level of production and consumption that this makes possible have a number of consequences. First, commodities lose the meanings formerly given by the symbolism and myths of their national culture. In their place, the Benetton ads, McDonald’s golden arches and all the other advertising imagery, product styles and brands provide a seemingly meaningless jungle of signs, divorced from any commonly accepted underlying meaning (2003: 16–17).

The changes and implications of globalization described by Lash and Urry, and Press and Cooper, do not focus on a particular industry or commodity. Although Malcolm Waters argued that brands such as Nike, Levi’s, and Reebok “infuse global popular culture,” these are youth-oriented brands (2001: 198). Likewise, discussion has previously taken place about how the fashion industry has moved production abroad in attempts to reduce costs (Du Gay 1997: 151), and David Harvey’s analysis of post-Fordism actually mentions the case of Atari shifting production from Silicon Valley to East Asia (2000: 268). Interestingly, individuals involved in selling ceramics interviewed in this book made analogies with the world of fashion. But, as aspects of the UK ceramic industry (as referred to by Chris Rowley) have been renowned for the craft skills, does this make shifting production, from a perception point of view, more problematic? Furthermore, how easy was it to physically transfer a ceramic design from Staffordshire to an offshore place of production? This issue is addressed in Chapter 5.

Marketing, Consumption, and Meaning Since Lash and Urry have theorized that in a changing global environment it becomes the role of advertising to provide the meaning of the products, at this juncture it is appropriate to mention the plethora of research into what is defined as either country of origin (abbreviated to CO or COO) or product-country image (PCI) (Papadopoulos and Heslop 1993; Jain and Griffith 2011). Papadopoulos recognized how products are not necessarily made in countries, but in “places,” which relates to the regional dimension of the UK ceramic industry (1993: 4). Research regarding COO has often focused on the perception of products from individual countries: for example, Swedish products associated with workmanship and quality (Heslop and Papadopoulos 1993: 46–54). Alternatively, it has been questioned whether access to global markets, and products manufactured from hybrid components will inevitably make the issue of COO irrelevant (Papadopoulos 1993: 11). Magnusson and Westjohn recognize that while this area “has become one of the most intensely studied topics in the field of international marketing,” they also suggest that the COO phenomenon has been subject to “increasing scrutiny and skepticism” (2011: 292). Studies have revealed that COO is not an important part of influencing consumer choice (Liefeld 2004). However, to other researchers, the relaxation of US Customs regulations in 1996, allowing a move away from the “made in” principle of labeling and the growth of the

Globalization, the Ongoing Debate

13

World Trade Organization, have simply rekindled the issue of the perception debate (Pharr 2005: 34–35). In the context of globalization, Papadopoulos et al.’s “Place brands and brand-place associations: the role of ‘place’ in international marketing” argues that any criticism of the research into COO is misplaced because of three main reasons: namely, “marketing deals with perceptions,” a product’s origin may “refer to where it is manufactured,” and the PCI question has implications on other areas “including tourism” (2011: 88–89). Overall, previous research in areas such as the automobile industry has recognized that hybridization raises some marketing dilemmas resulting in various opinions (Johansson and Nebenzahl 1986; Baughn and Yaprak 1993: 92). By using the case study of UK ceramics, this research is an opportunity to reevaluate existing schisms toward the COO debate. Research by Martin Evans, Ahmad Jamal, and Gordon Foxall in Consumer Behaviour also refers to “Country of Origin Effects.” The origin of the commodity is considered as “image variable,” which potentially influences consumers’ perceptions of a brand. They describe some consumers as “ethnocentric.” These individuals are happier if the product originates from their own culture, implying that consumption has a range of complex meanings (2006: 209–10). Some writers on design have considered how the qualities of “Britishness” can impact on products (Huygen 1989). In other contexts, researchers from marketing backgrounds have examined the effects of American retailers shifting to selling products “made in China” (Kabadayi and Lerman 2011: 102–26). Celia Lury’s Consumer Culture has a section entitled “Imitation and authenticity,” but this centers on how retailers present goods from other cultures, rather than goods renowned for being made in a locality from which production has been shifted. For instance, it explains how Habitat in the 1990s marketed textiles from India and glassware from Poland (1996: 174–86). It has been previously recognized that there are different types of consumption and that commodities convey different types of meaning. In terms of whether a consumer’s decision is based on either price or design, it has been argued by Cooper and Press in The Design Agenda: A Guide to Successful Design Management thus: According to conventional wisdom, if there are two competing goods roughly the same quality and design but differing in price then the rational economic person will go for the cheaper one. . . . Clearly it is not quite as simple as this. The increasing symbolic value of many goods and services, brand loyalty and the strategies of advertising complicate the supposedly rational nature of the purchasing decision. . . . The non-price factors include product uniqueness, quality, reliability, ergonomics, packaging and after-sales service among others (1995: 55).

Mike Press was principal lecturer at Staffordshire University at the time of publication. Cooper and Press discussed the role of cheap ceramic imports in general terms, and drew attention to the importance of design and designing

14

Ceramics and Globalization

around people’s changing lifestyles (1995: 54–56, 79). Some authors have continued to point out how far the “modern” consumer can still be unpredictable (Foxall, Goldsmith, and Brown 1998: 235–53). Alternately, Peter Corrigan’s The Sociology of Consumption of 1997 is an unusual example of a nonceramic historian referring to how ceramic rituals can persist in aspects of consumption. Corrigan argued that ceramics fall into two types: the uncoordinated range of cups and mugs, and what he termed “the ensemble”—the overall set of matched pieces (1997: 105). This observation relates to Douglas and Isherwood’s notion that consumer choices are at any one time “irrational, superstitious, traditionalist, or experimental” ([1979] 1996: 35). It is also important to consider how ceramics have been treated and what elaborate meanings they might acquire. A section in Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton’s The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self described commodities that were considered “special” by their owners (1981: 56). These included visual art, books, photographs, and ceramics. When surveying over 80 families in Chicago, it was found that in the case of ceramics, “Although these [dishes, china, cups, mugs, etc.] are all objects ostensibly made for use . . . relatively few people found them special for utilitarian reasons.” What their research found was that ceramics were important, particularly to women, because these objects provided links to ethnic backgrounds, and were classified as heirlooms. Utilitarian ceramics could be cherished possessions (1981: 82). The possibility of ceramics being linked to ethnicity and identity is of interest to this book. Invariably commodities tend to convey status. In Douglas and Isherwood’s The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption, it is argued: “All goods to some extent emanate messages about rank, sets of goods even more so. The class of pure rank-markers could be the high-quality versions that serve no other purpose, like the best porcelain, the family heirlooms, ancestral portraits” ([1979] 1996: 85). What the above observations suggest is that ceramics have had complex, cultural functions. However, Douglas and Isherwood’s research was first published in the 1970s, and Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton’s work in 1981. Attitudes have changed, and as far as Fredric Jameson was concerned, in his essay “Post-modernism and consumer society,” a postindustrial society influenced increasingly by the media and multinational capitalism, has emerged. Jameson’s position is that these are the “new formal features in culture” resulting in new types of consumption, planned obsolescence, and faster changes in fashion and style ([1983] 1993: 113, 124). Therefore, the so-called postmodern interpretation of consumerism is important. Indeed, Gabriel and Lang believe that postmodern consumers “do not search for authentic, integrated, wholesome selves,” because the modern consumer understands everything to be a “fleeting mirage” (2006: 88). In this environment consumers will increasingly only require transient goods. Inevitably, one consequence of globalization has been an infiltration of cheaper, expandable Far Eastern and Asian ceramics, placing these regions at an advantage. In addition, shifting production to East Asia would make little difference to consumers, since theoretically the focus is affordable fashion and style. Nevertheless, it is important to explore how pervasive the postmodern values have been in a context of globalization to all types of production and consumption.

Globalization, the Ongoing Debate

15

Whether the lack of convergence in the organization of the UK ceramic industry is because postmodern interpretations of society do not adequately take into account how consumers represent different age groups, have varying socioeconomic needs, and whether they require or desire only transient commodities, needs to be determined.

Authenticity and Craft One of the consequences of the rise of ceramic outsourcing was relevance of a COO debate that emerged in the trade and Staffordshire press. A straightforward statement that encapsulates the view is, “If it’s not made in England it’s not Wedgwood” (The Sentinel May 15, 2009). Outsourcing production has raised the problematic issue of what constitutes “authenticity.” In other areas of research, authenticity has been defined in a variety of ways, since it is far from straightforward. For instance, in Bruce Baugh’s article “Authenticity Revisited,” the focus is on the distinctness of the aesthetics of an artwork (1988: 477–87). Jacob Golomb’s analysis of how philosophers have interpreted authenticity establishes how, in some respects, the concept is principally used in the context of genuine art and artifacts. However, Golomb insightfully suggests how “the quest for authenticity becomes especially pronounced in extreme conditions” (1995: 3, 5). The “extreme conditions” for the UK ceramic industry might be described as the impact of East Asian competition and, at the same time, the opportunities that globalization brings in terms of whether it is necessary to manufacture in Staffordshire at all. In more of a design sense, David Boyle’s Authenticity: Brands, Fakes, Spin and the Lust for Real Life demonstrates how “authentic” is defined in a number of ways. Boyle connects one notion of “authenticity” to being “Real and Rooted,” emphasizing the importance of place of origin. He points out that if a manufacturer tells you where it is made, this is likely to be the case. If it is made using sweatshop labor, it is more likely to appear on the retailer’s shelf anonymously (2003: 20–21). Alternatively, it has been recognized that “authenticity” is a complex term, but may imply a long history or heritage, a local region or national provenance, and might be less technological, or even one-off (Grant 1999: 100–01). Paradoxically, then, it seems that authenticity often resides not only in the qualities of the actual object, but also in the context in which something is made, and this resonates with the issues raised by this book. Spooner’s analysis of “Weavers and dealers: authenticity and oriental carpets” asserted that the “real thing” is not simply the artifact, but that certain individuals made these carpets from materials in “particular social, cultural and environmental conditions” (1986: 221). Thus, Beverland asserts that a tension can exist between being truthful to the past and, at the same time, remaining relevant and competitive. Beverland based his research on interviewing luxury winemakers with whom the qualities of craft, relationship to place, consistency, and heritage were still identified as important attributes (2005: 200–02). Overall, the issue of authenticity is poignant in the case of the UK

16

Ceramics and Globalization

ceramic industry since brands have varying status, and the commodity “itself ” can be decorative or collectible, rather than only functional. Importantly, in his early theoretical work, The System of Objects of 1968, Baudrillard actually explored the values and behavior attached to collecting. People might search for “antique furniture, authenticity, period style, rusticity, craftsmanship, hand-made products, native pottery, folklore and so on” in objects defined by him as nonfunctional, or marginal objects ([1968] 2005: 79). It is the case that Baudrillard’s views evolved toward an erosion of “meaning” due to the impact of the mass media ([1981] 1994: 84–86). As Gabriel and Lang point out, “In Baudrillard’s view, within the media-dominated world of Western societies, boundaries between reality and representation, substance and image, have imploded, just like the difference between the real and the fake Rolex” (2006: 59). The notion of counterfeit was discussed in Baudrillard’s Symbolic Exchange and Death, and was perhaps a way of reconciling his observations on collecting and an interest in authenticity, and the implications of a more media-led society ([1976] 1993: 50–57). But, Russell Belk usefully distinguishes between types of products. Belk has argued that some products are more meaningful than others, in the form of gifts and collections (1995a: 70–72). Furthermore, in spite of postmodern interpretations of society, Susan Pearce’s Collecting in Contemporary Practice discusses the importance of collecting habits in British society in the 1990s. Her work still considers attitudes toward authenticity and mentions highpriced ceramic plates and figurines with marketing that emphasizes quality, high craft, limited edition, and, above all, the collecting element (1998: 84–85). It is not within the scope of Pearce’s work to consider how shifting the place of production would impact on collecting certain forms of ceramics. If a focus of collecting ceramics is also the perceived authenticity of that object, does shifting the production of a Staffordshire collectible to the Far East also disrupt its symbolic meaning? In Ian Hodder’s “The Interpretation of Documents and Material Culture,” the importance of symbolic meaning is also recognized, although he concedes that these “cannot easily be articulated” (2011: 707). If the ceramic commodity is also potentially symbolic of its heritage, the debate then becomes as to whether or not this meaning can be grafted onto any commodity in the same way that Lash and Urry describe. Significantly, there have been critics of Baudrillard’s view that objects can just adopt any meaning, in the manner of words in a language (Poster 1988: 46). For instance, in the case of Grant McCracken, actual objects, unlike language, are more constrained in the meanings they impart (1990: 132–33). Furthermore, it has been pointed out by Hugh Mackay in Consumption and Everyday Life that evidence supporting Baudrillard’s views have often focused on “youth” lifestyle. Mackay believes there is such a thing as “materiality,” but does not develop a sense of why and where it will exist (1997: 5). Beyond issues of collecting, even functional tablewares may be nuanced with different meaning based on their context. Dormer’s The Meaning of Modern Design usefully distinguishes between commodities that are either made or manufactured and suggests there are:

Globalization, the Ongoing Debate

17

1. Consumer durables—such as hairdryers. . . 2. Craft—handmade pots, furniture. . . 3. High design artefacts—artefacts[sic] that can include a lot of handworkmanship (expensive cars, watches and tea services are included), but they are designed by people who do not make them: named architects or star designers (1990: Preface).

Paradoxically, even the so-called industrial ceramics can relate to all of Dormer’s categories. A drinking vessel can be a durable, functional item, or evidently more crafted due to approaches to the decoration, or made more prestigious by the valuable materials used in the surface patterns, but in each case “designed” for the same purpose. Given the fact that imported East Asian ceramics were perceived by the Staffordshire press as increasingly occupying the cheapest end of market, it is important to be aware of different levels of the market. In spite of greater multinationalism, the role of new technology, and movements in production, there are still craft-oriented commodities. Other disciplines have explored how craft-oriented commodities behave when affected by outsourcing. Norma A. Respicio’s paper on “The Nishijin Tradition: Past and Prospects, Issues and Problems as Viewed by Various People Involved in Production and Dissemination” of 2007 investigated the traditional textile production in Japan. Nishijin is an area that has been involved with weaving for centuries, and the localized industry is associated with textiles of a very fine quality, but production began to be outsourced elsewhere (Respicio 2007: 321–35). Respicio’s research explores how textiles with a strong sense of region, tradition, and heritage adapted to globalization, and thus has similarities with the UK ceramic industry. She mentions the instances of textiles “tagged as Japan-made may not even be in truth Japan-made” and refers to a wholesaler who took early retirement because of some “irreconcilable disputes with management on marketing practices and strategies” (2007: 331). Respicio undertook interviews with producers, designers, wholesalers, and shop owners, and therefore considered different aspects of the debate, in a similar manner to this book. Respicio’s final comment was that if the textile tradition continued to exist, it would be in new forms and expressions (2007: 333). However, Respicio does not visually document how the marketing and the design of textiles were altered as a consequence of shifting production elsewhere, or how the marketing strategies of any surviving Nishijin tradition actually evolved. Did this marketing begin to emphasize “authenticity” and place of production?

Localism, Regional Competitiveness, and Resilience Instead of gradual homogenization or hybridization, it has been argued that there could be alternate responses to globalization. In fact, as Anthony Giddens proposed in Modernity and Self-Identity, globalization should also be understood

18

Ceramics and Globalization

as producing “divergent or even contrary occurrences” (1991b: 22). More skeptical views of globalization exist, and certainly interest in its implications on culture and the “local” has emerged (King 1991; Hannerz 1996: 17–29). Spretnak refers to the paradox of a “global village,” which is made possible by computers, but may result in economic insecurity and jobs being exported (1999: 11). Gilles Lipovetsky’s interpretation of a media-led “global village” is not simply as a “contraction” of the planet, but having the “peculiar ability to individualize consciousness” ([1987] 2002: 192–93). In short, there has been speculation that the impact of globalization will create more of an awareness of localism (Featherstone 1995: 102–25). Controversially, Petra Steinberger even points out in a chapter entitled “Global Regional” that from the perspective of consumers, “Localism plays on people’s insecurities—about the future, about modernism, about technology, the unfamiliar, the foreign, about . . . the Asian ‘Yellow Peril’” (Steinberger 2010: 231). Alternatively, the design historian John Heskett still argued in Toothpicks and Logos: Design in Everyday Life that, although globalization creates an emphasis on “economies of scale through greater commonality between products,” the problem of adapting to the tastes of different markets remains (2003: 156). The suggestion here is that there has not necessarily been a homogenization of taste. Ironically, there has been discussion of regions becoming more competitive once again (Kitson, Martin, and Tyler 2004: 991–99). One way in which Kitson et al. define this concept of a resurgence of regions competing over national producers is by supplying different international export markets (Kitson, Martin, and Tyler 2004: 992). In another way, it has been argued that “it is important that we avoid repeating mistakes that seem to have been so commonly made in relation to the concept of competitiveness.” Christopherson et al. continue by arguing, “We should avoid assuming that the same drivers of change are at work everywhere and if we just pull the right levers, the appropriate drivers will respond and deliver required outcomes” (2010: 9). More precisely, it is pointed out by Hassink that resilience is not renewal but is, more often, adjustment, adaptation, and transformation (2010: 45). Christopherson’s and Hassink’s views are included in a whole edition of Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society devoted to regional resilience, published in 2010. Sacchetti and Tomlinson briefly consider how the marketing strengths of UK ceramics may be affected by outsourcing (2009: 1847). However, their research entitled “Economic Governance and the Evolution of Industrial District under Globalization” focuses on Staffordshire initiatives such as “Hothouse” and the individual firms based in the Roslyn Works, Longton, as attempts to respond to terminal decline. Sacchetti and Tomlinson concluded, “It remains to be seen whether recent initiatives will be sufficient to reverse these trends” (2009: 1847–48). Hervas-Oliver, Jackson, and Tomlinson’s “‘May the ovens never grow cold’: regional resilience and industrial policy in the North Staffordshire ceramics industrial district—with lessons from Sassoulo and Castellon” argue that the hotelware manufacturers such as Churchill, Dudson, and Steelite have not outsourced, yet have “thrived” by building long-term relationships with their customers. Sassoulo and Castellon are tile-manufacturing districts. Hervas-Oliver et al. argue that the

Globalization, the Ongoing Debate

19

dilemma with outsourcing to the Far East is : “In Particular, premium priced table and giftware have long traded on the heritage of highly crafted, hand-made and/ or hand decorated pieces. Moreover, the long-standing credibility of the ‘made in Staffordshire’ back-stamp is undermined if Staffordshire branded products are mass-produced in the Far East” (2011: 383). The “success stories” of Moorcroft, Emma Bridgewater, and Portmeirion are mentioned. Hervas-Oliver et al.’s regional resilience is contrary to Carroll et al.’s view of the inevitability of Far Eastern outsourcing due to competition. Importantly, Hervas-Oliver et al.’s view is an example of arguing that the phenomenon of regional resilience, in terms of ceramics, resides in consumer perception. It runs counter to the opinion of Lash and Urry, whereby meaning can be added to the commodity wherever the product is manufactured. The views of Hervas-Oliver et al. relate strongly to what is addressed in this book, although their research does not provide collaborative empirical evidence to support the argument that shifting production adversely impacts on perception. Nevertheless, their argument relates to Kevin Robins’s view that the impact of globalization may be that local, regional cultures and heritage, along with a sense of identity and continuity, are revalued rather than becoming completely internationalized (1991: 24–26). Clearly, a variety of views exists, although Robins’s view focuses on issues related to national cultures and ethnicity, rather than the behavior of a single industry, producing ceramics with myriad functions and meanings. While writers have raised a series of broader “cultural” or social issues, the following chapters set out to determine whether UK ceramics, with their distinctive regional history, parallel any of the divergent views of the impact of globalization (Smith 1995). On the one hand, David Harvey observed in The Condition of Postmodernity, that due to the “proliferation of industrial production” Benetton and Laura Ashley are in every “shopping mall” (1990: 296). But at the same time, Harvey speculates that “as spatial barriers diminish so we become much more sensitized to what the world’s spaces contain” (1990: 294).

Summary According to Appadurai, “The complexity of the current global economy has to do with certain fundamental dis-junctures between economy, culture and politics which have barely begun to theorize” (1990: 296). In this respect, the UK ceramic industry presents an opportunity to compare and contrast its behavior when it has been confronted by the consequences of globalization. One advantage of investigating a contemporary issue, rather than a historical period, is the possibility of gauging directly the views of individuals involved in ceramics. Globalization has added to the already-complex equation of what influences ceramic manufacturing and consumption. Some globalization theorists have raised cultural issues as being problematic, although a postmodern position would foresee fewer difficulties brought about by changes in the organization of the ceramic industry. Is the overlap between the more globalized modes of behavior and a continuation of

20

Ceramics and Globalization

the “traditional” forms of manufacturing a reflection of manufacturing and design agility issues, or is the commodity still, in part, caught up in a complex circle of what it means socially? To explore the agility and cultural explanations for the behavior of the UK ceramic industry, more empirical evidence is required. But first, it is necessary to examine the historical tendencies of East Asian ceramics and the Staffordshire tradition, and the rise of competition.

Chapter 2 The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

One of the consequences of the impact of the Far East on the UK ceramic industry in terms of imports and outsourcing is that a closer relationship now exists between two seemingly separate ceramic traditions. For instance, Portmeirion outsources production to China, and at the same time manufacture in Stoke-onTrent. Portmeirion argues: Whether our sales are of United Kingdom manufactured product (from our own factory, or elsewhere in Stoke-on-Trent) or overseas sourced product is determined by the products being demanded. Our Stoke-on-Trent factory produces finest English earthenware, it does not produce bone china or porcelain which are different clay mixes and have different firing temperatures. Irrespective of the place of production all of our products are manufactured to our exacting quality standards and carry our reputation on the backstamp. The products we source from the Far East are competitive in terms of quality and price.

Although there is often a sense of collaboration the reality is that the Far East has influenced the development of the English ceramic industry for centuries. The following sections briefly outline the ways in which this has been the case.

Far Eastern Ceramics and their Influence Hard-paste porcelain was first produced in the Chinese southern province of Kiangsi in the T’ang period (AD 618–906). Kaolin clay and feldspathic china stone, the vital ingredients for producing a white, translucent ceramic body, were readily available in that district (Medley 1986: 100). Hard-paste porcelain was normally decorated for export with underglaze cobalt blue. As hard-paste porcelain is fired at upward of 1,280 degrees Celsius, only iron oxide, copper oxide, and cobalt can withstand this high temperature. Blue-and-white wares were produced at Jingdezhen (Medley 1986: 176–77), and also quantities of ceramics were made at the provincial kilns such as Guangdong, in southern China (Turner 1995: 203).

22

Ceramics and Globalization

Chinese porcelain was exported in larger quantities to Europe after 1700 (Godden 1979: 19; Brewer and Porter 1993: 212), although the English East India Company preferred to import tea wares, rather than ornamental figurines (Richards 1999: 59). The wares exported were often different from those made for Chinese consumption (Boulay 1973: 77–79). It has been argued that a decline in the British import of Chinese porcelain was already occurring by the 1770s (Atterbury 1982: 73), before high tariffs were introduced in 1787 and 1799 to curtail the importation of Far Eastern ceramics (Hildyard 2005: 123). The total value of “Chinaware & Porcelain” imported into the UK in 1820 was £4,426.5s.2d, of which £1,548.9s.4d came from the “East Indies and China” and £1,556.9s.4d from “Asia” (Cust.5, Vol.9). By 1860, the total amount of imported china or porcelain, plain and decorated, was £8,667.1s.3d, and of this amount Chinese ceramics represented just £709.2s.5d (Cust.5, Vol. 62). In 1880, the main imported sources of porcelain and china were from France (£105,269), followed by Holland (£98,018), Germany (£40,155), with only £13,486 originating from China (Cust.5, Vol.123). Evidently, the import of Far Eastern ceramics gradually declined in the nineteenth century, and was not a factor again until the period investigated, as established below. European and British potters imitated motifs found on Far Eastern ceramics, while, as Turner points out in “Early Modern Design in Hong Kong,” Western versions of chinoiserie designs were even copied by Chinese potters for the European markets (1995: 203). The trend of copying Chinese styles developed in the tin-glazed tradition in Holland as a result of the Dutch East India Company importing Far Eastern porcelain (Jörg 1984: 18–19). European manufacturers strove to produce an equivalent of the translucent Chinese hard-paste porcelain. However, no exact equivalent of the Chinese porcelain was produced until Johann Friedrich Böttger of Meissen discovered suitable clays at Colditz in c.1710 (Atterbury 1982: 82–83). Other European or British porcelains could be translucent, but not necessarily made from kaolin china clay and china stone. In Britain, the producers in Bow, Chelsea, Derby, Longton Hall of Staffordshire, Worcester, etc., emulated porcelain and produced ornamental goods, and vessels suitable for hot drinks, by the 1740s and 1750s. These attempts, with varying ingredients, are described by collectors’ taxonomy as “soft paste” porcelain (Godden 1974).

The Potteries, Staffordshire A ware type called “Midlands purple” was made in Staffordshire from the late 1400s (The Potteries Museum 1999: 5). There was a rapid growth in the production of ceramics during the seventeenth century because of ample supplies of clay and coal (Barker 1991:11). Importantly, the Staffordshire approach of using white clays of Devon or Dorset in the eighteenth century was a response to copying imported Chinese porcelain (Barker 1991: 13–14; Weatherill 1971). A synergy of technology, scientific research, new industrial practices, improvements in transportation links, marketing techniques, and the development of designs catering for different markets developed from the second half of the eighteenth century.

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

23

Josiah Wedgwood is the most celebrated example of a Staffordshire manufacturer capitalizing on technical knowledge, combined with his entrepreneurial skills, which furthered the reputation of the Potteries (McKendrick, Brewer, and Plumb 1982; Dawson, 1984; Forty 1986; Young 1995). The steady growth continued, leading to Mervyn Jones’ Potbank of 1961 to observe that “no city of Great Britain is so dependent on a single industry as Stokeon-Trent” (1961: 97). As the use of local clay declined (in preference to the whiter bodies), the cost of fuel kept the industry in Staffordshire. Then, as local coal was replaced with cleaner gas and electricity, it was believed by Gay and Smyth that the industry remained in Stoke-on-Trent because of the ability to recruit skilled labor (1974: 14). Trade directories indicate the extent of this concentration of ceramic production in Staffordshire. By 1850, there were at least 200 factories within the six towns of the Potteries (Henrywood 2002: 293–95). Stoke-on-Trent (the combined name of six towns) consists of Tunstall and Burslem in the north, Stoke-upon-Trent and Hanley in the center, and Fenton and Longton in the south. Even other centers of English ceramic production may be linked to Staffordshire. In 1857, William Ball established the Deptford Pottery in Sunderland. Ball’s father was a potter from Burslem (Baker 1984: 32). Royal Worcester acquired Spode of Stoke-upon-Trent in 1976 (Niblett 1989: 75). Royal Crown Derby has also been included in this book since it became part of the Allied English Potteries group in the 1960s. In the 1970s, S. Pearson and Son acquired the Allied English Potteries group. Pearson and Son owned Royal Doulton of Stoke-on-Trent, thus connecting Royal Crown Derby with Staffordshire (Niblett 1989: 67–70). However, Hugh Gibson, former director of Royal Doulton and member of the Pearson family, bought Royal Crown Derby out of the group in 2000 for £16.5 million (The Sentinel June 11, 2000 and July 6, 2000). Since completing the original research, Royal Crown Derby was acquired by Steelite International, the hospitality manufacturers of Stoke-on-Trent, at the end of 2012 (The Sentinel, December 20, 2012). Clearly, ceramic production does take place in other regions, such as Derby and Denby, but Staffordshire has remained in a central position. By the mid-1920s there were approximately 272 ceramic firms listed in Stoke-on-Trent in the Pottery Gazette (Diary 1924: 79–83). This does not include the manufacturers of colors, glazes, chemicals, crate and cask makers, and firms of engravers, printers, and modelers. Longton had by far the most number of firms, although these were often smaller companies involved in bone china, rather than earthenware production. In 1948, 85 percent of pottery workers in the entire country were located in the Midlands (Henrywood 2002: 16), and as late as the 1980s, 83 percent of employment in the UK pottery industry was still based in Stoke-on-Trent (Imrie 1989: 6). The geographical divides that developed in the Potteries tend to still exist. Emma Bridgewater of Hanley and Royal Stafford of Burslem (who are both mentioned in this book) are earthenware manufacturers. Repeat Repeat and Caverswall China Company Ltd., both in Fenton, produce only bone china. (These companies are also included.) The number of factories has fluctuated. In 1933 there were 258 pottery firms listed in Stoke-on-Trent, and 248 in 1936, which was probably a

24

Ceramics and Globalization

reflection of the Great Depression (Pottery Gazette, Diary, 1933: 49–53: Pottery Gazette, Diary, 1936: 59–63).

UK Ceramic Bodies and Styles In order to emulate Chinese porcelain, Staffordshire also produced a white, translucent body known as “bone china.” This evolved at the end of the eighteenth century and is particularly associated with Josiah Spode II of Stoke (Gay and Smith 1974: 86). Translucent porcelains were more expensive than earthenwares, and for this reason they became associated with a higher status, carrying a social meaning (Richards 1999: 3). However, as Richards recognizes, meaning and status can shift, and in this period of investigation the distinctions between a higher-priced bone china and lower-priced earthenware do not necessarily apply.

Figure 2.1  Josiah Wedgwood, dinner plate, “After Willow” pattern, bone china, designed by Robert Dawson, 2004.

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

25

The ubiquitous—now quintessentially English—transfer printed “willow pattern” was derived from Far Eastern ceramic sources, but it has become associated with “Englishness.” Robert Dawson designed “After Willow” for Wedgwood in 2004 (see Figure 2.1). The backstamp indicates that the design was inspired by a version of willow pattern, dated 1806. Dinner plates in “After Willow” or “After Landscape” (another design by Dawson in more Continental European style) were priced at £25 (The Times October 30, 2004). These designs were developed when Georgina Godley became the new creative director at Wedgwood, and was placed in charge of developing products that would be more accessible to a new generation of consumers (The Observer, magazine, January 2, 2005). “After Willow” magnifies elements of the design, and, according to the designer, was inspired by “photography and the movies and Pop Art.” Dawson added: “The whole history of design has been full of stealing things and rehashing them and re-presenting them, and it’s a lot of fun because the whole willow-pattern thing was fake, and stolen from the Chinese, and I’ve stolen it again” (The Observer, magazine, September 18, 2005). The influence of the willow pattern still resonates in the twenty-first century, and is continued evidence of cross-cultural influences of the East on the West. It was suggested in 2006 that the design had helped to “rejuvenate the Wedgwood brand” (Fairs 2006: 278–79). “After Willow” was voted favorite design of the year by The Observer readers in 2005, and therefore, there has been a tendency to revisit historic patterns, even when supposedly attracting new consumers (The Observer, magazine, September 18, 2005).

Artists, Designers, and Marketing Cooper and Press point out that “over 200 years ago Josiah Wedgwood employed fine artists such as John Flaxman and George Stubbs to decorate ceramic ware as part of a marketing strategy to raise the profile and broaden the market of his company” (1995: 13). When Flaxman visited Italy he was able to purchase engravings of the Museo Capitolino collection for Wedgwood (Irwin 1979: 27– 28). In another sense of facilitating and informing the development of design, the French designers Arnoux, Lessore, and Solon were employed by major Staffordshire firms, introducing techniques and styles originally developed at Sèvres (Godden 1978: 271–74). However, some designers came from the district. Both Susie Cooper and Clarice Cliff attended the Burslem School of Art. Cooper worked for A.E. Gray and Co. Ltd. of Hanley (Youds 1996: 8–11), and Cliff worked for A. J. Wilkinson of Burslem, and was briefly sent to the Royal College of Art by the owner, Colley Shorter (Griffin 1998: 14). In some instances, the name of the ceramic designer was promoted alongside the manufacturer, as was the case with Clarice Cliff (Buckley 1990: 125–26). Progressive manufacturers in Staffordshire continued to employ artists and designers. For instance, Roy Midwinter of Burslem employed David Douglas, Lord Queensberry (better known as David Queensberry) in the early 1960s.

26

Ceramics and Globalization

Queensberry had studied pottery at the Central School of Art, and established a design partnership with Martin Hunt in 1966. Queensberry Hunt worked on a series of designs for Midwinter (Walker 1992: 6–19). David Queensberry was appointed director of design at the Poole pottery, Dorset, in the early 1990s (Tableware International, February 1993, Vol. 23, No. 1), and the Queensberry Hunt partnership designed kitchen wares for John Lewis in the 2000s. In fact, Tableware International referred to a new range for John Lewis in 2006 (Autumn 2006, Vol. 37, No. 1). Some Staffordshire brands have used greater celebrity endorsement and fashion designers. This raises the question of the extent to which the interests of modern consumers have moved to focus on design and celebrity, with a declining interest in the heritage of the UK brand, and further still, where the product is manufactured. These issues will be examined in more detail when analyzing the interviews of manufacturers and retailers involved in different segments of the market in Chapters 4, 6, 7, and 8. In spite of the diverse influences on UK ceramics, it is important to emphasize how the marketing of Staffordshire goods has frequently drawn attention to the heritage of the company, place of production, and craftsmanship. In the past, display signs (manufactured in pottery) used in retail outlets, the backstamps, company catalogs, and packaging, all tended to embody a range of these qualities. For instance, a Royal Doulton cup and saucer with a pattern name of “Juno,” designed in 1988, boldly stated on the boxed packaging, “Since 1815, The Gift of Imagination, Burslem, England” (Figure 2.2). An enclosed pamphlet explained the advantageous qualities of Doulton’s china, and that the firm had been making tableware for over a century. The backstamp on the “Juno” range indicated below heraldic symbols that it was “Made in England.” But, as Royal Doulton embraced outsourcing to the Far East, their marketing strategies changed, and this is discussed in Chapter 4. Historically, the combination of Britain’s Trade Mark Act of 1862, the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, and the McKinley Tariff Act introduced in 1891, which required ceramics exported to the United States to be marked “England,” resulted in clearer backstamps. The “Made in” backstamp was a consequence of post–First World War legislation (Morello 1993: 286–87; Hughes 1965: 324–25; Boger 1971: 209). Apart from Godden’s prolific research into ceramic history, his encyclopedias of ceramic backstamps conveyed the extensive tradition of ceramic manufacturers marking their products to distinguish (and sometimes imitate) ceramic products (Godden 1964). As early as the 1670s, Staffordshire slipwares were signed with the potter’s name or his initials (Barker and Crompton 2007: 113–20). However, in terms of the Staffordshire industry, the typical use of an impressed mark or printed backstamp emerges in the second half of the eighteenth century, and has persisted ever since. Significant changes have occurred to UK ceramic backstamps due to the impact of globalization, as discussed and documented in the following chapters. An Adams’ Fine Earthenware catalog dating from the 1970s informs the consumer that members of the Adams family had been involved in pottery production in Staffordshire since the 1440s, and that the William Adams business was established in 1657. Tableware in pattern names such as “Sharon” and “Scenic”

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

27

Figure 2.2  Royal Doulton, cup and saucer, “Juno” pattern, fine china, and packaging, c.1988. Logo © Royal Doulton.

were promoted at this time, and these ranges actually appear in a Habitat catalog of 1974 (Beamish Archive). The elaborate history explained in the catalog finished with the statement that “William Adams continues to make fine earthenware at Tunstall” (c.1970: 2). Similarly, a Wedgwood “Fine Bone China Tableware” catalog of 1984 drew attention to their factory at Barlaston (with an accompanying image of the factory) and included images reinforcing how hand-decorating skills were still involved in producing an elaborate design. The following statement underpins what the imagery implies: “Skilled men and women are vital to Wedgwood. It is a company where the human factor is all-important and where the expertise of the craftsperson is married to high technology” (Wedgwood 1984: 2). On occasion, even ceramic surface pattern designs have tapped into the heritage of the company. A ceramic cup and saucer design of 1995 celebrating the bicentenary death of Josiah Wedgwood created a pattern derived from his handwriting found in letters (Figure 2.3). In the main, surface pattern designs and UK ceramic bodies were a reflection of various cultural and stylistic tendencies, many of which can be traced back to the influence of East Asia. As the sociologist, Les Back, observed regarding the “Englishness” of a cup of tea, it is in reality far more a reflection of imperialism than something distinctly British (1998: 69). Although the previous chapter discussed the impact of globalization as a modern phenomenon, an alternate

28

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 2.3  Josiah Wedgwood, cup and saucer, Bicentenary design, bone china, “Made in England,” 1995. Logo © Wedgwood.

point of view is that we have been global for centuries, due to trade and the spread of capitalism (Walby 2009: 39–40). Certainly, by the nineteenth century, for many Staffordshire manufacturers the US market was vital for prosperity (Ewins 1997). However, when it came to the marketing of Staffordshire ceramics, it has been established how place of origin, the history of pottery families behind the name of the firm, and craft skills involved have often been emphasized. It was far from cosmopolitan. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the marketing themes of place, craft, and heritage were not in decline prior to the rise of Far Eastern imports, or outsourcing to the East Asia, but actually at their zenith in the 1970s and 1980s.

Imports In 1991, the UK’s largest proportion of imported porcelain tableware came from Germany (Key Note, Table 17, 1993). However, an article entitled “Prospects for European Tableware” calculated that for 1991, 22 percent of Western European porcelain tableware imports were from Asia, of which Taiwan represented 36 percent, China 28 percent, and Japan 26 percent. The amount of tableware exported from China had risen dramatically by 80 percent, although Chinese goods still represented a lower value compared to other Asian countries reflecting labor costs (Tableware International, September 1993, Vol. 23, No. 8). Hugh Gibson, director of Royal Doulton (who later became the chairman of Royal Crown Derby until

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

29

Table 2.1  UK Ceramic Tableware Imports—porcelain and china. From the two largest European suppliers and the two largest East Asian suppliers, 1997–2000.

1997 1998 1999 2000

Germany

France

China

Indonesia

£4,596,150.00 £4,498,266.00 £5,773,730.00 £5,862,698.00

£5,248,367.00 £3,320,052.00 £3,539,479.00 £4,120,421.00

£2,911,322.00 £2,861,621.00 £2,776,464.00 £5,744,623.00

£1,907,746.00 £2,227,064.00 £1,546,739.00 £3,609,892.00

Source: HM Revenue and Customs—Trade Statistics, 69111000.

Table 2.2  UK Ceramic Tableware Imports—porcelain and china. From the two largest European suppliers and the two largest East Asian suppliers, 2000–05.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Germany

France

China

Indonesia

£5,744,121.00 £5,002,471.00 £7,323,554.00 £8,459,250.00 £9,094,286.00

£4,414,621.00 £3,103,945.00 £3,940,222.00 £3,083,307.00 £3,690,614.00

£9,822,580.00 £5,823,167.00 £8,254,085.00 £10,011,939.00 £28,007,080.00

£4,317,438.00 £3,451,377.00 £5,501,456.00 £4,600,513.00 £3,964,479.00

Source: HM Revenue and Customs—Trade Statistics, 69111000.

2012), used his inaugural presidential speech at the 75th Annual Dinner of the British Ceramic Manufacturers’ Federation to criticize the British government for failing to support European quotas. He raised the concern that China was exporting pottery lower than the cost of materials to obtain foreign currency and increase their market share (The Sentinel May 25, 1994). By the mid-1990s, China was accused of dumping tableware in the UK at any price (The Sentinel January 3, 1995). Even though the European Commission continued to restrict tableware imports from China, it was reported that as a percentage of world trade, the value of China and Hong Kong’s ceramic products had increased from 14 percent in 1990 to 29 percent by 1995 (Tableware International, June 1998, Vol. 28, No. 5; October 1998, Vol. 28, No. 9). The imported UK value of Chinese ceramics classified as “porcelain and china tableware” was just below the value of Germany in 2000, but permanently overtook Germany from 2001 (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). When the value of “domestic ware imports” is taken as a whole (combining earthenware and porcelain), it has been calculated that the total amount from China was already higher than Germany or France by 1994 (Padley and Pugh 2000: 22, Fig. 9). It depends on which set of import figures are used, as different countries supplied different types of ceramics. For instance, in 2000 the highest amounts of earthenware or fine pottery tableware supplied to the UK still came from Europe, rather than the Far East. Portugal supplied the most, worth £9,969,399, followed by Italy worth £4,592,987. The value from China was £2,578,123 (HM Revenue and Customs—Trade Statistics, Imports and Exports, 2000, 69120050). The impact of the Far East has been uneven and

Ceramics and Globalization

30

Table 2.3  UK Ceramic Tableware Imports—porcelain and china. From the two largest European suppliers and the two largest East Asian suppliers, 2006–10.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Germany

France

China

Indonesia

£8,593,272.00 £7,564,404.00 £8,718,959.00 £8,027,500.00 £6,202,229.00

£4,851,111.00 £10,382,717.00 £5,730,134.00 £5,447,164.00 £6,338,022.00

£28,347,119.00 £36,837,529.00 £46,084,888.00 £44,398,075.00 £61,121,751.00

£5,556,878.00 £3,937,672.00 £3,934,475.00 £3,462,216.00 £6,717,848.00

Source: HM Revenue and Customs—Trade Statistics, 69111000.

weighted toward porcelain production, reflecting historically what was produced in that region. Certainly, by 2000, UK porcelain tableware imports from Asia and Oceania equaled £24,370,529, compared to £20,982,396 from the European Union (EU). The balance of the import of porcelain tableware shifted from Europe to Asian countries, although at that stage the total amount of imported earthenware was still £18,037,644 from the EU, compared to £9,969,399 from Asia and Oceania in 2000 (HM Revenue and Customs—Trade Statistics, Imports and Exports, 2000, 69120050). There was another dramatic surge in the importation of Chinese porcelain tableware from 2005 (Tables 2.2 and 2.3). This coincides with China’s full entry into the World Trade Organization in January 2005 (The Sentinel October 22, 2004). By 2005, the huge import of porcelain tableware from China was no longer counterbalanced by earthenware imports from Europe. In 2005, the total value of earthenware or fine pottery was valued at £10,319,463 from Europe compared to £10,000,307 from Asia and Oceania. The largest European supplier of earthenware was Portugal, valued at £7,418,790, and the largest source of earthenware from the Far East was China, valued at £6,319,096 (HM Revenue and Customs—Trade Statistics, Imports and Exports, 2005, 69120050). Illustrative of the impact of the Far East was that Tableware International published an article entitled “Chinese exporters make their mark on the west” in 1997. In spite of pointing out that the Chinese had cheaper labor than Japan or South Korea, it argued that the European quotas had restricted inroads into Western markets. Only in “recent years” had China become important, and at the same time their manufacturers were improving quality and design. It cites the example of Hong Kong-based Topchoice, established in 1990, which commissioned ceramics from 20 Chinese porcelain manufacturers. Keith Chan, director of Topchoice, had been involved in exporting Chinese porcelain since the 1970s, but was now involved in designing and marketing his own brands, Multiplechoice, and Topceram (Tableware International, July 1997, Vol. 27, No. 6) (Figure 2.4). Thus, the external providers of UK tableware changed rapidly during the 1990s, although the import figures do not isolate what proportion of Chinese ceramics were actually branded as Staffordshire, or as UK supermarket brands. In other words, what was outsourced could be interpreted as simply Far Eastern competition. However, retail catalogs provide clearer evidence of the shifts taking place in ceramic supply trends from the 1990s to early 2000s. These amplify

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

31

Figure 2.4  Topchoice, cup and saucer, porcelain, made in China, 1997. Logo © Topchoice.

what the import figures suggest. In 1992, the Argos catalog sold the Staffordshire tablewares of Johnson Brothers, Biltons, English Ironstone, Churchill, Kilncraft, John Tams, Royal Doulton, Wood & Sons, Royal Albert, and mugs manufactured by Kingsbury Fine Bone China. European ceramics were also advertised in the 1992 Argos catalog, such as Arcopal of France. In the Argos spring/summer catalog of 1996, the majority of the Staffordshire brands mentioned in 1992 still occur, although a “Chinese Set” was included. This 20-piece set was priced at £8.99, and is in a distinctly Chinese style in terms of blue-and-white decoration and vessel forms for eating rice. In the Argos spring/ summer catalog of 2000, Churchill, John Tams, Staffordshire Tableware, and Johnson Brothers were still available. However, a “fine china & porcelain” section appeared in 2000, and there were more variety of ranges not attributed to any particular company, such as “Country Floral” and “Script.” The Argos catalog of 2000 offered the 20-piece tableware set of “white embossed porcelain” for £19.99, whereas a 30-piece tableware set by Johnson Brothers in the “Fresh Fruit” pattern was £67.99. Thirty-piece tableware sets by Johnson Brothers in the “Eternal Beau” design had gradually risen in price from £46.99 in the Argos catalog of 1989, to £54.99 in 1992, £55.49 in 1996, dropping slightly to £54.99 in 1997 (see Chapter 7, Figure 7.3). Johnson Brothers’s products were not featured in the Argos catalog of

32

Ceramics and Globalization

2002. The catalog of spring/summer 2002 offered more anonymous sets of ceramics, suggesting that Staffordshire brands were gradually being outmaneuvered at this level of the market. A 16-piece “fine porcelain” dinner set was available for as little as £24.99. While there was a decline in the promotion of Staffordshire goods by Argos from the late 1990s, other companies had promoted international wares from an earlier period. In 1974, Habitat sold wares from Burgess & Leigh, Midwinter, Adams of Staffordshire, and a range called Kilta from Finland. Their catalog of 1989/90 promoted a fine bone china range called “Astor,” designed by Wedgwood expressly for Habitat. However, the Habitat catalog of 1993 was already boasting that “our designers travel throughout the world to source new ranges of earthenware and porcelain” (Beamish Archive).

The Perception of Far Eastern Ceramics The tone of discussion in the Staffordshire press, concerning the impact of the Far East, changes from the late 1990s onward. The earlier fears about imports became a reality, and commentators in the Sentinel, on occasion, blamed the British consumer for their lack of allegiance to British ceramics (December 11, 1998, February 15, 2002 and June 6, 2003). Headlines appeared such as “Potters must watch China,” raising concerns about the impact of low-cost mugs (The Sentinel November 4, 2001). Although it was argued that the reputation of the Potteries would help, there was a fear that the volume producers would increasingly suffer from Far Eastern imports (The Sentinel March 20, 2002). The low price of Far Eastern ceramics was hard to ignore, or avoid. As early as 2003, Elizabeth Pegg of the Sentinel undertook a ceramic survey of what was available on the high street. It began by pointing out the following: “Nowadays, people change their crockery as often as they change their underwear. Dinner sets are sold in almost every High Street store, and they are attractive, stylish, and most importantly, affordable.” The survey found records of 20-piece dinner sets ranging from £9.99 to £49.99 in Argos catalogs. Furthermore, it was reported: In Next, smart boxes of sleek porcelain tableware retail at £49.99. Over in BHS, a 20 piece “diner[sic] collection” can be snapped up for just £40. In Wilkinson stores, cups, saucers and plates can be picked from shelves like supermarket groceries at 99p for a cup, 79p for a saucer. And one of the reasons they are so cheap is because almost all of these wares are manufactured abroad. Many have no backstamp at all. Others are from China, Thailand or Indonesia (The Sentinel June 8, 2003).

From a design perspective, the article added that “despite their exotic origins, many of these cheap crocks have been designed to imitate loftier English counterparts.” The Next dinner sets were considered to be not dissimilar to designs by Jasper

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

33

Conran for Wedgwood (Chapter 7, Figure 7.2). Insightfully, the writer put these trends into a wider context: “Academics would say this sort of consumer behaviour is a symptom of our ‘post-modern culture.’ In a modernist age, a manufacturer’s philosophy was to use the very best materials for their product and create something of high quality that would last and last” (The Sentinel, June 8, 2003). Indeed, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Fredric Jameson’s essay entitled “Postmodernism and Consumer Society” referred to a desire for rapid changes in styling and planned obsolescence ([1983] 1993: 124), and Foxall, Goldsmith, and Brown’s Consumer Psychology for Marketing defined “postmodern conditions” as the “abandonment of history, origin and context” (1998: 243). A visual comparison was made in the Sentinel article entitled “Top quality is crocked by the cheapies.” This illustrated article demonstrated how Far Eastern goods imitated the English brands. Whereas a cup and saucer sold on the high street through Wilkinson’s was dismissed as dull, gray, and dumpy, the equivalent from Wedgwood was considered to be white and elegant. However, the Wilkinson’s cup and saucer was £1.78, while the Wedgwood example, sold through Debenhams, cost £18.50 (The Sentinel June 8, 2003). Where the issues of ceramic imports from the Far East and a growing awareness of consumers wanting more transient, affordable goods became linked was that, consistently, Asia was associated with manufacturing cheap, high-volume wares (The Sentinel January 2, 2007). These were normally still dismissed as “low-quality” wares; since this research undertook interviews with manufacturers, attitudes to the quality of Far Eastern goods have changed.

Deterritorialization and Copying Design The Staffordshire press clearly recognized that ceramics of apparently East Asian origins were cheap and often anonymous, particularly when sold through supermarkets. Globalization theories outlined in Chapter 1 also describe a mode of behavior called “deterritorialization.” To Tomlinson, the word draws attention to changes in the “place-culture relationship” (1999: 106). This view may be applied to imported ceramics from the Far East since it was pointed out in the Staffordshire press that: . . . like in other areas of consumer goods, the backstamp is starting to mean less as companies spread themselves amid the sweep of globalization. A shop assistant explained: “It’s because most if not all families around here have links either with Royal Doulton and Wedgwood or the Potteries. People elsewhere don’t care so much where it is made just as long as it looks good.” The point was echoed by Marks and Spencer which sources most of its goods from overseas to meet demands and margins (The Sentinel November 19, 2003).

In the past, Staffordshire companies such as the John Tams Group supplied Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Asda, and Woolworths, until it went into administration in September 2006 (The Sentinel September 24, 2006). Supporting

34

Ceramics and Globalization

the deterritorialization view, supermarkets such as Asda marketed ceramics only under the “George” fashion label, and retailers such as Wilkinson’s sold ceramics marketed as “Wilko.” But, there was no indication of where the Asda or Wilkinson’s products were manufactured. There was a range of design issues that stemmed from the impact of the Far East, one of these being the apparent copying of Staffordshire designs by Far Eastern manufacturers. There were growing references to this in the 2000s, although as early as 1990 there was a report of Claud Rowley of Wade finding a Taiwanese copy of their “Antiques Shop” range of teapots, James Sadler & Sons reporting Japanese copies of their teapots, and Japanese versions of Royal Albert’s “Old Country Roses” (Tableware International, September 1990, Vol. 20, No. 8). In 2002, the press carried a headline of “Complacent potters slow to stop fakers.” This was accompanied by images of Wedgwood’s “Cornucopia” design, and Tim Harper of Wedgwood smashing 5,500 pieces of counterfeit tableware. It was believed that the imitations originated in Asia. The Cornucopia design was developed in 1995, but the copies had been marketed as “Cornfield” in Ireland, by Bromac Importers and Distributors Ltd. Wedgwood won a legal battle against Bromac in 2002 (The Sentinel January 22, 2002). Dunoon, a company founded in Scotland in 1973, established a bone china factory at Stone, Staffordshire, in 1981, employing 110 people in 2001 and 105 people by 2009. Their products were sold in Harrods, Selfridges, Fortnum & Mason, and John Lewis (The Sentinel August 8, 2001 and February 2, 2009). Bone china mugs would sell for around £11 each (The Sentinel January 26, 2003). In 2002, it was reported that a Korean firm had copied four of Dunoon’s mug shapes and used surface designs similar to the “Funky Farm” range shown on mugs and kitchenware (The Sentinel April 20, 2002). It was reported by The Herald, Glasgow, that Dunoon had ceased production of the “Funky Farm” range because of the impact of counterfeits sold in Eastern Europe, and was considering closing the Argyll factory, which employed 50 people, because of the effect on sales (January 26, 2005). Kevin Farrell, chief executive of the British Ceramic Confederation, declared that a brochure from the firm Chaozhou ShunQiang Ceramics Making Co., from the Guangdong region of China, was evidence enough of the increased problem of copying since the catalog showed mug designs by companies such as Dunoon of Stone, Roy Kirkham of Tunstall, the Tams Group, Hudson & Middleton, both of Longton (The Sentinel December 15, 2003). The copying of Staffordshire designs also raised a debate about introducing (at a European statutory level) the requirement of “place of origin” to be provided on the backstamp. An earlier case of whether this would provide a solution was voiced by Duchess China when their wares were copied by an Indian pottery in Mumbai and imported by Stafford-based Castlechurch China Ltd. (The Sentinel April 14, 2001). In the meantime, Dunoon confirmed that it was pursuing Chaozhou ShuQiang Ceramics Making Co. through a Hanley solicitor in 2003, whereas Philip Tittensor, of Just Mugs, declared that such an action was a waste of time and money (The Sentinel December 21, 2003 and February 1, 2004). Nevertheless, Dunoon, alone, took legal action over 30 times from 2002 to 2004, and in one instance succeeded in forcing a mail-order company to destroy 10,000

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

35

Chinese-made mugs which had copied their “Zodiac” range (The Sentinel March 14, 2004). Royal Wedding ceramic mugs were produced by Guangdong Enterprises Ltd., Kowloon (Hong Kong), copying the style of other commemorative wares, but mistakenly featuring Catherine Middleton with Prince Harry, rather than Prince William. However, there was speculation that this was actually a scam devised in Surrey, England, to create a collectible of instant rarity, and amusement (The Times April 27, 2011; See Figure 2.5). If this was the case, it conveys how apprehensions of globalization have been treated more humorously. The simple act of using the image of Prince Harry becomes a synecdoche for cultural encounters and misunderstandings arising from the possibilities of globalization. The impact of low-priced ceramics from China on the high street resulted in a number of developments. Stephen Roper, chairman of Churchill China, observed as early as the late 1990s that the government needed “to take more action to

Figure 2.5  Guangdong Drinkware, mug, commemorative of Prince William (depicting Prince Harry) and Catherine Middleton’s wedding, bone china, ©2011. Backstamp declares “Ye Olde English/Guangdong Drinkware.”

36

Ceramics and Globalization

protect ceramic firms’ designs from copies, especially those flooding in from China” (The Sentinel March 24, 1999). Roper continued: “China used to take two years to rip off patterns, now they are producing copies of wares within three months,” he said. “Because China is a state economy you cannot get at the manufacturer for infringements and have to go for the importer and retailer. . . . If we have a new design we must be able to put a proof of the product in front of a customer within seven days. Typically at the moment this takes four to six weeks and a similar amount of time before any bulk run starts. In Indonesia you can get proofs in front of a customer in a week—because suppliers work around the clock—and bulk runs shortly afterwards. Stoke-onTrent does not think this way, it must become much more flexible—and fast. At the moment we can be three months down the road before a design goes into production” (The Sentinel March 24, 1999).

China did not recognize most copyright treaties (Wang 1995: 239). Therefore, faced with the issue of copying designs, the answer was that Staffordshire manufacturers needed to speed up the development of new designs to remain ahead of the market. This has been one implication of globalization. Even Michael Servian, a partner in the Stoke-on-Trent solicitors, Kent, Jones & Done, advised the ceramic industry to behave more like the fashion industry. By changing designs speedily, it could avoid the impact of counterfeiting (The Sentinel February 1, 2004). However, from the perspective of a ceramic designer, Hugh Saunders working for Royal Doulton, it becomes clear how developing new designs and undertaking market research, before the products were ready for market, was a lengthy procedure (see Chapter 5).

Changes in Production While it was realized that it would be increasingly hard for Staffordshire manufacturers to compete with cheaper Far East ceramics, there were different views as to how to move forward. In an article entitled “Potters must watch China” by journalist Gregory Jackie, it was argued: “Rather than await the inevitable we must use this respite to plan ahead. While we may struggle to compete with high volume, low-cost mugs and the like, there will always be a market for excellence in manufacture and design” (The Sentinel November 4, 2001). In this respect the reputation of the Potteries would enable it to continue. Alternately, The Tams Group Ltd. consciously shifted production to concentrate on mugs, believing that it had more economical production facilities for hollowware and could thus remain competitive. The Longton-based firm had the capacity to produce one million mugs a week, and argued that it could turn around orders in just five days. Managing Director Claud Rowley stated: “The only factor which we cannot compete with China is on wage levels, but we are able to deliver vastly superior levels of service, quality and design” (The Sentinel March 20, 2002).

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

37

There was more to this strategy than simply producing mugs. It was stated that the directors aimed to compete with the Far East by producing mugs under license from Disney, Warner Brothers, and artist Jack Vettriano. This strategy enabled “the business to sell its products in supermarkets such as Tesco despite being more expensive than mugs made by rivals in China and the Far East” (The Sentinel September 20, 2006). Others manufacturers followed a similar route as in the case of Just Mugs of Shelton, which emerged from the collapsed English Ironstone company. The founder, Philip Tittensor, believed that the manufacture of plates was no longer viable in the UK: “In comparison, while there are costs involved in making mugs, there is a better margin as firing times are faster” (The Sentinel December 10, 2006). The point about the manufacturing costs of ceramic items is of interest, since there are different views concerning which were the most viable to produce in the UK (see Chapter 6). Dr. Hugh Padley was a senior vice-president of Royal Worcester Spode Inc. in the 1970s, and after a period in Canada working for Royal Worcester Spode, he became the managing director of a ceramic figurine company called Boehm of Malvern, Worcestershire, from the late 1970s. He then became managing director of Spode in the mid-1980s. After his involvement in Royal Worcester and Spode, Padley ran his own ceramic firms. These were Berkshire China of Fenton and The Worcester Collection (renamed The Grosvenor Collection). Padley acquired Berkshire China in 1986 (Padley, 2009: 114), and it was announced that they had introduced a computer-controlled machine (known as Scripdec) to write individual names on pottery (The Sentinel December 4, 1989, and Tableware International, February, 1990, Vol. 20, No. 1). Padley won Small Company Merit Award for Research and Technology (SMART) to develop a computer-controlled personalized strategy, which was to purposely avoid competing with the mass market. This approach resulted in Berkshire China being featured on the UK television programs, Tomorrow’s World and The Money Programme. The turnover increased from £160,000 to £2 million, “Whilst everyone was collapsing too.” Figure 2.6 illustrates a plate marketed by Berkshire China in c.1992 personalized for a school. Berkshire China began to focus on smaller runs and bespoke goods tailored toward individual customers. Berkshire China’s flatware was actually produced by a firm called A. T. Finney of Longton, but it was decorated at the Berkshire China factory. Berkshire China focused on the production of hollowware. However, the most radical way to address the impact of the Far East was when Padley and Michael Rees established HiFive in January 2000. At the premises formerly used by Berkshire China of Fenton, hard-paste porcelain was produced, in an attempt to be more competitive. It was hoped that HiFive would be a “guiding light for manufacturing companies hammered by cheap imports” because the company planned to make porcelain “a material which is not used in Stoke-onTrent’s industry but features heavily in the global market.” Michael Rees declared: “If it takes six months for a foreign competitor to get their goods to the market then that gives us time to keep ahead. We can produce even more advanced designs which take longer to copy and keep us further ahead” (The Sentinel February 6, 2001).

38

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 2.6  Berkshire China, plate, “Preston Guild 1992 Hutton Grammar School,” bone china, c.1992. Staffordshire Fine Bone China, mug, bone china, hand-painted, c. 2003. Logo © Berkshire China.

According to the interview with Dr. Hugh Padley, it was determined that the decision to produce porcelain was influenced by a conversation with a chief planner from Wedgwood. Wedgwood had already ventured into porcelain production when it outsourced to Portugal in the mid-1990s (see Chapter 3). Padley drew a diagram during the interview, reproduced in Figure 2.7, below:

Bone china

Price

Porcelain

Earthenware

Figure 2.7  Dr. Hugh Padley’s diagram showing the logic behind the production of hardpaste porcelain by HiFive, Staffordshire.

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

39

Figure 2.8  Moorland Pottery and Sneyd Pottery, figurine, “Superlambanana,” earthenware, from 2009.

Padley pointed out that as porcelain was cheaper than bone china, it was an incentive to manufacture this ware. He even registered a patent for a porcelain formula. However, HiFive, which employed between 9 and 18 people, collapsed after only 18 months (The Sentinel December 26, 2001; October 12, 2002). Although the production of porcelain was aimed to combat imports, it was not a trend followed by other Staffordshire manufacturers. From 2003, Padley became director of Staffordshire Fine Bone China Ltd. of Fenton and argued that the way forward when facing cheaper overseas pottery was as follows: “We have produced a range of tableware which can be finished in whatever colour the customer chooses and we also have a range of personalized mugs. It is markets like these which are fairly imperious to imports because they need something individual doing to them” (The Sentinel February 2, 2004). Figure 2.6 illustrates a mug manufactured by Staffordshire Fine Bone China. In addition, Royal commemorative were produced for Halcyon Days, a retailer. Padley developed these designs. However, Staffordshire Fine Bone China closed in 2005, losing 26 jobs (The Sentinel March 22, 2005). Padley also wrote a book about his business experiences entitled The Joys of Entrepreneurship: “small is beautiful” in 2009.

40

Ceramics and Globalization

Together with companies that developed bespoke services, firms could also produce commissioned goods quickly for the UK market. As an example, the Moorland Pottery of Burslem, which employed only six people, was approached by a Merseyside design shop called Utility to produce ceramic copies of the Superlambanana sculpture in Liverpool. Working in conjunction with Sneyd Ceramics of Burslem the two firms manufactured 2,000 miniatures, each selling for around £28 in three months (Figure 2.8). The total order was for 10,000 miniatures, and the contract was worth £80,000. Jonathan Plant believed it would have taken up to seven months to obtain the product from China (The Sentinel June 9, 2009; February 8, 2010).

Repositioning of Staffordshire Brands Overall, Staffordshire manufacturers tried a series of different strategies to deal with Far Eastern competition. A common way forward is demonstrated by Roy Kirkham & Co. of Tunstall. This is still a family-run firm, and Ian Kirkham, the managing director, was interviewed. Roy Kirkham & Co. was established in the 1970s, producing decals for other firms. In c.1976, they became involved in ceramic production. Early production consisted of hand-painted Toby jugs and giftware. By the 1980s, production had evolved into bone china. By this period, a large part of their production was table and tea ware, and mug production, using their own decal designs. A central part of Kirkham’s business was supplying supermarkets, wholesalers, and department stores. For instance, British Home Stores (BHS), Tesco, Sainsbury’s, and Argos were supplied with bone china table and tea wares, while Boots were provided with giftwares. In the 1980s, around 65 percent of Roy Kirkham & Co.’s business was for the export trade, producing goods for the middle to high-end market. According to the interview, it was in the 1990s that the impact of cheaper Chinese ceramics began to be felt by the UK ceramic industry. This impacted on the supermarket and Argos end of Roy Kirkham & Co.’s market. Kirkham could not make satisfactory arrangements with supermarkets, because of pricing issues. This is interesting evidence of how substantial retailers were circumventing UK ceramic manufacturers and apparently obtaining porcelain (in particular) tableware from the Far East. In addition to this, with an increase in the cost of fuel, and UK government doing little or nothing to support UK manufacturing, Roy Kirkham & Co. focused far more on the overseas markets. In the new millennium Kirkham spent more time developing the mid to high end in the home market. Thus, one important consequence of the impact of Far Eastern competition has been to cause this company to reposition itself within the market place. A large portion of their production is now for export markets. The other common tendency has been to develop mixed production approaches to manufacture. By 2011, Roy Kirkham & Co. outsourced some of its production to the Far East and Romania. The restrictive prices of many of the large high street retailers have meant that a part of their production needs to be outsourced. This has had some impact on the number of employees, but to a greater extent the

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

41

introduction of new technology was responsible for reducing the numbers further. Kirkham & Co. did not switch from bone china to hard-paste porcelain production when outsourcing. It was pointed out that there are instances of the appropriate materials (i.e., English white clay from Dorset) actually being sent out to the Far East to enable a production of bone china to continue. Overall, Roy Kirkham & Co. is an example of a firm that has adopted a mixed production approach, or, as Cooper and Press describe in The Design Agenda, a form of “flexible manufacturing systems” (1995: 71, 74). The rise of outsourcing is explored in more depth in Chapter 3.

Impact of the Far East on UK Ceramic Manufacturers There have been collapses of UK and Staffordshire ceramic companies during the period from 1990 to 2010, raising the question of how far these can be related to the impact of Far Eastern ceramic imports. When English Ironstone of Shelton went into receivership in 1994, its difficulties were straightforwardly related to “cashflow.” English Ironstone had a turnover of £10 million per year, employed around 250 people, and produced traditional tableware, mugs, and casual dining ware. However, in the same period Staffordshire Tableware decided to sell off its subsidiary Biltons due in part to “a sharp increase in far eastern and third world competition” (Tableware International, November, 1994, Vol. 24, No. 10). Biltons Tableware of Stoke (established in the 1910s) still linked its financial problems to the strong pound affecting exports in 1998 (The Sentinel July 17, 1998). Biltons became Stoke Potteries Ltd., but went into administration in 1999 (The Sentinel January 5, 1999). In the 1990s, a reoccurring theme was how pressure of having a strong pound and depressed Far Eastern markets were adversely affecting trade. These factors resulted in job losses at Royal Doulton and Wedgwood, etc. (The Sentinel March 17, 1998). Firms such as Portmeirion, Churchill China, and Tams also reported trading difficulties due to the strength of Sterling between 1997 and 1998 (The Sentinel March 20, 1998). As Wren Giftware of Longton and Fenton (part of the Denby Group) had strong export links, they suffered from the strength of the pound. Wren promoted Clarice Cliff-style mugs in 1994, and employed around 100 people. Denby sold the company to Churchill China, but with the loss of 50 jobs (The Sentinel June 23, 1998; July 22, 1998). In the early 1990s, firms such as Staffordshire Tableware (an amalgamation of Staffordshire Potteries of Meir Park and Biltons of Stoke) employed 1,600 people. Staffordshire Tableware (formerly called Staffordshire Potteries Ltd. until 1990) became part of the Coloroll Group in 1986 (Niblett 1990: 51: The Sentinel February 21, 2009). Staffordshire Tableware was considered to be the largest independent tableware producer in Britain in the 1990s (The Sentinel July 16, 1990 and October 2, 1990). However, there were various reports of a decline in UK ceramic turnover in 1997 and 1998. For instance, Portmeirion’s turnover fell from £31.6 million in

42

Ceramics and Globalization

1996 to £30.7 million in 1997. The nine-year-high value of Sterling was blamed for Portmeirion’s and other factories’ difficulties (The Sentinel March 20, 1998). This downturn also often resulted in job losses. At the end of 1998, Royal Doulton indicated that their sales were down by 5 percent and that substantial redundancies were to follow. The world recession, a strong pound, and “Far East upheavals” were attached to the reasons for Doulton’s crisis (The Sentinel December 10, 1998). Competition from both home and abroad was attributed to the closure of the family firm J.H. Weatherby of Hanley in 2000, hotel ware manufacturers (The Sentinel April 27, 2000). When Staffordshire Tableware called in the receivers at the end of 2000, cheap imports were more definitely attached to its downfall. The number of people employed by Staffordshire Tableware fell to approximately 600 people (The Sentinel April 16, 2001). In the opinion of Dr. Hugh Padley (the former managing director of Spode), the demise of Staffordshire Tableware was the first substantial evidence of the growing significance of the Far East: There was a company called Staffordshire Tableware which was based out at Meir in an old aerodrome. Their product was mainly earthenware mugs. They would make about a million a week. Fifty million mugs would come out of that pottery. They also had a tableware side, where you get these boxed sets of things . . . and that market was very susceptible to imports.

After the collapse of Staffordshire Tableware in December 2000, a further 50 firms had closed by December 2006. Overall, the press linked the closures to a combination of foreign competition, price pressures, and overcapacity (The Sentinel December 13, 2006). There was even an article in the press entitled “Was the closing of Staffordshire Tableware the beginning of the end?” (The Sentinel September 12, 2006). Although the issue of Far Eastern competition had been connected to the problems of Biltons in the mid-1990s, the collapse of Staffordshire Tableware was perceived as a decisive moment in the ensuing debate about the impact of the Far East. Certainly, the collapse coincided with the import of Far Eastern porcelain tableware overtaking the European value (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3). When James Sadler & Sons of Burslem went into administration in March 2000, Far East imports and a strong pound were directly blamed. However, Staffordshire press ran a headline, “Foreign Teapots Disgrace,” regarding this family firm, whose workforce of 140 was cut by 65 following the administration. It was reported that the chairman also ran a company called “James Sadler Imports Ltd.,” which brought in ceramics from Indonesia. One employee argued that this had “. . . been instrumental in digging the grave of not only Sadler’s Burslem production but other Potteries’ firms” (The Sentinel March 18, 2000). Sadler’s operated an import business whereby: Indonesian teapots arrive at the factory by juggernaut from the ports. They are then backstamped with the Union Jack—Sadler’s trademark—and distributed to retailers all over the country, such as Woolworth’s [sic]. Nothing is on them to

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

43

indicate that they were manufactured in the Far East. The teapots are designed at the Burslem headquarters and the moulds then flown to Indonesia. Three years ago Peter Sadler said James Sadler and Sons had been outsourcing teapots for four years—and China before that (The Sentinel March 18, 2000).

After its closure the brand name of “James Sadler & Sons” was purchased by Churchill China (The Sentinel October 2, 2000). In some cases, no explanation for the closure of a ceramic company was provided. St. Georges Fine Bone China of Hanley, established in 1975, employing 26 and making china beakers, tableware, and bespoke wares, simply ceased trading in 2001 (The Sentinel November 4, 2001). In 2006, more substantial job losses were linked to foreign competition, a weak dollar, and changes in ceramic buying trends (The Sentinel January 2, 2007). This coincides with China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2005 (Tables 2.2 and 2.3). When The Tams Group went out of business in 2006, the Sentinel declared, “The pot bank, which has been making pottery since 1870, is the latest casualty of the pressures of cheap foreign competition and rising energy costs” (September 19, 2006). John Lovatt, a previous director of Acme Marls, kiln furniture manufacturers, bought the Tams Group, consisting of Tams, Royal Grafton, and Grafton Fine Bone China. Lovatt planned to produce 2 million mugs a year in Stoke-on-Trent, import 30 million from Egypt, and decorate 15 million in Longton (The Sentinel October 25, 2006). However, Matthew Hammond of PricewaterhouseCoopers related the highprofile collapse in November 2008 of Spode and the sister company Royal Worcester to the effect of the credit crunch. The impact of Far Eastern competition was not mentioned, although Spode and Royal Worcester had attempted to cut costs by outsourcing production and selling assets (The Guardian November 7, 2008). At that point Spode employed 90 people in Stoke, and had been manufacturing in Stoke for over 200 years, and Worcester employed approximately 300 people (The Sentinel November 7, 2008). More nationally recognized was when Waterford Wedgwood went into administration in January 2009. The Times, “Business” section explained how Wedgwood, Royal Doulton, and Waterford Crystal had all become part of the same group and had accumulated total debts of £420 million. Their problems were related to cheaper imported rivals, often manufactured in China, competition from Villeroy & Boch of Luxemburg that caters for more expensive tablewares, retail giants such as IKEA selling mass-produced goods (also manufactured in the Far East), and a weak dollar affecting the export trade. Finally, it was argued that the Wedgwood image had become outdated with the emergence of informal dining (The Times January 6, 2009). Interestingly, the potential impact of outsourcing was not mentioned by The Times, which differs from the views of the Wedgwood retailer discussed in Chapter 7. A combination of factors conspired against UK ceramic manufacturers in the period from c. 1990–2010, but the fact is that it was estimated that the Staffordshire ceramic industry lost 50 companies and 5,000 jobs between 2002 and 2007 (The Sentinel January 22, 2013).

44

Ceramics and Globalization

Changing Lifestyles When Rachel Cooper and Mike Press published Design Agenda: A Guide to Successful Design Management in 1995, the launch of the publication was mentioned in the Sentinel, as Mike Press was a principal lecturer in design management at Staffordshire University. Although it was recognized that “some of the problems afflicting the pottery industry are most certainly a result of cheap imports,” according to Press, designing and understanding people’s lifestyles were also crucial (Evening Sentinel January 18, 1995). Initially, it was argued by David Smallridge, managing director of John Tams Fine Bone China, that one of the “good things” caused by the impact of cheap Far Eastern imports was that it focused manufacturers on “efficiencies and design.” At this stage, it was felt that Far Eastmade ceramics were more confined to the discount stores (Tableware International, May 1997, Vol. 27, No. 4). Far Eastern imports were having an effect, but always relating factory closures to the impact of the Far East is complicated by changes in demand. In 1999, therefore, the turmoil of the world economy was attributed to why companies such as John Tams and James Sadler introduced new designs to appeal to a younger market, and why Wedgwood had formed a relationship with fashion designer Paul Costelloe (The Sentinel Business Review March 17, 1999; see Chapter 7, Figure 7.1, for examples of Costelloe’s ceramic designs). When Aynsley China of Longton marginally reduced its staff in 2002, it was related to a decline in the formal bone china tableware market (The Sentinel February 20, 2002). Robert Flello, Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent, South, pointed out how “people are more likely to go to their local supermarket for their dinner service. For a lot of people, dinner is sitting down in front of the TV with their Ikea plates on their lap and their Ikea mug. Times and tastes have changed” (The Times February 6, 2009: 7). While many Staffordshire firms had supplied supermarkets in the past, it is the case that ceramics marketed by IKEA were manufactured in the Far East. Informal tableware was required, although Tableware International suggested by 2008 that “a return to formality is becoming popular” (December 2008, Vol. 130: 21, No. 6). Nevertheless, due to increasing “fears of cut-throat competition from abroad, particularly the Far East,” the issue of UK ceramic design became far more pressing. In 2002, Sir Terence Conran was invited by Sue Evans, chief executive of the Ceramic Industry Forum (CIF), to be a key speaker at an event for manufacturers. Conran was critical of the inability of the Potteries to embrace modernity and used his lecture to lampoon how a ceramic range, designed with Nigella Lawson, had been manufactured in just months in Portugal, whereas a design he had produced for an unnamed Staffordshire manufacturer—some four years earlier—had not materialized (The Sentinel December 4, 2002 and December 7, 2002).

Decline versus New Businesses Based on the Yellow Pages of 1990, it was calculated that there were in the Stokeon-Trent area 350 companies listed under “China and Glass,” “Earthenware,”

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

45

and “Pottery,” although it was noted that there was some duplication (Hampson 1990: 46). Based on The Phone Book 2005–06, Thomson Local Stoke-on-Trent & Newcastle-under-Lyme 2006–07, and the Yellow Pages 2005–06, there were 220 ceramic businesses in North Staffordshire (Hampson, Stoke-on-Trent City Archives P738.94246). Sue Evans, chief executive of the CIF, estimated 230 pottery companies in the Stoke-on-Trent region (The Sentinel, February 1, 2007). Ian Dudson, chief executive of Dudson, the ceramic hospitality manufacturer of Tunstall, and president of the British Ceramic Confederation, believed that there were more than 200 ceramic companies in Staffordshire and dozens or even hundreds supplying these firms (The Sentinel May 7, 2009). A Key Note China and Earthenware Report placed the 2009 figure of “235 VATand/or PAYE-based enterprises engaged in the manufacture of ceramic household and ornamental articles” in the entire UK (Key Note 2010, Table 3.1). However, in 2010, it was stated that Stoke-on-Trent still had 350 ceramic businesses, and 60 percent of UK ceramic employees were still based in Staffordshire (The Sentinel October 29, 2010). As mentioned above, there were well over 200 ceramic manufacturers in Stoke-on-Trent in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Certainly, coinciding with Far Eastern imports, there has been a decline in the major companies, but not necessarily a decline in the overall number of ceramic firms. In fact, Wayne Shepherd, president of the British Ceramic Confederation (BCC), argued: “Volume manufacturing and employment in ceramics may have declined in North Staffordshire over the last 20 years, but there is still more than 300 firms here involved in production” (The Sentinel October 15, 2010). It was estimated that in 1984 there were 66 major potteries in Staffordshire employing 30,000. By 2011, it had fallen to 33, employing 8,000 (The Sentinel May 11, 2012). In this respect, the reverse has occurred when considering the assessment made by Chris Johnson, group manufacturing director for Waterford Wedgwood, in 2001: I have been in the industry for 42 years, and with Wedgwood for the past 33 years. . . . Gone are the small factories that we used to have, and gone are the majority of the families that were involved in the industry. Now there are very successful operations like Waterford Wedgwood. We’ve managed to mechanize where we can while maintaining the fantastic hand skills that we’re worldrenowned for (Ceramic Industry, June 2001: 55).

Even before the administration problems of Waterford Wedgwood and Royal Doulton (at the beginning of 2009), the view of Sue Evans of the CIF was that because of globalization the alternate tendency might be to replace the dominant players with smaller- and medium-sized potteries. Bridgewater, Aynsley, and Dunoon were all able to get well-designed products to market quickly (The Sentinel January 2, 2007). David Queensberry declared, when opening Kathy Niblett’s “Dynamic Design” exhibition surveying UK ceramic design at the Potteries Museum in 1990, that only four companies controlled 70–80 percent of the industry (Tableware International, September 1990, Vol. 20, No. 8). In

46

Ceramics and Globalization

comparison, when interviewed, Trevor Johnson, managing director of Caverswall China Company of Fenton, believed that there were more “back street” potteries employing between one and five people in Stoke-on-Trent, producing gift-related wares, than ever before. Johnson had left school when aged 16, and had worked for Crown Stafford China, Wedgwood, Aynsley China, Duchess China, and Portmeirion before becoming involved in Caverswall China. He had considerable experience of the different facets of the ceramic industry. A section in Kathy Niblett’s Dynamic Design: The British Pottery Industry 19401990, entitled “Mergers, Sellouts and Takeovers,” reported the tendency toward takeovers and asset stripping. At the time of publication, Niblett observed how there were fewer family-owned potteries left in the UK, let alone in Stoke-onTrent. Those that have remained have often floated shares on the stock market in order to raise capital (Niblett, 1990: 37). By 2003, the Staffordshire press carried the headline “A Long, Slow Death for Our Industry.” Geoff Bagnall of the Ceramic and Associated Trades Union pointed out in the article that customers still preferred English pottery, but many local people buy foreign ware from Woolworths and Asda (The Sentinel June 6, 2003). However, it depends on which segment of the UK industry is considered. Hugh Edwards, chairman of Moorcroft, reported that their markets had been unaffected by Far Eastern competition. Even though copies of Moorcroft had occurred, it was felt by Edwards that these were of a low quality (Jackson et al. 2000: 66). Hugh Edwards was approached for information, and this is discussed in Chapter 8. However, there has been an emergence of a new breed of smaller businesses, as the major producers declined. Dr. Hugh Padley (mentioned above) was involved in the ceramic industry for a long period, but the employment figures of these firms are revealing. When Padley was connected to Spode, the company employed between 400 and 700 people. Berkshire China of Fenton employed 70 core workers, increasing to 100 around Christmas time to deal with extra demand. Padley pointed out that a large proportion of that business was mail order and that business was very seasonal. HiFive employed around 12 people, and 15 people worked at Staffordshire Fine Bone China. The Staffordshire press carried the headline “Battling the cheap imports” in 2005. “A pioneering pottery industry body has helped firms fight back against the threat of cheap imports by helping them to launch 1,000 new products. Figures from the Ceramic Industry Forum show more than 500 firms have been given support to develop new ranges” (The Sentinel March 2, 2005). To boost pottery manufacturing, the CIF in Stoke was set up with £1.5 million of government Department of Trade and Industry funding in 2000 (The Sentinel June 16, 1999; July 1, 2000). It was the CIF that contributed to the founding of Beverley Hewitt Designs. Beverley Hewitt (based at the Roslyn Works, Longton) was formerly a designer at Royal Doulton. Her business was established in 2005. Hewitt initially specialized in using her own botanical watercolors on ceramics (The Sentinel February 7, 2005). She argued: “Unlike in a large pottery, I can react to trends fast, which gives me more freedom on the design front. I do my own

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

47

artwork. I paint watercolours, then scan these to make transfers to go on the pots” (Financial Times September 26, 2009). This view supports the attitude of a growing philosophy that small ceramic concerns in Staffordshire could at least compete on flexibility. “The Garden” and “The Flower Bed” ranges were introduced in 2005. The “Prince & Princess” range was introduced in 2010, in preparation for the royal wedding in 2011. Beverley Hewitt has used the backstamp since 2005 (Figure 2.9). Right up until the CIF evolved into the Ceramic Development Group (CDG), it was supporting companies such as Anita Harris Art Pottery of Longton to exhibit at venues such as Top Drawer in London (The Sentinel, Business Section, October 12, 2012). Another Staffordshire organization was called Showcase, established in 1997. In 2004, Showcase promoted 25 small ceramic manufacturers from Stokeon-Trent at the annual Spring Fair held in Birmingham. This included Flairware of Longton established in June 2003, by Lisa Dinning and Janette Scott-Cooper. The Spring Fair included around 4,000 companies, giving a sense of the global competition that existed in this period (The Sentinel January 28, 2004). However, many of Flairware products were blanks made at Portmeirion (The Sentinel February 19, 2003). Dinning and Scott-Cooper were featured in the local press holding up samples of their wares in 2004. A variety of small, new tableware companies have emerged, reliant on Staffordshire production, such as Fenella Smith, who promoted on the basis that

Figure 2.9  Beverley Hewitt, jug, “The Garden” pattern, bone china, from 2005. Hewitt, cup and saucer, “The Flower Bed” pattern, bone china, from 2005. Hewitt, small jug, “Prince” pattern, bone china from 2010, showing a backstamp used since 2005. Logo © Hewitt.

48

Ceramics and Globalization

her new nostalgic designs were “made from Cornish clay in Stoke-on-Trent” (The Sunday Times August 14, 2011). Alternately, Tony Young, Peter Holland, and John Bromley established The Figurine Collective in November 2009 (Figure 2.10). Young had been the product development director at Compton and Woodhouse (a company that specialized in selling ceramic collectibles), whereas Holland and Bromley had worked as sculptors for Royal Doulton, along with companies such as Royal Worcester and Coalport. In fact, John Bromley began his renowned modeling career at Royal Doulton having studied at Burslem School of Art. It was reported that The Figurine Collective was established in response to Royal Doulton’s shift of figurine production to the Far East, and how the firm would use a “World Capital of Ceramics, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire” backstamp, being championed by the North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership (The Sentinel November 16, 2009). The company argued: “We don’t have a name like Doulton or Wedgwood but they [customers] tell us it is really important that pieces are manufactured in Stoke-on-Trent. The theory that we had about the Stoke-onTrent connection being vital appears to be true” (The Sentinel November 16, 2009). An interview with Tony Young of The Figurine Collective (discussed in more depth in Chapter 8) examines how these theoretical links to continuing UK production were vital in terms of perception. Ironically, the administration problems of the substantial ceramic firms enabled The Figurine Collective to work with some of the most experienced decorators in Stoke-on-Trent. As Young explained: The demise of the older ceramic companies created The Figurine Collective in a way. We started because of that. So, our opportunity was the fact that the older companies had gone into demise. We could not have done what we are doing now, 10 years ago. Because you would go to Wedgwood or Doulton 10 years ago and it would be made in England, and so the reason to come to us would not be there. The people who work on our figurines were still employed at the bigger factories. We have got this sort of dream-team. We have got the man who was the sample painter for Royal Doultons. He worked for Royal Doultons for 40 years as a sample painter for many years—so he did the original things from their designers which was then copied by everybody else. You would never have got a man of that quality. Why would he leave, if he still had a job? So, we have got him. We have got the last flower-maker from Coalport. We have got the head caster from Spode. We have got these people who were at the top of their profession who are now working with us as a small group, producing our figurines.

Paul and Judith Bishop established a business called The New English based at Barlaston in February 2009. The firm initially worked in collaboration with students from Staffordshire University doing an MA in ceramic design. The company took part in Stoke-on-Trent’s British Ceramics Biennial codirected by Barney Hare Duke in the autumn of 2009. Featured in the show were striking, contemporary designs including plates with an image of a crucifixion (known as the “Crusades” range)

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

49

Figure 2.10 The Sentinel, November 16, 2009. Tony Young, John Bromley and Peter Holland of The Figurine Collective. Courtesy of The Stoke Sentinel.

and a tableware range called “Inkhead” decorated with a tattooed skull (Financial Times September 26, 2009). Terrie McGettigan designed the crucifixion image, and the tattooed theme was by Florian Hutter. McGettigan and Hutter were both MA ceramic students at Staffordshire University (Plate 1). In the case of The New English, the argument was that ceramics made in the Far East would supply day-to-day needs, but the way forward for the ceramic industry in Staffordshire was to go upmarket. Paul Bishop argued:

50

Ceramics and Globalization The ceramic world is dividing into two. People are buying stuff from places like Ikea for everyday use but they’re also looking for special pieces, things that have integrity and really interesting design. Stoke-on-Trent shouldn’t be trying to compete on cheap mass-produced stuff. We should be trying to compete on the strength of our ability to produce really interesting designs. We’re trying to rethink ceramics for a market hungry for contemporary ideas, but to do so using traditional techniques (The Sentinel April 5, 2010).

What is significant about these smaller businesses, such as Paul and Judith Bishop’s The New English, was establishing more precisely the actual ethos and motivation of these companies. (Paul Bishop was interviewed as part of this book, as discussed in depth in Chapter 8.) Flux has been another collaboration between MA ceramic students from Staffordshire University and the Stoke-on-Trent ceramic industry and was, according to their publicity material, established in 2010. Flux had decorated ceramics produced only by Stoke-on-Trent manufacturers, including Times Square, Ceramics by Design, Edwardian China, Caverswall China, and Duchess China (The Sentinel March 7, 2011; April 2, 2012). In a variety of ways, there have been attempts to rejuvenate the UK industry as a reaction to the impact of the Far East. Importantly, new companies, such as Big Tomato Company (established in 1999, and marketing ceramics as made in Stoke-on-Trent by c. 2003), stressed that their pottery was made in Stoke-on-Trent. Allegedly, this was crucial in securing new customers (The Sentinel February 11, 2011). The opinions of Gloria DanielWashington, the founder of this company, are included in Chapter 6. However, an important difference among firms such as Big Tomato, The New English, and The Figurine Collective was that they relied on the pools of manufacturing that have continued in Stoke-on-Trent, rather than each company manufacturing independently. It is the tendency of interaction that Tomlinson and Jackson perceived as a factor in aiding the survival of Staffordshire tableware and giftware sectors (2013: 580–96).

Summary In the 1990s, the difficulties of the UK ceramic industry were often related to the high value of Sterling and worldwide recessions. By the mid to late 1990s, the impact of Far East imports was recognized, and from the early 2000s the individual problems of companies were more readily linked to Far Eastern competition. There was an enormous rise in Far Eastern tableware imports into the UK at the end of the 1990s, and an even larger increase from 2005. In 2011, a tax was placed on imported tiles from China, causing a decline in trade of 25 percent. As it was widely understood that China manufactured more ceramics than any other country, it was proposed by the EU to introduce similar legislation of a 70 percent import tax on tableware in 2012 (Tableware International, March/April, 2012:

The Traditions—Far Eastern and Staffordshire Ceramics

51

10). The need for duties is reminiscent of those imposed by Britain on Chinese porcelain in the eighteenth century. The ramifications of the impact of the Far East resulted in a variety of consequences. For some UK producers, Far Eastern imports forced the issue of producing “better” design. Different types of ceramic production were explored. Dr. Hugh Padley’s interview revealed how his company had manufactured hard-paste porcelain instead of the more traditional English bone china. There was a growing sense of the medium to smaller producers in Staffordshire having advantages, since they could be more agile. Offering bespoke services was also considered as a way to remain competitive. Garry Oakes, general secretary of Unity (the ceramic union), argued as early as 2007 that the UK ceramic firms that would survive would be the smaller ones, because of their ability to adapt to “the pressures which globalization brings” (The Sentinel January 2, 2007). The dismantling of the larger companies such as Royal Doulton resulted in ex-employees establishing their own companies such as Beverley Hewitt, or Gary Birks, whose designs were produced by Staffordshire Heritage Fine China, Longton (The Sentinel Magazine September 29, 2012). Some skilled workers have been reemployed by new firms. It is problematic to relate all business failures to the pressure of imports, as within this period there were references to lifestyle changes affecting demand. Nevertheless, this chapter has shown that there has not been a unilateral decline of the UK ceramic industry since a large number of companies still exist, producing or decorating ceramics made in the vicinity of Stoke-on-Trent. Many of the volume producers of tableware have gone, but ironically, the newer companies referred to, perceived a value in maintaining or using Staffordshire-made ceramics. While the existence of these companies supports the notion of regional resilience, this chapter does not account for, in an in-depth way, whether perception and manufacturing agility, explains this behavior. Another issue is that, in response to competition, UK ceramic manufacturers have tended to outsource to the Far East and Asia. However, have previous marketing strategies made it harder for the industry to adapt to the changes instigated by globalization? There are memories of how it was, or how it has been previously portrayed. Interestingly, Anthony Smith expressed the view in National Identity that a global culture could only be a “memory-less construct,” which to him would be contradictory (1991: 159). In fact, research previously conducted in the United States determined that college graduates and women frequently associated ceramics and wool products with the United Kingdom (Damanpour 1993: 370–73). Therefore, does a problematic distinction need to be drawn between the styles of ceramics, which have always been eclectic due to the constant forces of exchange through trade, and the content of ceramics, which links far more to any value placed in where it was produced? This raises the fundamental question of how far the perception-side of where consumers expect Staffordshire ceramics to be manufactured actually persists, as the impact of globalization increases.

52

Chapter 3 The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

The reason for outsourcing has often been linked to the pressure of rising East Asian ceramic imports. Therefore, this chapter will consider the increase of outsourcing and why it has often occurred, and the outsourcing strategies that were developed. Carroll et al.’s paper defined “outsourcing” (based on talking to senior managers and employees in Stoke-on-Trent) as work undertaken overseas, and interestingly “even if a local manufacturer opens its own factory overseas, as some have done, notably in the Far East and Eastern Europe, this is still regarded as ‘outsourcing’” (Carroll et al. 2002: 333). This book uses the same definition of outsourcing. When Staffordshire manufacturers rely on each other for ceramic production, it is not considered to be the same as work undertaken abroad. Those involved in the industry appear to be very particular as to what makes a product completely “Staffordshire” or “UK,” and this immediately draws attention to some of the peculiar characteristics of the UK ceramic industry. “Outsourcing” has a variety of forms in the UK ceramic industry, one of which could be acquiring white ware from abroad to be decorated in Staffordshire. The press reported that Staffordshire Tableware of Meir, Longton, had “for years” purchased Romanian ware, that it then glazed and decorated and marked with a “Made in England” backstamp (The Sentinel, July 6, 2003). The Sentinel originally revealed this fact when Staffordshire Tableware went into receivership in December 2000, and the company was advertised for sale in the Financial Times (The Sentinel January 10; 2001; May 6, 2001). The counterargument from the point of view of Staffordshire Tableware’s receivers was that decorating foreign-made items in the Potteries was acceptable under trade laws since it constituted a “substantial change” (The Sentinel May 6, 2001). It was reported that the intellectual property rights of Staffordshire Tableware was sold to a Romanian consortium (The Sentinel April 16, 2001). Another form of outsourcing can be to partly produce ceramics in Stoke-onTrent, which are then finished off overseas. Decorating would be associated with the final stages, and this approach was also identified by Carroll et al.’s research paper, which noted: “We are told that this would not affect the ‘Made in England’ backstamp, although the legal issues are complicated and controversial” (2001: 337). Carroll et al. describe the Staffordshire firm responsible for finishing off ceramics abroad as a Domestic China producer. In actual fact, there is a reference to Royal

54

Ceramics and Globalization

Doulton taking this approach when it established its factory in Jakarta, Indonesia (see below). Although shifting production to cheaper places of production is one of the characteristics of globalization, forms of outsourcing are not an entirely new phenomenon within the UK ceramic industry. In the eighteenth century Josiah Wedgwood had tiles transfer printed in Liverpool by Sadler & Green (Dawson 1984: 16). Another example is William Smith & Co. of South Stockton, which began manufacturing earthenware at Jemappes in conjunction with their Belgian partners. The labor for the production of ceramics in Belgium was recruited from Staffordshire, and the materials and machinery were acquired from the UK. This was between 1845 and 1860, and manufacturing in Jemappes apparently occurred as a way to avoid heavy import duties imposed on earthenware entering into Belgium (Cockerill 1995: 39–41). In the manner of recent times, various economic factors have impacted on the viability of places of production.

The Outsourcing Debate in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries The Sentinel estimated that the outsourcing “sluice-gates” were initially opened in the 1980s (June 1, 2007). Johnson Brothers developed a factory in Australia in the 1980s (The Sentinel May 23, 1998). Tableware International reported in 1990 that the Staffordshire firm Myott Meakin was marketing bone china made in Pakistan, bearing the Alfred Meakin backstamp (March 1990: 50). It was reported in Chris Rowley’s paper, “Manufacturing Mobility? Internationalization, Change and Continuity,” that in “the 1980s and 1990s (and perhaps earlier),” “medium ranking firms” were importing undecorated ware from Pakistan, Korea, and China (1998: 27). No factory names were provided. The consensus appears to be that some outsourcing was occurring in the UK tableware industry in the 1980s, although this was initially more prominent in the tile industry (Ecotec 1999: 18). However, within the period covered by this book it increased and took a variety of forms. As indicated, Staffordshire Tableware decorated ceramic products made in Romania (The Sentinel March 6, 1996), whereas Wedgwood’s “Home” range, discussed in the press in June 1994, and launched in 1995, was manufactured in Portugal (The Sentinel June 17, 1994). A press article entitled “Pottery Attractions for World’s Buyers” declared: “In pride of place is a complete new range of controversial porcelain tableware—the ‘Home’ collection—much of it made in Portugal” (The Evening Sentinel February 3, 1995). According to Dr. Hugh Padley, a former managing director of Spode, Wedgwood’s porcelain “Home” collection was manufactured by Vista Alegre of Portugal. Whereas the promotional pamphlet of c.1995 did not mention a place of production, the range was clearly backstamped with the name of pattern such as “Aztec” or “Eden” and “Made in Portugal” (Figure 3.1). This is significant, as different forms of marketing have emerged when East Asian outsourcing has occurred, explored in the next chapter. A revealing comment in 1995 by Wedgwood’s new chief executive Brian Patterson (formerly of Waterford) was that “we can no longer assume that Potteries in the UK is the only place to manufacture ceramics.” It was a question of delivering “value for money.” The ways to reduce costs were either

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

55

Figure 3.1  From l. to r. Wedgwood, cup and saucer, Home range, “Aztec” pattern, porcelain, and cup and saucer, “Eden pattern,” both from 1995, with backstamps indicating “Made in Portugal.”

through new technology or “sourcing from low cost manufacturing areas,” or both of these methods. Wedgwood was in the process of repositioning itself as a brand, as witnessed by the “Home” range, and its new “Embassy” collection, mentioned below (Tableware International, August 1995, Vol. 25, No. 7).

Far Eastern Outsourcing Early references to outsourcing refer to a European tendency, whereas more relevant to this book are growing accounts of the Far East and Asia outsourcing from the 1990s and 2000s. Wedgwood had porcelain made in Japan and decorated in America for their mid-priced bridal market in 1994. It was called the “Wedgwood Embassy Collection” (The Sentinel October 3, 11, and 17, 1994). Coalport (part of the Wedgwood group) announced the manufacture of 7,000 resin figures in Thailand in 1995 (The Sentinel April 27, 1995). Johnson Brothers (also part of the Wedgwood group) were seeking a Malaysian manufacturer to produce cheap earthenware to compete with low-cost imports by 1995 (The Sentinel April 28, 1995). In 1996 it was reported that Johnson Brothers were selling products made in Japan (The Sentinel March 6, 1996). In the following year it was announced that three Johnson Brothers’s patterns were to be made in Malaysia and a stoneware range in Japan (The Sentinel January 15, 1996 and January 17, 1996). Not all outsourcing transferred to the Far East. In 2003 it was reported that Amil Kumar of Ransat Ceramics of Fenton, a mug importer, was still decorating white ware from Eastern Europe. Ransat took over Crown Trent China of Longton in 2003. Kumar also ran a warehouse under the name of R. House, China & Glass, Fenton, and had already had 175,000 mugs bearing English backstamps seized by Customs & Excise (The Sentinel July 16, 2003).

56

Ceramics and Globalization

At the beginning of 1995 it was reported that Royal Doulton was manufacturing dining crockery, including rice bowls, in Thailand using their brand of Royal Albert designs for the Asia Pacific market (The Sentinel January 11, 1995). Also, Paddington Bear resin figurines by Royal Doulton were manufactured in China by 1996 (The Sentinel March 6, 1996). In addition, Royal Doulton announced in 1995 that it was to develop a £20.5 million manufacturing venture in Indonesia called Doulton Multifortuna, to produce fine china for the casual and bridal American and Asian Pacific markets. (Royal Doulton distinguished between fine china and bone china; see Chapter 5.) Royal Doulton owned 70 percent of the business, 30 percent being owned by Multifortuna, described as Doulton’s Indonesian distributor (Tableware International, August 1995, Vol. 25, No. 7). One of the rationales for the investment was to enable Royal Doulton to compete with cheaper Japanese ceramics already in the American and Asian markets (The Financial Times March 28, 1995; The Sentinel March 27, 1995). Johnson Brothers’s Imperial works of Hanley (Figure 3.2) was closed in 1995 (The Sentinel January 5, 1995), and subsequently demolished (Figure 3.3), as has been a widespread treatment of vacant factories in a period of manufacturing decline (Mah 2012). The rise of outsourcing prompted an article that appeared in Tableware International entitled “Sourcing for the Home Market.” The article refers to a range of Royal Doulton “eating items” made in Thailand, decorated with Royal Albert designs, which matches a reference in the Sentinel, mentioned above. The article also mentions Tim Harper, who was described as head of sourcing at Staffordshire

Figure 3.2  Imperial Works, Hanley, February 1999, photograph by author.

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

57

Figure 3.3  Imperial Works, Hanley, August 2001, photograph by author.

Tableware. Staffordshire Tableware had newly set up the Freestyle Trading Company to source housewares worldwide. Finally, the article raised the question of how consumers would respond to outsourcing. The view of Wedgwood’s marketing director Robin Ritchie was quoted as follows: “If you ask a customer, they would prefer it to be made in England, but it’s not an important part of the purchase. We have done considerable research to check this. The reassurance of the Wedgwood name is good enough for the consumer” (Tableware International, March 1995, Vol. 25, No. 2). Writing in 2002, the notable Staffordshire journalist, John Abberley, recalled how the closure of Johnson Brother’s Imperial works (Figure 3.2) in 1995 was related to the impact of Chinese imports (The Sentinel February 15, 2002). However, the previous chapter has shown how the impact of Far Eastern ceramics really occurred at the end of the 1990s. In fact, the value of imported Chinese tableware porcelain actually slightly fell from 1997 to 1999 (see Chapter 2, Table 2.1). Nevertheless, Staffordshire’s need to outsource production to the Far East has often been inextricably linked to competition. On a national level it was argued that “cheap imports from the Far East flooded world markets and many leading pottery companies in Stoke-on-Trent have turned to outsourcing production to countries such as Indonesia to remain competitive” (The Daily Mail February 17, 2000). In 1999, Stephen Roper, chairman of Churchill China of Tunstall, considered China to be the biggest threat to Stoke-on-Trent and warned that outsourcing of

58

Ceramics and Globalization

“low-cost-base-line products” could be imminent for the firm (The Sentinel March 24, 1999). In general terms it has been suggested that China has often been the chosen place for outsourcing because it offered a highly skilled workforce, good infrastructure, and cheap labor (Steers and Nardon 2006: 124). However, in the case of the UK ceramic industry, various other places around the Pacific Rim, as well as China, have been used. Reasons for different locations were suggested when interviewing a designer who worked for Royal Doulton (Chapter 5). Norman Tempest of Royal Stafford of Burslem pointed out that, on average, a plate manufactured in Indonesia or Malaysia was 70 percent cheaper than one made in Stoke-on-Trent (The Sentinel March 1, 2002). Tempest was one of the manufacturers interviewed in Chapter 6. By 2003, it was being argued that struggling firms would have to outsource to survive, and that this was caused by the sheer volume and cheapness of Far Eastern imports (The Sentinel June 15, 2003). Many writers have linked the pressure of rising Far Eastern imports to a rise in outsourcing (Sacchetti and Tomlinson 2009: 1846). Consistently there was a sense that imports represented the influx of ceramics from the outside, when in reality imported ceramics from the Far East could be branded as Staffordshire brands. For instance, a typical quote from the press was, “In 2005 there were 34.2 million individual china and porcelain tableware items imported into the country from the Red Dragon economy, more than treble the 10.6 million brought in 2004” (The Sentinel January 2, 2007). There are, however, other explanations for outsourcing in Staffordshire. These are considered below, and one instance (still related to competition) was revealed when interviewing a Royal Doulton designer, as described in Chapter 5. In spite of its longer history, union officials viewed outsourcing with suspicion and animosity. The intensity of the debate in the Staffordshire press reflects the unprecedented rise of outsourcing by leading manufacturers from the mid to late 1990s. Geoff Bagnall, general secretary of Ceramic and Allied Trades Union (CATU), described outsourcing as an “on-going” problem in 1998 (The Sentinel May 20, 1998). When Paul Farmer became the managing director of Wade Ceramics of Burslem (a firm associated with figurines called “Whimsies” and ceramic whiskey flagons), the company vowed not to resort to the “controversial practice” of outsourcing (The Sentinel November 5, 2000). Royal Doulton was viewed by the press as the “most uncompromising” in developing outsourcing, and this was because it took the unusual step of establishing its own factory in Indonesia (The Sentinel June 8, 2003). At the time when Royal Doulton’s turnover increased from £242.8 million in 1995 to £251.8 million in 1996, the Indonesian factory shipped its first consignment of decorated ware to the United States in December of that year. The factory at Jakarta employed just 250 at that stage (Tableware International, May 1997, Vol. 27, No. 4). In 1996 the Jakarta factory was in partial production, decorating white blanks from the United Kingdom (The Sentinel September 9, 1996). Royal Doulton fully opened the factory in Jakarta in 1997 (The Sentinel May 9, 2004). Group chief executive of Royal Doulton, Wayne Nutbeen, was reported as stating: “Outsourcing is not a taboo subject for us. To get

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

59

our supply chain right, we need to use our factories here in Jakarta, and outsourcing to gain advantage over our competitors” (The Sentinel September 10, 2000). As the venture developed it was argued that the intention of Royal Doulton was to circumvent cheap foreign ceramic imports by sourcing as much as a third of its production to Indonesia (The Sentinel September 7, 2002). Instead of repositioning to a higher level in the market due to competition, production in Indonesia enabled Royal Doulton to develop a casual tableware range manufactured in c.1999, to be marketed through the Safeway supermarket (Ecotec 1999: 25). By 2000 Royal Doulton had also undertaken production in Bangladesh, in addition to their Jakarta factory. The company used was Shine pukur Ceramics Ltd., based in Dhaka (The Sentinel September 11, 2000). Royal Doulton outsourced a new range of Harry Potter designs to Thailand in 2001 and a new range of “Bunnykins” figurines to China in 2003 (The Sentinel November 4, 2001 and November 2, 2003). By 2002, Royal Doulton was outsourcing production to other factories in Bangladesh (The Sentinel February 6, 2002). Royal Doulton initially outsourced its Royal Albert production to Indonesia in 2002 (The Sentinel March 1, 2002 and February 14, 2002). The Jakarta factory expanded to 1,200 employees and entirely manufactured the Royal Albert brand by 2003. Interestingly, Wedgwood (which had a 21 percent stake in Doulton) tried unsuccessfully to block the moving of Royal Albert to Indonesia and offered to buy the brand for £24 million, but was rejected by Doulton shareholders (Tableware International, May 2002, Vol. 32, No. 4). By this period, $20 million [£14 million] had been invested in Indonesia making it, according to Wayne Nutbeen, their most efficient factory (The Sentinel June 8, 2003). Royal Albert was a trade name used from the early part of the twentieth century by a firm called Thomas Wild & Co., established in 1896 in Longton, Staffordshire. Wild & Co. became part of Royal Doulton but was renamed Royal Albert Ltd. in 1971 (Niblett 1990: 65–66). Royal Albert’s “Old Country Roses” was one of the most recognizable patterns, and it has even been described as the best-selling bone china design, selling “more than 100 million pieces all over the world since its introduction in 1962” (Woodham 1997: 217; The Sentinel December 10, 1998). Royal Doulton had eight factories in Stoke-on-Trent in 1997. These were Nile Street, Burslem; Baddeley Green; Churchbank, Tunstall; John Beswick, Longton; Paladin, Fenton; Regent (hotel and airlines), Longton; St. Mary’s, Normacot; and Holland Studio Craft, Fenton. However, they gradually announced the closing of the factories such as Churchbank and Holland Studio Craft, along with their research and design center at Montrose Works, Fenton. Holland Studio craft was a producer of resin cast fantasy and novelty giftware, acquired by Royal Doulton for over a £1 million in 1996 (Tableware International, March 1996, Vol. 26, No. 2). The series of closures culminated on December 10, 1998, when Royal Doulton axed 1,200 jobs, predominantly in the Potteries. Royal Doulton employed 7,000 people worldwide and had approximately 3,800 employees in Staffordshire. As indicated in Chapter 2, the cause of the cuts was chiefly attributed to poor sales due to the world recession and the strong pound (The Sentinel December 10, 1998).

60

Ceramics and Globalization

By 2003, Royal Doulton had only one factory in Stoke-on-Trent at Nile Street, Burslem (The Sentinel June 8, 2003). A year later it was announced by Chief Executive Wayne Nutbeen that most of its production would come from Jakarta, with additional sourcing of wares from India, Bangladesh, China, and Thailand (The Sentinel September 18, 2004). Then, it was announced that Nile Street works at Burslem would also close with a loss of between 450 and 525 jobs, leaving just 2 percent of its production in the UK (The Sentinel March 25, 2004; May 14, 2004). Consequently, it was often Royal Doulton that was more pilloried in the Staffordshire press than others, especially because it was estimated by 2002 the company employed more in Indonesia than in the Potteries (The Sentinel February 15, 2002). One such attack argued: Incidentally, I don’t agree with the view that “outsourcing,” or setting up satellite factories in other countries, has played no part in the demise of Doulton’s. Sooner or later, the fortunes of the local industry must be affected when firms like Doulton or Wedgwood make pottery overseas in countries where labour is infinitely cheaper than it is here. . . . I recall Wedgwood’s launching an outsourcing project overseas and almost simultaneously closed three factories in North Staffordshire shedding 1,000 jobs (The Sentinel December 11, 1998).

Wedgwood continued to develop an outsourcing strategy in Asia and the Far East, along with their existing European links. In June 2002, the press indicated that Wedgwood outsourced production in Portugal and Germany, as well as Thailand (The Sentinel, September 6, 2002). There are reports in the “Business” section of the Sentinel of June 9, 2002, that Wedgwood sourced stoneware from a factory in Thailand. In 2002, it was reported that the Japanese-made Wedgwood (see above) was still being marketed in the United States, even though an official from Barlaston had stated that this range was manufactured over six years ago and was discontinued after twelve months. This was the dinnerware in the “Embassy Collection” in two patterns called “Granville” and “Foxworth” (The Sentinel June 9, 2002). As early as 2000, Kevin Farrell, chief executive of the British Ceramic Confederation (BCC), declared that outsourcing was “a long-accepted practice that was not the ogre it was sometimes made out to be” (The Sentinel September 11, 2000). However, it must be emphasized how secretive and sensitive the issue of outsourcing was to some manufacturers. Based on press accounts, manufacturers were often reluctant to state what was occurring, and others were not convinced of its advantages. Gerald Tams, chairman of the Longton-based John Tams, epitomized this view, believing that outsourcing was not the answer to cost-cutting problems of the industry (The Sentinel August 18, 1999). In terms of secrecy, the Sentinel provides instances when they struggled to determine the amount of outsourcing used, in this case, by Wedgwood: But even more surprising was the failure of the Barlaston-based company to provide a figure for the percentage of Wedgwood production carried here

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

61

compared to overseas because it said it did not keep such a figure. . . . But could Wedgwood’s apparent inability to provide a figure be shrouding an unwillingness to discuss how much it is actually making in North Staffordshire, or not? (The Sentinel June 9, 2002).

It was perhaps more than just a reticence to declare it, as the press reporter conceded, “It is also fair to say its network of manufacturing locations is a complex one” (The Sentinel June 9, 2002). From the Waterford Wedgwood perspective, the group included Rosenthal of Germany. The Wedgwood group finally acquired this German porcelain manufacturer by the early part of 1998 (The Sentinel March 11, 1998), although there were rumors of a takeover as far back as 1996 (Tableware International, December 1996/January 1997, Vol. 26, No. 11). Apparently, some porcelain was produced in Germany by Rosenthal but printed with the Wedgwood backstamp. Some goods—known as “customer orders”—might include the supermarket chain name, and would not necessarily bear the Wedgwood name. To connect a product to a place was becoming harder because of the multinational tendency (The Sentinel March 11, 1998). Although business arrangements could be increasingly complex, it was reported that “like Royal Doulton, Wedgwood stressed it marks the country of origin on all its products” (The Sentinel June 9, 2002). This statement can be compared with the survey of products in the next chapter, which shows the different ways of marketing and backstamping when outsourcing to the Far East. In 2002 a spokesman for Wedgwood would only declare (quoted in the press): All of the company’s domestic fine bone china is produced in the city and most of its earthenware. The company does not manufacture porcelain or stoneware, other than Jasper, but should a customer specifically request these types of product, Wedgwood would design and then source the product, either from its sister companies in Waterford Wedgwood or from another manufacturer able to produce to Wedgwood’s quality standards (The Sentinel June 9, 2002).

The picture of outsourcing can be confused because, as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, there were not always straightforward distinctions between manufactured and not manufactured in the UK. The Staffordshire press reported the case whereby: . . . the local industry has sunk to the point where so-called manufacturers in Stoke-on-Trent buy pottery from abroad, glaze and decorate it, and then sell it with a Made in England back stamp. This has been going on for years. Staffordshire Tableware did it with Romanian ware at its vanished Meir Works (The Sentinel June 7, 2003).

In 2004, the Sentinel published an article entitled “Dateline to outsourcing of products.” A particular sentence reads, “Burslem teapot maker James Sadler & Sons admits its bottom-end teapots have been made in Indonesia for the past three

62

Ceramics and Globalization

years, and in China prior to that” (The Sentinel June 20, 2004). The use of the word “admits” only adds to the intrigue and highlights something of a paradox when interviewing some manufacturers about the perception of where UK ceramics were manufactured. Once outsourcing emerged, it might be done selectively, or in totality. More information concerning the rationale for a selective approach is discussed in Chapter 6, when a ceramic designer from Royal Doulton was interviewed. In comparison, Johnson Brothers outsourced 15 percent of production, rising up to 40 percent to the Far East, especially to China, by 2002 (The Sentinel July 8, 2002). By 2003, the entire production of the Johnson Brothers brand was moved to the Far East (The Sentinel June 5, 2003). One national newspaper referred to how Waterford Wedgwood was closing its two Johnson Brothers plants in Stokeon-Trent, after 120 years of production, shifting production to China. It was added that Johnson Brothers products were moderately priced earthenware with ranges designed by Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen—the then presenter of a BBC’s “Changing Rooms” television program (The Independent June 5, 2003). Redmond O’Donoghue, the chief executive of Waterford Wedgwood, argued that, while this would result in the loss of 1,000 jobs, “With our outsourced manufacture, we are now able to deliver a five-piece place setting of excellent quality Johnson Brothers earthenware to the United States for a quarter of the cost of doing so from the UK” (Ceramic Industry October, 2003). Chapter 7 actually considers the extent to which outsourcing lowered prices from a UK retailing perspective. Outsourcing has not just been a tendency of the conglomerates. According to Ian Kirkham, the managing director of Roy Kirkham & Co., of Tunstall, it was in the late 1990s to early 2000s that their firm began to outsource some of their production to Romania, the Far East, and India. This was to cater for the demands and price points of some customers. In the 1980s they employed around 160 people at the Tunstall factory, but by early 2011 Kirkham employed less than half that figure. The spread of outsourcing in the UK ceramics industry was rapid. According to an article on “UK: Made in the UK” in Tableware International of 2002: “Very few UK-based tabletop suppliers manufacture solely in Britain. Most now outsource to one degree or another to reduce costs” (Tableware International, Vol. 32, No. 8, September 2002). However, Portmeirion was still resisting outsourcing in 2004 and employed over 600 people at sites in Stoke, Fenton, and Longton. Alan Miles, managing director, argued that their third largest market was Korea and that they were buying into British style (The Sentinel June 20, 2004). Before 2005 Portmeirion imported 20 percent of its products from abroad, but this increased to 50 percent after the company posted losses in 2004 (The Sentinel March 17, 2005). In 2006 it was announced by the chairman, Arthur Ralley, that a two-year strategy of outsourcing and importing from the Far East was reaping rewards. By this period, Portmerion employed around 500 people (The Sentinel August 11, 2006). Royal Worcester acquired Spode of Stoke in 1974 (Niblett 1989: 74). Royal Worcester outsourced production to the Far East in 2006—the period in which Worcester moved its headquarters to Stoke-on-Trent (The Daily Telegraph

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

63

November 7, 2008). Spode, itself, increased the amount of outsourcing to 40 percent of production in 2005, with further moves to outsource up to 75 percent of production by 2007 (The Sentinel, September 30, 2005; May 31, 2007). Spode and Royal Worcester went into administration in 2008 (The Sentinel November 7, 2008). At one point Wedgwood declared that it had ruled out further plans to outsource because due to investment in new technology it could “produce premium wares at similar costs to competitors in China” (The Sentinel June 18, 2004). However, when Waterford Wedgwood acquired Royal Doulton for £40 million at the beginning of 2005 and had access to Doulton’s Indonesian factory, there was speculation that the Jakarta factory would impact on Wedgwood’s Barlaston production (The Sentinel January 17, 2005). Indeed, Wedgwood increased the Indonesian staff from 1,350 to 2,000 intending to increase production from 6 million to 12 million pieces per year by 2007 (The Sentinel, February 1, 2005; May 31, 2007). Outsourcing had a knock-on effect. Dr. Hugh Padley, former managing director of Spode who then ran Berkshire China, HiFive, and finally Staffordshire Fine Bone China Ltd.—all companies that manufactured in Staffordshire—believed that latterly he was competing with companies that imported white ware to be decorated in Staffordshire. Padley pointed out that undecorated mugs might come in from Romania or the Far East for 80p, and even as low as 20p. In this respect, the issue of the impact of the Far Eastern imports became more complex. As discussed in Chapter 2, Padley moved his companies toward the mail-order side of the ceramic business, using computerized technology to create personalized goods.

Profits and Outsourcing Aynsley China of Longton began to contemplate outsourcing to Asia—either Thailand or mainland China—in September 2004, after a period of making losses (The Sentinel September 18, 2004). This firm traces its history back to the 1770s, and became part of the Irish Belleek Pottery Group in 1997 (Ashworth 2002: 4, 21). Interestingly, having declared that outsourcing was more likely in 2004, Liam Maguire, general manager of Aynsley, had already recognized in 2001 that, while Aynsley was committed to manufacturing in the UK, “we are aware that younger consumers are not as aware of these issues, which makes sourcing more of an option” (Tableware International, September 2001, Vol. 31, No. 8). In 2001, Churchill China announced that profits had trebled due to improvements in production and the contribution of outsourcing (The Sentinel September 5, 2001). A Key Note China and Earthenware report noted a further reduction in Churchill and Portmeirion’s UK production, replaced by outsourcing in “their quest for shareholders’ profits” (2005: 1). As the managing director of Wood & Sons of Burslem pointed out: “Part of the problem with larger companies is their shareholders put demands on them. We’re not greedy, but we don’t want to be stupid. There is room for us to make a sensible margin” (The Sentinel August 10, 2003). Therefore, another way to consider Far East outsourcing is not entirely precipitated by the pressures of Far Eastern imports, but as a reason for Staffordshire

64

Ceramics and Globalization

firms to maximize profits. As early as 1996 an article appeared in the Staffordshire press entitled “Outsourcing stays, say major firms.” The upshot of the discussion was that even with government and European cash injection, leading Staffordshire manufacturers would continue on this path (The Sentinel March 6, 1996). As Geoff Martin, the financial director of Royal Doulton, argued in 2004: “We supply crockery—we don’t make it. Making it, you don’t make money.” However, Doulton’s turnover declined from £58 million in the first half of 2003, compared to £49 million in the same period in 2004 (The Sentinel September 18, 2004). Similarly, Kevin Farrell, chief executive of the BCC, argued that outsourcing to the Far East was done for commercial reasons: “No company does it other than to increase its sales and profits” (The Sentinel September 11, 2000). As far as the Staffordshire journalist John Abberley was concerned, outsourcing could only mean one thing—taking advantage of cheap labor (The Sentinel February 12, 2002). Retailers had an influence here. As China and Earthenware Key Note report declared in 2007: “The retail scene in the global market is dominated to some extent by giant retailers, which have greater bargaining power than suppliers. They push brands for low prices resulting in an ongoing trend of outsourcing production to low-cost areas, including the Chinese mainland, while UK manufacturers struggle to make any profit on goods produced in the UK” (2007: Executive Summary: 1). This view supports what Chapter 2 showed in the sense that catalogs, such as Argos, were marketing fewer Staffordshire brands in the early 2000s, compared to the 1990s. Thus, the other way to interpret outsourcing is as “manufacturers can continue to profit from shipping raw materials to the other side of the world where their assembly can be paid in cheap local currency rather than the expensive British pound” (The Sentinel June 1, 2007). When Trevor Johnson, managing director of Caverswall China, was interviewed, the reason he gave for outsourcing was to reduce labor costs. He believed that this had influenced Royal Doulton in establishing their factory at Jakarta, Indonesia. Johnson made a significant point that the raw materials still came from the UK, or Europe: . . . it was the labour that they could save because at the end of the day, even with any of this outsourcing a lot of the raw materials still come from the UK. They are buying the bone from the UK, or parts of Europe: they are buying, you know, the china clay and ball clay from Cornwall: they are buying the glazes locally, even in Stoke-on-Trent: the frits are coming from, yes, parts of Europe, to make the glazes. But a lot of it—none of the Far Eastern people are self sufficient in any of the materials.

According to Dr. Hugh Padley of Spode and others, it was injudicious to outsource because “the facts are that every pottery company, regardless of size, that has had a substantial amount of product manufactured overseas has gone bankrupt or into administration” (The Sentinel August 17, 2009). When Padley was interviewed, another interpretation of why outsourcing had gained momentum was that it was done as a form of “asset stripping.” In his opinion, since labor represented

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

65

just a tenth of the total cost of production, regardless of outsourcing, there would still be marketing and distribution costs to consider. The interview with Padley is discussed in more detail, below, but two sides of opinions were expressed at the “Rule Britannia” conference held in Stoke in 2004. Some ceramic manufacturers saw outsourcing as the most effective way to reduce labor costs, whereas others argued that it was false economy (The Sentinel June 16, 2004). There were clearly different interpretations of why manufacturers began to outsource, and whether it is advantageous in the long term. As Anthony Wood, chairman of Arthur Wood & Sons Ltd. pointed out, it was “tempting therefore to outsource” to where there were low costs and government subsidies. Wood referred to Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, but most of all China. What influenced some Staffordshire firms to settle on China was that manufacturing was supported by subsidies from a centrally run economy, all handled in Beijing, with ceramic factories compelled to hit production targets (The Sentinel April 15, 2003).

Employment in the UK Ceramic Industry The steady reduction in employment in the UK ceramic industry is shown as follows: Year

No. of employees

1979 1984 1989 1991

50,000 27,400 32,000 28,000 (For years 1979–91, The Sentinel, May 10, 1991) 22,000 13,800 15,000

1996 2000 2010

The 1996 and 2000 figures are based on membership of the CATU (The Sentinel November 4, 2001). The 2010 estimate is taken from the Staffordshire press, although the number of members of UNITY, the Ceramic Industry Trade Union, was just 4,953 (The Sentinel September 7, 2010). Kevin Oakes of Steelite estimated that there were 66 major companies in the Potteries employing 30,000 in 1984, compared to 33 employing 8,000 by 2011 (The Sentinel May 14, 2012). Estimates vary, but nationally it is considered that the ceramic industry employed over 20,000 in 2010 (The Sentinel October 15, 2010). In certain periods there have been substantial losses. It was pointed out that membership of CATU was static around 22,000 from 1992 and 1995, but substantially decreased from 1995 to 2002, when union membership fell to 12,497 (The Sentinel June 8, 2003). A China & Earthenware Key Note Report providing an indication of the number of employees of individual UK tableware and giftware manufacturers in 1990 is given as follows:

Ceramics and Globalization

66

Name of Company

No. of Employees

Royal Doulton Josiah Wedgwood & Sons Royal Worcester/Spode Staffordshire Tableware Wade Potteries Churchill Tableware John Tams Aynsley China Portmeirion

7,337

6,041 1,700 1,400  1,230 990 797 849

593 (Key Note 1993, Table 3: 6)

Royal Doulton (which included Mintons, Royal Albert, and Royal Crown Derby) employed 5,000 people in 1993, already a decline since 1990 (The Sentinel July 27, 1993 and December 1, 1993). Arthur Wood & Son Ltd. of Longport employed 250 people (The Sentinel July 20, 1993). In an article entitled “Dateline to outsourcing of products” the shifting of production (in the case of ceramics, mostly to the Far East), normally incurred job losses (The Sentinel June 20, 2004). On a positive side, Tim Hiscock of the North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce argued that jobs, at least, would be now created in some of the poorest parts of the world (The Sentinel September 10, 2000). Compared with the employee figures of 1990, the 2010 situation was as follows: Name of Company

No. of Employees

WWRD Holdings

Approximately 400 (The Sentinel February 6, 2010) (formerly Wedgwood Waterford and Royal Doulton) 0 Employed around 300 people until it went into administration in 2008 (The Sentinel November 7, 2008)   (brand names and designs acquired by Portmeirion) 0 150 (The Sentinel October 12, 2010) 500 (The Sentinel August 2, 2010) 0 (Failed again, The Sentinel May 16, 2009) 90 (The Sentinel May 20, 2010) 480 (The Sentinel February 6, 2010)

Royal Worcester/Spode

Staffordshire Tableware Wade Ceramics Churchill China Tams Aynsley China Portmeirion

Hugh Edwards of Moorcroft pointed to evidence from the Ceramic Industry Forum, then under the chairmanship of Ian Dudson of the Dudson Group. Edwards stated that in the early 2000s there were 234 pottery firms in Staffordshire, each employing fewer than 250 workers. This increased to 270 companies in c. 2002, and further still to 310 companies by 2004. It was claimed by Garry Oakes of the CATU that there were over 150 companies employing approximately 20 people

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

67

(The Sentinel May 2, 2004). By 2009, it was claimed that only 10 UK household and ornamental ceramic manufacturers employed over 250 people, and 145 firms employed below 4 people (Key Note 2010, Table 3.2). Gerald Tams, chairman of John Tams of Longton, argued that the costs for remaining manufacturers would increase as others declined. He called this phenomenon the “economies of scale” (The Sentinel August 18, 1999). Johnsons’ Imperial Pottery employed 300 people when it was closed in 1995, although Wedgwood offered work elsewhere, to those affected (The Sentinel January 5, 1995). Johnson Bothers also closed the Alexandra Works in Tunstall and the Eagle Works in Hanley, transferring production to China and making over 1,000 staff redundant (The Sentinel June 4 and 5, 2003). However, not all old factories have been demolished. Emma Bridgewater utilizes some of the network of Johnson Brothers’s factories in Hanley that have survived. The Eastwood works factory (which is attached to the Bridgewater firm) was also used as one of the venues used for the Ceramics Biennial in 2009. Nevertheless, Trevor Johnson, managing director of Caverswall China of Fenton, believed that the big companies such as Aynsley and Duchess China (companies for which he had worked) would never return to employing the hundreds they once had. Likewise, Hudson & Middleton of Longton would not grow in size again. Hudson & Middleton was a firm founded in 1875, which still produces bone china at the Sutherland Works, employing around 40 people (The Sentinel February 28, 2009). The company has a client list of Buckingham Palace, Clarence House, Windsor Castle, Harrods and The National Trust, etc. Interestingly, Mike Deaville, director, believed that people wanted ceramics made in England, and specifically Stoke-on-Trent (The Sentinel May 2, 2006; October 29, 2009).

Craft and Quality Issues Hugh Edwards, chairman of W. Moorcroft Ltd. of Burslem, pointed that attached to the loss of jobs there would be an issue of declining craft skills (The Sentinel December 14, 1998). The Ceramic Resource Centre of Hanley actually reported difficulties in recruiting lithographers, because people had gradually found alternate employment (The Sentinel June 13, 2004). Related to this issue was a view expressed by Michael Boyle, Waterford Wedgwood’s regional director for Asia Pacific, who argued that Chinese manufacturers could not match the quality of Wedgwood wares. He also pointed out that the transfer of Johnson Brothers production to China in 2003 had resulted in a 40 percent rejection rate in the wares produced, although this situation was supposed to be improving (The Sentinel October 20, 2004). Ironically, the Cosmic Design Works of Longton closed after operating for just four years, because of quality and capacity problems. The giftware marketed by this firm was driven by fashion and a high level of craft. Cofounder Colin Downes had studied at Staffordshire University and worked as a designer for Queensberry Hunt, Wedgwood, Lenox in the United States, Compton and Woodhouse (a retailer

68

Ceramics and Globalization

that had a base in Burslem and commissioned figurines from manufacturers such as Pollyanna, then of Hanley), and the Moorland Pottery, Burslem, before establishing Cosmic Design in 1998 (The Sentinel August 8, 2001; June 9, 2004). Cosmic Design particularly relied on a firm called Coral Ceramics of Hanley to produce their wares. There was significant demand for Cosmic’s products in France, and the wares had been collected and endorsed by Wayne Hemingway and Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen. However, at the time of the liquidation, Downes pointed out that they required a volume manufacture renowned for producing high-quality work (The Sentinel June 9, 2004). The decline in capacity of other large companies, due to outsourcing to the Far East, was having knock-on effects. Dr. Padley had been involved in the UK ceramic industry for approximately 25 years and was quoted (see above) in the Staffordshire press as vehemently opposing outsourcing. Padley conceded, when interviewed, that while there were savings in labor costs when outsourcing, his concerns focused on the quality side of the debate, and maintaining a sense of uniqueness. If a Far Eastern manufacturer was producing wares for different Staffordshire brands, this uniqueness could well be lost. At one stage in the interview, Padley showed three Spode plates in the famous “Christmas Tree” design by Harold Holdway in 1938, two of which were manufactured in the Far East. It has been estimated that this pattern was in 10 million US households (Holdway and Holdway 2006: 43–45). Padley indicated that the “made in England” plate was purchased at a local market, whereas the two Far Eastern examples were purchased at Macy’s in the United States. Without turning the plates over it was difficult to judge which ones were made in the Far East, although Padley drew attention to differences in the color and glazes. Again, stressing that it was the quality issue that caused Padley the most concern, he believed that there were other factors for keeping production in Stoke-on-Trent. There was the need for hands-on control of manufacturing because of the putting of ceramics in a kiln: “You are never sure what is going to come out.” In addition, there were the factors of employee relations, being close to the market place, flexibility in the market place, and finally the issue of innovation and creativity. In Padley’s mind, “outsourcing supports none of those, absolutely none.” However, concerning whether outsourcing damaged the perception of UK ceramic products, Padley felt that: “I think the jury is out on that at the moment. We really promoted it hard. I wasn’t aware of that being a very great benefit to us, ironically.” Therefore, Padley’s view only supports one side of the proposition of this book—that pockets of UK ceramic manufacturing have continued because of manufacturing agility. As Padley ceased involvement in manufacturing in Staffordshire by 2002, segments of UK ceramic production have continued, raising the question of whether quality has remained an influential factor.

Design versus Manufacture Regardless of quality issues, theorists have argued that due to globalization the labor process would become less important in providing the value added, compared to

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

69

the “design-process.” As established in Chapter 1, it has been argued that design would be progressively more important and central (Lash and Urry 1994: 15–16). In accordance with this view, Bryan Carnes, chief executive of North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry, predicted that Staffordshire would become the center for design, not manufacturing (The Sentinel January 11, 2004). Also paralleling this opinion, when Tams of Longton collapsed in the autumn of 2006, Bob Young, a receiver at the insolvency practitioner Begbies Traynor, declared: “. . . there are a lot of people, about 15 companies, who are interested in the [Tams] brands, particularly because they are linked to Disney. But I think it is almost certain that production will be done overseas. I think that will increase. If I was advising someone, I would be saying that they should recognize that it is uneconomic to produce mugs in the UK, but keep the sales, design and innovation here” (The Sentinel September 24, 2006).

The impact of outsourcing was beginning to compartmentalize into what could viably be continued in Staffordshire and what could be undertaken in the Far East. In 2007, Wade of Burslem ceased production of its collectibles, apart from the Whimsies range, and began concentrating of ceramic decanters. The managing director, Paul Farmer, announced: “Whimsies are still designed, developed and modelled here. We will continue to make them, although the majority are made in Asia. The Whimsies are pressed and we are not getting rid of the presses for the time being. We will not be making the cast collectibles” (The Sentinel January 9, 2007). The Staffordshire press, on occasion, drew attention in more detail to the consequences of outsourcing to the Far East. Collectible World Studios of Regent Road, Hanley, was founded in 1989. In 1999 it was reported as creating more than 75 new jobs in Hanley. Overall, Collectible World Studios employed 200 people in the UK, at Staffordshire and at its visitor center at Penrith, Cumbria. The firm, originally called Lilliput Lane Land of Legend, became Collectible World Studios in 1993 (The Sentinel August 12, 1999). Collectible World Studios sold ceramic dragon model, and other themed sculptures. In 2001, all manufacturing was stopped, but product innovation, development, distribution, sales, and marketing were still retained in Hanley (The Sentinel November 4, 2001). Well known for the Piggin, Me to You, Just The Right Shoe, and Pocket Dragon ranges by the early 2000s, Collectible World Studios collapsed in 2006. The reason provided was that there had been holdups in getting stock from its overseas Chinese supplier. One anonymous employee said: “I think the problem was partly caused because the company went to the Far East for its production instead of using the local skilled workforce. Effectively, the company slit its own throat” (The Sentinel May 23, 2006).

Place of Origin Debate As an adjunct to the actual rise of outsourcing, there has been debate about the relevance of “place of production” with regard to the consumer. Even with Dr.

70

Ceramics and Globalization

Padley’s considerable manufacturing experience, there can be uncertainty about the consumer side of the debate. As established above, Tableware International’s “Sourcing for the Home Market” of 1995 is an early example of an article that raised the question of how consumers would respond to outsourcing. According to Wedgwood’s marketing director, place of production was not important, although in that period Wedgwood’s moves to outsource seem largely to be to Portugal (Tableware International, March 1995, Vol. 25. No. 2). In addition, their “Embassy” range, destined only for the American market, was manufactured in Japan. In fact, when Wedgwood profits were reported as up by 4 percent in 1996, it was stated that the “business contains around 5 percent of products sourced from outside” (Tableware International, October 1996, Vol. 26, No. 9). Actual interviews with UK retailers draw attention to consumer attitudes to Staffordshire brands outsourced to the Far East (see Chapter 7). When Royal Doulton axed around 1,200 jobs in 1998 in the Potteries, it prompted a discussion that appeared in the Staffordshire press: “Doulton ware made in Malaysia is not, and never will be, the same as Doulton made in the city. It may look the same, it may be more cost-productive but at a glance at the back-stamp exposes it for what it is—a sham product desperately seeking instant respectability on the back of 200 years of history and tradition” (The Sentinel December 14, 1998). Phrases such as “real thing” and “imposter” were used in other parts of the article. In 2000, it was reported that Arthur Wood & Sons, whose products were still manufactured in England, had snatched a contract from James Sadler & Sons. The order was from Whittard of Chelsea. The Whittard rationale was that customers, many of them tourists, insisted on buying British goods. Thus, Sales Director Gerald Perrin had no desire to sell Sadler teapots that he claimed were made in Indonesia, indicated only by a small sticker. Whittard of Chelsea also sold Price & Kensington wares, made in Stoke-on-Trent. Oxford’s High Street manager of Whittard declared: “If you find a souvenir has been made in the Philippines, there’s not much point. It does help if it has been made in England, and Stoke-on-Trent is recognized as the traditional Potteries” (The Sentinel March 29, 2000). Whittard of Chelsea has continued to sell ceramics. However, one range painted with bright-colored spots (not dissimilar from Emma Bridgewater’s wares) was made in Thailand and clearly marketed as such. An earthenware mug, hand-painted with colored spots, was retailed for £7 in 2010. A detachable paper label declared on the mug: “Hand painted Whittard of Chelsea” (Figure 3.4). But, the printed backstamp declared: “Handpainted—Made in Thailand.” Apparently, a switch has occurred from giving a contract to a Staffordshire firm, to selling ceramics clearly from Thailand. Does this indicate that consumers have for a large part moved away from the importance of a “place of origin” in the context of globalization? So, there were clearly manufacturers who perceived “place of origin” as making little or no difference to consumption. Wayne Nutbeen, chief executive of Royal Doulton, quoted market research that indicated that only 2 percent of ceramic purchases were made on the basis of country of origin. Nutbeen referred to this low percentage in 2002 and 2004 (The Sentinel February 14, 2002 and January 1, 2004). Similarly, Gary Mylum, managing director of Royal Doulton, declared in 2004:

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

71

Figure 3.4 Whittard, mug, detachable label “Hand Painted/Whittard of Chelsea” earthenware, c. 2010.

The paramount thing is design brand and marketing—whether you manufacture yourself or buy from a supplier, it makes very little difference. The prime factors for people when making a ceramic purchase are, number one design, number two is brand. Then number three is price and way down the list are factors like country of origin. Brand is absolutely number one—it’s a thread that runs through everything we do. If you are not supporting your brand values in everything you do, you devalue it in the consumer’s eyes (The Sentinel Janaury 11, 2004).

However, in Chris Rowley’s research paper entitled “Manufacturing Mobility? Internationalization, Change and Continuity,” one of his concluding points was as follows: . . . it was often argued by management that production overseas by the major, quality image conscious pottery firms “. . . would damage our brands, and so a critical selling point, and one allowing a price premium of a ‘Made in England’ image.” This point was frequently related by pottery managers and workers, who remain convinced of the salience of this factor in key export markets such as the US, Canada and Japan (1998: 28).

72

Ceramics and Globalization

For this reason, Rowley concluded, “As such it seems many ‘potters’ can, to some extent, breath a collective sigh of relief ” (1998: 28). A criticism of Rowley’s research would appear to be the extent to which all manufacturers held this view—even at the time of the research. Sadler & Sons Ltd. were reported as employing 250 people in Burslem, but had their traditional “Brown Betty” Rockingham teapots made in China for “several years,” and were sourcing teapots from Indonesia (The Sentinel February 26, 1997). The manufacturer may not have been concerned but a letter printed in the Sentinel declared, “A few years ago I picked up a Sadler’s teapot in Woolworths and was astonished to discover the words ‘Made in Indonesia’ on the bottom, even though it bore the Sadler’s trademark Union Jack” (March 24, 2000). Somehow the reputation of Sadler’s had been damaged or eroded because the product was no longer manufactured in Burslem—but the problem is that this was a view from a local perspective. Nevertheless, the fundamental question was whether outsourced Staffordshire products would sell. For instance: But Doulton seems to be pushing Bunnykins into previously uncharted territory by turning to China, perhaps best shown by one of the first new ranges to come out of the Far East. This is called Bunnykins Occasions and features models bearing the names Easter Treat, Graduation Day, Love Heart, Wedding Day and Christmas Morning. . . . The issue is whether collectors will accept them, given the quintessentially English nature of previous Bunnykins products (The Sentinel November 2, 2003).

The “authenticity” debate that particularly arose with the collectible side of ceramics continued to reverberate, and apparently did not diminish over time—it simply polarized views. Dr. Matthew Paterson, senior lecturer in International Relations at Keele University, argued in 2004 that Doulton, Wedgwood, Spode, and Poole and Denby, could theoretically act in the same way as Nike. However, Sue Evans, chief executive of the Ceramic Industry Forum, disagreed, arguing that brands still benefit from a geographical location (The Sentinel January 11, 2004). The views of Dr. Paterson are contrasted with other primary evidence used in Chapter 8. In December 2006, the Sentinel reported the loss of 200 jobs from Spode. It went on to suggest that, while Spode set out to return to profitability through outsourcing: This is a well-trod path among potters. Well trod, maybe, but not always successful (think back to Royal Doulton). Surely, the unique selling point of prestige pottery makers is the fact that ware is made by people whose skills and traditions date back centuries. Who wants posh crockery when it’s made in Indonesia? It might be near-as dammit as good, but it is undoubtedly missing a certain something (The Sentinel December 1, 2006).

Here there is an important reference to the notion of “posh crockery” not being compatible with Far Eastern production. (This point is also considered in more depth in Chapters 7 and 8.) In 2006, Tableware International featured Sophie Conran and

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

73

her designs for Portmeirion in an article entitled “Sophie’s Choice: set for success.” The article mentioned Chief Executive Lawrence Bryan’s disappointment with Portmeirion’s £1.2 million loss in 2004, though there had been a major recovery of £1.7 million in profits during 2005. The Conran range was already being described as “a major hit” (Tableware International, Autumn 2006, Vol. 37, No. 1). However, a headline of “Made in China” appeared in the Sentinel when the Stoke-on-Trent City Council office displayed Portmeirion’s Sophie Conran collection and Spode’s “Chicory Hymn” range, designed by Kim Parker (see Plate 2). Both design ranges were manufactured in China. The controversy was that displaying such examples could not be used to promote the area, when the actual products were no longer a reflection of local skills (The Sentinel November 15, 2007). It is interesting how “design skills” alone were not enough to promote the district, or Englishness. As shown in Chapter 2, prior to the rise of outsourcing the marketing of ceramics was often based on a set of values linked to production skills and histories of the firm. The designs, however, might be drawn from designers and artists who have come from outside the area. The ongoing debate concerning relevance of place of manufacture reached national levels in The Times of 2009. The view of Alison Wedgwood (the wife of a direct descendent of Josiah Wedgwood) was that there was a certain distinction in having something made in England, and this was referred to in the Introduction to this book. Therefore, shifting production to the Far East touched on many different issues. There was the issue (drawn attention to by Rowley in 1998) of how foreign markets might respond to English brands manufactured in the Far East. There was the issue of how a shift in production might impact on collecting ceramics. Finally, there was the issue—similar to Spooner’s argument when examining Middle Eastern carpets—the place where craft-oriented commodities were produced could have an importance (see Chapter 1). To some, outsourcing even raised a morality issue. Padley claimed that wares made in the Far East, without backstamps and only on a sticker, was “just plain exploitation.” Padley questioned the instance whereby Staffordshire Tableware imported a consignment of 175,000 mugs marked “Made in England” from India. The only response from customs and excise was that the marks should be covered with detachable labels correcting the actual place of production; he said, “That’s appalling.” The way in which backstamps have evolved to respond to outsourcing is examined in the next chapter.

Uncertainty of Outsourcing As outsourcing increased, the debate on whether it really would impact on sales intensified. When Wedgwood and Royal Doulton exhibited at the 2004 Spring Fair in Birmingham, Wedgwood, in particular, stated that orders were up 30 percent. However, Roger Bairstow, director of Bairstow Manor Pottery of Hanley, argued: “I would be amazed if companies such as Royal Doulton and Wedgwood saw increased business because everyone coming to our stand wanted goods made in Stoke-on-Trent” (The Sentinel February 18, 2004).

74

Ceramics and Globalization

Adding to the issue of “place of origin” is how UK ceramic products serve a variety of purposes. This comes across when interviewing different manufacturers and retailers, in the following chapters. The Bairstow Manor pottery of Blackhorse Lane, Hanley, was founded in 1938 by Roger Bairstow’s father and was renowned for its character jugs (The Sentinel February 4, 2000). In 2003, the company employed 11 people (The Sentinel April 10, 2003). The manufacturer specialized in limited editions, and the Ceramics Showcase event at King’s Hall, Stoke (an event for the smaller Staffordshire firms) was used as an occasion to launch a Tony Blair jug in 2000 (The Sentinel February 4, 2000). The collectible aspect of ceramics is considered in more detail in the final chapter of this book. Contrary to a growing perception that design and innovation could remain in Staffordshire, and manufacturing could take place in the Far East, brothers Paul and Andy Johnson started producing ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent. In an article entitled “Best of British,” it was explained how their grandfather had founded the Fegg Hayes Pottery in 1947. The firm had decorated Stoke-on-Trent “white-ware,” and Paul and Andy Johnson now believed the time was right to actually begin manufacturing their own ware in the UK. Paul Johnson argued: “There seems now to be a definite trend for British products. It’s much more design led, with customers specifying their own designs for retailers and they are making a lot of the Made in England backstamp” (The Sentinel May 31, 2010). The Fegg Hayes Pottery moved to Tunstall in the 1990s and incorporated a brand called the “Great British Mug Company.” It was just a family firm employing 13 people, believing that there was a growing market for high-quality ceramics manufactured in Stoke-on-Trent, with exporting possibilities (The Sentinel May 31, 2010). On the other hand, Wedgwood Waterford went into administration in the early part of 2009. In the spring the firm collectively became known as “WWRD,” and became the property of Michael Psaros, cofounder of KPS Capital Partners, a private New York equity firm. In February 2010, the ranges were streamlined, and new ranges such as “Nature’s Canvas” were introduced. However, the philosophy of the new owners was still that the bulk of Wedgwood and Royal Doulton production would be undertaken in Indonesia where labor costs were 85 percent cheaper, but the “real works of art” and “highest-end” products would be made at Barlaston (Financial Times March 26, 2009). Therefore, “while some items are made in the UK, the bulk is made overseas to meet the price-conscious ranges demanded by consumers” (The Sentinel February 8, 2010).

A Political Debate One of the issues unearthed by Norma Respicio’s research on Nishijin textiles of Japan (referred to in Chapter 1) was that if that tradition continued, the impact of outsourcing would create a debate about labeling (2007: 332). Likewise, the same issue arose in Staffordshire, but it became a political issue when Gavin Williamson, Conservative MP for South Staffordshire, raised the “Country of Origin Marking”

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

75

debate in the House of Commons on May 9, 2011. Gavin Williamson, formerly managing director of Aynsley China of Longton, argued that less ambiguous marking would let people know what they were buying and precise decision making could support the British economy. Williamson had spoken to the chief executive of Royal Crown Derby, Hugh Gibson, and determined: I [Williamson] asked him, “Why do you want this country of origin marking?” and he said to me, simply, “Gavin, on every piece of ware that I produce, I put my Royal Crown Derby backstamp on it, and proudly, “Made in England.” He added, “Other producers put their backstamp on products but no country of origin. I can only assume that they are ashamed of where they produced that product” (HC Deb, May 9, 2011, vol 527, c1000).

Gavin Williamson also argued that “made in England” had a value, not just to British consumers but global markets as well (HC Deb, May 9, 2011, vol. 527, c1001). In spite of the debate and the European Union approval of clearer marking, the UK government refused to adopt the guidelines (The Sentinel, May 16, 2011). Theoretically, at least, it might be assumed that those who have continued to manufacture in the UK would support tighter regulations, and this idea will be considered in later chapters.

Production Back in Staffordshire The migration of ceramic production has not been one-directional. In 2004 Churchill China, which at that time employed 1,000 people, obtained 70 percent of its domestic tableware from Columbia, Malaysia, China, and India (The Sentinel February 24, 2004). However, Churchill China reported bringing back some production to Tunstall, in spite of it being suggested that profits had increased when outsourcing (The Sentinel August 28, 2009 and October 3, 2009). Norman Tempest of Royal Stafford reduced the amount of outsourcing and subsequently posted profits (The Sentinel June 23, 2008). Portmeirion also increased the number it employed in Staffordshire (The Sentinel May 24, 2010 and February 22, 2010). The correlation between profits increasing when outsourcing and profits declining when manufacturing in the UK is not a straightforward one. Kevin Oakes, chief executive of Steelite, chairing a meeting between manufacturers and the Lord Mayor of London at the Potters Club in Stoke, also commented on production returning to Stoke-on-Trent (The Sentinel May 11, 2012). In the interim between conducting this original research and the creation of this book, the economic situation has changed in some respects. Aynsley China continued to outsource and even announced closing their Sutherland Road works in Longton with a loss of 40 jobs in 2014 (The Sentinel October 4, 2014), while Kirkham & Co. reduced their amount of foreign outsourcing to 10 percent of production in 2016, and thus their Stoke-on-Trent production rose to 90 percent.

76

Ceramics and Globalization

Not all UK ceramic companies have outsourced production. The Key Note report of 2010 (mentioned in the Introduction) implied that steadfastly remaining “local” had paid dividends for the Bridgewater company. The number employed by Emma Bridgewater increased as follows: ●● ●● ●●

approximately 30 in c.1985 at Longport (The Sentinel April 11, 2009) approximately 100 in 2002 (The Sentinel April 3, 2002) approximately 160 in 2009 (The Sentinel April 11, 2009).

In addition, Hugh Edwards acquired Moorcroft of Burslem in 1986 (The Evening Sentinel October 2, 1986). According to Edwards the company employed 14 people at that point. By 2007, it employed 115 people and had a Collectors’ Club with 12,000 members worldwide (The Sentinel June 30, 2007, March 17, 2008). In 2012 it still employed 112 people. Clearly, continuing to manufacture in the UK has not just focused on one area of ceramic production since Bridgewater focuses on table and kitchenware, whereas Moorcroft supplies the decorative and collectible end of the market. While ceramic employment figures for 2010 are significantly lower than those provided in 1990, the overall picture does not convey the isolated cases of growth, or marginal increase in reemployment of established firms, raising the possibility that this is related to maintaining design agility, perception, or other issues.

Summary Underlying the rise of outsourcing to the Far East and Pacific Rim reveals a comprehensive set of reasons. It has been argued that pressure of imports was a reason, but in interviewing Trevor Johnson of Caverswall China, the issue of reducing labor costs was given as an influential factor. This differs from research in general on “COO,” which interprets managers’ behavior as a response to avoid prejudice against other countries or people (Johannsson 1993: 81–82). Dr. Hugh Padley (formerly of Spode) even suggested that asset stripping was part of the equation. Locally, outsourcing was a highly emotive issue because of job cuts, which then drew attention to issues of a loss of craft skills, potential quality issues, and whether the issue of the “place of origin” was relevant to the consumer. There was gradual recognition of how outsourcing would impact on the marketing of ceramics, and this was commented on in 2002. By 2003, it was being argued that if ceramics were to continue to be produced in Staffordshire, connections to Stoke-on-Trent would have to be emphasized. Interestingly, a Strategic Analysis of the Ceramic Industry in Staffordshire report of 1999 recommended for manufacturers still producing in Staffordshire a “Made in Stoke label” to promote local branding (Ecotec 1999: 67–68). The report was ahead of its time. Further still, by 2009 there was a suggestion of how emphasizing

The Rise of Outsourcing UK Ceramics

77

“hand-made in Stoke-on-Trent,” rather than simply “hand-made in England,” might be advantageous from a marketing point of view (The Sentinel December 21, 2009). Alternately, the view was expressed that Staffordshire could be the center of design, and not manufacturing. Thus, two theories emerged due to the impact of the Far East. Either way, these views have impacted on marketing and design.

78

Chapter 4 The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on the Marketing of UK Ceramics

Inevitably, the rise of outsourcing impacted on the marketing of ceramics. For those pottery companies that no longer, or not entirely, manufactured in the UK, a new set of strategies evolved. Ceramic backstamps bear witness to these developments. This chapter examines the emerging tendencies of the 1990s and early 2000s and where possible takes into account the views of manufacturers. It is necessary to explore this aspect of the globalization debate, as this is relevant to the perception aspects explored in this book. Due to outsourcing a range of marketing approaches have emerged, and the following is intended to identify the different trends, since they demonstrate the diverse range of impacts of globalization.

An Emphasis on the Staffordshire Brand Spode increased outsourcing (see Chapter 3), and therefore subtle changes occurred to the Spode backstamp. Spode moved away from referring to any place of manufacture coinciding with the view expressed by Spode’s marketing manager, Lucy Hockenhull: The world is changing and it is important that in order to ensure long-term survival and remain competitive in the global marketplace, that Spode is manufactured in the most appropriate location. To this end, it is important that the brand evolves from something that is specifically located to a particular product site, but rather a device that is much more emotional and intangible while remaining meaningful and relevant (The Sentinel January 11, 2004).

Increasingly, the packaging of ceramics was more likely to indicate the actual place of manufacture. For instance, the backstamp on earthenware mug by Spode in the “Flowers of the Month” series provides only the brand name, pattern, and design registration date of 2007, but the reverse of the packaging indicated that the ceramic product was “Made in China” (see Figure 4.1). Less consistent with Lucy Hockenhull’s view was a tendency to reappropriate from Spode’s history, thus still drawing attention to heritage. When Josiah Spode I

80

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 4.1  Spode, mug, “Flowers of the Month” pattern, earthenware, with packaging, © 2007. Copeland and Garrett, mug “Petite Rose” pattern, porcelain, from 2007. Detachable label indicating “Made in China.”

established a pottery in Stoke in c.1770, his original partner was William Copeland. The Copeland family became sole proprietors in 1833. The firm was known as “Copeland & Garrett” from 1833 to 1847. The business title “Copeland, late Spode” was used from 1847 until 1970, when the company reintroduced the brand name “Spode” (Kowalsky 1999: 160–61, 340–41). However, Spode has reused the “Copeland & Garrett” name from the company’s history. This is illustrated by a mug of c. 2007, which was manufactured in China (Figure 4.1). A Royal Albert cup and saucer in a surface pattern called “Ruby Lace” of 2002, in the “Old Country Roses” range, has a detachable label declaring that the brand was part of the Doulton group, but the product was manufactured in Indonesia (Figure 4.2). Style-wise, with the gilt rim and gilding on top of the handle, it is reminiscent of designs from the Victorian and Edwardian eras. As another example, Bryan Carnes, chief executive of North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry, argued: “Wedgwood don’t describe themselves as a pottery company any more—they’re a lifestyle company. You can buy your Wedgwood headscarf and Wedgwood cufflinks at the same outlet as you can buy your pottery” (The Sentinel January 11, 2004). However, the results of this opinion could be rather incongruous. In 2009 Wedgwood introduced a range to celebrate 250 years of business. Figure 4.3 is of a Wedgwood bone china mug in this range. The mug is decorated with different backstamps used by the company, some of which incorporate the phrase “Made in England.” It reaffirms an attachment to the backstamp in many quarters of the Staffordshire ceramic industry. The actual backstamp on the base of the mug

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on the Marketing of UK Ceramics

81

Figure 4.2  Royal Albert, cup and saucer, “Ruby Lace” pattern, bone china, backstamp, © 2002, detachable label indicating “Made in Indonesia,” c. 2008.

Figure 4.3 Wedgwood, mug, “250th commemorative collection,” bone china, c. 2009. Boxed packaging on left, indicating “Made in Indonesia.”

uses the phrase “An English Classic . . . since 1759,” and the cardboard box pays homage to Wedgwood’s blue jasper ware. However, the label on the box states that it was made in Indonesia. In fact, an article in the Staffordshire press entitled “Stamping out the origins” referred to an assumption that “the recipient of the gift will also most likely dispose of the packaging before placing the figurine on their mantelpiece or whatever” (The Sentinel November 2, 2003).

82

Ceramics and Globalization

Attachment to “England” through Branding When Wedgwood had their “Home” range manufactured at Vista Alegre from 1995, “Made in Portugal” was included in the backstamp. Chapter 3 discussed the “Home” range (Figure 3.1). However, when Wedgwood outsourced to the Far East, they did not adopt the same indelible backstamping approach. The detachable label implies a more surreptitious attitude to indicating where the product was manufactured, and it is interesting that the interviewing of ceramic retailers (discussed in Chapter 7) provided evidence of how consumers viewed a Far Eastern place of manufacture. More often than not, wares produced in the UK would still indicate UK origins in the backstamp, whereas wares produced in the Far East would increasingly only declare this on detachable labels, or on the packaging. On one level, certain Staffordshire companies were veering toward a global image. On another, leading on from Lash and Urry’s theory, “Goods often take on the properties of sign-value through the process of ‘branding,’ in which marketers and advertising attach images to goods” (1994: 15). Thus, some Staffordshire brands have continued to make individual links with the company’s heritage. In the 2000s, ceramic products might be branded as “England,” though they have not been manufactured in this country. A Johnson Brothers’s cup and saucer pattern called “Fresh Fruit” demonstrates this trend. The printed backstamp reads, “Johnson Bros England 1883,” but the detachable label indicates that it was actually manufactured in China (Johnson Brothers was established in Hanley in 1883). The example of a Johnson Brothers cup and saucer illustrated in Figure 4.4 was manufactured in hard-paste porcelain, instead of the typical earthenware body used when production was at Hanley. As established in Chapter 2, historically, hard-paste porcelain is far more associated with Far Eastern production. One straightforward phenomenon of the impact of outsourcing is that information regarding the actual origin might be spread across detachable labels or packaging, while in the past the backstamp would provide the company name, place of manufacture, and occasionally the name of a designer. Johnson Brothers became part of the Wedgwood group in 1968, and continued to produce a full range of their earthenware products in Stoke-on-Trent (Goodwin and Barker 2009: 9). But by 2003, the then chairman of Waterford Wedgwood, Sir Anthony O’Reilly, stated that the group “had focused on restructuring and sending production of its Johnson Brothers brand from the Potteries to Asia” (The Sentinel November 14, 2003). According to an interview with the managing director of Royal Stafford of Burslem, Johnson Brothers wares were now manufactured in the Han Dan region of China. A detachable label approach was typical of a number of Staffordshire brands outsourcing to the Far East. However, the views of Wayne Nutbeen, chief executive of Royal Doulton, were quoted as follows: “The firm plans to use its factory in Indonesia solely for the production of bone china, a ware traditionally associated with the Potteries. It will also outsource more products from plants in India,

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on the Marketing of UK Ceramics

83

Figure 4.4  Johnson Bros. cup and saucer, “Fresh Fruit” pattern, porcelain, purchased 2008. The backstamp states “Johnson Bros. England,” but the detachable label indicates “Made in China.”

Bangladesh, China and Thailand—part of a strategy that has made Royal Doulton a ‘model’ for other firms to follow” (The Sentinel September 18, 2004). Apparently, Nutbeen explained how it was a model because the firm “had been reinvented as a sales-led company marketing high-branded goods under the names of Minton, Royal Doulton and Royal Albert—rather than a manufacturer” (The Sentinel September 18, 2004). While it is more unusual for Staffordshire brands in the early 2000s to permanently print “Made in China” alongside the name of the company, Royal Doulton has used this approach. Therefore, this corresponds to Nutbeen’s belief that not only were they becoming a sales-led company, but also that the modern consumer was less interested in where the product was made.

“Made in China” and Celebrity Endorsement As indicated in the previous chapter, Churchill China had reported that by 2001 profits had increased due to outsourcing. Ironically, just a year later, it was stated that, “The ‘Made in England’ message will be the cornerstone of Churchill’s marketing strategy” in the United States. This announcement coincided with Churchill China establishing a new American operation, Churchill China Inc. of

84

Ceramics and Globalization

Chicago, to offer the brands of Churchill, Queen’s and James Sadler (Tableware International, Vol. 32, No. 10, November 2002). The Churchill group, based in Tunstall, is an amalgamation of several ceramic firms, such as James Broadhurst and Sampson Bridgwood, both of Longton (Hampson 2010: 161–65). In the mid-1990s, Churchill formed a bone china division by acquiring the Crownford Company of Longton that manufactured giftware and tableware under the Queen’s trademark (Hampson 2010: 148). In addition, Churchill China purchased the brand name of James Sadler, the teapot manufacturer of Burslem, when it went into administration in 2000 (see Chapter 3). Although Churchill China was floated on the stock exchange in 1994, the Roper family retained overall control (The Sentinel October 18, 2007). From 1995, Churchill China used fashion designer Jeff Banks to endorse a range of casual tableware called “Ports of Call.” The first two patterns were called “Kabul” and “Heart” (Tableware International, August 1995, Vol. 25, No. 7). “Ports of Call” was aimed at the 25–40 age group, and initial sales were three times greater than those originally scheduled (Tableware International, December 1995/January 1996, Vol. 25, No. 11). It had been reported overall that the “Ports of Call” range had sold more than a million pieces (Hampson 2010: 149). A 12-piece dinner set in the “Ports of Call” range featured a Jeff Banks’s photograph prominently on the box. Similarly, a mug printed with the phrase “Drama Queen” in the Cheeky mug range designed in 2009 and backstamped as “Manufactured by Queens” had a photograph of Jamie Oliver on the cylinder-tin packaging. The Jamie Oliver mug was manufactured in porcelain and was described only on the packaging as “Made in China,” whereas the plates in the 12-piece dinner range were backstamped, “By Jeff Banks For Churchill, Country Craft, Made in China.” Clearly, an advantage of outsourcing was the opportunity to market 12 earthenware plates that could retail on the British high street for as little as £5.00, in 2008. What was also significant was the progressive use of an indelible backstamp stating not simply the name of the Churchill brand, but that it was manufactured in China. In the 2000s, it was far more unusual for Staffordshire firms to take this approach, and, in fact, a Cath Kidston design range “Exclusively By Queens Kitchen Fine China,” purchased in 2010, had no indication of place of manufacture at all (see Figure 4.5). In this period of globalization the approach of Churchill China implied that retailers and consumers were becoming genuinely less interested in the Staffordshire “Made in England” aspect of production. The emphasis seems to be on raising the profile of Queens or Churchill’s through celebrity endorsement, rather than what was particularly unique about where the product was manufactured. However, in October 2009 the Staffordshire press indicated that Churchill was bringing back some of its overseas production to the Sandyford factory in Tunstall, as the then chief executive, Andrew Roper, was more confident about the future of the industry in North Staffordshire (The Sentinel October 3, 2009). Based on this press article it was unclear whether the return of production would be focused on the hospitality side or retail side of their business, although it was said later “that Churchill, which employs about 500 people, has moved production of some retail [author’s

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on the Marketing of UK Ceramics

85

Figure 4.5  Churchill China, dinnerware, The Designer Collection, Ports of Call, “Country Craft (sage),” by Jeff Banks, earthenware, purchased 2008. Backstamp printed with the phrase “Made in China.” Queens, mug, Jamie Oliver’s “Drama Queen,” porcelain, described on packaging as “Made in China,” © 2009. Queens, mug, Cath Kidston design range, bone china, undeclared place of manufacture, purchased 2010.

italics] products back to North Staffordshire” (The Sentinel April 16, 2010). If more products for the retail market were being manufactured back in the UK, it appears not to have had a knock-on effect on reemphasizing UK production in their marketing. Presumably, Churchill considered that the place of origin was of limited relevance to their targeted buyer. Consequently, the Staffordshire press’ announcement that recorded the return of some of Churchill’s overseas production to Tunstall is perhaps related to the manufacturing and design agility aspect of the debate. Certainly, the reference to the importance of the retail side of the business mirrors the annual report of 2009, provided by Churchill China. It indicated how their retail sales had increased by 50 percent in 2009 and stated that the licensed and branded products of “Jamie Oliver, Cath Kidston, Disney, Alex Clark, Sanderson, and Ella Doran and other licences are key to our success in the middle market and high volume sectors” (Churchill China 2009: 11). Here, it is implied that these ties had helped to raise the profile of the brand. Whether the focus on celebrities reflects a wider, cultural diminishing concern in where any products were manufactured, or in this instance, a decline of interest in the Staffordshire Potteries, remains the fascination. In general terms, as far as Clive Drinkwater, international director of the North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce, was concerned: “The sad truth is that it’s the brand that’s going to sell it, and where it is made is of secondary importance . . . . No-one cares if their Ralph Lauren shirts or Louis Vuitton bags are made in China, Sri Lanka or Brazil, and I don’t see it being any different for ceramics” (The Sentinel June 27, 2004).

86

Ceramics and Globalization

The analogy of ceramics with clothes is interesting and relates to the view that ranges such as “Ports of Call” (mentioned above) was targeted at a younger age group. Chapter 7 also conveys how those involved in the retail of ceramics have repeated the analogy of ceramics with clothes. If there was any real sense of the consumer buying UK ceramics on the basis of their being made in Staffordshire, it is perhaps rather dependent on the age group concerned. But, at this stage, examining different manufacturers’ approaches to the ways in which the marketing of Staffordshire ceramics has evolved since the 1990s reinforces how varied the impact of globalization has been on the marketing of ceramics. While Churchill’s indelible backstamps incorporating the phrase “Made in China” befits an innovative and more globalized approach to manufacturing, in more recent times, the emphasis of marketing has also reinforced notions of heritage. This has been suggested when the firm has been described as “Churchill 1795” (Tableware International, July/August 2014, Vol. 136, No. 3). The year 1795 relates to the series business acquisitions that link the current Tunstall firm back to Bridgwood of Longton, which was founded in the eighteenth century. But, the title of Churchill China Ltd. was only used for the first time in the 1970s (Hampson 2010: 162–63).

Impact of Outsourcing on Backstamps Roy Kirkham & Co.’s outsourcing strategy impacted on their actual backstamps, and this was determined by interviewing Ian Kirkham, who currently runs the firm based in Tunstall. In the past Roy Kirkham & Co. goods declared on the backstamp “Roy Kirkham Fine Bone China England.” This was the case with surface pattern designs called “Strawberry Fruit Garden” of 1990, or “Eden” of 1992. Judging by mugs provided by Ian Kirkham, the different ways of dealing with backstamping can be demonstrated. Ian Kirkham provided information concerning the actual origins of the mugs, if this was unclear (Plate 3). The mug in “Tuscany” range, dated to 2004, was marked “England,” whereas the mug for the “Lifeboats” charity of c. 2010 does not refer to the Kirkham firm or provide a place of manufacture. However, both the “Lifeboats” and “Tuscany” ranges were completely manufactured in Tunstall. As Ian Kirkham stated in the interview, the company does not emphasize the fact that the product was “Made in England” or “Stoke-on-Trent” because this was seen as less important to consumers. Both examples in Plate 3 were manufactured in bone china. In 2010, the Kirkham firm had bone china mugs manufactured in India, for a home furnishings store, which were backstamped as “Made in India.” Although, the Far East has been a focus of outsourcing, India has also presented opportunities. Trevor Johnson, managing director of Caverswall China, reported meeting an Indian ceramic manufacturer who claimed he could sell china mugs for 35p and earthenware mugs for 11p, though heavily supported by the Indian government. Ian Kirkham emphasized that these days the importance was design, quality, and pricing. These are the major concerns of the modern consumer. The brand values were more important to the consumer than where the product was manufactured.

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on the Marketing of UK Ceramics

87

In this instance, cars might be manufactured from parts made from all round the world, and this was of little concern to the consumer.

Attachment to “England” through Design and Decoration The word “England” has been used in earlier backstamps, when the product was manufactured in Stoke-on-Trent. However, as established above, the word “England” has been used on indelible backstamps, when in fact the product has been manufactured in the Far East. Alternately, different phrases have emerged due to the consequence of Far Eastern outsourcing, and these are examined below. It is striking how often maintaining a connection to “England” has remained a strong characteristic of ceramic marketing strategies. Unlike the desire of marketing manager, Lucy Hockenhull, to turn the Spode brand into something “much more emotional,” this has not been followed by other ceramic companies. In 2002, Arthur Wood of Staffordshire employed 160 people. Anthony Wood, as chairman, declared, “As more and more of our competitors source their products overseas, we have made a conscious decision to maintain our 118 year old tradition of being 100 per cent British.” However, sales slipped from £3 million to £2.7 million in the year ending April 2002, and it was reported that the Arthur Wood Group (which included Price & Kensington of Longport) had collapsed by October 2003 (The Sentinel May 9, 2001; October 7, 2003). At this point it was reported that the brand names of Arthur Wood, Price & Kensington, and Pristine were to be sold to Rayware, a houseware importer. It was also announced that the wares of these companies would be manufactured abroad (The Sentinel December 20, 2003). In 2008, an advertisement for a sales agent indicated that the Rayware Group incorporated the brands Arthur Wood, Ravenhead, Dema, Price & Kensington, Mason Cash, and Three Wishes (Tableware International, May/June 2008: 61). A boxed set of c.2009 containing an Arthur Wood three-piece teapot, jug, and mug entitled “London Panorama” provides information concerning the long-term relationship of the Wood family to ceramic manufacturing. Ralph Wood and Ralph Wood II were modelers and potters in Burslem in the eighteenth century (Hildyard 2005: 159), and Enoch Wood (1759–1840), a cousin of Ralph Wood the younger, was described in Shaw’s History of the Staffordshire Potteries . . . of 1829, as “the venerable Father of the Potteries” (1970: 30). As established in Chapter 2, prior to the rise of Far Eastern outsourcing, companies often provided outlines of their ceramic family dynasty in their marketing material. Clearly, this trend has continued even as outsourcing developed. The Arthur Wood three-piece tea set is manufactured in hard-paste porcelain (more associated with Far Eastern production), and the backstamp and packaging declares that it was only “Designed in England.” “Designed in England” has often become substituted for the phrase “Made in England.” Price & Kensington had a factory in Longport, Staffordshire, and after the collapse of the Arthur Wood Group in 2003 the buildings were taken over by Lorna Bailey Artware (The Sentinel January 31, 2003). Price & Kensington teapots retail through

88

Ceramics and Globalization

supermarkets, such as Morrisons, and their detachable labels indicate “Price & Kensington Est. 1896, Designed in England” (Figure 4.6). By association, these ceramic examples are still attempting to benefit from connections to England. However, Anthony Wood, chairman of Arthur Wood & Sons of Longport, took a more cynical view. Consumers would only confuse “designed” with actual place of manufacture: “A common sight is that of ‘Designed in England’ which is a deliberate attempt to mislead customers into thinking that it is made here, although it could be made anywhere” (The Sentinel April 15, 2002). The 2002 report is an early press reference to the “Designed in England” phenomenon, and it is ironical that, it spite of Anthony Wood’s own ethical qualms about adopting this marketing approach, when control of the Wood company passed to Rayware, this was exactly the strategy that was introduced. Just Mugs Limited developed out of English Ironstone Tableware Ltd., a company that originally employed 440 people (The Sentinel September 8, 1994). English Ironstone Tableware went into receivership in 1994, and the mug-making side of the business was sold to Mike Moores, who took 65 of the original staff into the new firm (The Sentinel December 1, 1994). The packaging of four espresso coffee cups and saucers gave the address of Just Mugs Limited as College Road, Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent, and the ceramic backstamp refers to the product being “Exclusively Designed in England” (see Figure 4.6). However, the underside of the transparent plastic box states that the goods were “MADE IN CHINA.” In Press and Cooper’s The Design Experience: The Role of Design and Designers in the Twenty-First Century, it is argued that, as the West moves away from mass production, design becomes more essential (2003: 16–19). The above mentioned backstamps and detachable labels have used the phrase “Designed in England” and are a manifestation of this theory. “Designed in England” is an example of manufacturing invariably taking place in the Far East and Asia, whereas “Decorated in England” is a case of importing white wares for additional decoration in the UK. With the emerging tendency to import white ware from the Far East (although not exclusively from the Far East), “Decorated in England” is another phenomenon associated with the impact of the Far East. It was this approach to ceramic production that Dr. Hugh Padley found problematic when running Berkshire China of Fenton, since it was becoming difficult to compete with companies importing white-ware mugs for as little as 80p, or even 20p (see Chapter 3). “Decorated” is a manifestation of the newer, hybrid nature of UK ceramic brands. Physically these ceramics are hybrids and relate to other wider predictions regarding globalization (Tomlinson 1999: 141). However, while physically the product is a hybrid, the way it is presented to the consumer is that it is more “English” than “Far Eastern.” For example, a design range called “Wenlock Collection” of c. 2010, produced by William Edwards of Staffordshire, was marked as “Hand Decorated in ENGLAND.” The William Edwards’s firm is based at Middleport, Staffordshire (Figure 4.6). William Edwards collaborated with other designers using, for instance, love heart and Union Jack motifs by Jan Constantine, the British textile designer. The name “William Edwards England” was promoted for the first time at the 2007 Birmingham Spring

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on the Marketing of UK Ceramics

89

Figure 4.6 Price & Kensington, teapot, earthenware, c. 2010, declares “Designed in England” on detachable sticker. Just Mugs Limited, espresso cup and saucer, earthenware, c. 2008, backstamp declares “Exclusively Designed in England.” William Edwards, milk jug, “Wenlock” pattern, bone china, c. 2010. Backstamp declares hand decorated in England.

Fair (The Sentinel January 14, 2007). William Edwards, having studied at the Royal College of Art, went on to run a company called Ceramic Decals of Middleport, in 2010. The reality of Ceramic Decals was that their “. . . whiteware is manufactured elsewhere in the UK and abroad, but all the design takes place in Stoke-on-Trent and patterns are applied by hand” (The Sentinel June 28, 2010). William Edwards added, “A lot of people import finished products, but we have something that is designed and decorated here” (The Sentinel, June 28, 2010). The process of decorating “white-ware” acquired from the Far East adds to the complexity of the questions raised by this book. The interpretation of a globalization by Press and Cooper was that design development could continue in the UK and manufacturing would take place in the Far East (2003: 16–19). In the case of the ceramic industry, the impact of the Far East can result in a fusion of East and West, although it is not necessarily presented to the consumer in this way. The emphasis is still on the English side, rather than the Far Eastern side. Decorating Far Eastern products in Staffordshire potentially complicates the perception side of the debate. Furthermore, how such hybridization impacts on collectibles is considered in more depth in Chapter 8.

Ceramic Objects of Deception The extent to which Staffordshire brands have attempted to indicate Englishness could be increasingly deceptive. Ceramic wares purporting to be from the UK, or Staffordshire, in fact, were not. An example of this is “Rose of England China,” originally of Longbridge Hayes, Longport, but purchased by Just Mugs Ltd. of Shelton, after it was reported as being in receivership in 1998 (The Sentinel December 12, 1998 and February 5, 1999). The “Rose of England China” company

90

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 4.7  Rose of England China, set of three mugs, bone china, c. 2008. Packaging declares Made in England, but the backstamp on mugs states “Made in China.”

was listed in the Thomson Local Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme directory of 2006–07 (Hampson, Stoke-on-Trent City Archives P738.94246). Their set of three mugs, marketed as “Rose of England China,” clearly states on the packaging, “Made in England,” but the mugs have a backstamp that incorporates the phrase “Made in China” (Figure 4.7). In addition, a Late Shop, in the district of Smallthorne in the Potteries, sold mugs priced £1.99 and marked “Royal Oxfordshire Fine China.” But, Garry Oakes, secretary of the Ceramics and Allied Trades Union (CATU), claimed that the mugs were not made of bone china, and although the country of origin was not provided, he believed, nevertheless, that were manufactured in the Far East (The Sentinel June 1, 2001). In fact, Felixstowe Customs and Excise officers seized 175,000 mugs made in India because they bore a “made in England” backstamp in 2003. It was thought that the mugs were destined for the Potteries, where they would then be distributed nationwide. The result of the find, estimated to be worth £500,000, was a meeting between John Ashcroft, a Stoke-on-Trent trading standards manager, and the Department of Trade and Industry (The Sentinel January 17, 2003). In spite of the meeting and greater awareness of counterfeit ceramics, there was yet another case of 11,000 items of tableware imported from Sri Lanka, “misdescribed,” in order to appear as though they had been manufactured in England (The Sentinel June 5, 2008).

Denby and Compartmentalization UK manufacturers have adapted marketing when outsourcing. In some instances, it was a straightforward case of UK brands adopting, outsourcing, and adapting their marketing and backstamps, accordingly. Alternately, it could be, as illustrated by Portmeirion, that the same design ranges might be partially outsourced and still manufactured in Stoke, resulting in two separate backstamping approaches

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on the Marketing of UK Ceramics

91

(see Chapter 8). Further still, it could be compartmentalized to reflect different market segments. Denby of Derbyshire is an example of this, since in addition to the core stoneware tableware production, they market fine china tableware, a plain white porcelain kitchenware, and “oven-to-table” ware, which is all outsourced. Denby present something of a paradox. The outsourced products are marketed as either emphasizing the Denby brand name, removing references to place of production, or as Denby products “Designed in England.” This relates to the marketing approaches used by other manufacturers mentioned above. However, their Derbyshire-made products do emphasize place of origin (see Chapter 6, Figure 6.4). Because of the complexity of Denby’s marketing approaches, this company is referred to again in Chapter 7.

Summary Examining new configurations of UK ceramic marketing that stemmed from outsourcing informs the perception side of the debate. More precisely, the analysis of this chapter shows that there were broadly six distinct trends. One tendency was to focus on the Staffordshire brand name, avoiding references to place of origin on the backstamp, and to use only the detachable label or the packaging to indicate a Far Eastern, or Asian place of manufacture. This part of the investigation importantly highlighted a difference between Wedgwood’s approaches to Portuguese outsourcing, compared to Far Eastern outsourcing. Next, outsourcing examples exist where the Staffordshire brand name and “England” are provided within the indelible backstamp, but the detachable label and the packaging indicate a Far Eastern place of manufacture. The word “England” has in these circumstances come to signify the origin of the brand, rather than place of production. A third more unusual trend was for Staffordshire brands such as Churchill China to declare in the indelible backstamp that the product was “Made in China.” Outsourcing created completely new marketing strategies. A fourth trend has been a shift from stating “Made in England” to “Designed in England” to reinforce UK links, without any indication of place of manufacture on detachable labels or the packaging. A fifth approach was to declare “Decorated in England,” which is a reflection of using imported white ware. Finally, the sixth trend is a more deceitful approach, as demonstrated by the “Rose of England” brand of Staffordshire where packaging stated “Made in England,” but the actual backstamp contradicted this point. Marketing approaches can vary from the unequivocal to the ambiguous. The marketing of UK ceramic brands parallels globalization theories. The ceramic examples mentioned in this chapter relate to Lash and Urry’s prediction, in Economies of Signs and Space, that “marketers and advertisers” would “attach images to goods” (1994: 15). The result of this approach links to Anthony Smith’s chapter, “Towards a Global Culture?” when he argued: “Standardized, commercialized mass commodities will nevertheless draw for their contents upon revivals of traditional, folk, or national motifs and

92

Ceramics and Globalization

styles in fashions, furnishings, music, arts, lifted out of their original contexts and anaesthetized” (1990: 176). Examples have been shown in this chapter of ceramics that might use Union Jack motifs, but are not necessarily completely manufactured in the UK. However, what Smith’s observation does not do is theorize as to how the consumer might respond to the distortions created by globalization. Changes in the organization of the UK industry were not imperceptible when considering actual marketing, and overall they have implications on both consumers and manufacturers. When the actual origins of UK ceramic brands became decidedly unclear, theoretically, this made an impact on manufacturers who were still producing in the UK. How far did they adapt their marketing to reinforce in consumers’ opinion that there was a continuation of UK production? This aspect is examined in Chapter 6, since this also relates to the perception side explored by this book. Alternately, when detachable labels or the packaging indicated that the UK ceramic brand was outsourced, it raises the issue of how consumers responded to changes. This is explored in Chapter 7. Entirely consistent with marketing approaches, some UK ceramic brands moved toward the view that where the product was manufactured was increasingly irrelevant to the consumer. As sociologists predicted, the Western consumer lives in a global world, accessed via the web (Bauman 1993b: 77). Pragmatically, the central reasons why some manufacturers had not outsourced all of their ceramic production to the Far East was that it remained advantageous to be closer to the market, and quicker to originate products in the UK. For greater information of how straightforward it was to transfer a ceramic design developed in Staffordshire to a place of manufacture in the Far East or Asia, the activities of a ceramic designer are explored in the next chapter.

Chapter 5 Outsourcing and Its Impact on the Design Process

As determined in Chapter 1, the theoretical opinions of broader commentators on the subject of globalization have suggested how its impact would create a concentration on design, rather than manufacturing. Similarly, the Staffordshire press predicted the same kind of restructuring of the UK ceramic industry. Chapter 3 drew attention to this point of view. However, what is apparently lacking in both globalization studies and discussion of Staffordshire manufacturers’ adopting outsourcing is an actual logistical examination of how straightforward it was to develop ceramic design in Staffordshire and then transfer this concept to a manufacturing base, typically in East Asia. Evidence of any problems would support the aspect of this book in that one reason for maintaining, or returning, ceramic production to the UK, is because of manufacturing and design agility.

Hugh Saunders, Tableware Designer, Royal Doulton To explore the issue of how straightforward it was to translate a design from Staffordshire to a manufacturing facility in the Far East, an interview was carried out with a designer for Royal Doulton who had an intimate knowledge of changing work practices. The purpose of interviewing a ceramic designer was to understand if any problems arose from separating design from manufacturing, or made little difference to processes and procedures. An advertisement was placed in the Sentinel newspaper of Staffordshire specifically requesting help from a designer with experience of the impact of Far Eastern outsourcing, and Hugh Saunders responded. Hugh Saunders (see Figure 5.1) worked as a designer at Royal Doulton from 1970 until 1998. Saunders held positions of designer, art director, and, finally, head designer. Royal Doulton occupied a significant part of the UK ceramic industry. A Royal Doulton advertisement declared that it produced “40% of all English china and porcelain and 50% of the United Kingdom’s ceramic sculptures.” Exports accounted for 55 percent of their sales (Tableware International, September 1990, Volume 20, No. 8). Saunders was listed as a ceramic designer in Niblett’s survey of the British ceramic industry (1990: 141), although he continued to work for Royal Doulton until 1998 and then for the company on a freelance basis until 2000.

94

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 5.1  Photograph of Hugh Saunders at Royal Doulton, c. 1990. (Hugh Saunders’s archive. Courtesy of Hugh Saunders.)

Thus, Saunders’s experience spans designing where manufacturing was taking place (in Burslem), up to the period when Royal Doulton began to outsource production to the Far East and Pacific Rim. As shown in the previous chapter, Royal Doulton announced its decision to develop a manufacturing facility in Indonesia in 1995. Saunders estimated that in total he produced 73 surface pattern designs for Royal Doulton and Minton. Minton of Stoke became part of Royal Doulton in 1968 (Niblett 1990: 70), although the hollowware division at the Minton factory at Stoke was closed in 1990 (The Sentinel January 16 and 17, 1990). Figure 5.2 illustrates examples of ceramic designs that Saunders produced from the 1970s to 2000. Examples of his work include a stoneware range called “Fieldflower” of 1976, a bone china pattern called “Regalia” of 1987, and a bone china pattern called “Rossetti” designed in c. 2001. The “Rossetti” pattern was a freelance design that Saunders developed for Doulton, but it was still manufactured in England. Hugh Saunders also designed a Doulton tableware range called “Juno” of 1988, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Figure 2.2. Most of Saunders’s output was tableware, with no designs for figurines. He indicated that a design of particular significance was “Carnation” for the American bridal market of the mid-1980s. When this was introduced, it was not as “traditional” as previous bridal designs, although it was still influenced by the art nouveau style. Also of importance to Saunders was a design pattern called “Orchard Hill” of 1994 (Plate 4), as this was

Outsourcing and Its Impact on the Design Process

95

Figure 5.2  From l. to r. Royal Doulton, cup and saucer, “Fieldflower” pattern, stoneware, from 1976. Royal Doulton, cup and saucer, “Regalia” pattern, bone china, from 1987. Royal Doulton, cup and saucer, “Rossetti” pattern, bone china, from 2001.

awarded “best new tableware pattern in 1996” by the “Guild of Specialist China and Glass Retailers.” Other surface patterns designed by Saunders in the 1990s included “Sandon,” “Arlington,” “Hardwick,” “Ashley,” and “Andover,” in the formal tableware category, while for the fine china category patterns included “Autumn Glory,” “Minerva,” and “Florette.” For the giftware category, “Saunders” designed pattern ranges called “Camilla” and “Festival” in 1990. Export markets were important to Royal Doulton, and consequently Saunders worked around the tastes of different markets. For example, two bridal ranges by Saunders called “Sutton” and “Curnock” of c. 1991 were designed expressly for the Japanese market. Saunders described the designs as attempting to be quintessentially English, although added “they obviously wanted it to look English, but their particular idea of what Englishness was.” For the Japanese market, the characteristics of English design were small, detailed flowers, in a manner of motifs found on Victorian ceramics. In the next chapter, the evidence of Norman Tempest of Royal Stafford returns to the importance of maintaining design agility due to a continued lack of global ceramic homogeneity in terms of taste. On another level, a sense of “Englishness” was reinforced by marketing Saunders’s designs through Minton, rather than the Royal Doulton brand. The view was that in the Far East there was more of an “up market” perception of the Minton brand. The American market was also significant, with some wares, such as the creamier bone china of “The Romance Collection” of the early 1980s, being designed to be reminiscent of Lenox China’s off-white china.

Design Development Prior to Far Eastern Outsourcing Saunders was able to explain the typical stages of the design and development process in the 1990s, before the advent of outsourcing to the Far East. If a new range was destined for the US market, it would be heavily market researched, before it was introduced. In order to facilitate the development process, Saunders explained how Doulton’s design studio had the potential to rapidly produce a prototype: “So our studio, unlike most studios in the area, we could produce a finished prototype of a 10” plate. We had our own small silk-screen unit, hand

96

Ceramics and Globalization

paintresses, photographers. So we produced—hand produced a 10” plate that would look like a production piece.” Based on marketing information the design team was aware of what was selling well in terms of bridal, matron, causal, or formal markets. Storyboards might be acquired from “American style gurus” to establish trends in interiors, décor, and colors. Typically, the design team would work on three or four product ends (bridal or casual) for about six months. The team would produce 25 patterns for each segment, and there would be between 8 and 10 people working on these. These designs would be reviewed. Saunders estimated that probably a couple of hundred designs were produced, resulting in just 25 designs. These designs would be sent off to the United States for further market research, and this would take as long as three months. Overall, it was estimated that from a “couple of hundred designs,” only two would be produced and the whole process from design to manufacture could take 18 months. In the final stages, the designs would go to Johnson Matthey, their printers based in Burslem, for proofing, before they went into final production. It was recognized by Saunders that this was a long process, but this reflected the extensive market research that Royal Doulton undertook in the United States.

Outsourcing by Royal Doulton Saunders’s recollection of the development of outsourcing at Royal Doulton was that initially there were “half a dozen patterns” sent to Thailand, thought to be for the US market tableware, and manufactured in bone china. This was followed by Doulton’s relationship with Indonesia, although Saunders recalled that there was a rumor of manufacturing in Sri Lanka, prior to using both Thailand and Indonesia. A reason why Royal Doulton fixed on Indonesia is suggested below, but importantly, Saunders’s recollection of the development of outsourcing was more complex than what can be determined from the Staffordshire press, or Tableware International. When asked about the drive to outsource production by Royal Doulton and whether this was openly discussed with the design team, Saunders replied: “Yes, because they were told we couldn’t compete with the US casual market on price. Basically, that was the bit we were told.” This is consistent with import figures. As shown in Chapter 2, the import value of porcelain tableware from the Far East and Asia overtook the European value for the first time in 2001. However, the United States was by far the largest importer of china and pottery tableware from Japan, Thailand, and Hong Kong in 1993 and 1994 (Tableware International, August 1996, Vol. 26, No. 7: 66–67). Therefore, Royal Doulton’s drive to outsource to the Far East was perhaps a reflection of the competition that it faced in the United States. There were reports of companies such as Liling Guoguang, based in Hunan setting up an office in New York, in addition to their Los Angeles outlet called China Impex, already established in 1989, in order to sell more porcelain tableware (Tableware International, March

Outsourcing and Its Impact on the Design Process

97

1990, Vol. 20, No. 2). Likewise, Royal Doulton had 58 retail stores in the United States by 1996 (Tableware International, October 1996, Vol. 29, No. 9). When Patrick Wenger became the new chief executive of Royal Doulton in 1997, his view was that the ability of the Indonesian factory to cater for an under $100 tableware segment of the market had enabled them to regain distribution in the United States and Canada (Tableware International, September 1997, Vol. 27, No. 8). Therefore, the other way to consider the rise of outsourcing is that it was responding to the impact the Far East was having on Staffordshire’s North American markets. It was estimated in an article by James Calderwood, entitled “Trade with China,” that 27 percent of all the dinnerware sold in the United States in 1999 was produced in China (Ceramic Industry, January 2000: 12). In a further comment by Saunders it was revealed how wholesale and retail companies in the United States were using, and commissioning from, manufacturers in the Far East and how retailers were driving prices down. This forced Doulton to be more competitive as: . . . we would be looking at other manufacturers’ stuff, most of which was made in the Far East at the casual end of the market anyway. Big companies such as Mikasa and again, particularly then, at that end of the market, big US department stores or chains were very influential in that end of the market, because they would often commission stuff directly themselves from manufacturers in the Far East, and so on. You were all aware of this—what was happening in that part of the market.

Mikasa, a wholesale and retail company in the United States, supplied the casual tableware market and typically table and tea wares in patterns such as “English Countryside,” which were manufactured in Malaysia. Another issue that had not been considered in the outline of the rise of Far Eastern outsourcing in Chapter 3 was the importance of infrastructure. The ceramic industry is reliant on other skills and companies. Royal Doulton often used a chemical company called Johnson Matthey, who had a decal division at Burslem. Matthey would print the designs to be applied to ceramics. Saunders pointed out: One of the reasons that Doulton was going to Indonesia at that stage was because Johnson Matthey the printers were also proposing to do that, and were setting up there. And I know—I didn’t do it—but one of the designers did a design idea that was sent to the Matthey set-up in Indonesia to produce, and see how it was . . . what quality. And I know things were so at the time, it was when computers started coming over here, but over there it will be completely hand-drawn. And I remember seeing the prototypes seemed fine from that.

Johnson Matthey employed 540 people in Stoke-on-Trent. However, the Burslem factory was closed at the end of 1999, with remaining jobs transferred to Meir (The Sentinel December 2, 1999). Day et al.’s interpretation of this situation was that

98

Ceramics and Globalization

Johnson Matthey “followed” the trend set by Royal Doulton when they built their Indonesian factory (2000: 11).

Quality Issues As referred to in Chapter 3, Royal Doulton had dining ware manufactured in Thailand and announced the establishment of a factory in Indonesia in 1995. Apart from responding to the activities of Johnson Matthey, it was a quality issue that drove Doulton to establish their own Indonesian factory. When asked why certain approaches or places were selected, Saunders stated: The thing that we were told—they used to have these senior management council meetings at head office—the managing director and me got up and spoke, and the board at that stage said that they had looked at outsourcing in Asia, but couldn’t find anywhere to produce the quality of what they wanted. And this was why they were going to set up in Indonesia. That’s what we were told.

Saunders was referring to their factory at Jakarta. In taking this approach, instead of using Thailand, the design studio in Burslem did not need to acquire any new skills: “No, I think basically because Doultons was setting up their own factory in Indonesia, so the intention was to make it in Indonesia as they made it in England, I think. So, I think that was the . . . they were going to set up the factory to do it the way we did it.” The development of actual factories was not unique to Royal Doulton. A similar manufacturing-model was proposed by The Tams Group Ltd., after this Staffordshire firm was acquired by John Lovatt in 2006: “The strength of Tams will be that the factory in Egypt will be a daughter factory. Whereas, other people have to buy mugs from China or the Far East and then worry about the quality and have to put it right, if you have a factory that belongs to you then you can call the tune” (The Sentinel October 25, 2006). The same types of wares were produced in Jakarta as in Burslem. It did not involve a switch in the manufacturing of body types, as has sometimes been the case when outsourcing ceramic production to the Far East (see Chapter 3). Doultons made “bone china” and what was called “fine china”—a product that few other companies manufactured. It was translucent, but without the addition of bone, and was oven-to-table proof. “Fine china” was cheaper to manufacture. Therefore, an advantage of Royal Doulton starting their own factory in Jakarta was that it would enable Doultons to manufacture their own existing bodies and obtain the quality of work that they required. Later on in the interview Saunders recalled how Doulton’s Indonesian factory-made “fine china” and then “bone china.” Royal Albert’s “Old Country Roses” range was manufactured in bone china and produced in Indonesia. While the issue of quality was influential on the behavior of Doulton in the 1990s, when interviewing Royal Stafford (Chapter 6) and Caverswall China

Outsourcing and Its Impact on the Design Process

99

(Chapter 8), the debate had significantly moved away from whether the standard of Far Eastern ceramics was inferior.

The Centralization of Design—Theory and Practice From a design perspective, Saunders felt that the initial stages of outsourcing made little difference to the design studio’s activities. For instance, outsourcing did not place any limitations on the range of colors that could be used. Importantly, in the early stages of outsourcing Saunders had no reservations, since he stated: . . . we weren’t really aware of the downsides, or whatever, of it really. We were just told to get on with it. And got on with it. In fact, really, where it was produced, we weren’t really brought into that—just told about this. We were designing as we would have anyway for the US market or whatever the market. Where it was made would then be an issue with someone else, and not ours.

This attitude parallels Lash and Urry’s Economies of Signs and Space, whereby within the context of globalization the labor process becomes less important, but the “design-process” is progressively more central (1994: 15). As mentioned in Chapter 1, Press and Cooper in The Design Experience: The Role of Design and Designers in the Twenty-First Century refer to Lash and Urry’s theories and apply these more directly to design (2003: 16–77). Press and Cooper argued that as we have moved away from mass production and toward more diverse forms of consumption, design becomes far more essential (2003: 16–19). They expand on the idea by suggesting that a new role for designers will be “as cultural intermediaries, understanding users and creating meaningful forms of consumption for them” (2003: 22). In this context, Press and Cooper argue that the designer becomes the “enabler of experiences,” and therefore “it is this idea of experience that should be the starting point and focus of design” (2003: 69). Press and Cooper expand on this idea arguing that the role of the designer will inevitably change, as less of the meaning is derived from where the physical object is produced (2003: 69). They argued that, “the concept of experience is essential as a unifying issue between the culture and economy of design, as a means of understanding design today . . .” (2003: 70). However, these theories need to be examined from both manufacturers’ and designers’ perspectives. From a marketing point of view, there has been plenty of evidence of UK or Staffordshire ceramic brands being increasingly promoted on the basis of “Designed in England.” As determined by previous chapters, there has been a departure from the previous, frequently used “Made in England” approach, as outsourcing was introduced. Nevertheless, there were two interesting issues that arose from the evidence of Hugh Saunders which question whether Press and Cooper’s (or Lash and Urry’s) observations will always occur in practice. First, the role of designer was not particularly elevated, as the focus of the “experience” was still on catering for Royal Doulton’s most important market, which was the United

100

Ceramics and Globalization

States. In this sense, Saunders’s role was to continue to produce designs that would appeal to the most lucrative market. There was no real “new” role for Saunders working as a designer as outsourcing was introduced. More importantly, the second issue that arose from interviewing Saunders was how outsourcing impacted on the processes of developing design. Prior to outsourcing, the evidence is that Saunders had a thorough knowledge of the market and knew whether the design had been well received. However, once outsourcing was occurring, the design process was presented in more fragmented terms. For example, on one occasion, a tableware pattern designed by Saunders was outsourced to Thailand, and there was vagueness as to what had happened to the design. Although Saunders had a photograph of the design from his archive, he did not know the actual pattern name. When questioned, he replied: That I don’t know. No, I don’t think. . . . I have got a picture of one of my prototypes, but I don’t think the brochures, or anything ever came back to the UK, so I don’t think we were aware, and it was never sold in the UK, and so I was never aware of what it was called in the end.

Apparently, then, there was a lack of awareness of whether it had been a commercially successful design. Figure 5.3 is a picture of the design that was outsourced to Thailand from Saunders’s archive. Consequently, there is an implicit irony based on the evidence of Saunders. Inevitably, with shifts in manufacturing abroad (as Lash and Urry predicted), the design side becomes more of a central activity. Based on this change, Lash and Urry add that the nature of research and development for clothes, shoes, furniture, etc., had increasingly become more aesthetic in nature (1994: 15). However, based

Figure 5.3 Designed by Hugh Saunders while at Royal Doulton, and outsourced to Thailand, c. 1995–97. No final pattern name known by Saunders. (Hugh Saunders’s archive. Courtesy of Hugh Saunders.)

Outsourcing and Its Impact on the Design Process

101

on the evidence of Saunders it does not necessarily create the most efficient way of developing design in the ceramic industry. Saunders referred to instances of where there were interpretation issues, since he recalled how in the early stages of outsourcing to Thailand, designs were physically taken there by a Royal Doulton employee, but not by anyone in the design team. Consequently: “I had the odd phone call from someone in Thailand as to how did this thing . . . bit of the pattern fit round there, or where should have it gone etc, etc.” None of the design teams ever visited the actual factories where Doulton began outsourcing, and in Saunder’s own words: No we didn’t . . . as I say, slightly unfortunate, as I say, because you used to get these phone calls from somebody in Thailand, from another part of the company and you would think, why didn’t they send us. Goodness . . . [we could have] done it all without any problems, but I don’t know why, but we didn’t get sent.

Clearly, outsourcing created some problems for Saunders: “Just a few problems as to the interpretation of our stuff . . . put on the ware, and so on. Obviously at the factory at that end they had got the print and didn’t quite necessarily know where to put on.” He added: “It was just decorating. The print at the factory as to where it went on the teapot, or . . . did you go right up to the edge or did you leave a gap, or whatever.” While these issues were apparently resolved over the phone, the evidence given by Saunders was how outsourcing created a gap in communication between the designer, who knew what was desired, and the manufacturer who did not. It was surprising that Saunders was left unaware of whether his outsourced pattern to Thailand had been successful in the market place, since information of this kind would be vital for future design development. Apparently, the design team never saw the completed product; it went straight to market. Previous research into the impact of outsourcing on the ceramic industry by Carroll et al. has drawn attention to issues of changes in production: that is, appropriate training of the new manufacturer and quality issues (2001: 5–6), but their research has not taken into consideration how the intricate process of design would be affected by outsourcing. Saunders’s evidence highlights problems between the theory and practice.

Selective Outsourcing While Saunders was working at Royal Doulton, it was the casual end of production that was outsourced to the Far East. This opinion confirms what Wayne Nutbeen, the then chief executive of Royal Doulton, stipulated in the press: “He said the Potteries’ factories would concentrate on ‘high margin’ bone china wares, which brand-conscious consumers expected to be made in England. By contrast, production in Bangladesh will be cheaper, price dependent wares which were not ‘brand sensitive’” (The Sentinel September 11, 2000).

102

Ceramics and Globalization

Nutbeen was chief executive of Royal Doulton, Australia, before coming to North Staffordshire in 1998. He left the company in 2008 (The Sentinel April 29, 2008). As far as Saunders was concerned, Royal Doulton (while he was at the company) did not outsource the formal, top-end bone china. The reason for this was: I think partly, I think at that stage, they still thought that end—top-end should be made in England. I think that was part of . . . . Obviously it did change and things happened. Certainly, I think at those early stages we were told it was going to be the causal end, cheaper end, not the expensive formal end.

Initially, outsourcing was done in a manner that appears to recognize the value of “made in England” to certain consumers. In the new environment of outsourcing, Saunders did not feel that it made a difference to lead times. Lengthy market research was still part of the design process.

New Technology Although Saunders pointed out that there were cases of interpretation issues when a design was dispatched to the manufacturer in Thailand, the interview also importantly revealed how technology was beginning to speed up the transferring of designs from one place to another, and how this encouraged a dialogue between the designers and the manufacturers. Saunders outlines how: What had started to happen sort of prior to that, or parallel to that was the incoming of the computer into the studio. Not so much as an original design tool, but as a drawing up, and preparing product for the printer’s stage, where you had to fit up all the other items, and so on. It came that you could then—you didn’t have to send the physical drawing to the printer, you could do that on the computer and could be sent directly to the printer, and so on.

In theory, the decal printer could be anywhere in the world. However, Saunders pointed out that this development was not caused by the impact of outsourcing to the Far East. It was “. . . a parallel thing that was going on anyway. It wasn’t as a result, or for, to do that—it was happening anyway, but it would have helped make it more flexible to be able to do, to move stuff round the world more quickly.” Doulton set up a temporary design studio in New York to help with market research and design development. Saunders added: And so what we had was designers go out for 3 or 6 months periods to New York, and stay actually in New York, and work in the showrooms in New York to be close to the markets. And at that early stage, again, was set up this sort of computer conferencing bit with the US. But, it was the very early stages . . .

Outsourcing and Its Impact on the Design Process

103

things were just beginning to develop. And so that was a thing of trying to speed up and get the . . . closer to the market, and responding more quickly to the market. But, I don’t think it made getting product to market any more quickly, but it was just trying to keep the design process up-to-date with the market.

Problems initially encountered by separating design in Burslem and manufacturing in the Far East or Pacific Rim were not necessarily problems that would remain. Hugh Saunders’s reference to computers coincides with Marshall McLuhan’s view of a “global village” created by electronics ([1962] 1988: 31) and the view that a global culture is “underpinned by new information and telecommunications systems and their computerized technologies” (Smith 1991: 155).

Summary Using a case study of a ceramic designer has shown in more detail the gradual introduction of outsourcing. The interview provided more insight into what occurred at Royal Doulton, and Saunders provided a better sense of working practices. Designing in Staffordshire, while at a distance from the place of manufacture, was not without its problems. However, the evidence given by this designer indicates how gradually new technology provided the means by which there could be greater interaction with the new places of production. Instead of physically taking designs to the outsourced place of production, designs could be sent electronically. It has been established that Churchill China of Tunstall began outsourcing (although some overseas production returned to Staffordshire in 2009), as discussed in Chapter 4. After Churchill opened the Chinese office in 2004, the next development was to have daily video conferencing between Shanghai and Tunstall to help with the administration (Hampson 2010: 154). There is not enough evidence to indicate that designing in Staffordshire and then outsourcing these designs to be manufactured in East Asia have been a long-term, insurmountable problem, given the rise of electronic means of communication. While it should be of a major concern (from a future of UK trade and industries point of view) that this designer became less aware of the market success of an outsourced design, this factor alone does not account for why some manufacturers have continued or opted to return production to the UP. At this point it is necessary to return to other Staffordshire manufacturers who produce in Stoke-on-Trent. There are manufacturers who tend to accentuate through their marketing that production has remained in the UK or Staffordshire, and this might be evidence of a cultural, consumer perception issue, rather than design agility.

104

Chapter 6 Accentuating Place of Origin

In line with sociologists’ suggestions, the alternate ramifications of globalization may be that “something distinctively local remains, or may even be being fostered” (Back 1998: 64). If there is any evidence to support this theory, how has this been reflected in the marketing of British ceramic brands still manufactured in the UK? Theoretically, marketing has to be developed to appeal to consumers who value a “place of origin,” and the motivation for continued UK production is influenced by consumer demand. Certainly, some economists have related the issue of regional resilience of the UK ceramic industry to the role of consumer perception, (drawn attention to in Chapter 1). The purpose of this chapter is to examine the marketing approaches developed by UK and Staffordshire ceramic companies that have chiefly avoided outsourcing. By 2003 it was speculated that if any ceramic production continued in the UK it would, at least, have to be made blatantly clear to the consumer. Geoff Bagnall, general secretary of the Ceramic and Allied Trades Union (CATU), accepted that the cost of manufacturing cheap earthenware was dramatically cut by outsourcing, and also believed that place of origin was less critical for functional wares, but he admitted that “. . . we do argue constantly for them [manufacturers] to continue to make it in this country, and place greater emphasis on it being Stoke-on-Trent manufactured, so it means something” (The Sentinel August 4, 2003). An Ecotec Research and Consulting Ltd. report, concerning the Staffordshire ceramic industry, suggested the need for greater marketing of “Made in Stoke” as early as the 1990s (1999: 67–68). However, as Chapter 4 showed, the Staffordshire or UK ceramic brands that were outsourced to the Far East had developed new forms of marketing that implied links to England or a continuation of “English” origins. Thus, a fundamental problem for Staffordshire companies that were genuinely both designing and manufacturing their products in Stoke-on-Trent was to convey this distinction clearly to the consumer. Exactly how, and to what extent, did these ceramic manufacturers adapt their marketing and backstamps?

Handmade Hartley Greens & Co.—known as the Leeds Pottery, since it originated in Leeds, but moved to Longton in 1989—is renowned for producing intricately pierced

106

Ceramics and Globalization

earthenware in the manner of eighteenth-century creamware designs. In 2004, the company employed 12 people (The Sentinel November 24, 2004). It was considered that more than 50 percent of their output was for the US market, selling to prestigious firms such as Tiffany & Co. In addition, museums across Britain, notably the V&A, were listed as their main markets (The Sentinel October 21, 2005). Production Director Cynthia Whitehurst stated: “The Victorian lacy look often features on the catwalks, which fits well with our creamware. Everyone can buy off-the-shelf Ikea sets, but we offer handmade products, something very different” (The Sentinel April 10, 2006). However, Hartley Greens & Co. went into temporary liquidation in July 2009 and was taken over by Jeff Hand. His opinion was that, “We need to advertise as much as possible that we make everything in Stoke-on-Trent.” It was recorded in 2009 that turnover had been between £200,000 and £250,000, and it was aiming for £500,000 to £1 million. By this period, a single teacup retailed for £14, and what was described as a large “chestnut” bowl cost £250.00. As far as the new owner was concerned, “The single most common question in our factory is: Is it made in Stoke-on-Trent?” (The Sentinel October 26, 2009). Following on from this view, Hartley Greens & Co. marketed their goods as “Hand Made In England” (Chapter 8, Figure 8.5). In a similar manner, the Moorland Pottery of the Chelsea Works, Moorland Road, Burslem, marketed “Stokieware” mugs from 2007, with others catering for different regions of the UK and emphasizing how and where the product was manufactured (The Sentinel January 1, 2007). Jonathan Plant, a ceramic design graduate, and Adrian Tinsley, a former relief modeler at Wedgwood, established the Moorland Pottery in c. 1987 (The Sentinel March 16, 2009). Their marketing approach certainly attracted attention to the extent that it was reported: “Mr. Plant said the Stokieware range, which is stamped ‘Made in Stoke, for Stokies,’ earn the company more than £50,000 a year. It has also seen repeat orders for its Geordieware range from retailers in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and is confident of big sales from Brummieware, Scouseware and Mancware” (The Sentinel May 19, 2008). Their “Born and Bred” range included “Stokie ware,” “Scots ware,” and “Geordie ware” and so on. While Moorland Pottery and Hartley Greens & Co. are examples of companies that continued to use the phrase “handmade” on their backstamps, these firms do not wholly support the theory that perception has influenced continued production of ceramics in Staffordshire. When Stoke-on-Trent held a Ceramics Festival in October 2007, Jonathan Plant of Moorland Pottery was described as a “studio potter,” implying that the production was small scale (The Sentinel September 21, 2007). In addition, Jonathan Plant believed: “. . . The reality is that after more than two decades in which consumers have increasingly voted with their cash in favour of cheaper products to stay 100 percent British remains a romantic, flawed, ideal.” Jonathan Plant added: “If people do care it is only in a half-hearted way. . . . We are committed to manufacturing in Stoke-on-Trent, but the reality is that people are more bothered about quality and what they’re buying than where it is made” (The Sentinel February 8, 2010).

Accentuating Place of Origin

107

Although the Moorland Pottery made a profit from their “Stokieware” range, the fragile nature of these remaining Staffordshire companies is suggested by the fact that Denby of Derbyshire, in addition to acquiring Burgess, Dorling and Leigh of Longport, in 2010 (The Sentinel February 20, 2012), acquired Hartley Greens & Co., in 2011. Only by examining the marketing of more substantial manufacturers, still producing in Staffordshire, will it be possible to support the theory that the perception issue has any influence on continued UK manufacturing.

Emma Bridgewater Emma Bridgewater Ltd. is a substantial Staffordshire firm located in Hanley. The firm was established in 1985, and the company now occupies factory buildings acquired from Wedgwood in 1996 (The Sentinel July 31, 2010). Johnson Brothers occupied the network of factories (originally built by J. & G. Meakin), but this firm had become part of the Wedgwood group by 1968 (Niblett 1990: 82). As established in Chapter 3, the number employed by Emma Bridgewater, rather than steadily declining, had actually increased. When Matthew Rice (husband and codirector of Emma Bridgewater) was interviewed, it was established that their overall turnover was £10 million, and between 80 percent and 90 percent of sales were in the UK market. Sales of a quarter of a million were transacted with the United States, and the rest to Holland. Clearly, exports were not a major part of their business. This is an important point, since the role of UK ceramic exports has been viewed by Padley and Pugh as the “industry’s salvation” (Jackson et al. 2000: 19). Matthew and Emma supplied the majority of designs used by the company, and at the time of the interview, an additional four designers helped developed concepts. Although they have rarely bought in designs from outside, one example was the “Hellebore” pattern by Mary Fedden, in the mid-1990s, which was considered to be a strong seller (Plate 5). However, unlike other sizable Staffordshire firms, they have avoided celebrity collaborations. Typical Bridgewater wares might be hand-painted, sponged, or stenciled and reminiscent of wares manufactured in the UK in the nineteenth century, often associated with export markets (Robacker 1978). Rice recalled how Emma Bridgewater and her former boyfriend were interested in sponged ware and that there was nothing like this available from UK manufacturers in the 1980s. The feeling that there was an appetite for informality in dining resulted in the establishment of the company. Corresponding to this view, Bridgewater offers a diverse range of surface patterns, often using traditional techniques of decoration on just a limited range of body shapes. Their products embrace the informality of modern dining, with vessel forms suited to cosmopolitan cuisine. Traditionally, the high end of the ceramic market has been associated with bone china. For instance, Wedgwood described itself as a niche player in the bone china market, defined as “luxury casual” (Jackson et al. 2000: 18). However, Matthew Rice described their earthenware products as “aspirational,” and typically, mugs were then priced at £16, John Lewis being their largest single UK retailer in 2009.

108

Ceramics and Globalization

A semiotic approach to the analysis would imply that the randomly placed sponged motifs or painted designs signify hand skills which reinforce the notion of more traditional manufacturing continuing in Staffordshire. The “Union Jack” motif has been used by Bridgewater ceramics, but other companies have decorated white ware from the Far East, but have still used the Union Jack as a surface pattern. The symbol is not a guarantee of place of manufacture. However, a further analysis of Bridgewater backstamps shows the use of the phrase “Hand Made in Stoke-on-Trent, England,” reinforcing the link to the region (Plate 5). In addition, the enameled initials of the decorators link into another “heritage” aspect of the English ceramic industry. Typically, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ceramics would be impressed with a series of symbols of workers or initials of decorators. Nevertheless, in the case of the UK or Staffordshire industry, it is a practice that has continued into the twentieth century (Youds 1996: 78) and carries on to the present day in other companies, such as Royal Crown Derby. The phrase “Hand Made in Stoke-on-Trent, England” was introduced in 2010, when previously only “Hand Made in England” was used (The Sentinel December 21, 2009). A combination of the surface decoration, the wording of the backstamp, the decorators’ marks, and even the application of inspection labels, all amplify how their ceramic products are thoroughly crafted in Stoke-on-Trent. The fact that Bridgewater remains a bastion of Stoke-on-Trent production is mirrored by other writers’ discussions regarding the company. For instance, from October to December 2009, Stoke-on-Trent held the British Ceramics Biennial. When Dominic Lutyens interviewed Barney Hare Duke, codirector of the Biennial, he declared in the article entitled “China Crisis”: “Stoke has not been able to compete effectively in the international marketplace on price. . . . The response to that in Stoke is to compete on quality. A good example is the pottery Emma Bridgewater, as everything it makes is manufactured here. Among some Stoke potteries there is a backlash against manufacturing abroad” (Financial Times September 26, 2009). It has been asserted by a China and Earthenware Key Note report that “Emma Bridgewater, which prides itself on manufacturing solely in the UK, has flourished” (2010: Executive Summary: 1). As established in Chapter 1, evidence of a developing view inferring that Bridgewater has gained from maintaining production in Staffordshire was made by Hervas-Oliver et al.’s investigation into regional resilience (2011: 377–95). They point out: “In the more general table and giftware markets, both Emma Bridgewater and Portmeirion—relatively late entrants in the industry—have also retained their production solely with in the district but have generally succeeded through competitive designs, marketing, which (interestingly) strongly associate the product with the district” (HervasOliver et al. 2011: 383). In actual fact, Portmeirion does outsource (see Chapters 3 and 8), although Bridgewater is reliant on just Staffordshire production. In other words, there has been a view that opposing the outsourcing trend and continuing production in Staffordshire can enhance the appeal of the product. This was also acknowledged when Emma Bridgewater was featured in the Crafts magazine (Qureshi 2010: 14).

Accentuating Place of Origin

109

Perception Having suggested these interpretations of Emma Bridgewater’s products, the role of consumer would support why manufacturing has continued in Staffordshire. But, the situation is more complex and more fascinating. Importantly, when interviewed in 2009, Rice provided a different set of prerogatives regarding the degree to which Bridgewater’s place of production was driven by consumer perception. His ambivalence regarding the importance of where their ceramics were manufactured was surprising, and when asked to what degree was the “success” of Emma Bridgewater related to where the product was made, the reply was: I think it is a huge bonus. I don’t think it is what drives it: indeed it is very difficult to actually explain to people that we produce it here, and how handmade it is, in spite of videos, catalogues and books and everything else in the world. It is not the principal thing. . . . Do I think it is, important part of the brand? Yes, very, and I think it is important “yes” because it is important to produce jobs. I don’t believe that we would sell any less if it was not produced here, sadly. I wish I could say I did, but I don’t.

It was anticipated that this interview would confirm that Emma Bridgewater’s approach to ceramic marketing was to help entice consumers to these products. However, this was an important discovery since it contradicts the notion of continued UK ceramic production ostensibly linked to perception, as derived from an interpretation of simply their marketing strategy (Hervas-Oliver et al. 2011: 383). The assumption might be from analyzing the Emma Bridgewater products, is that the hand-painted qualities and wording of backstamps reinforce notions of a local tradition and craft. The “Made in England” backstamp was used “all the time,” but interestingly the opinion of Rice was that at the time this was not the main reason why people buy into the brand. Nevertheless, it is noticeable how consistently other people’s perception of the brand has drawn attention to regional and craft aspects of the product. For instance, an article by Vicki Woods entitled “There are still good people making pots in the Potteries” appeared in The Daily Telegraph in 2009. The writer pointed out: Pots are still made in the Potteries, just. Hotelware manufacturers I’ve never heard of—Churchill, Steelite, Dudson. About the only “premium brands” left are Moorcroft and Emma Bridgewater, which I love because when I turn my cream jug upside down, it says Made in England, decorated by hand and “MH”—the initials of the woman who did the decorating (The Daily Telegraph January 10, 2009).

When Rice was asked about the importance of how the ceramic product was made, the answer was:

110

Ceramics and Globalization

I believe the product is intrinsically nicer because it is hand decorated. There is a liveliness—a quirkiness to it which there wouldn’t be if it wasn’t done like that. So, I do believe that this has an effect. Publicly, again, anyone who has walked round this factory who has bought Bridgewater for years is always completely astonished when they actually see that each spot is put on individually. I don’t think people ever believe that.

Based on this comment, the wider public does not always appreciate what is handcrafted. His evidence does not correspond to how consumer perception influenced their decision to still manufacture in the UK. The opposition to outsourcing to the Far East was because of Emma Bridgewater’s desire to create jobs in Staffordshire. Rice confirmed: I suppose that our interest in Making in Staffordshire as opposed to outsourcing some or part of our production IS in some way a moral choice in that among other reasons (speed, ability to change decoration in quick reaction to changing commercial conditions). Emma and I both feel very strongly that manufacturing jobs are a GOOD thing and that we would rather live in a country with productive jobs than unemployment benefits . . .

The maintaining of design agility, given as an influential factor, not as a perception issue, presented Rice’s views as something of a paradox. Therefore, this aspect of the research confirmed that it is vital to crosscheck the evidence of manufacturers with interpretations derived from simply an analysis of the ceramic objects and what the marketing might imply. Unexpectedly, the business structure of UK ceramic firms, rather than a concern for consumer perception, influences the behavior of manufacturers. As the interview with Matthew Rice pointed out, Emma Bridgewater is a private company, and this presented them with a degree of choice: But I do genuinely believe that one of the advantages of a having a small private company that you own yourself is that you can take a decision to make a lot less money. But it is that—a decision to manufacture here is a decision to make half as much money here. That’s why it is easier for private companies such as Dudsons, Churchill or Steelite or us, to make that decision, and that is why it is hard for big public companies like Wedgwood, Doulton and Spode to make them, because if you have got shareholders . . .

In the case of Bridgewater, a demand from consumers for ceramics manufactured in the UK was not the central motivation for maintaining production in the country. Matthew Rice’s The Lost City of Stoke-on-Trent of 2010 is further evidence of an appreciation of the region’s heritage. Although there is evidence of manufacturers adopting marketing strategies that drew attention to “place of production,” there was uncertainty from a manufacturing perspective as to its relevance and effectiveness. When Dr. Hugh

Accentuating Place of Origin

111

Padley was managing director of a firm called Staffordshire Fine Bone China in 2002, the firm deliberately used the phrase “Made in England” on the backstamp. In fact, Padley stated that he made the product, “as English as I possibly could,” by including a Union Jack within the backstamp. When Padley was previously involved in Berkshire China, they used a “Made in England” backstamp and decked a display stand with Union Jacks. However, Padley was “not sure how effective it was” (see Chapter 2, Figure 2.6).

Royal Stafford Royal Stafford is based at Burslem and is run from a Victorian factory building known as the Overhouse Pottery. Royal Stafford was established in 1992, when Royal Stafford China and Barratts of Staffordshire merged (The Sentinel March 1, 2002). Royal Stafford became part of Lifestyle Product Group in 2007. In 2010, Royal Stafford and Poole Pottery of Dorset were part of the Rickmansworth-based Lifestyle Products. Since the interview was conducted, Denby Pottery of Derbyshire acquired Poole Pottery in June 2011 (The Sunday Times June 19, 2011). Typical of many other Staffordshire companies, Royal Stafford reduced its workforce of 193 by more than a quarter in 2002, due to the pressure of competition. At that time, Managing Director Norman Tempest, announced in the Staffordshire press: “We are unable to compete on price against overseas manufacturers from countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, and therefore we lose out on the volume orders” (The Sentinel February 1, 2002). However, an intriguing headline in The Sentinel in 2008 announced that Royal Stafford reported that profits were expected to rise because the “Pottery succeeds by staying local.” Unlike other Staffordshire firms that were outsourcing abroad, Royal Stafford was doing the reverse (The Sentinel March 23, 2008). Although then part of the same group, their markets were diverse: 90 percent of Poole’s wares were sold in the United Kingdom, whereas 80 percent of Royal Stafford’s production was for export and the largest markets were the United States and Korea (The Sentinel June 23, 2008). At the time of the interview, Royal Stafford’s main markets were still the United States and Korea, but in addition, the company did a large amount of “business-to-business” trade. In other words, they supplied UK retail markets such as BHS and Marks and Spencer (M&S) and other ceramics factories in Stoke-on-Trent. The reference to “staying local” with production was one reason why Norman Tempest was interviewed. The other reason was that Royal Stafford produced surface pattern designs that appeared to be responding to the impact of the Far East. Royal Stafford’s “Britannia range” of c. 2009 incorporated images of Britannia, and designs with a crown, incorporating the statement “Made in Britain” (Plate 6). Unusually, the ceramic design itself communicates to the consumer where it was made. This would be something of an anachronism prior to the impact of outsourcing, and here it can be argued that the impact of the Far East has influenced surface pattern design. Theoretically, this strategy engages or appeals

112

Ceramics and Globalization

to the consumer, wishing to buy something that is British made and, in so doing, supporting the Staffordshire Potteries. In addition, the backstamp includes the phrase “Made in the Heart of the Potteries,” reinforcing the fact that it is definitely made in the UK (see Figure 6.1). Therefore, these features appear to support the part of this book that argues that perception is a factor in why some manufacturers have maintained production in the UK. Royal Stafford designs relate to the Evans, Jamal, and Foxall observation that there is still such a thing as an “ethnocentric” consumer (2006: 209–10). The purpose of interviewing Norman Tempest, managing director of Royal Stafford, was to attempt to explain why the company outsourced, but then returned production to the UK, coinciding with the designs that celebrated UK production. By 2010, Royal Stafford employed 85 people at Burslem. According to Tempest: The last thing we bought in was some bone china mugs which were under the Poole brand. The only outsourcing that our RS [Royal Stafford] has done was, actually, the product never came into the UK. It went into Dubai and out through the Middle East, and was distributed all through the Middle East. So, it never came into the UK. We used to make for the customer in the UK for many, many years, but then we just couldn’t hit the price point. And they said we will take it if with your name on, your designs, from China, and so that’s what started. And that started when we became part of the Lifestyle group. Obviously, they were already importing from China.

Figure 6.1  Royal Stafford backstamp, c. 2009. Logo © Royal Stafford.

Accentuating Place of Origin

113

Design and the Marketing of “Difference” Tempest stated that while he was not a trained designer, he had innovated some of the designs for Royal Stafford. In recent times Royal Stafford has used designers such as Andrew Tanner, but resisted the use of celebrities. Royal Stafford has also marketed mugs with the words “Made in Britain” incorporated into the blackand-white checkered design (Plate 6). Other wares have linked into notions of British culture, such as the “Fish and Chips” range designed by Andrew Tanner, and marketed under the Poole Pottery name. At the Spring Fair of February 2010 held in Birmingham’s National Exhibition Centre, it is recorded that Tanner’s “Fish and Chips” design had attracted interest in buyers favoring quality over price (The Sentinel February 8, 2010). Tanner has designed for both the Poole Pottery and Royal Stafford (since they are both part of the Lifestyle Group), and running his own design business. Nevertheless, at the time of the interview in 2010, this range had not sold in huge quantities. According to writers such as Kevin Robins, Royal Stafford designs parallel what happens to national identities within the context of globalization. Robins argued that what might emerge is the revaluing of items that are local and regional (1991: 24–25). When interviewed, Norman Tempest explained how M&S approached him due to the impact of the “Britannia” ceramic range, which had first been marketed through Heals of London. Apparently, M&S has not sold British-made ceramics for many years, but had begun marketing the following Royal Stafford ranges called “Royal” and “Heritage” under their own brand label during 2010.

Figure 6.2 Royal Stafford, tableware and mug, “Land of Hope & Glory” and “Royal Wedding” ranges, earthenware, for Marks and Spencer, from 2010.

114

Ceramics and Globalization

In this respect, the development of “Britannia range” was a significant maneuver since its designs had drawn M&S’s attention to Royal Stafford. The wares marketed by M&S were in earthenware. The dinner plate was priced at around £7.50; side plates, such as one printed with the phrase “Land of Hope & Glory” and the “Royal Wedding” cost £6; the mug was also priced at £6 (Figure 6.2). The marketing of Royal Stafford wares coincides with the recent commitment of M&S to promote UK and fair trade goods (Littler 2009: 20). Norman Tempest explained how the “Land of Hope and Glory” design paid homage to Jamie Reid’s iconic 1970s album cover, “Never mind the Bollocks here’s the Sex Pistols.” When Tempest had outsourced to the Far East, the marketing strategy paralleled the approaches discussed in Chapter 4: “. . . they’d say ‘Designed in England,’ ‘Made in China.’ Our Poole pottery mugs actually said ‘Designed in England’ and didn’t say made in China, I’ll be honest with you. But the stuff we did for the Middle East said ‘Made in China’ because I think it had to say ‘Made in China’ . . .” At this stage, the interpretations of Royal Stafford’s ceramic designs were that they accentuated “place of origin,” and the backstamp is a reflection of consumer perception.

Homogenization and Ceramic Design There has been speculation that the consequences of globalization would create greater homogenization and hybridization (Tomlinson 1999: 141–49; Appadurai 1996: 32–47). Whether globalization creates a homogenization of design, further eroding any sense of place of production, is an important question. Earlier investigations of the Staffordshire ceramic industry have referred to the different ceramic demands of large markets such as the United States (Jones 1961: 134). However, as indicated in Chapter 1, Hannah’s Ceramics: Twentieth Century Design predicted a move away from catering for these individual, national tastes due to growing multinationalism (1986: 101). In spite of the surge of Far Eastern imports and the moves by UK manufacturers to outsource production to the Far East, Tempest argued that within the world of ceramics markets still required different designs. Paradoxically, Tempest referred to the similarity between the GAP fashion windows of New York and London, but when queried as to whether this applied to ceramics, the reply was: “It absolutely doesn’t, and a lot of people don’t appreciate it, and it is one of the things that protects us in this country to a degree from the barrage of Chinese ceramics . . .” This is a crucial point in the debate. Also, this might begin to account for the complex behavior of the UK ceramic industry. If demand was homogenized, it would perhaps make the process of design, production, and distribution much more straightforward. But, just as in the 1980s and 1990s there were authors who were skeptical about the issue of global, or even European, “cultural barriers” (Lorenz 1986: 137; Jobber 1995: 65), an indication that was gathered during the interview was that these issues still exist within the ceramic industry in the early

Accentuating Place of Origin

115

2000s. Importantly, commodities do not flow in the same direction, at the same time. The style of clothes might have become more universal in the West, but this does not necessarily apply to ceramic taste. In the content of ceramics, the concepts of global homogenization and hybridization are complex. It has been established in Chapter 3 how Asian manufacturers have begun to produce the bone china body, and bone china was refined and developed in Staffordshire. Alternately, Doulton produced bone china in their Indonesian factory (see Chapter 5). Likewise, Chapter 2 referred to a company called HiFive of Staffordshire that opted for hard-paste porcelain production, more associated with the Far East. Lastly, there have been cases of companies such as William Edwards of Longport importing white ware to be decorated in Staffordshire (see Chapter 3). In this sense, there is much evidence to support the theory of hybridization of some aspects of ceramic production. However, according to the evidence of Tempest, ceramic surface patterns are still adapted to suit the idiosyncrasies of different markets. In terms of ceramics there is a distinct lack of homogenization of taste, and in this respect Tempest’s experience questions ceramic writers such as Hannah (1986) and theorists such as Levitt, who, in the 1980s, predicted greater homogenization in an age of global corporations (1983: 21–24). Although Tempest had outsourced to the Far East, his experiences are more in keeping with Appadurai’s opinion that globalization is not necessarily linked to homogenization (1996: 42). Tempest mentioned a design that was developed while he was involved with Barratts of Staffordshire. The design range called “Lincoln” was produced in c. 1988, and was still being sold by BHS in the early 2000s (Figure 6.3). However, this design did not do well in the United States. The same design was marketed as “Devonshire” for the American market. As Tempest stated: The Lincoln shape which is still in BHS which was the first things I did when I joined Barratts of Staffs [Staffordshire], so that is 22 years old—still selling in BHS. That had a run in America for may be a year and a half, but it was called Devonshire, and then it was over. But we have got Roulette, which is a beautiful classic plate. You cannot give that away in the UK, and yet it is lovely. Now that has been in Bloomingdales—I cannot tell you how long that has been.

As Figure 6.3 illustrates, the range for BHS was not marked as Barratts; it was Tempest who provided the attribution. Apparently, a design by Eva Zeisel in the “Classic Century” range was still selling at Crate and Barrel. It was one of their top five best-selling designs, and had been for over 10 years, whereas it lasted 2 years at John Lewis in the UK, with just modest sales. Crate and Barrel is an American home store, established in the 1960s, with outlets throughout the United States. In 2005, the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) made Eva Zeisel an Honorary Royal Designer for Industry. Tempest received the award in London on behalf of Zeisel, who lived in the United States. As far as Tempest was concerned, based on his personal experiences of the United States, the American preference was made clear as, “they buy tonnes of white.” Keeping production and design together was a way of importantly maintaining design agility.

116

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 6.3 Barratts, cup and saucer, “Lincoln” pattern, pale cream earthenware, from c. 1988 onward for BHS. Backstamp on cereal bowl, “Lincoln” pattern indicating British Home Stores, “Made in Britain.” Logo © Barratts.

Problems with Outsourcing What globalization theories do not always readily address is the potential physical problems involved in moving production elsewhere. Certainly, as explained in Chapter 6, designing in Staffordshire and manufacturing had gradually become less of a problem due to new technology, but to Tempest this was only part of the equation. He reported how: But now, I mean—the point of difference is that China is getting more difficult to work with. We found this with our own experience. Lead-times are 160 days. When you think that presents quite a risk for the retailer. You like one of the patterns. You go to China. You buy your first container. You have got to order your second container because once your first container arrives and starts to sell, if you haven’t got the second container on its way, you’ll run out of stock . . .

Alternately, if the container arrives and it does not sell, “You already have the second container coming and you cannot stop that one, and you have probably got a third container in work in a factory.” Overcoming time issues remained a problem.

Accentuating Place of Origin

117

According to Tempest, the more successful companies such as Portmeirion had developed only partial outsourcing strategies. While their first attempt at outsourcing in China was successful for Tempest, the second attempt was less so because the Americans had commandeered a majority of the production. In addition, he reported that the Chinese ceramic factories were becoming short of labor. Historically there had been cases reported in trade journals of when the import of ceramics manufactured in China was suspended because of too much lead in the glaze. This was the case of a US importer called Centrum Corp. part of Tien Shan, who withdrew some “Here Comes Santa” mugs in 1999 (Tableware International, February 1999, Vol. 29, No. 1). For Royal Stafford there was a combination of factors that influenced why they were currently not outsourcing. The quality of the work was not an issue. Quality issues occurred in both China and Stoke, since it could not be guaranteed that the workmanship of items made in Stoke-on-Trent would be any better (see below). Previous experiences of outsourcing to China had worked, but there was still the problem of communicating with Chinese management. For instance: We have done it. The first time we did it we did it very successfully. I went out to China, I went to the factories—I worked on the factory. The people are wonderful. They are just like the people in the factory down stairs except that there is a language barrier, but the body language is exactly the same. Management on the Chinese factories is very poor. They don’t appear to be particularly knowledgeable. I can quote you many examples when the workers knew what I wanted but the guy in charge hadn’t got a clue.

Coupled with communication was that the Chinese government was not financially supporting the ceramic industry as it had done in the past. Norman Tempest pointed out that he could be within just 15 percent of the price of a ceramic product manufactured in China. The fact that UK manufacturing had become more competitive again was a reason for returning production in the UK, though this depended on the type of ceramic product, as Tempest indicated: Unfortunately, that all goes south when it comes to cups, mugs, teapots, sugars, creams—because as soon as I have to hand apply a decal, fire it three times, that’s when . . . . But when I am printing on a bisc [biscuit]. You know, when we are doing by machine, mechanically making a plate, mechanically finishing a plate— mechanically sponging it, mechanically printing it onto the bisc—mechanically glazing through a spraying machine—then we can be competitive. But we can only be competitive on certain items within the set.

Thus, the manufacturing cost aspect appears to be only part of the explanation for why there has been a slight move away from outsourcing.

118

Ceramics and Globalization

Royal Stafford’s Backstamps and Designs The interpretation of Royal Stafford Tableware’s backstamps and the surface designs might be that Tempest had recognized a niche market for ceramics still manufactured in Staffordshire. But, the designs had developed the other way round; for all the reasons expressed above, this manufacturer had decided that it was currently more desirable to produce in Staffordshire. Only then was it explored whether it would be possible to capitalize on this situation through the marketing and design. According to Norman Tempest, the reason why the backstamp reads “Royal Stafford, Made in Burslem, The Heart of the Potteries England” was to “. . . try and squeeze the absolute ultimate out of them because ‘Made in England’ isn’t enough, I want it ‘The Heart of the Potteries’ so it was trying to ring the last ounce of benefit, if you like.” The backstamp is illustrated in Figure 6.1. This was a revealing comment, and once again questions the issue of consumer perception. Norman Tempest, himself, was unclear as to why the consumer wanted something with “Made in England” on it. With hindsight, designs might appear to have evolved as a clear decision to accentuate that production in the UK had continued, but in reality they had developed as something far less calculated and experimental. Tempest explained how ceramics with “Made in Britain” as part of the surface pattern design were only manufactured for promotional purposes for their Lifestyle shop windows. Consumer interest was such that it resulted in the designs being put into full-scale production. Interestingly, deliberately accentuating locality was not necessarily a conscious attempt to appeal to a niche market. A suggested reason for why some forms of ceramic manufacturing have been maintained in the UK is that outsourcing might cause perception problems. The interview with Norman Tempest revealed an alternate way of examining this issue, as he pointed out: I don’t think the consumer actually—to some degree they are partially misled because it will say, I mean, when Johnsons moved their production to Han Dan: I can be that precise because I went to the factory and saw on the Johnson Brothers and Mason’s patterns—all the earthenware division patterns being manufactured. I have been on the factory. It is very, very bizarre. The backstamp still read “Johnson Brothers, was established 1883, England.” The bit that was dropped was the “Made in.” Now on the bar code—on the plate on the sticker it said “Made in China” in a font that if you have 20-20 vision, or a magnifying glass in your back pocket you might have been able to read. That works great for the Mrs. Bouquets of this world, doesn’t it, because she can still have her Royal Doulton—still has Royal Doulton, England, on the bottom, and once she has peeled off the bar code, her visitors coming along can sip out of her cups and saucers and it is still has the charisma.

The “Mrs. Bouquets of this world” is a reference to a character in a BBC comedy series called Keeping up Appearances of the 1990s. Mrs. Bucket (pronounced Bouquet) was portrayed as obsessively attempting to present herself to friends in

Accentuating Place of Origin

119

a more “up market” manner, in spite of what was constantly revealed by her own family background. According to Tempest, outsourcing gave the consumer the freedom to participate in a charade of conveying status. Concerning this issue, it is worthwhile comparing the interpretation with the views of a retailer (in the following chapter). As sociologists have recognized, what the commodity means to the owner and what it signifies to others may well be different (Dunn 2008: 167). When Tempest was questioned as to how far the high-status Staffordshire brands lowered prices when outsourcing to the Far East, the point was made: “I wouldn’t say she has paid full price. She has paid a price which is pegged at a moment in time because the prices. . . I mean that plate made in Barlaston today, in the same way as when I worked there, I would think would have to retail for certainly in excess of £40.” The view was that the Staffordshire wares outsourced to the Far East were cheaper than those prices offered if the product had been manufactured at Wedgwood’s Barlaston factory. More information regarding the pricing of Staffordshire brands when outsourced to the Far East was gathered from interviewing a Wedgwood retailer in the next chapter. Nevertheless, Tempest provided an interesting case of Noritake of Japan that began outsourcing to different parts of the world in order to lower labor costs. Consequently, Debenhams, their retailer in the UK, wanted a reduction in price. Noritake refused, but this did not necessarily affect perceptions of the brand. Tempest recalled: Well, I remember . . . a big case with Noritake—the Japanese. When they closed the factory in Japan—I am going back a number of years—probably over 20 years. When they wound up the production in Japan, they moved the production to—it wasn’t China, somewhere obscure like Fiji—but substantially lowering, and Debenhams came along and said, okay what’s the price break, and Noritake said—you can’t tell any difference between the blank that you are buying from us today from the one manufactured in Japan. It is a Japanese factory, with Japanese equipment, and Japanese supervision—the quality is exactly the same. Well Debenhams said, you are getting it for at a lower price, we want it for a lower price, and Noritake said No. And Debenhams threw them out, but Noritake is still doing very, very nicely and still charging high prices for their products. It didn’t kill the brand. But, why should you pass-on? Life is a continual battle between the retailer and the manufacturer, because the retailer wants to have stable prices, or reduced prices, because of the tough consumer market. So the person they want to screw is the manufacturer.

In 1995, the press recognized that Noritake (based at Ngoya, Japan) was an outsourcing model for Staffordshire. Mike Tomori, managing director of Noritake’s UK sales division based at Milton Keynes, argued that with an increasing threat of Far Eastern imports, the cheaper end of the UK ceramic market was under threat (Evening Sentinel March 15, 1995). Noritake began outsourcing as early as 1972 when it became involved in the Ceylon Ceramic Corporation in Sri Lanka

120

Ceramics and Globalization

(Tableware International, August 1992, Vol. 22, No. 7). Noritake then forged links with the Philippines, Ireland, and, for a period, Iran (Evening Sentinel March 15, 1995). Tempest was ambivalent about the consumer’s interest in where the product was manufactured. For instance, he held the view that the American market was not concerned that Royal Albert’s “Old Country Roses” was made in Indonesia. Nevertheless, Tempest was still clear on the fact that there were dangers in developing a substantial amount of outsourcing. Tempest stated: I think that if you look at all the factories that went flat-out for outsourcing. I am talking about Wedgwood, I am talking particularly about Royal Doulton: Royal Doulton were ahead of Wedgwood in constructing factories in Indonesia. Wedgwood formed partnerships. I mean Doultons went out there and created the factories. Following in their footsteps were Spode, and then let’s analyze what has happened to those three companies. They all went out of business. They all went out of business [repeated phrase].

By drawing on Tempest’s experiences outsourcing was considered not always to be a successful business model.

Attitudes toward Backstamping Since Norman Tempest was at the time of the interview manufacturing in Burslem, it might be anticipated that he would be inclined to support clearer marking, or backstamping, but this was not necessarily the case. When Norman Tempest was interviewed, he reported a meeting held by the confederation where the position on the issue was more ambivalent. Manufacturers who produced in the UK were not necessarily opposed to outsourcing. Nevertheless, Tempest did provide evidence of strong opinions concerning the lack of support for the industry. He reported the case of meeting with Gordon Brown, the then chancellor of the exchequer, when he presented him with ceramic bowl for his son’s christening in 2004. The bowl was made by Royal Stafford and decorated by paintresses at Ceramica, a visitors’ attraction in Burslem. Tempest recalled: . . . to cut a long story short, I sat down there. The housekeeper who was Scottish came out and said “You’ll have a cup of tea?” And she brought me a lovely cup of tea in a copy of a Lincoln Lee Wedgwood cup, made in China. So when Gordon came down, I really got stuck into him. And it turns out that all the crockery in Downing Street, they don’t wash a cup, it comes in from outside caterers, they chuck it back in the cage and it goes out. So, they don’t predetermine what . . . . And I said when you write the contract to the caterers why don’t you insist on ceramics made in England. It is against the Treaty of Rome. I said some very rude words. I said, I am sure if we were now in the Palace of Versailles we would be drinking out of Limoges. It just sickens me the way that we totally kowtow to

Accentuating Place of Origin

121

Europe, and other European nations . . . . The French at the end of the day will do what the French want to do, and the Italians will do what the Italians want to do. I suppose the Germans are more, slightly, as conformist as we are. So, as you can see I am not a great European. No, I am not a fan.

Tempest was saddened that any moves for tighter regulations on backstamping came from a European, rather than a British, incentive. Regardless of these moves Tempest still argued: “But will it make a difference? I don’t think so, because going back to the buying decision of our lady who buys her ceramics. First choice, the design—the pattern design is all-important.” In the sequence of what influenced a purchasing decision, Tempest’s view was that it was: . . . first of all, if they like a design, and that design is made in China, and the price fits their budget and its made in China, they will buy it. So design, price, country of origin.

Price was considered more central if they were young consumers, on a budget. So, from Tempest’s experience, are retailers and consumers genuinely interested in the “Made in England” backstamp? “It comes third, fourth in the . . . I think, again. What does ‘Made in England’ give you? It gives you a perception of quality.” Based on Royal Stafford’s ceramic designs and backstamps it might be anticipated that this company maintained production in Staffordshire because of a perceived consumer interest in heritage. However, for Royal Stafford it was not because the owner was fundamentally opposed to outsourcing in the Far East, but simply because it was currently more practical to manufacture in Staffordshire.

Denby, “Made in England” As established in Chapter 4, Denby does obtain some of its products by outsourcing, but at the same time their stoneware production takes place in England. It was estimated that Denby employed about 770, of which 420 were directly involved in manufacturing what was defined by their then managing director as a “premium casual brand.” To distinguish between their UK-manufactured stoneware and their outsourced oven ware, fine china tableware, and porcelain kitchen ware, the marketing varies. However, to emphasize that their stoneware is manufactured in Derbyshire, detachable labels displaying a teapot in Union Jack colors, above the phrase “Made in England,” has been used (Figure 6.4). At the time of the research an interview was undertaken with Denby’s managing director, Garry Biggs, to establish why stoneware production had continued in Derbyshire. It was determined from Biggs that although there would be a “substantial cost difference” if their product was made abroad, the downside would be matching products manufactured overseas. To solve this issue would involve a considerable amount of time, effort, and investment. Another “key factor” given was:

122

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 6.4  Denby, cup and saucer, “Mist” pattern, stoneware, c. 2012; Denby, salad plate, “Cherry” range, stoneware, c. 2012 and Denby, mug, “Halo” pattern, stoneware, c. 2012.

. . . we have been working with stoneware for 200 hundred years—we have got a lot of intellectual property around how we make our product—the uniqueness of our body—the interaction of the body with the development of the glazes which are unique to us, the way we fire them. We have got particular aspects of our processing capabilities that only we know about, if we were to allow someone else to make them for us overseas . . .

This evidence draws attention to the peculiar nature of the ceramic material and how, even in the twenty-first century, it is considered that aspects of the manufacturing processes would be hard to replicate elsewhere and conversely how, if these were divulged to other parties, the uniqueness of Denby would be lost. Denby’s uniqueness is due to the fact that their stoneware clay still comes from only a 20-mile radius of the factory. Coupled with this sense of maintaining UK production is that Denby predominantly develops its own designs, through their design team of 15 people. In addition, other reasons given for not outsourcing were described as relating to costs of shipping, currency risks, and “we have potentially got anti-dumping levies coming in on China.” (This potential issue was referred to at the end of Chapter 2.) Invariably, six weeks were required for shipping manufactured products from overseas. These points, being the main ones provided, indicate far less of emphasis on

Accentuating Place of Origin

123

the perception issue, although it was stated: “. . . our view is that the economic argument are not compelling versus the risk, and versus the value, I think, that people place on Denby being made in England, and being true to what you are doing here . . .” Overall, “. . . our challenge is to design, and innovate in the market, whereby the cost differential here, is reflected in the quality and design of the product.” The value that people place on Denby stoneware being made in the UK is only part of the equation. Applying branded stickers to the products had already been a feature of Denby’s marketing. However, having decided to maintain stoneware production in the UK, an adapted detachable sticker was introduced in the last two to three years, indicating place of production. A colored Union Jack was used in 2012 to coincide with the jubilee year. According to Biggs the logic was: “And I think for us once we became absolutely clear that our product was going to be made in the UK—that being a made in England product was a key differential for us—that we should look to get that message out there.” The interview provides an explanation for Denby’s stoneware marketing strategy. However, whether this marketing acted as an influential reason for buying Denby, the view from Biggs was ultimately: “I think that in this [UK] market, then people will first and foremost buy design, price and then brand. And I think at a secondary purchase level, the fact that it is made in England is . . . has got a relevance, but it is not the first reason for buying.” Consequently, if Denby did outsource their stoneware, the view was that the consumer reaction would be mixed: First and foremost, if it is a great matching product then I think you could take your collectors—a proportion of your collectors—that will accept that. They can see that it is the same product, and I can see that it matches well, I can see that I can buy it for x percent cheaper, and so as far as I am concerned that is good, old Denby. There will be a proportion, and I don’t know what proportion, who will say, now hang on a second, I buy Denby because it is made in England, I value that it is made in England, and you know the fact that it is not now made in England will be of a major concern to them—it could turn them off the brand. No doubt.

The significant point here is that it was considered outsourcing would enable cheaper products to be offered to the consumer, and this issue is examined in Chapter 8. But, while it was recognized that a proportion of consumers would value where Denby stoneware was made, whether a change in place of production would have a minor or major impact, Biggs replied, “I couldn’t honestly say.” The decision to manufacture stoneware in Derbyshire was largely based on a series of manufacturing issues, reflective of the uniqueness of their stoneware and glazes. The potential exceptions to this reasoning were influenced by how the other Denby “Made in England” ceramic brands were perceived abroad, and this needs to be explored in Chapter 8.

124

Ceramics and Globalization

Heron Cross Pottery When there was a strong sense that the “place of production” was important, the smaller firms considered the aspect of consumer perception. The current Heron Cross Pottery of Fenton was established in 1989, and still manufactures in Staffordshire. The business employed only 14 people at the time of the interview, and considered 75 percent of their market to be UK, and 25 percent for export. Their largest export market was France. They defined their main domestic buyer as “middle-aged, professional females,” and their products as “traditional, decorative, desirable products,” such as the chintz teapot shown in Figure 6.5. The Heron Cross Pottery backstamp was altered to include the phrase “Made in Staffordshire, England” in 2008, and an example of this is shown on a tankard mug in their “scattered blue heart” range. Prior to this, the backstamp read as “Stoke-on-Trent, England.” Information directly from Tracie Shaw, the sales manager, indicated that their change in marketing occurred around 2008–09: Up until then the need to have the words “Made In” hadn’t been so important for us, but it became more relevant as more manufacturers were importing under English company names and using the word England or “of England” on their backstamps that it became more confusing for consumers to know where the products were being manufactured and for many, many years customers were duped into thinking products being made in the Far East were still made in England if they had the English companies name on the backstamp. The quality of the product wasn’t as good either which further damaged England’s reputation as having the skills to manufacture a quality product.

Figure 6.5  Heron Cross Pottery, teapot, “Hedgerow flowers chintz” pattern, earthenware, from 2009. Heron Cross Pottery, tankard mug, “Scattered blue heart,” earthenware, with “Made in Staffordshire, England” backstamp, purchased in 2009.

Accentuating Place of Origin

125

In other words, here is direct evidence of how the impact of outsourcing to the Far East has influenced the design of backstamps. The Heron Cross Pottery exhibited at the Birmingham Spring Fair, and Shaw reiterated how manufacturing in Stokeon-Trent had become an important part of their marketing strategy (The Sentinel February 10, 2012). When information was supplied for this research, the Heron Cross Pottery had only “occasionally” decorated “white-ware” from the Far East, if they did not make items that the customers specifically requested. Concerning the issue of whether it mattered where products were manufactured, Shaw believed, interestingly, that it was “mainly the older generations, but younger generations are becoming more pro-active about where the products come from.” To emphasize that the product was locally made, Shaw stated that, “all the pottery we made here has ‘Made in England’ on the backstamp and we have stickers showing a union jack with own name on.” In addition to changes made to the backstamp, ceramic pieces were also sold with a Union Jack sticker. “Hedgerow” is a surface pattern lithograph by Bailey Decals, used on ceramic products manufactured by the Heron Cross Pottery since 2009, and the stickers were introduced in 2010 (Figure 6.5). Tracie Shaw believed that if the Heron Cross Pottery did outsource to the Far East it would have a significant impact on sales because “our target/current customers mainly want UK manufactured products. They are high end shops that only sell quality products.”

Repeat Repeat—Perception and Design Agility Royal Stafford has not been the only Staffordshire manufacture to introduce surface patterns that defy convention and seemingly celebrate continued production in the UK, by immediately drawing attention to the “place of origin” in the actual design. In the case of Repeat Repeat of Fenton, a Britannia range of tea wares has been produced, the design of which is boldly printed in black, “Made in England/Bone China” (Figure 6.6). Gillian Naylor and Mark Faulkner established Repeat Repeat of Fenton in 1984, and employed six people in 2011. The Britannia range was introduced in 2009, and teapots retailed for £48.95. The backstamp used by this company uses the phrase “Made in Stoke—England.” Even when the surface pattern designs by Repeat Repeat do not explicitly make a connection to the place of manufacture, their products stress the Staffordshire origins through the packaging and an attached label on the handles. Repeat Repeat is an example of smaller, independent companies that have continued to exist within the Potteries. A tendency of these smaller companies is to offer bespoke services. Based on an interview with this firm it was determined that approximately 30 percent of their production was defined as “bespoke” commissions. Repeat Repeat mostly sells through department stores or specialist ceramic shops. The largest department store that Repeat Repeat supplies is John Lewis, followed by Heals and Selfridges; their main market was described as, “small independent gift and design shops.” When asked about outsourcing abroad, the view was “we are passionate about

126

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 6.6 Repeat Repeat, teapot, “Britannia” pattern, bone china, from 2009. Repeat Repeat, mug, “Silhouette” range, bone china, made in China, launched June 2008.

making our core ranges in the UK,” although realistically Repeat Repeat had obtained undecorated mugs from China to be decorated at Fenton in order to “offer our customers a wider price range.” An example of this was the “Silhouette” range. According to Repeat Repeat, the “Silhouette” mugs retailed for £8.65 (see Figure 6.6). As far as Repeat Repeat was concerned, the motivation for maintaining production in the UK was far more linked to the perception side of the debate. When asked whether the motivation of the “Made in England” range stemmed from concerns regarding outsourcing, or from comments of consumers, the reply was: “We wanted to get the message across that we still make bone china in England! That was the inspiration behind this range of bone china. When the majority of manufacture is now overseas we thought we should celebrate our British made products!” It was this quality that gave them a distinct edge in an age of outsourcing. We feel that making in the UK sets us apart from other ceramic manufactures and products that are made in the Far East. The ranges being “Made in England” is part of the ethos of the brand. Every mug that is made in England has a small swing tag attached to the handle telling you about the brand and that it is made in England.

When asked if, from experience, retailers and consumers were genuinely interested in the “Made in England” backstamp, the view was: “Retailers do like the idea that its made in England and some will not buy it if its not, but during these tough times price is very important and the products being completely made in England does put it in a higher price bracket which not all retailers and consumers can afford.” Having established that some retailers and consumers were interested in Repeat Repeat products because of where they made, there was still the issue identified by the theme “adapt to market” forces. Remarkably, they pointed out how they could have a range in full production in just two to three weeks. Overall, they felt that design was still central; Repeat Repeat considered that

Accentuating Place of Origin

127

it was “nicer quality” because it was made in England. In this respect, both consumer perception and design agility were significant factors in shaping their manufacturing strategy.

Big Tomato Company It has been established in Chapter 2 that in spite of huge amounts of Far Eastern imports, new ceramic businesses have emerged in Staffordshire. Gloria DanielWashington of London established the Big Tomato Company in 1999 (Figure 6.7). In the past, the ceramic industry has used women paintresses and women designers (Buckley: 1990), but in the period covered by this book a number of women have also established their own ceramic companies. The interview with Gloria Daniel-Washington of the Big Tomato Company of Longton provided a female perspective on the issue of place of origin. Big Tomato has developed a marketing strategy that has celebrated, rather than downplayed, continued UK manufacture. The company became involved in marketing ceramics in 2003, and from 2009 took the lease of a factory unit previously owned by Royal Winton of Chadwick Street, Longton. At the time of the interview, Big Tomato Company employed eight people. Figure 6.8 illustrates mugs, lithograph-printed, with the text “english [sic] rose” and “favourite customer.” Their distinct backstamp, all in lower-case typography,

Figure 6.7  Gloria Daniel-Washington, founder of Big Tomato Company at showroom, Longton, February 2012.

128

Ceramics and Globalization

reads, “genuine english creamware/by big tomato company/made entirely in stokeon-trent, england.” The body fabric is a cream-colored bone china rather than an earthenware body, and is therefore translucent. The interpretation of using phrases such as “genuine english” and “made entirely” is that this was a reaction to the impact of the Far East. It was determined from the interview with Gloria DanielWashington that from 2003, designs were produced by a number of Staffordshire firms. It seems to be a characteristic of these new, smaller businesses that they rely on larger Staffordshire firms to supply the actual ware. (This was also the case with The New English company, discussed in Chapters 2 and 8.) In 2008, Daniel-Washington took the decision to set up a unit in Longton to decorate locally manufactured wares. Daniel-Washington defined Big Tomato designs as not traditional, but “familiar,” since shape designs were supposed to be reminiscent of ceramic forms from the eighteenth century through to the 1950s. Surface patterns have been developed by Daniel-Washington herself, or in collaboration with graphic designers or fine artists. Even though the buyers of 80 percent of the giftware market were described as female buyers, their designs were aimed at appealing to both men and women. Daniel-Washington’s view of the “Days of the Week” range was that Big Tomato had modified the typography and used platinum text to provide a sense of luxury and an heirloom. The perception of the brand was: Clearly, as we are made in the United Kingdom it can be perceived as a more luxury end product. We start, or ceramic mugs start at £8.99, and they go all the way up to £150, and so I think that includes everybody. Because we are involved in the giftware market I would say that it is 80% female audience, and that would really range from 18 to 75.

The backstamp applied to all wares was part of that marketing strategy: Possibly in the past we have not shouted long and hard about it. But from the moment we decided to go into ceramics with a cream body we had a backstamp.

Figure 6.8  Big Tomato Company, mugs, Classic range, “english rose” pattern, introduced in 2008, and “confirmed bachelor” pattern, 2009. All cream-colored bone china. The backstamp depicted on the central mug was introduced in 2003.

Accentuating Place of Origin

129

This was in 2003—we made it entirely in Stoke-on-Trent and England, and the reason why we put “entirely” was because we were aware of this trend—even though we were outsiders at the time—and we wanted to declare that this is not what we were doing. So, yes it is fed through all our information.

Daniel-Washington was unclear as to how far using undecorated ceramics from the Far East would make a difference to sales of Big Tomato since this was considered in total opposition to the ethos of the company. Importantly, Big Tomato made a distinction between the value and the purpose of the product. As an example, it was pointed out that one of their mugs in the Classic range sells for £10. DanielWashington added: . . . if we were comparing to 4 mugs out of Ikea for £5 that is very expensive, but it is a mug that people would tend to give to a friend, a loved one, it is a gift. So when people are choosing a gift they are aware of all of those decisions. I don’t think if I was going to buy a gift for my best friend I am going to buy her a 4 value pack of mugs from Ikea for £5.

Ceramics as gifts was also a point raised by retailers, as discussed in Chapter 7. Big Tomato, Repeat Repeat, and the Heron Cross Pottery might indicate a “consumer” prejudice against Far Eastern ceramics, or Staffordshire ceramics that were now outsourced, but these are not large manufacturers.

Summary Coinciding with the impact of the Far East, there has been a rise of UK ceramics that became overtly demonstrative of their place of origin. Royal Stafford’s use of the phrase “The Heart of the Potteries England” is an example of this trend. Another trend has been the development of surface pattern designs that declared “Made in England.” Even manufacturers, who still produce in Staffordshire, have considered making alterations to their backstamp, due to the growing trend of other manufacturers importing undecorated white ware from the Far East. The managing director of Caverswall China exemplifies this point of view when he declared: . . . a lot was going around with the imports that were coming in and people were buying in the white ware blanks, and still putting on their backstamp you know “Made in England.” And I thought it would be nice if, should we be looking at saying “Made in Stoke-on-Trent”—makes it a bit more localised, and obviously flying the flag for the local people, and the local industry. But, I felt generally at the time that I think that most people in other countries would relate more to made in England, rather than made in Stoke-on-Trent.

Although some UK ceramic examples from the 2000s might accentuate that they were still producing in Staffordshire, interviews showed how the manufacturers

130

Ceramics and Globalization

responsible for these products were not be entirely convinced of the value of “place of origin” to consumer perception. The situation is not as straightforward as the views of some globalization theorists that envisaged regional distinctness, tradition, and heritage becoming emphasized for the purposes of tourism (Robins 1991: 38), although factory tours at Emma Bridgewater have proved to be popular. Royal Stafford was in favor of production in Staffordshire because it was considered more practical from a manufacturing, design, and shipping perspective. In the case of Denby, similar reasons were provided, along with a concern for maintaining intellectual property rights. Royal Stafford was not opposed to outsourcing, but foresaw the problems of working with the Chinese economy, and Bridgewater’s motivation for maintaining production in Stokeon-Trent was largely to create jobs. The fact that manufacturing in the UK was undertaken for more altruistic reasons was a more expected result of conducting the research. The prerogatives of companies can reflect whether the company is privately owned. Nevertheless, this chapter has established that smaller tableware manufacturers, namely Repeat Repeat, Big Tomato, and the Heron Cross Pottery, were more convinced by the importance of consumer perception, and its part in the equation for maintaining manufacture in Stoke-on-Trent. Thus, this chapter has shown that UK ceramic marketing and design can accentuate “place of origin,” but attitudes of manufacturers can differ as to the significance consumer perception. Clearly, not all manufacturers who produce in the UK relate this to the influence of consumer perception. The next chapter needs to explore whether experienced ceramic retailers have experienced any perception issues when selling UK ceramic brands that were outsourced to the Far East.

Chapter 7 The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand: The Retail Perspective

Based on interviews of many ceramic manufacturers, even those solely involved in manufacturing in Staffordshire, place of production was often seen as less significant to their type of consumer. Although the locally published the The Sentinel questioned whether outsourced Staffordshire brands would be regarded as “imposters,” it is unclear if this view resonated with wider attitudes. The purpose of this chapter is to ascertain through experienced ceramic retailers how consumers responded to the outsourcing of UK brands. As established in Chapter 1, consideration of the impact of Far Eastern outsourcing has often been based on the views of UK ceramic manufacturers, rather than the views of retailers (Carroll et al. 2002). An explanation for not considering the ceramic retail perspective is perhaps an assumption that the ideology of UK manufacturers and retailers would be the same. For instance, as Garry Biggs, the then managing director of Denby, pointed out, some retailers’ trade was all about “sourcing at value.” In Biggs’ opinion this would account for why the majority of John Lewis’ ceramic products were sourced abroad. Indicative of a similarity between manufacturers’ and retailers’ attitudes was an article published by Tableware International concerning the “COO” debate. Keith Appleby, director of Group Brands at Waterford Wedgwood, reported evidence from women’s focus groups. All-women’s groups were used on the basis that it is women who make the buying decision in this sector. Wedgwood’s research determined that women did “not care about COO.” In the case of Paula Ferris of John Lewis (which stocked Wedgwood, Royal Doulton, Portmeirion, Royal Worcester, and Emma Bridgewater), it was the brand name and value for money that drove sales. She argued that the customer was “not looking to see whether an item was manufactured in Hong Kong or anywhere else.” According to Jane Castle of Steamer Trading, a customer buying a Bridgewater product would not be concerned about “where the range was manufactured because it is the look and feel of the collection that is important” (Tableware International, May/June 2008, Vol. 130, No. 3). Based on these points of view, there is no evidence whatsoever that “place of origin” was particularly relevant to either consumers or retailers, even though Jane Castle’s comment unwittingly draws attention to the tactile qualities of ceramics.

132

Ceramics and Globalization

A Retailers’ Perspective With many Staffordshire ceramic manufacturers opting for Far Eastern outsourcing, it needs to be considered how far this has caused perception issues. While the analysis of actual ceramic marketing and design gives a visual appreciation of the changes that have taken place due to the overarching impact of the Far East, the evidence of retailers provides insights into how changes in marketing were actually perceived. As Daniel Miller argued, “We have to monitor constantly the actions of consumers and not merely assume that we know the consequences of commodities by studying their production and distribution” (1997: 39). The evidence of retailers is not simply concerned with their views per se toward where UK ceramics are manufactured, but their experiences of how consumers responded to changes brought about by globalization. Published information as to how retailers and consumers reacted to UK ceramic brands that were outsourced to the Far East has been limited. A survey which in part dealt with outsourcing was published by Tableware International in August 1997 and, in addition, published a feature on the “COO” debate in 2008. It is potentially challenging to establish the perceptions of consumers. Trustrum and Doane pointed out in Ceramic Ambitions and Strategic Directions, “Unless asked, customers rarely tell companies how they feel about the service they received or the product, which they bought. They just don’t buy again if they are dissatisfied” (2000: 36). Furthermore, other country-of-origin researchers have pointed out the inherent problems in asking consumers directly to establish associations between products, brands, and countries. Such information does not necessarily inform whether these associations inevitably impact on the purchasing decision (Johannsson 1993: 80). Therefore, based on the experience of other researchers, it was felt that contact with consumers could describe events that are too singular. Gauging changing perceptions required sources that perhaps had longer connections with UK ceramics. Thus, interviews with retailers could provide information on changes in demand, pricing, and the all-important question of whether a change in place of production was something that concerned consumers. Information from retailers used in this chapter allows for a greater examination of how the UK market has responded to outsourced Staffordshire goods. Questions have been addressed to ceramic retailers to ascertain in more depth how their consumers have responded to outsourced Staffordshire brands. Another relevant issue that has been examined is how far outsourced Staffordshire brands were made available to consumers at lower prices. It has often been implied that an ultimate advantage of outsourcing was the lowering of price. However, to what extent were the lower labor costs, associated with the Far East, actually passed on to the consumer?

A Wedgwood Retailer in the North of England An interview was held with a Wedgwood retailer who was based in a city department store in the north of England. From the 1970s there were moves by

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand

133

the larger ceramic manufacturers to position themselves within department stores (Gay and Smyth 1974: 63). The seller had 15 years’ experience of selling Waterford Wedgwood and an in-depth knowledge of other Wedgwood brands, such as Johnson Brothers. Since Wedgwood (in the manner of so many other companies) began outsourcing some of its production, her period of service provided unique insight into whether consumers had been alienated by prestigious brands being transferred to the Far East. Prior to this, she had worked for five years in sales for Royal Doulton. According to the seller, this department store sold a mixture of traditional, contemporary, decorative, and functional Wedgwood wares. “Traditional” was defined as blue-and-white jasper ware and “contemporary” was considered to be designer-led wares such as those by Jasper Conran, Vera Wang, and, in the past, Paul Costelloe (see Figures 7.1 and 7.2). Decorative ranges were defined as products with 24 carat gold. Finally, functional was considered to be tableware ranges, “although I do think that over the years, they became less functional because of the modern way of living; they don’t want to be handwashing; they don’t want something that you cannot put in the dishwasher.”

Figure 7.1  Josiah Wedgwood, candlestick, cereal bowl, and coffee cup and saucer designed by Paul Costelloe, earthenware, from 1999. Backstamp includes Paul Costelloe’s signature, ©1999.

134

Ceramics and Globalization

In terms of what was selling 15 years ago, the interviewee pointed out that previously the consumer was interested in quality, whereas in the last 5 years a more “throwaway society” had emerged. With regard to 15 years ago, the Wedgwood seller recalled the following: You knew your customers. The customers came in weekly, monthly—they bought a piece—it might be two bowls one week, then they would want the dinner plate—they would be collecting. There would be a buzz around the department, so excited to get to a final part of a dinner set or whatever. Everyone aspired to have a dinner set. Everyone seemed to have friends around. I think it was a lot different then. People got to an anniversary and they aspired to have something special for that anniversary, and they would have a dinner set. People would come along and buy them a piece of that dinner set, especially for that anniversary. It is a totally different business now.

However, five years ago the view was: “They didn’t value the quality. They wanted these things, but you know, would buy these from Argos, Asda, Woolworths, British Home Stores—those kinds of outlets, and think they were getting the same type of quality. Of course, they weren’t, but paying a lot less, and we were getting a lot less.” This relates exactly to discussions of postmodern consumer culture (Featherstone 1991: 83). Just prior to the period when Wedgwood went into administration, it was felt that the products that were selling well were the designer-led ones. Apparently “special in today’s world is the designer name even in fashion, in ceramics, in any walk of life now. People will recognise, rather than the brand, they recognise the design.” As far as the Wedgwood seller was concerned, “all the designer ranges were made to get a younger customer interested in the brand.” To reinforce the point that the designer name was emphasized: It was the designer that came first. It would be Jasper Conran at Wedgwood. Vera Wang within Wedgwood. There would be at point of sale which featured a portrait of the designer: if possible, if obviously the department allowed that. The definite emphasis would be on the designer and the brand would come second to that. It would be inclusion with that designer, but the designer would be forefront.

This view coincides with an article that appeared in the Staffordshire press entitled “Designers’ labels sell ceramics.” The article quotes design consultant Mo Trudel, a former designer for the Saatchi & Saatchi advertising agency. Mo Trudel stated: “You have just to look at Jasper Conran or John Rocha with Wedgwood to see what is possible” (The Sentinel September 29, 2003). Increasingly, using high-profile designers was perceived as a way forward. However, importantly, this retailer added: “Some people weren’t impressed by designers five years ago. It has only been a recent thing where if a designer is linked

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand

135

to it, it has more strength than a range that will carry itself. Five years ago we would have had ranges that would fly off the shelves because they literally were great ranges. People just wanted them.” This Wedgwood seller felt that while many other ceramic manufacturers were using chefs by the early 2000s (an example being James Martin collaborating with Denby), Wedgwood was a pioneer in using fashion designers such as Paul Costelloe. Paul Costelloe visited the store where the interviewee worked to aid Wedgwood’s promotion. To aid Wedgwood’s promotion, Paul Costelloe signed a three-year design deal with Wedgwood at the end of 1998. The initiative was inspired by Wedgwood’s sister company, Rosenthal of Germany, which had worked in conjunction with Fornasetti, Tricia Guild, and Jasper Morrison (The Sentinel December 9, 1998). An article in Tableware International, entitled “Designer profile: Paul Costelloe,” pointed out that the Irish-born fashion designer had approached Wedgwood (August 2000, Vol. 30, No. 7). An image of Costelloe accompanied by his new design range (see Figure 7.1) was shown in the article. Figure 7.1 is an example of a range of tableware items Costelloe designed for Wedgwood, including a candlestick. It was also reported in the press that the link with Costelloe was to target a more youthful market, providing the consumer with less formal, contemporary products. This coincided with Wedgwood relaunching “its own famous brand identity with a more up-to-date, stylized design” (The Sentinel, Business review, March 17, 1999), and, incidentally, the Wedgwood backstamp also incorporated Costelloe’s signature (Figure 7.1). Detachable labels indicate that these items were made in England and that products include a fox motif as part of the surface design. Vera Wang’s connection with Wedgwood was mentioned in the Staffordshire press in 2003. Wedgwood’s chairman Sir Anthony O’Reilly pointed out how this had been a “remarkable and rapidly growing success” (The Sentinel, June 4, 2003). In 2004 Wedgwood increased its US sales by 7.4 percent with the strong performance of Vera Wang’s giftware and tableware connected to this upward trend (The Sentinel February 1, 2004). Having designed Victoria Beckham’s wedding dress would, no doubt, have increased Vera Wang’s media profile. The Wedgwood seller felt that “special in today’s world is the designer label.” A series of radical strategies were adopted by a variety of manufacturers from the end of the 1990s, and this continued to gain momentum in the 2000s. The article entitled “Designers’ labels sell ceramics” (mentioned above), published in 2003, was accompanied by photographs of Vivienne Westwood, holding tartan designs for Coalport (a member of the Wedgwood Group), and of Paul Smith. In spite of Wedgwood attempting to attract the younger consumer, the interviewee felt that: . . . the customer has completely changed. We haven’t really replaced our middle age customer with a younger customer. The younger generation don’t value these things—don’t think anything is worth keeping—don’t see a future. I am sort of classifying people in the same bracket—there will be the odd exception—but I do think that is the problem really with society now. It isn’t based around the

136

Ceramics and Globalization

home, the office and being out there; you know, fashion conscious clothes and things like that. Whereas ten years ago your home was your castle; if you had lovely things in there like Wedgwood, Royal Doulton, or [Royal] Crown Derby, or whatever, you were doing quite well for yourself . . . it was a like a show of luxury . . .

The evidence from the Wedgwood seller was that their customers mainly consisted of older people, in spite of their involvement with fashion designers. It was suggested that 10 years ago the typical Wedgwood buyer was over 35 with plenty of disposable income. Five years ago they were more likely to be over 40 and from a professional background. In the year before Wedgwood went into administration (2009), it was felt that the customer was most likely to be over 30. It was even added: “The under 30—a lot of people under 30 didn’t even recognise the brand.”

Changing Demand Another issue that the interview identified was confirmation of a decline in the bridal market. Gay and Smyth reported a Pottery Gazette article of 1969, which suggested that the bridal market once accounted for 60 percent to 70 percent of domestic sales in the United States (1974: 159). However, according to the Wedgwood seller, the generation getting married now “is more materialistic about fashion, holidays, cars—more than material things like Wedgwood, and looking to the future,” implying a decline in desiring an expensive set of ceramics with a greater sense of longevity. The ceramic press has often recognized that the wedding market had become a struggling sector (Tableware International, December 2008, Vol. 130, No. 6). Ray Windsor, columnist in Tableware International, former glass and ceramic buyer for department stores, and importer of Chinese tableware through the Hong Kong company Topchoice (see Chapter 2, Figure 2.4), also referred to a decline in demand for the one-pattern set, a rise of informality, the reduction of tableware ranges, and the growth of multifunctional designs (October, 2011, Vol. 133, No. 5). Other academic research papers have also documented changes in ceramic consumption. It has been argued that informality had proved to be a “slow burner” during the 1990s for companies such as Wedgwood, Royal Doulton, Spode, and Royal Worcester that had specialized in producing set-piece dinnerwares, struggling “to hold onto their existing markets” (Hervas-Oliver et al. 2011: 382). However, the issue of change in demand appears to be only one aspect of perceived problems for certain UK ceramic manufacturers.

Perception of Wedgwood While the interview with the Wedgwood retailer confirmed various shifts in demand, and in some markets a decline, she also added to the debate the problem

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand

137

convincing consumers that outsourced ceramics were as desirable as Englishmade Wedgwood. With regard to shifts in production abroad, the seller replied: “Yes, I think as a company, I think, it was thought they wouldn’t. But, I think they under-estimated the customer, and I think the customer is bothered where things are made . . .” Here, the consumer appears not to have been moving exactly in unison with the manufacturer, suggesting that the older forms of marketing strategy considered in Chapter 2, did not simultaneously decline in relevance. According to evidence provided by this seller, the perception of the Wedgwood brand was adversely affected when products were outsourced abroad. The kind of issues that consumers raised were as follows: They raised the fact that history-wise, you know, they would expect to buy a piece of English china or British crystal (be it Waterford crystal): they would expect to pay those prices, but to get quality, made in this country. And if they were buying it and they were buying for a gift, and they wanted to give something “English” to the recipient, be that a person from abroad, in the end it became quite difficult to recommend a piece to someone who wanted to take say a gift, on holiday, to America—who maybe had relatives there or friends: they wanted to reward them for looking after them with a lovely British gift—became practically impossible to get that.

Ever since the work of Marcel Mauss on gifts (first translated into English in 1954) this form of exchange has been widely recognized (1990). Contemporary anthropologists, such as Appadurai, still argue that gifts “are starkly opposed to the profit-orientated, self-centred, and calculated spirit that fires the circulation of commodities” (1986: 11). Gloria Daniel-Washington, proprietor of Big Tomato Company of Longton, also noted how inexpensive Far Eastern ceramics from Ikea would not make an appropriate gift for a “loved-one” because of a widely appreciated cheapness (see Chapter 6). In this sense, an intriguing aspect of the Wedgwood retailer’s testimony was how “place of origin” had additional resonance when the ceramic item was intended as a gift for someone abroad. The gift is not only a token of affection, but becomes an expression of the country from where it originates. In this respect, gifts become linked to a cultural identity, and place of production assumes an additional relevance. While the purchase of ceramics on the basis of a gift could be dismissed as being far too infrequent to be of much value to the industry, Gabriel and Lang have argued that gifts must not be regarded as a “small class of objects and exchanges at the margins of consumption” (2006: 54). Even if the economic value of ceramic gifts were dismissed as insignificant, according to the Wedgwood seller, consumers were “regularly” declining to buy Wedgwood when they discovered it was outsourced. In this sense, if outsourcing was a means to counteract competition, it simply exacerbates the situation by causing fewer sales.

138

Ceramics and Globalization

Status Value Meanwhile, Gabriel and Lang have observed, when discussing branding and advertising, how the “meaning travels from the whole to the part and from the part to the whole.” Using a bar of soap carrying the logo of Harrods as an example, they argue how this embodies the value of this store. Therefore, to them, “By purchasing the small bar of soap, one purchases all that Harrods stands for and makes these attributes of Harrods one’s own” (2006: 58). This view leads to another major problem with outsourcing in terms of the placement of UK ceramics. In the 1970s, Gay and Smyth estimated that just 10 percent of Josiah Wedgwood & Sons’ production was purchased by the UK population. To compensate for this the Wedgwood Group had gradually acquired the larger earthenware-manufacturing firms, including Johnson Brothers, Midwinter, and J. and G. Meakin, thus catering for at least 80 percent of the families in Britain, and for most market segments (Gay and Smyth 1974: 61). In other words, the Wedgwood brand had for a long period been aimed toward the upper end of the ceramic market. Jim Moffat, a managing director of Wedgwood, had a similar assessment of their exclusivity when he declared in the 1980s: “Our business has a rather a lot of snob value. People want to be different: they do not want to go and buy the same dinner set as the next-door neighbour has” (Financial Times March 21, 1989). Moffat put forward this argument when Wedgwood had been taken over by Waterford, and the pattern ranges were cut from 400 to 240. In this respect, Moffat described Wedgwood wares in a more Veblenesque sense, since the perceived purchase of these wares was not entirely on practical grounds, but attached to social status (Veblen [1925] 2000: 31–47; Gabriel and Lang 2006: 49–52). On this note, economists such as Leibenstein related “the snob effect” to price and market demand (1950: 199). Even Bourdieu’s recognition of cultural consumption conceded that it “entails an economic cost” ([1979] 1984: 116). Clearly, more contemporary writers have tended to question whether these stratums of consumer culture apply. In fact, Featherstone has argued that, “We are moving towards a society without fixed status groups in which the adoption of styles of life (manifest in choice of clothes, leisure activities, consumer goods, bodily dispositions) which are fixed to specific groups have been surpassed” (1991: 83). However, in the 2000s, in spite of less rigid patterns in consumer behavior, Chris Johnson, the manufacturing director at Waterford Wedgwood, considered that their brand was still “a leading luxury lifestyle goods company” (Ceramic Industry June 2001: 55). Nevertheless, consumer behavior has widely been perceived as undermining class and social distinctions (Dunn 2008: 138). In Norman Tempest’s opinion, it was more acceptable for the consumer to be aware that Royal Doulton (for example) was made in China because the importance lay in the signals it conveyed to others. Tempest’s interpretation of outsourcing was that it enabled the consumer to acquire goods of a higher status, for less (discussed in Chapter 6). Here perhaps the impact of outsourcing gives feasibility to Featherstone’s notion of consumers surpassing rigidly defined status

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand

139

groups. However, judgments of Chris Johnson, and previously Jim Moffat, were that in their views Wedgwood was still supposed to occupy the premium end of the market. This was reflected in their pricing. A Wedgwood teapot in the “Viva” collection made in England retailed for £81 in 2003. Likewise, a pair of espresso cups and saucers with metallic luster decoration, designed by Jasper Conran, was priced at £35 (The Sentinel November 19, 2003). Clearly, there were still economic constraints to the mobility, as described by Featherstone, when it came to brands that attempted to occupy a high status. The Wedgwood seller believed that the perception of the company was that it was a “status brand around the world.” Sociologists may well argue whether the acquisition of certain commodities demonstrates status intentionally, or inevitably (Dunn 2008: 167), but as far as the Wedgwood seller was concerned, there was an acute problem in maintaining the prestige of the brand when outsourced to the Far East. There was a disruption of value, and no matter how much focus there is on emphasizing the brand name, the design, or the use of celebrities, it was apparently not enough to bridge the gap in the minds of many consumers. The evidence to support a point concerning an adverse connotation was made when the Wedgwood seller suggested: . . . we look at something and think is it worth that amount of money. Why is it worth that amount of money? And a lot of customers voted with their feet and thought well yes it is not worth the money, or whatever in their belief, and it is not worth it to have it in the box, in the lovely tissues, with the point of sale, the gift card—all the little touches that would make it extra special because at the end of the day the item is very similar to the one in Asda, or Tescos.

This is revealing evidence of how connections were made between UK ceramic products formerly positioned as prestigious and the proliferation of cheap Far Eastern ceramic goods found in supermarkets, since they now both came from essentially the same source. Previously, when Kneale Ashwell, the new chief executive of Wedgwood, spoke about his plans for the brand, he observed, “Wedgwood is perceived as English, full of history, elegant, fine bone china and not found in Tesco” (Tableware International, February 1992, Vol. 22, No. 1). Wedgwood was not sold through Tesco, but the impact of the Far East outsourcing has meant that the same types of ceramics, in effect, were. The distinction only derives from the brand name and designs, but in this sense, outsourcing has had a fascinating impact on the perception of value. The above observation mirrors marketing research that reported how there could be, on some levels, less favorable attitudes toward products originating from developing countries (Bao, Zhang, and Simpson 2011: 48). Research has been published that argued that attitudes toward Chinese products in the United States improved from 1979 to 1987. Ironically, it was argued that “Chinese products such as apparel and porcelain, which incorporate craftsmanship and are labor-intensive, should be primary promoted” (Brunner, Flaschner, and Xiaogang 1993: 397). Their research even noted how handcrafted Chinese products, such as figurines and textiles have started to be marketed through Winterthur Museum and Gardens, with an emphasis on the quality, uniqueness and

140

Ceramics and Globalization

the economic value. In this sense, attitudes to Far Eastern ceramics are uneven and contradictory, since it is the context that influences the interpretation or meaning. Nevertheless, the views of the Wedgwood seller would imply problems with parts of Lash and Urry’s analysis of “global sociology.” Attaching an entire meaning to a commodity through the branding apparently has limitations (1994: 15), since maintaining the perception of a high “value” seems much harder if outsourced abroad. The dilemma of Wedgwood, and others at the same level of the market, was how to sustain Moffat’s concept of “snob value,” as evidently, it had not gone unnoticed by consumers that the products were manufactured in the Far East. Globalization theories do not appear to have readily addressed how the new place of production would be devoid of any meaning, or could simply be eradicated by subsequent marketing. Problems seem to have arisen when prestigious UK ceramic brands have attempted to place the product at a high-retail value when manufacturing takes place in districts associated with cheap labor. It is not due to a prejudice against Far Eastern goods (otherwise ceramic imports from the Far East and Asia into the UK would be objected to), but rather to the combination of backstamps and detachable labels that created convergent narratives that cannot always be disguised, and are not necessarily ignored, according to this Wedgwood retailer. The problem for manufacturers is not simply to find the cheapest place of production but also to consider the other side of the equation, which is the consumers’ perception of what could be interpreted as a masquerade. If it was as straightforward as Lash and Urry suggest, outsourcing to the Far East would not have raised any comments at all, but it does appear to have been an issue with UK consumers for this Wedgwood retailer. Outsourcing to the Far East creates a conundrum that has been particularly problematic for prestigious UK ceramics since it usurps parts of the original meaning. But, it must be emphasized that it is rather dependent on the level of the market. For instance, the profitable Churchill China discussed in Chapter 4 outsources to the Far East and manufactures in Tunstall, but it was previously described as a provider of the lower-end tableware market (Tableware International, June 1995, Vol. 22, No. 5). Even though this retailer attempted to reassure consumers that what Wedgwood manufactured in the Far East was under license, and they never misled the potential buyer as to where it was manufactured, consumer perceptions were often inexorable. On another level, there could be the additional issue of subverting perceptions of where the commodity was made, if consumers still had an interest in where the product was “crafted.” As the retailer recalled, a typical issue raised was that “. . . we have these craftspeople—excellent craftspeople who had studied and created for you, to achieve a standard that was a great standard. And that is what they wanted to buy it for. And that is what they wanted.” Here, there is evidence of the paradoxical nature of an industrial product still having connections or pretensions to craft, which also potentially loads the commodity with an additional sense of where it was “crafted.” The object is the image, rather than the image is the object. Thus, the Wedgwood retailer drew a distinction between how the fashion industry behaved, compared to the ceramic industry. As the interviewee said:

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand

141

Fashion hasn’t suffered in that way. You can get a top now—you can go into a local department store and find a Paul Smith suit made abroad somewhere, and no-one would bat an eyelid. It is Paul Smith, they would buy it for that reason. But unfortunately with a company like Wedgwood, or Royal Doulton, or whatever, with their heritage in this country, that should have been taken into consideration. With a designer, it doesn’t matter where they go. Paul Smith could easily outsource his fabric anywhere in the world—in the cheapest factory that we know: he could get something from the middle of China and because it is Paul Smith people would buy it: they wouldn’t have a problem with it. They would never, ever question that. But with the ceramics industry, with the history be it in this country—people take that into account.

In terms of a Wedgwood consumer, shifting production created issues of eroding historical associations to England, and these radical changes were apparently perceived as an encroachment of Wedgwood’s brand values: “. . . if it had Wedgwood [on it], they would automatically think Stoke-on-Trent. Because that is what we grew up with: Wedgwood is in Stoke-on-Trent, it isn’t in Indonesia.” Therefore, the comments of the Wedgwood retailer support the perception side of the premise of this book. Only to a “certain extent” was it felt that focusing on a designer name made the actual place of manufacture less relevant to consumers. It is notable that in this retailer’s opinion, the reasons leading up to Wedgwood’s administration in January 2009 were linked to outsourcing (described as a “major problem”), followed by an inability to design around changing lifestyles. In the manner of Spooner’s analysis of “oriental carpets,” the “real thing” is not simply the artifact but how the commodity relates to a wider social and cultural context (1986: 221). Based on the experiences of this retailer, consumers were not indifferent as to where Wedgwood was manufactured, as Far Eastern outsourcing was introduced.

Wedgwood Pricing The problems that outsourcing can bring to the perception of value is an intriguing one. One of the concerns of Dr. Hugh Padley, formerly of Spode, when interviewed regarding outsourcing, was, “How can you have uniqueness when you have the same manufacturer churning out the product for different potteries?” In the past, the uniqueness of the brands might be aided by price. As discussed in Chapter 2, one of the characteristics of imported Asian ceramics in the 1990s was their anonymity (or so-called deterritorialization) and their low price. The impact that outsourcing had on the Wedgwood pricing strategy can be suggested as follows: a Jasper Conran casual dining range appeared in the John Lewis, autumn/winter catalog of 2004 (Beamish Archive), the breakfast cup being priced at £6.50 and the saucer at £4.00. In 2009, an earthenware cup in the same Conran range was sold with a detachable label declaring “Made in Indonesia” for £7.00 (Figure 7.2). By comparison, a plain white bone china mug made in Staffordshire was offered at £13.00 in 2009, with a sale price of £9.75.

142

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 7.2  Josiah Wedgwood, cup, designed by Jasper Conran, earthenware, purchased 2009. Detachable label, made in Indonesia.

The detachable label indicates that it was made in England. A plain, but ribbedrimmed “Queen’s ware” earthenware plate by Wedgwood, declared as “made in England” on the backstamp, had a retail price of £9.50 in 2009. Apparently, there was not a huge price difference between ceramics manufactured by Wedgwood in the UK and those produced in the Far East. In fact, when the Wedgwood seller was asked whether the introduction of outsourcing to the Far East was ever reflected in offering a price difference to the consumer, the reply was: “Not always, I would say. Some products were, but some weren’t.” It appears that Wedgwood did not significantly lower prices when the ceramic goods were manufactured in the Far East or the Pacific Rim, whereas in supermarkets and department stores and so on Far Eastern ceramics were sold more cheaply (see Chapter 2).

Supply Problems R. F. Imrie’s research paper (briefly mentioned in Chapter 1) also outlined the complex relationship between supply and demand in the case of the ceramic trade. Imrie points out how, as the turnover of ceramics is relatively slow, it requires a diverse stockholding, compared to many other commodities that had created a situation whereby “. . . since the early 1980s . . . retailers have demanded delivery ‘just-in-time,’ according to their estimations of demand. For the pottery firm, this has led to a new regime based on targeted production” (1989: 14). As early as 1999, Gerald Tams (when retiring as chairman of John Tams) envisaged that buying mass-produced products from the Far East would not necessarily be the answer, since the retail sector in the UK and Europe required a

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand

143

faster service (The Sentinel August 18, 1999). This view has persisted; for instance, in 2001 an article appeared in the Tableware International entitled “British suppliers bullish despite imports.” Anthony O’Reilly, chief executive of Wedgwood, argued, “foreign imports were no longer a threat, they are already with us.” He believed that the “threat posed by imports from lower cost countries is balanced, many believe, by the faster delivery times” (Tableware International, September 2001, Vol. 31, No. 8). In Chapter 5, the interview with a tableware designer indicated how the parallel development of computers helped to overcome certain problems of transferring designs to the Far East, but the evidence of this Wedgwood retailer confirmed how delivery times still remained a fundamental issue. The retailer had experience of the Johnson Brothers brand, and as established in Chapter 3, this brand was outsourced to China. The Wedgwood seller recalled: Johnson Brothers have suffered in the last—probably 6 years or more—because of supply problems, because they can’t get the goods from Indonesia because not only are they abroad, but everyone else is. They are all dealing with the same ceramic manufacturing outlets out there. And although they are having these things made for them there, they normally come by boat, which takes forever to get here. Customers want it then and there. Johnson Brothers was still a brand that was collected by people eight years ago. I don’t know if you would recognise it, but there was a pattern called “Eternal Beau”—you could get anything.

Johnson Brothers introduced the “Eternal Beau” range in 1981, according to one of their advertisements (Tableware International, July 1993, Vol. 23, No. 6). The original backstamp declared, “Made in England,” and even provided the name of the designer, Sarina Mascheroni. Argos catalogs widely promoted “Eternal Beau” during the 1990s, as mentioned in Chapter 2 (see Figure 7.3). The Wedgwood seller added: Yes you could get anything—bread bins, whole tableware ranges—cookie jarseverything. And that was a worldwide best seller. And you never see it. Yes, I know things have changed, but there are probably people who would still be buying that now. You never, ever get it in the shops. They had huge production problems and time delays: if people want it, they want it now, they don’t want it in 3 months time.

In this sense, the views of the Wedgwood retailer also coincides with the opinion of Norman Tempest of Royal Stafford (discussed in Chapter 6), in that outsourcing does impact on supply or lead times. So, while new technology could aid with communication between the Staffordshire-based company (or the Staffordshirebased designer) and the Far Eastern manufacturer, the issue of supply appears to have remained unresolved. The evidence from the Wedgwood seller was that there were perception problems with outsourcing, and also price differences created by outsourcing were

144

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 7.3  Johnson Bros., teaware, “Eternal Beau” pattern, designed by Sarina Mascheroni, tableware, earthenware, from 1981.

not always immediately obvious to the consumer. Finally, there could be supply problems. However, this is just the evidence of one retailer with experience of a prestigious brand. Wedgwood went into administration in 2009, and the person interviewed had just been made redundant. While it will be extremely hard to document these experiences in the future, her views might be based on emotion, and thus other specialist retailers with extensive knowledge of ceramic demand were also approached.

James Pirie of St. Andrews, Scotland To provide a broader sense of changing ceramic demand, and attitudes to outsourcing well-known Staffordshire brands, an interview was undertaken in 2010 with Louise Edward, managing director of James Pirie, china and glass retailer, St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland. This retailer sold a range of ceramic goods, both imported products and those made in the UK, including locally manufactured ceramics, such as hand-painted Wemyss pottery, made in Ceres, Fife. To the question of what was selling well in the last year (c. 2009), the reply was: “In ceramics, our best sellers at present, and in the last year certainly, if not more than that, have been Emma Bridgewater, the Cath Kidston designs in Churchill, Highland Stoneware, Dunoon Ceramics still do very well, and Mason’s ‘Blue Denmark,’ which is now Johnson’s Tableware.” Ten years ago (c. 2000) this retailer recalled: Denby was one of our biggest selling lines ten years ago. Nowadays we don’t even show it. It doesn’t sell well at all.

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand

145

Spode’s “Blue Italian,” Johnson’s Blue Denmark, Portmeirion’s “Botanic Garden” was one of our fastest sellers then, because we sold a lot to the States, and also Royal Worcester’s “Evesham” did well.

In an attempt to respond to changing demand, Denby launched a range of outsourced white porcelain kitchenware in 2000, and a range of white fine china (see Chapter 4). In comparison, this retailer’s experience of c. 2005 was: “Over the last five years it would still be Blue Denmark, and Spode’s ‘Blue Italian.’ Denby was still selling, and a lot of Maxwell [&] Williams. This was when it first hit the market, and that took off in a big way.” The view that Maxwell & Williams’ tableware had increased in demand coincides with a Tableware International article of 2007, which declared that this brand had “in four short years . . . become a respected, household name in the UK.” The article added: “All Maxwell & Williams products are made from the finest quality materials available. The company sources manufacturers of the highest repute to work closely with its team of Australian based designers” (Tableware International, November 2007, Vol. 38, No. 3). No production of tableware appears to be taking place in Australia. When the Australian Fine China Ltd. of Perth closed in 2006, it was described as the last remaining manufacturer of porcelain tableware in Australia and New Zealand (Tableware International, Autumn 2006: Vol. 34, No. 2). The assumption is that Maxwell & Williams manufacture in the Far East or Pacific Rim. In 2005, Maxwell & Williams’ “white basics” 20-piece dining range was priced at £40. Apparently, the range had become the best-selling white tableware in Harrods’ cookshop in 2004 (The Evening Standard November 30, 2005). Maxwell & Williams were consistently described as a company that “produces designer china at budget prices” (Independent Extra October 15, 2009). However, their bone china was more expensive. Maxwell & Williams’ new “Moon Shadow,” a 20-piece dining range in bone china, was advertised in the Birmingham Evening Mail and Liverpool’s Daily Post for £110 in 2008 (November 24, 2008: November 29, 2008) (see Figure 7.4). Maxwell & Williams’ backstamps or packaging does not indicate where the products are manufactured, or that the company is even Australian. This relates to the opinion of Jane Castle of Steamer Trading, when interviewed by Tableware International: “If you look around our shops, turning items upside down, you will see that we stock ranges from all over the world. Maxwell and Williams are Australian, I think. It really doesn’t matter where something comes from provided that it is stylish, practical, works and, in my own opinion, cheerful” (May/June 2008, Vol. 130, No. 3). This opinion conforms to the globalization theory of deterritorialization as outlined in Chapter 1. Maxwell & Williams’ tableware designs have been functionally minimalist, or decorative, and in the opinion of Louise Edward, managing director of James Pirie of St. Andrews Ltd., Maxwell & Williams had been a popular seller, stylistically “touching” on many designs that James Pirie already retailed.

146

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 7.4  Maxwell & Williams, deep plates, “Moon Shadow” Cashmere range, bone china, from 2008. (Detachable label on front of plates.)

Place of Origin Even though Maxwell & Williams’ wares had sold well through James Pirie, and the products are an example of being deterritorialized in terms of their lack of attachment to a place, when asked whether customers ever voiced a concern as to where Staffordshire ceramics were actually produced, as outsourcing was introduced, the response was very different: Initially they were horrified, for something like Spode’s “Blue Italian” to suddenly be made in China or India. Some people, I would say, would have put that back, but with time, in order to make up a set, if they have broken a tea cup, they bought a replacement, even though it is a slightly darker transfer, and a slightly different shape, they would still buy it to make their set up. They almost had to accept it, but initially they didn’t like.

In 2010, Louise Edward still felt that there were instances of consumers not buying a UK brand because it was outsourced, although a need for replacements forced a purchase. Nevertheless, the reactions to the Spode “Blue Italian” range manufactured in the Far East were significant. In spite of its obvious complex stylistic origins, it has become associated with Britishness. There was a certain resistance to buying a Staffordshire brand now manufactured abroad. Portmeirion acquired some Spode designs in 2009. The managing director of Pirie of St. Andrews referred to the fact that Portmeirion “are making ‘Blue Italian’ back in Britain, which is also a great move, as well” (see Chapter 8, Figure 8.4). When asked how consumers had responded to this move, it was added:

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand

147

Well, we are telling our customers. Once again, they have changed the shapes— there is a bit of grief there, but we are saying, yes, the shape has changed slightly, it has been bought over by Portmeirion, but you will notice that on the back, it is made in Britain again. And that fact alone, as “Blue Italian” tends to be bought by a very classic and traditional type of buyer, they do like to hear.

The point about Portmeirion deciding to remake Spode’s “Blue Italian” design in Stoke, rather than in China, is considered in more detail in next chapter. Although there was a certain resistance to buying a well-known brand such as Spode when made abroad, it should be stressed that this retailer had pointed out how Churchill’s Cath Kidston designs were selling well. It was added that Cath Kidston’s designs (marketed as Queens) were in “every magazine that you pick up” (see Chapter 4, Figure 4.5 for an example). Likewise, this Scottish retailer indicated the popularity of Bridgewater wares was chiefly because of the “the look,” not because of where it was made. The “made in England” just ticks another box. It was also pointed out how Bridgewater prices had increased, but sales continued unabated.

Pricing The Wedgwood retailer implied that the pricing strategy was mixed when outsourcing to the Far East occurred. But, the response from Louise Edward of Pirie of St. Andrews, when asked if outsourcing caused UK ceramic brands to become lower in price, was: No it did not, and this was our biggest complaint to the manufacturers. Not only did we have to accept that some items were no longer being made in Britain, and also accept the shape was going to change, because of the new modern machines making the ceramics (which would give us grief, without a doubt, if we are carrying old stock and new stock), and yet, the price is to stay exactly the same! Some things were actually more expensive. And that did cause a lot of complaints from us, and the customers alike.

When asked if a price difference was still occurring, the answer was: “I would say so, yes. Well, obviously, most of our manufacturers have been made abroad for a long time now, but it will always be a complaint.” The issue then was, what exactly did consumers believe they were acquiring for the price of a top Staffordshire brand, in comparison to Far Eastern ceramics sold in supermarkets for a couple of pounds? Well, we often wondered that. You know, you are getting cheaper labour, cheaper materials, and you are putting your name on it, and you are still commanding a price when it was made in Britain! We had to accept that they couldn’t keep the factories open in this country, due to rising costs, and that they were moving all the machines and everything abroad. We thought that stock would then come in cheaper. As you have just

148

Ceramics and Globalization

stated, if you go into a supermarket, or a hardware store and you find the Chinese equivalents, they tend to be cheaper. No, this didn’t happen—the new Far Eastern stock came in at the same high price.

In the manner of the Wedgwood seller, Louise Edward indicated how, in spite of maintaining the high price, there was a loss of prestige. The connotation to the consumer was that the product was cheaper. “In our minds, and I don’t think it is just the ceramic industry, I think it is to the everyday customer. If we see something that is produced abroad, in China, in India, we expect it to be cheaper, don’t we?” In these circumstances of paramount importance was that the ceramics were knowingly made abroad, yet still sold at prices equivalent to those being manufactured in the UK. This presented a major conundrum for UK Staffordshire brands. In addition, according to the retailer, the importance of the price as a driving force behind sales was rather dependent on whether it was a historical brand, made in the UK. I have to say price. I think that price is always the thing that drives the sale. If it is made in the UK—perhaps the background history of the brand may have some impact, but if it is not made in the UK, I would say, it was just price that was important. Possibly not even the quality, just what they can afford at the time, and the design fits. I am not sure if people are driven by the background of the manufacturer anymore; they have probably never heard of the manufacturer before! Quality—well, modern household customers change their tableware all of the time, so quality is not such a big part of buying tableware anymore. Nothing is made to last now, and it doesn’t need to, as customers change their tableware every time they change the colour of their kitchen. So price, I think, would be my first choice for the driving force here.

As shown in Chapter 1, Press and Cooper have argued that to explain consumer motivation as entirely guided by price may be simplistic. In the case of ceramics, the issue of outsourcing historical or prestigious UK ceramics introduced another layer of complexity. But even so, consistently the price of a prestigious Staffordshire brand had not dropped due to outsourcing to the Far East, since cheaper labor costs were not reflected in the selling costs.

Thomas Goode, Mayfair, London Thomas Goode based in Mayfair, London, was contacted to further explore how far high-end brands were sensitive to where they were manufactured. Goode’s of London has been trading since 1827, and its prestigious location in central London suggested that it would have intimate knowledge of marketing premier ceramic goods—both UK and Continental (The Evening Sentinel November 25,

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand

149

1994). Some indication of their significance in the ceramic market is that their retail mark appeared as a backstamp on Staffordshire brands. For instance, ceramics manufactured by Ashworth & Bros. Ltd. of Hanley in the early twentieth century had the printed mark of Mason and “T. Goode & Co., South Audley Street, London.” Ashworth’s acquired the patterns of C.J. Mason in the late 1850s, and, in fact, restyled itself as Mason’s Ironstone China Ltd. in 1968 (Godden 1971: 20–21). An envisaged “separation” between the ceramic manufacturers and retailers is more complex in the case of the UK ceramic industry. Significant retailers have had shares in manufacturing businesses. Between 1994 and 2007, Thomas Goode owned a Staffordshire company called Caverswall China of Berryhill Road, Fenton. Trevor Johnson, a managing director, then acquired Caverswall (The Sentinel February 23, 1994; March 12, 2007), and he was interviewed for this book, as mentioned in Chapter 8. During 1994–2007, Caverswall China “produced the majority of our [Goode’s] bone china offering including [sic] bespoke orders.” Also, according to Andrew Guest, commercial director of Thomas Goode, even when they sold Caverswall China, it continued to produce the “Thomas Goode bone china collection” and “the majority of our bespoke requirements.” Thomas Goode considered their market to be high-end ceramics, “the best of both traditional and contemporary.” The type of changes that Andrew Guest observed was similar to the Wedgwood retailer and to James Pirie of St. Andrews. Consumers were less likely to see a dinner service as a lifetime purchase. During Guest’s 18-year involvement in selling ceramics (at the time of the research), he had seen a rise in demand for minimalist or plain ceramics. This coincides with the plain white services offered by Maxwell & Williams (mentioned above), or by English brands such as Royal Worcester, designed in 1998, and still available in John Lewis in 2010. Nevertheless, Guest believed that this design trend was beginning to change. The other significant difference was that there was less of a difference between what department stores and supermarkets offered. In addition, Guest felt: Around ten years ago there was a decline in the demand for formal dining from people getting married. Most department stores changed their policies allowing couples to accrue funds from a list which they could then use to buy an incredible TV or sound system for example. Along with the increase in popularity of minimalist tableware, which could be purchased from a supermarket for a fraction of the cost of a formal dinner service. Very few people buy wedding gifts which don’t feature on a wedding list.

The point about supermarkets is evidence of the impact of Far Eastern ceramics on consumption. Interestingly, though, Andrew Guest reported cases of customers voicing a concern about UK ceramic brands being outsourced to the Far East, and not making a purchase because of this factor. This was still occurring within the business and “as a result we only carry one ceramic design which is outsourced by UK manufacturers.” More precisely: “With the majority of UK ceramics now produced in the Far East we now only carry one pattern from Spode, none from

150

Ceramics and Globalization

Royal Worcester and only one rich-ware pattern from Wedgwood which is still produced in the UK.” According to Guest, Thomas Goode’s customers had expressed limited interest in UK ceramics endorsed by Jasper Conran, Vera Wang, or Jamie Oliver, apart from, “the only designer I’m aware of where this has happened is William Yeoward and these ceramics are still UK produced.” Guest considered that formal Limoges porcelain tableware was selling well in the last year at the time of the interview. Allegiances had shifted from formal English bone china tableware, both traditional and contemporary, in the proceeding five years. Therefore, prestigious products from the Continental manufacturers seem to have replaced the wares of the Staffordshire producers. Guest added: “. . . if manufacturers can produce a well designed quality product at a reasonable price there is definitely a market for it. The manufacturers in Limoges and Germany have not suffered like Staffordshire, they have maintained quality and design and very little is outsourced outside Europe.” Goviers of Sidmouth (whose evidence is more extensively used in Chapter 8) recorded that they had successfully promoted and sold Lalique made in France, Herend made in Hungary, and Lladro of Spain, but importantly, in the managing director’s view, “not if these were outsourced from the Far East.”

Summary At the beginning of this chapter, market research, published by Tableware International of 2008, reported no concerns due to where UK ceramics were manufactured. In addition, Chapter 3 mentioned press references to market research commissioned by Staffordshire manufacturers that also downplayed the relevance of place of production. As established, when interviewing certain UK tableware manufacturers, there was also some ambivalence about the importance of place of production, when considering the attitudes of the modern consumer. However, the most striking aspect of this chapter is how the ceramic retailers interviewed did report perception issues arising from the outsourcing of certain UK and Staffordshire brands. Theoretically, the attitudes of retailers should have matched previously published research. This would either suggest that attitudes have changed at the time of this research, or previous market research was carried out under different circumstances. The findings of this chapter indicate that when prestigious UK ceramics were manufactured in the Far East, it resulted in a connotation of inferiority. This appears to have stemmed from the issue that the East is often associated with cheap labor, and that ceramics manufactured in the Far East, or Asia are readily sold in supermarkets at low prices. The perception problem of outsourcing status brands, such as Wedgwood and Spode, was compounded by the lack of price reduction. While it was also confirmed by the Wedgwood seller that there was interest in designer names and celebrities, overall this did not, at the same time, diminish an interest in the “traditional” place of origin.

The Impact of Far Eastern Outsourcing on UK Ceramic Demand

151

This relates to an argument expressed by Robert Bocock that recognized how modern consumerism is rather more dependent on a “set of symbols,” although he, at the same time, questioned how far these may be “imposed upon customers” by companies simply advertising their products (1993: 54–55). The fact that UK ceramics could be attached to notions of craft may also have influenced these perceptions. Brands referred to by the ceramic retailers were the high-status ones, with long and distinctive heritages. So, while this chapter indicates that outsourcing of UK ceramic tableware brands can impact on perception, it does not prove that this has altered the behavior of UK manufacturers. The only area where there was a closer agreement between the views of a retailer and a manufacturer was related to the physical problem of shipping from the Far East in time to supply the demands of the UK market. In order to establish whether there was a greater commonality between the attitudes of ceramic retailers and manufacturers concerning the perception issue, which in turn influences the behavior of UK manufacturers, requires a consideration of other types of ceramics produced.

152

Chapter 8 UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

In some respects the attitudes of manufacturers, compared to those of retailers, can be contradictory. The tableware manufacturers referred to in Chapter 6 were often less convinced by consumers’ interest in place of manufacture, even when manufacturing in the UK. The maintaining of manufacturing and design agility accounts far more for their behavior, rather than a concern for consumer perception. Nevertheless, the previous chapter drew attention to specialist retailers who reported cases of consumer antagonism toward certain kinds of Staffordshire tableware when manufactured in the Far East. Shifting production to the Far East had not been inconsequential in terms of the perception of UK ceramics, particularly if the brand was associated with high status. Where manufacturers were more likely to concede that perception does influence manufacturing behavior, it has been in certain types of production only. This chapter considers why more precisely this is the case, bringing together the opinions of manufacturers, an art director, and retailers. To inform this part of the debate, the observations of Baudrillard are also referred to, since his work addressed the complex issue of collecting and authenticity.

Constructs In 2009, an entire edition of Design Issues was devoted to “Design in a Global Context: envisioning postcolonial and transnational possibilities.” One article by Rovine discussed problems with making distinctions between what was “traditional” African or Western colonial clothing. A view that emerged was that such labels “are more reflective of the nature of the markets in which they circulate than of any objective reality” (Rovine 2009: 47). In a similar way, it is perhaps not widely appreciated that individual ceramic production is “outsourced” within Stoke-on-Trent, even among the brands most celebrated for not outsourcing abroad. Some misconceptions have often evolved, in both a modern and historical sense. In the nineteenth century, the ceramic historian Simeon Shaw connected ware types to individual potters, such as Thomas Whieldon (1970: 155), and ceramic historians persisted in using the terms “Whieldon ware” and “Whieldon

154

Ceramics and Globalization

types” into the twentieth century (Honey 1948: 8). However, the problems of readily attributing wares and styles of decoration to certain manufacturers can be questioned when using archaeological evidence (Barker and Cole 1998; Barker 1991: 165–67). As mentioned in Chapter 2, a Staffordshire firm called Adams suggested in their 1970s production catalog that they were established as early as 1657, which parallels Weinberger et al.’s view that “it’s not uncommon for purportedly authentic marketing campaigns to be based on history that never really existed” (2008: 40), or other research that has established how marketing can be based on simply a “partially borrowed heritage” (DeFanti, Bird, and Caldwell 2013: 14). Although some marketing theorists argue that “authenticity is a contrivance rather than a reality” (Alexander 2009: 553) and some commentators have viewed UK ceramic backstamps applied to outsourced products as purposely misleading, deceptive backstamps are not a new phenomenon. For instance, a ceramic manufacturing family called Wood of Burslem had one of their sons christened John Wedg Wood in 1814 (des Fontaines 1987: 143–63). The ceramic products manufactured by this son were marked “J.WEDGWOOD” in the 1850s (Kowalsky 1999: 383–84), apparently attempting to tap into the reputation of Josiah Wedgwood of Etruria. Historically, ceramic backstamps have identified as well as potentially deceived consumers (Mollerup 1997: 33). Indeed, Raymond Weightman (formerly on the board of Royal Worcester and Spode) wrote an article in Tableware International in 1990 entitled “Talent to deceive,” tracing back examples of UK and European ceramic manufacturers plagiarizing designs and backstamps for at least 250 years (September 1990, Vol. 20, No. 8). A reticence on behalf of contemporary manufacturers not to lobby for tighter backstamping regulations is perhaps a reflection of a deeper understanding of what has occurred within the industry in the past and what is economically necessary. Arguably, notions of the UK ceramic industry in the Potteries are constructs, but this does not make consumer interest in “place of origin” irrelevant. As Forty has pointed out (based on Roland Barthes’ Mythologies), design has a capacity to cast myths, and these potentially influence ways in which consumers think (1986: 9). Ironically, as established in Chapter 2, it has often been the leading manufacturers who have reinforced the importance of place, craft, and family heritage in their earlier forms of marketing. The separation between the knowledge of manufacturers and what may be an idealized view of consumers has perhaps, made it harder to accept Far Eastern outsourcing as one consequence of globalization. In a similar way, even though it has been conceded by Anthony Smith that national cultures may well be constructs, it is argued that globalization could reinforce nationality, forcing it to become “particular, timebound and expressive” (1990: 176–78). Lash and Urry acknowledge Smith’s opinion, but argue that notions of “ethnies/nationalities will become increasingly constructed through imagery” (1994: 310). As indicated in Chapter 4, nationalistic motifs, or the phraseology of ceramic backstamps, might imply a continuation of links to Staffordshire or the UK, even when manufactured in the Far East. The question then arises of whether Lash and Urry’s “imagery” model does apply to all aspects of ceramic consumption.

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

155

Commemoratives and Collectibles Susan Pearce’s academic analysis of collecting habits suggests how it gradually evolved from coins and stamps to a “recent or contemporary” focus on animal figures, plates, and so on, developing “around 1970” (1998: 176). She also observed how in the 1990s companies such as Compton and Woodhouse and Royal Doulton marketed their collectibles in terms of mentioning an “artist, as somebody one should have heard of ” (Pearce 1998: 84). A Royal Doulton plate in Figure 8.1, featuring “Great Racehorses” by the artist William Nassau, is an example of such an approach. Commemoratives and collectibles have been a segment of UK ceramic production. However, companies such as Aynsley of Longton have for a long period produced commemorative wares (Ashworth 2002: 24–36), such as mugs for George V’s Coronation dating to c. 1911.

Figure 8.1 Royal Doulton, collectors’ plate, “Great Racehorses” artwork by William Nassau, bone china, from 1997. Backstamp, incorporating the “Made in England” phrase below Doulton insignia © 1997. Royal Doulton figurine, “Diana” bone china. Backstamp indicating “Designed in England,” and detachable label indicating place of manufacture as Thailand. Box packaging indicating design date of © 2007, and place of manufacture as Thailand.

156

Ceramics and Globalization

Manufacturing collectibles has continued to be a significant part of the UK ceramic industry in the period examined by this book. For example, a Key Note China and Earthenware report noted: “The collectors’ market for plates and figurines, etc. is anticipated to show considerable growth in the UK and overseas. Early and limited designs are increasingly sought by the antique trade and frequently feature in auction rooms, fetching well above their original price” (Key Note 1998: 59). Furthermore, when Patrick Wenger stepped down as chief executive of Royal Doulton in 2000, it was argued by him that the best way forward for the Staffordshire industry was niche manufacturing. Whereas Wedgwood could focus on luxury tableware, Doulton could build on its collectible list, particularly with the Bunnykins range (The Sentinel May 24, 2000). The Pollyanna Pottery, then of Chell Street, Hanley, having previously produced a range of commemorative ceramics for the Queen’s 80th birthday in 2006, was involved in manufacturing the ceramic “Royal Collection” for Prince William’s wedding. It was announced that the “Royal Collection” would consist of a tankard costing £35, an eight-inch plate priced at £40, and a pillbox costing £25, all embellished with gold and platinum, incorporating a “Made in England” backstamp (The Sentinel December 21, 2010). Commercially, when the engagement of Prince William and Catherine Middleton was announced in November 2010, it was considered “good news” for some UK pottery companies. Aynsley of Longton, Caverswall China of Fenton, and Portmeirion of Stoke (this company having bought the “Royal Worcester” name in 2009, and Worcester having a tradition of producing royal memorabilia) were reported as putting commemorative designs into production. It was even estimated by Trevor Johnson, managing director of Caverswall China, that if their Royal limited editions sold well, this could create sales of between £75,000 and £100,000 (The Sentinel November 17, 2010). The reason for drawing attention to the UK ceramic industry’s relationship with commemoratives and collectibles is to examine whether these types of products need to be considered differently, since a problem with applying the implications of globalization might be ignoring how versatile the products can be. For instance, in the 2000s, Dr. Matthew Paterson, senior lecturer in International Relations at Keele University, believed that the best way forward for the Staffordshire ceramic industry was to emphasize research, design, and branding, while increasingly distancing itself from place of manufacture. Paterson described this approach as following the “Nike paradigm,” adding: “The pottery industry is not in principle that different—the principal asset owned by companies like Royal Doulton or Wedgwood is their brand name, and occasionally specific traditional designs, rather than the factories in Barlaston or elsewhere in the area” (The Sentinel January 11, 2004). Certainly, following this kind of argument, ceramic collectibles were outsourced to the Far East by some Staffordshire firms. However, various reports in the Staffordshire press questioned how far the collectible aspect of the trade would adapt to outsourcing. In one instance, Clive Simpson, a Gloucester-based specialist in Royal Doulton figurines, pointed out how:

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

157

Some collectors have said “that’s it, I’m finished. I’m not going to buy Chinesemade Bunnykins. I know one chap who has hundreds and hundreds of them, and won’t have anything to do with the new ones. Others have said they don’t agree with the company doing British people out of jobs. But some have said the figures are better than the ones made in England. Although there was some resistance at first, some people seem to be coming round . . . interestingly, sales of the figures haven’t dropped away. I do think new people are being attracted to them, while some of the old collectors have decided not to continue” (The Sentinel November 2, 2003).

When Hugh Saunders, formerly the head tableware designer of Royal Doulton, was asked about the impact of Far Eastern outsourcing on the decorative items, the view was: Certainly, what I have heard since . . . from people who used to be Doulton aficionados . . . have sort of said to me, and they have turned a figure over, or something, and said it was made in China, they didn’t want it. So, that is certainly my . . . in the UK, that is what I am talking about, I don’t know the issues elsewhere.

Importantly, Saunders made a particular connection between the issue of place of production and collectible figurines, rather than Doulton tableware, with which he was heavily involved as a tableware surface pattern designer (see Chapter 5). Although Saunders felt that the American casual market was less interested in place of production, the more formal bone china segment would be looking for more than just an English appearance. Although there has been a shift in production of Staffordshire collectibles, what is interesting are the cases where individuals have attempted to resurrect UK production. Beswick was noted for its collectibles and was a Royal Doulton brand. However, the company had ceased making any figures in Stoke-on-Trent by 2003. The Beswick brand was put up for sale in 2004 for £1.5 million (The Sentinel January 24, 2004). The new owner, John Sinclair, a Yorkshire businessman (who owned eight antique centers across the UK), stated at this time: “Beswick England will be a prestigious range including limited editions that will be made under contract at an unnamed company in Tunstall. Meanwhile, the John Beswick range feature animals in the style of the original which will be manufactured in Malaysia by Enesco” (The Sentinel June 7, 2005). Enesco is an American brand recognized for its production of ceramic figurines. Two questions arise from the example of Doulton outsourcing collectibles and the behavior of Beswick. First, was the demand for some ceramics eroded because production was moved to the Far East? Secondly, why have there been more attempts to maintain the production of the collectible category of ceramics in the UK? Relating to the first issue, Louise Edward, managing director of a specialist ceramic store called James Pirie of St. Andrews, Fife, referred to changing attitudes toward interior design, but significantly added when questioned about the demand for Doulton figurines:

158

Ceramics and Globalization

. . . the sales have plummeted for these type of figures over the past 2 decades, possibly due to the traditional, decorated and detailed figures not being fashionable in our “modern clutter free” homes, but also due to the fact they are no longer produced in England. Royal Doulton have tried to revamp the figures over the last decade by painting jewellery on the figures, adding a hint of gold, such as earrings or a tiara, giving the figurine an up to date hairstyle and changing names to modern popular females names such as Sophie, Diana and Chelsea. Sadly to no avail.

In other words, no longer manufacturing Doulton figurines in England were part of the reason why there was a decline in demand. The Royal Doulton figurine called “Diana,” as referred to by Louise Edward, is shown in Figure 8.1. Royal Doulton used the “Designed in England” approach on the backstamp. The detachable label and the packaging indicate the actual place of manufacture was Thailand. As drawn attention to in Chapter 1, Baudrillard’s The System of Objects of the late 1960s, discussed the market for antiques, and also considered the desire to collect generally, noting how at lower levels of society there still can be acquisition of china and earthenware animals and decorated mugs ([1968] 2005: 163). As far as Baudrillard was concerned, “It is impossible not to draw a comparison between the taste for antiques and the passion for collecting. . . . There are profound affinities between the two” because attached to this phenomenon lay a particular “nostalgia for origins and the obsession with authenticity” ([1968] 2005: 80). If Baudrillard’s observations are still relevant, UK ceramic brands outsourcing their collectibles to the Far East could become problematic, although, as discussed in Chapter 1, other writers, such as Gabriel and Lang, have argued that the postmodern consumer is no longer concerned with authenticity (2006: 88). An explanation for the differences of opinion is not simply due to the changing nature of the consumer, but perhaps reflects the nature of the commodity being considered. When the anthropologist, Brian Spooner, examined woven oriental carpets, he even argued that, “It appears that the concept of authenticity belongs to industrial (even more ‘postindustrial’) society,” in part because of “the plethora of objects and categories of objects that it generates for our consumption” (1986: 226).

Goviers of Sidmouth To provide greater insight into the issue of “place of origin” and whether this is still relevant to certain types of ceramics, Goviers of Sidmouth, Devon, a business that has focused on collectibles, provided information for this research. This firm had also advertised in the BBC’s Homes & Antiques magazine in December 2009, and providing a sense of their importance in the trade, it was announced that the Royal Crown Derby “Diamond Jubilee” collection—a pair of figurine doves—would be sold exclusively through “Royal Crown Derby specialist Goviers of Sidmouth” (Tableware International, May/June 2011: 8). Alan Morgenroth, managing director

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

159

of Goviers, provided comprehensive replies to questions. Morgenroth, described their business as dealing with as much as 90 percent in decorative and collectible ceramics, compared to just 10 percent of selling functional ceramics. Morgenroth precisely described their 2010 turnover of collectibles as follows: Royal Crown Derby 100% UK made—44% of our Turnover Moorcroft Pottery 100% UK made—8% of our Turnover Bronte Porcelain 100% UK made—5% of our Turnover Royal Doulton 10% (8% selling their old stocks of UK prestige and 2% imported product) Caithness Glass 3% Enamel Boxes—Halcyon Days, Elliot Hall and Bilston (now closed) 8%.

When Morgenroth was asked if customers ever voiced concerns as to where the ceramics were actually produced, the answer was: “Yes frequently. The majority of ‘Collectors’ (not buyers of tableware) of Royal Doulton will not buy figurines unless they are made in the UK.” For collectible ceramics, what constitutes authenticity still appeared to focus on the “place of origin,” in accordance with Baudrillard’s observations. In the case of ceramic collectibles, the interest is not wholly focused on an admiration for the end product, but it has deeper implications. Whether outsourcing had made a difference to Goviers’ ability to sell Royal Doulton figurines, the reply was: “Yes frequently, however it would be fair to say that many of these customers would then not pay the price had it been UK made!” Here, the order of importance in making a purchasing decision should be regarded as a consideration. In the case of Norman Tempest of Royal Stafford, the order of consumer priorities was described as “design, price, country of origin.” However, in the opinion of Morgenroth, the chief concerns were presented as follows: “With collectables it is, 1st Brand combined with Place of Manufacture, 2nd Quality of Design and subject matter, 3rd Price.” In other words, this was a complete reversal of what tableware manufacturers indicated. Apparently, the perception of ceramic collectibles remains different from tableware. Whereas celebrities might be used in the context of tableware in Morgenroth’s opinion, it was “worthy of note that you do not often get this type of endorsement on UK made” products. When Morgenroth was asked if there were still instances of consumers not buying the ceramic product because it was outsourced, he indicated: “Yes. There are a very many customers of Royal Doulton who would only buy UK made figurines who are now no longer collecting. If Royal Crown Derby started to outsource, 50% of the collectors would, in my view, stop collecting immediately.” The evidence of ceramic retailers relating to collectibles is that consumer attitudes toward outsourcing strategy have not been positive. However, to establish a clearer picture of what was Royal Crown Derby’s motivation behind continued UK manufacture, the company was directly approached for information.

160

Ceramics and Globalization

Royal Crown Derby Thus far, it appears that ceramics with a stronger collectible status (at point of production, rather than acquiring collectible status over time) are the most sensitive to changes in place of manufacture. Royal Crown Derby manufactures in the UK, and has even been described as Britain’s oldest china factory (Derby Evening Telegraph January 7, 2002). Louise Adams, who was art director at Royal Crown Derby, was approached for information. Interestingly, she also had family links to the Potteries, as one of her great-grandparents was a works’ engineer at the ceramic firm of Ridgways. Her grandfather, John Adams, became a designer at Bernard Moore of Stoke, and then one of the founders of the Poole Pottery business, acting as a main designer and managing director. Louise Adams’s parents studied industrial ceramics at the Royal College of Art, and at the time of conducting the research she defined Royal Crown Derby products as follows: “Colourful, authentic (RCD because of history of pattern and production rather than just fashion/trends), expensive, collectible, characterful, tableware is for people with confidence (not bland or timid), heirloom, prestigious, valuable, English, opposite of minimal, working with artists, so moving into more contemporary looks, using our heritage in new ways.” Thus, Louise Adams gave a complex range of ideas, and it is notable that the concept of “authentic” was associated with the product. Royal Crown Derby produces ornamental collectibles, giftware, and tableware, often with detailed gilt decoration. A dinner plate with an Imari-inspired pattern called “Chelsea Garden” designed in 1997, a paperweight figurine of a “Woodland Pheasant” of c. 1998, and a small dish commemorating the Royal Diamond Wedding of c. 2007 are typical of production (see Plate 7). Louise Adams designed the decoration for the “Woodland Pheasant.” The Diamond Wedding commemorative was actually designed by June Branscombe, but signed on the back by Louise Adams at a Royal Crown Derby Collectors’ event. Louise Adams was ostensibly opposed to outsourcing to the Far East. When asked about personal thoughts concerning outsourcing, she replied: “I would be sad. Think that it would not be a good long term move.” When conducting the research, Royal Crown Derby had never entertained the possibility of outsourcing or obtaining white ware from the Far East to be decorated. At Trade Fairs they emphasized that it is made in England, and more precisely, had a connection with Derby. Louise Adams defined their UK customer as between 25 and 65 years old and from a mixture of professions. According to Adams, it was felt that their type of consumer was attracted to the “Made in England” backstamp. Place of production was also part of a wider marketing strategy which incorporated “. . . our history which is in Derby, influencing the way we design. We are all RCD, not just the design team but the whole factory and this is part of RCD’s collectibility. So, factory visits and meeting designers at collector events all reinforce the feeling of ‘family’ I suppose.” Royal Crown Derby established a Collectors’ Guild in 1994 (Derby Evening Telegraph April 14, 2004), and paperweights are designed exclusively for Guild

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

161

members, and presented on a yearly basis (see Plate 7). Royal Crown Derby still follows the practice of incorporating individual decorators’ marks on tableware and figurines, and overall, at a time of conducting the research, was an example of a company committed to manufacturing in the UK. This appeared to be strongly related to the influence of perception issues. However, the economic difficulties of this decision were recognized. Gilded decoration was a way of adding value to their products, but a recent problem had been the rise in the price of gold, coupled with an increase in energy costs, when overseas markets were experiencing deflation.

Caverswall China An example of how the collecting dimension can still make a difference to the behavior of manufacturers is further suggested by the Caverswall China of Fenton, a specialist manufacturer of bone china and limited editions, established in 1973 by John Chown, a technical manager for Spode. Spencer Copeland, formerly the managing director of W. T. Copeland (renamed Spode), was also involved in establishing this firm according to his obituary of 2002 (The Daily Telegraph April 8, 2002). Caverswall China Ltd. was acquired by Bullers Plc in 1986, only to be sold to Thomas Goode & Co. of Mayfair in 1994 (The Evening Sentinel March 26, 1986; The Sentinel February 23, 1994). Trevor Johnson, the owner and managing director of Caverswall China, acquired the company from Thomas Goode in 2007. At the time of the interview Caverswall China Company Ltd. employed 19 fulltime and 3 part-time employees and manufactured only bone china (Figure 8.2). Trevor Johnson acquired a Royal Warrant in 2008 (The Sentinel December 19, 2007). Caverswall China had, through the retailer Thomas Goode, supplied Prince Charles’s household for over 10 years, and Johnson had to go through a rigorous procedure to acquire the award, since an emphasis of the decision was based on environmental issues. It was revealed that the warrant was granted for five years and had just been renewed. While the company used it, it was awarded only to Trevor Johnson, and he felt that, although having the Royal Warrant had been useful for promotional purposes in the Middle East, it had not necessarily generated many new sales. Nevertheless, Johnson felt that it was beneficial to have the Prince of Wales’ feathers on the backstamp of the commemorative wares because this would be interpreted as a level of approval. Caverswall China has produced individually numbered limited editions of royal commemorative wares with printed and gilt decoration. As indicated above, when Prince William’s wedding was announced, it was estimated by Trevor Johnson that this could generate sales in limited editions worth between £75,000 and £100,000 (The Sentinel November 17, 2010). When interviewed, it was established that sales reached around £75,000, and that this range of Royal commemoratives had even sold well to younger consumers. Overall, it was estimated that 70 percent of Caverswall production was functional tableware, and 30 percent was commemoratives, although this ratio varied depending on how

162

Ceramics and Globalization

Figure 8.2  Trevor Johnson, owner and managing director of Caverswall China, Fenton, March 2012. 

many significant occasions there were in a year. Overall, Johnson’s view regarding outsourcing to the Far East was: I detest, I detest any company going and outsourcing. I am a Stoke-on-Trent boy, Stoke-on-Trent man, born and bred here, lived here all my life. It upsets me, but I can see from a business sense, and from a business point of view why they’ve had to do it. But, my personal views are, as long as I breathe air I will do my damnedest not to outsource anything. And we are, perhaps one of the few people in Stoke-on-Trent that do everything here on site, and I think that it is still one of the strengths of the company.

However, as this reply shows, Johnson had appreciated why economically outsourcing had occurred in Staffordshire. Out of curiosity, Johnson had obtained white ware from Korea to examine the quality. He described some of the samples as being “really nice,” indicating that the debate on the “quality” of Far Eastern ceramics had significantly moved on since Dr. Hugh Padley, formerly of Spode, expressed this as a fundamental problem with outsourcing. (These concerns were discussed in Chapter 3.) However, what could not be shifted culturally was, in Johnson’s view, the difference between decorating and manufacturing collectibles in Stoke. As he added: “. . . if I ever did that, and I was forced to do that, I would only do it on one section of the business. Like the commemorative ware, I would never import for that, and not change that—I would still make it here.”

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

163

When asked whether the commemorative-side of collectible ceramics had resolutely remained sensitive, the reply was: “Absolutely. You are dead right with that word—they are very sensitive. And they would react quite violently if you were doing commemorative ware and it was white ware blanks made abroad. They really want everything there. There is a made in England thing . . .” Those ceramics that represent the more collectible, discretionary categories are the ones that consistently remain problematic to the impact of Far Eastern outsourcing, because of associations between place of production and “authenticity.” Apparently, it was envisaged by Trevor Johnson that outsourcing to the Far East would impact on perceptions of value and rarity. Ceramics designed to be collectible continue to support Baudrillard’s earlier observations concerning collecting, and, for this reason, the globalization model of production outlined by Lash and Urry still presents acute problems for this aspect of the UK ceramic industry.

Moorcroft W. Moorcroft Ltd. of Burslem is another example of a company where place of production was considered as central to consumer demand. Typically, Moorcroft’s products are hand-applied slip designs in organic forms, decorated with different colored glazes. William Moorcroft evolved his distinctive style in Staffordshire, and with substantial financial backing from Liberty of London, established his own company in 1912 (Street 2010: 10). There are clearly different levels of craft skills involved in factory-made collectible ceramics. Whereas Louise Adams described the collectibles produced by Royal Crown Derby as printed with elaborate lithographs with hand gilding, Moorcroft catalogs show imagery that conveys the various hand techniques involved in its elaborate production. Interestingly, an additional awareness and interest in where more “marginal” commodities were made parallels other observations in Baudrillard’s The System of Objects. As he stated: “. . . the fascination of handicraft derives from an object’s having passed through the hands of someone the marks of whose labour are still inscribed thereupon: we are fascinated by what has been created, and is therefore unique, because the moment of creation cannot be reproduced” ([1968] 2005: 81). Hugh Edwards, the chairman of W. Moorcroft Ltd., explained the philosophy and marketing strategy in Ceramic Ambitions and Strategic Directions, published by the Business School of Staffordshire University in 2000. In Edwards’ opinion, managers and directors should not be allowed to appear in publicity photographs with Moorcroft pieces because it was the potters, painters, designers, etc., who created the pieces (Jackson et al. 2000: 62). In fact, Edwards stated: “Every person who buys Moorcroft knows they’re buying into the applied arts since every piece is different and individual. We never make the same piece twice” (Financial Times September 26, 2009). When Hugh Edwards became involved in Moorcroft in c.1986, the firm employed just 14 people. Prior to this, Edwards was a lawyer and a collector of Moorcroft. By 2007, it was reported that Moorcroft had a turnover of £6 million. At that time,

164

Ceramics and Globalization

maintaining production in Stoke-on-Trent was considered central to the company’s ethos and survival. Edwards put Moorcroft up for sale in June 2007, because he wished to retire, but the condition was that the business had to be kept in Stoke-onTrent. At that stage the firm employed 115 people, evidence of considerable growth (The Sentinel October 1, 2007). A leading figure in the Australian uranium mining industry, and major collector of Moorcroft, was apparently interested in buying the firm for £10 million. However, Edwards declared: “They have to keep it in Stokeon-Trent, and it must continue to hold its pole position as a jewel in Stoke’s ceramic crown. We are not selling a company that sells widgets. We are selling a company that’s the most fantastic of its kind in the world, and draws on artistic skills that go back generations” (The Sentinel September 24, 2007). By March 2008, it was announced that the Moorcroft was no longer for sale. Elise Adams had been appointed as the new managing director, but Edwards remained involved in the company (The Sentinel March 17, 2008). Hugh Edwards directly replied to questions for this research to establish in more detail the rationale of why maintaining production in Staffordshire was so significant to Moorcroft. When Edwards was asked about the concerns of outsourcing, his opinion was, “Our customers would desert us in droves if we started to outsource anywhere, but particularly overseas, in whole or part.” Here, one is reminded of Walter Benjamin’s analysis of the impact of mechanical reproduction, where he drew attention to how, “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be” (Arendt 1992: 214). Part of the aura of Moorcroft is all the qualities that surround the context in which it is manufactured. In fact, in response to whether there was still a genuine interest from retailers and consumers in the “Made in England” or the “Made in Stoke-on-Trent” backstamp, Edwards replied, “In the case of Moorcroft, it is crucial.” This relates to Moorcroft’s marketing strategy, since adding to the knowledge of the products, their catalogs have explained the significance and individual meaning of the marks used on the base of each vessel, as well as illustrating current designs by different named designers. Figure 8.3 illustrates a page from a Moorcroft catalog of 2007 that provides an explanation of a typical backstamp. A vase in the newly launched “Sea Holly” pattern, designed by Emma Bossons, was also promoted in this 2007 catalog, and is shown in Figure 8.3. With regard to whether outsourcing in any other place outside Stoke-on-Trent production would have an impact on Moorcroft’s sales, Edwards believed: “They would disappear overnight. We have put this question to our customers.” According to Edwards, outsourcing would undermine “a sense of heritage and a sense of attachment.” Moorcroft established a collector’s club in 1987, and by the 2000s had 12,000 members, predominantly in the United States, Canada, and Australia (The Sentinel March 17, 2008). Interestingly, the collectors’ club has been used to aid market research. When questioned in more detail about Moorcroft’s attitude toward the impact of outsourcing, Edwards’s secretary supplied the additional information: Over a weekend last year [2011], 1500 Moorcroft Collectors visited the factory and they came from all walks of life and from three continents. During the

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

165

Figure 8.3  W. Moorcroft Ltd., vase, “Sea Holly” pattern, designed by Emma Bossons, © 2006, enamel decoration, earthenware. In background, Moorcroft catalog, 2007, illustrating a page concerning techniques and backstamps. This catalog also advertises the “Sea Holly” pattern.

course of 3 lectures, Hugh asked the question “If Moorcroft was made in China or the Pacific Rim, how many of you would still collect Moorcroft?” No hands went up at all. It seems that those present would not consider Moorcroft made in the Far East to be Moorcroft at all. Put another way, location of manufacture would contaminate collectability.

In theory, Moorcroft’s handcrafted skills could be duplicated in the Far East, but the output would be devoid of the products’ heritage. The point is that ceramic collectibles should be treated in different ways to ceramic tableware, which is reinforced by Edwards’ point, “Our expensive pieces sell better than our cheaper ware.” Overall, the case of Moorcroft draws attention to a fundamental problem with Dr. Paterson’s suggestion (mentioned earlier) that the UK ceramic industry could follow a Nike paradigm of businesses emphasizing design and branding, rather than place of manufacture. In some instances, the production processes and place of production adds to the appeal of product.

Hybrid Collectibles It is the case that the phenomenon of decorating white ware from the Far East in Staffordshire has also been developed in the area of ceramic collectibles. Just as tableware has used backstamps with phrases such as “Designed” or “Decorated

166

Ceramics and Globalization

in England,” the same approach has been taken with collectibles. Indicative of adapting to these potential changes, a two-page advertisement placed by Goviers of Sidmouth in Homes & Antiques used phrases such as “All products featured are UK made or decorated” (May 2011). Just as outsourcing had created new backstamps, it has also resulted in new forms of marketing. But, when Hugh Edwards of Moorcroft was asked if, hypothetically, they acquired undecorated blanks from the Far East and decorated these in Burslem, “would this affect sales?” He replied: “Yes, because we could not stamp our mark on the base legally.” Similarly, when the art director of Royal Crown Derby was asked if outsourcing production or decorating imported white ware would impact on the perception of the brand, she declared that it would be “dramatic if the prices stayed the same.” This relates back to the observation made by Trevor Johnson of Caverswall China that collectors “really want everything there.” However, these views also raise the question of whether newly established companies involved in the production of collectibles in Staffordshire still consider “place of production” to be central to the appeal and perception of the brand.

The New English Paul and Judith Bishop founded The New English in 2009, and it was originally based at Barlaston (near the Wedgwood factory), when Paul Bishop was interviewed for the research in 2011. He suggested that as much as 50 percent of their business was aimed at the bespoke collectible and limited edition end of the market. Stoke-on-Trent manufacturers with a reputation for making highquality wares produced the actual ceramics. The New English’s Tectonic Plates range was launched in 2010, and is an example of their approach to collectibles. The range consisted of 266 plates with surface patterns drawn from approximately 100 different artists and designers. The concept was to explore how contemporary imagery could be applied to plates for display, thereby putting a truly modern take on the all-too-familiar idea of displaying plates. The project also explored how artists and designers from outside the industry could become involved in contemporary ceramic design. Plate 8 shows a plate entitled “Isabelle” by an artist called Chrissy Angliker (No. 27) and a design by Edith Lebeau called “Beassiette” (No. 252). Accompanying the launch of the series was a catalog entitled Reviving the lost art of collecting and displaying plates: Tectonic Plates (Bishop 2010). In order to underline their “collectability” and as a means of increasing scarcity and perceived value, each plate comes with a certificate that stresses how it is manufactured in Stoke-on-Trent, “with love using traditional Fine Bone China materials and methods,” and is a limited edition. The New English works with artists and designers from all over the world, and the ceramics in this range have been sold internationally. Designs promoted by The New English inevitably reflect cosmopolitanism and globalization, and, in fact, 13-inch platters costing £175 each were designed by Keith Palmer, whose stage name is Maxim of the band, The Prodigy. This suggests an interesting paradox in that simply because artists,

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

167

designers, and consumers are international, it does not automatically mean that the place of production has become less relevant. As established in Chapter 1, whereas globalization theorists, such as Malcolm Waters, argued that Nike, Levi’s, and Reebok infuse a global culture (2001: 198), Paul Bishop’s comment reaffirmed how place of production of this modern, ceramic brand was still an integral part of their marketing strategy: It is crucial; it is our key competitive weapons and aligns us closely with the industrial heritage of this area. We can “borrow” this history to create a sense of value and heritage. This alignment with “place” also allows us to create other connections, too. Take Wedgwood, who I constantly refer to, their history is encompassed in their founder Josiah Wedgwood who over 250 years ago, was a true pioneer, an innovator unafraid of being bold and different. By making reference to our “place” we create a sense of reflected values and continue the legacy and spirit of innovation.

The work of The New English is reflective of globalized methods of communication, enabling artists from all around the world to be involved and consumers to learn about the products, but the place of manufacture is reflective of the historical legacy of the Potteries. This provides the ceramic products with a focus. In this sense the attitudes of The New English support Smith’s view that “the project of a global culture, as opposed to global communications, must appear premature” (1990: 180). Bishop asserted that drawing attention to where the product was made was “pretty much” the first thing they say to consumers, and so here there is a sense of attempting to avoid the outsourcing aspects associated with globalization. In the case of The New English: There is a sequence. . . . The way in which people look at plates and pieces of china is symbolic of the importance of place and identity. When someone picks a plate up they look at the front first, so that’s the most important thing . . . it has got to look and feel right, then very shortly afterwards, it is turned over to see who made it, and where they have made it. How many other products have such a relationship with consumers?

Bishop drew attention to how this behavior was not apparent in all commodities, and supports the view that perception of UK ceramics accounts for why some companies have continued to produce in the UK. As Bishop added: “People joke about it (plate turners), but that indicates just how important those things are, because there are few other products that I can think of where that would happen. Nobody would pick up a mobile phone up and look at it, and then turn it over on the back to see where it is made.” The New English also produces tableware designs. A provocative pseudopornographic pattern designed by Camilia Prada and Lisa Turner’s “Anatomica” range have moved surface pattern designs away from the more traditional floral motifs found on Staffordshire ceramics (see Plate 8).

168

Ceramics and Globalization

Overall, The New English’s designs are aimed at “professionals, those who probably have an awareness, or an appreciation of design, and a desire for something different,” from all round the world. Intriguingly, in one instance, the more explicit plate designed by Camilia Prada was purchased by an 82-year-old woman simply because it made her laugh. The New English consumer was definitely viewed as being more global, but to Bishop “place of origin” was centrally important to enhancing the appeal of their product. As Bishop argued: “Whether, rightly or wrongly products made in England, have a perception of being items that will have a greater legacy than those made in the Far East, that are seen as being transient, and not occupying such an important place in people’s lives.” When queried about the relationship between the “place of origin” and the appeal of the product, The New English still believes that it is tapping into a sense of the heritage of Stoke-on-Trent: “It is part of the mix. It is not ‘the’ reason it is ‘part’ of the reason. The truth is that if our stuff was made in Limoges, or in Germany, and we weren’t called New English, we would probably sell as many. The reality is that, if it was made in the Far East we wouldn’t.” When asked to elaborate on that opinion, the view was: “Because the Far East instantly . . . . The idea of limited editions and all those sort of slightly more elegant, and slightly more refined, the Far East, whether rightly or wrongly, instantly tones that down.” Even though this was just “an impression, interpretation, a perception,” in Bishop’s mind, the connotation of having ceramics made in the Far East was not consistent with the products developed by The New English. As Bishop went on to suggest: But if it were made in Germany or France, you know . . . . If we were a German company I would be having the same conversation with you. Saying that actually German ceramics stand for something . . . legacy, blah-de-blah. I would be having exactly the same conversation with you, but I would just be substituting the word England for Germany. Same applies to France.

Although Bishop conceded that he was probably placing more importance on Stoke-on-Trent than most of their customers, he also wanted to “save a few jobs.” In addition, he also argued that limited editions in bone china rooted in Stokeon-Trent were ways of establishing the sense of value. The New English designs are progressive, but the ethos of the company still stemmed from the perception aspect of a heritage of ceramic production in Stoke-on-Trent.

The Figurine Collective The Figurine Collective was mentioned in Chapter 2 as an example of one of the new companies that has emerged, concentrating on the production of figurines since 2009; and in the manner of The New English of Barlaston, the company

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

169

relied on Stoke-on-Trent manufacturers to produce their products. In this case, The Figurine Collective’s products were manufactured and decorated by Pollyanna of Chell Street, Hanley, now located in Burslem (The Sentinel April 18, 2011). As part of the publicity surrounding the setting up of the new company, their first figurine (similar to those manufactured by Royal Doulton) was presented to the Potteries Museum of Hanley (see Chapter 2, Figure 2.9). At that time, there was discussion in the press relating to the use of the phrase “World Capital of Ceramics Stoke-on-Trent” within the Figurine Collective’s backstamp, and Tony Young confirmed that this became the case. Tony Young was the codirector of The Figurine Collective and was formerly a product development director at Compton and Woodhouse. It transpired that the council’s Stoke-on-Trent Regeneration Committee initiated the World Capital scheme that coincided with the period in which The Figurine Collective was established. Apparently, it was the first company to use the backstamp, and this was considered to be an important part of helping to establish location awareness. The Figurine Collective’s “As Lovely As You” retailed for £225 (Figure 2.9). The psychology behind the pricing was against cost cutting, or periodic sales. Another limited edition figurine, “English Garden,” based on a model with a tattoo wearing a dress by Basia Zarzycka, retailed for as much as £1450. The inclusion of the tattoo into the design gave The Figurine Collective a contemporary edge. In the manner of The New English, internet sales were an important part of The Figurine Collective’s business, although they did sell through Goviers of Sidmouth (mentioned above) and Pascoe, the American retailer. It was pointed out that Pascoe used to sell new Royal Doulton figurines, but apparently because “no-one in America wanted new Doulton figurines from the Far East,” they developed a strand of their business dealing in second-hand Doulton figurines. At the time of the research, The Figurine Collective provided additional evidence of how the motivation of the consumer plays an important part as to where these collectibles are manufactured. Tony Young defined their type of consumers as middle-aged women from the major markets, those being the United Kingdom and the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. There were some male collectors, and slightly more men buying figurines overseas, compared to the UK market. It was estimated that their middle-aged women customers were not “necessarily very well off.” Gabriel and Lang’s argument that the postmodern consumer is no longer searching for the authentic might apply to a younger age group buying more transient apparel, but evidence from The Figurine Collective indicated that it could vary depending on the age of the consumer and what is being consumed (2006: 88). Another reason, why “place of origin” could remain relevant to consumers in certain circumstances was suggested in a critical point made by Tony Young that their figurine buyers were, by and large, “self-purchasing.” He added: “That’s the big thing about our market. They are never bought as gifts. People who buy it for themselves, and I think that is why they don’t mind the price, but the selfpurchasing is really important. And so everything about the product is important, because they want to feel good themselves about it.”

170

Ceramics and Globalization

Young reported that people who had given up collecting English-branded figurines because they were no longer made in the UK, had now renewed their focus on Stoke production, with comments such as “now I can collect again.” While, a consumer might be content to buy Royal Doulton tableware made in the Far East because this type of consumption was attached to display and creating a “statement,” the collecting type of consumption was inherently more inward and personal. This interpretation coincides with Belk’s analysis of collecting behavior, which defines it as far more of an individual pursuit (1995b: 68). Not only do their socioeconomic factors define different types of consumers, but also when considered on an individual basis, the consumer behaves in multidimensional ways. Young was aware that concern for where ceramic items were produced did not necessarily extend to functional vessels, but only to those of special significance. Based on his extensive experience of dealing with collectors, it was considered that they were much more likely to want to know everything about the product. For instance, they might wish to know that The Figurine Collective’s work was undertaken by craftspeople who had at one time worked for the substantial Staffordshire firms.

Devaluation In Fred Hirsch’s outline of “positional goods,” it was theorized that one satisfaction derived from owning a commodity might be determined by its very scarcity. Hirsch proposed that if the “physical availability” is changed, this potentially “yields less satisfaction.” His theories also touch on the scarcity of antiques (1977: 20–29). Hirsch’s observations can just as easily be applied to ceramic collectibles. In the 2000s, a Royal Doulton figurine called “Elizabeth,” manufactured in Stoke-onTrent, was priced at £120 (The Sentinel November 19, 2003). However, evidence from Goviers of Sidmouth vividly illustrates how the lowering of the price of outsourced Royal Doulton figurines was ironically counterproductive on demand: Accountants have a lot to answer for! (I speak as one myself). Far East costs are so much lower that the margins made on these products is massive. For example a Royal Doulton Figure selling for £150 would cost £36 to make in the UK but only about £12 from China. When Royal Doulton started to sell the imported figures they maintained the price at £150 and made extra profit on each figure but the market halved in size. But greedy and over-optimistic management assumed sales would be the same. Long lead times and surface shipping meant that they over ordered and were left with very high stocks, which they didn’t mind because they could clear it at 50% off and still make good money. This devalued the collectible market over night and the downward spiral began from which there is probably no going back!

Based on this evidence, it seems that the demand for Staffordshire collectibles rests on a series of delicately interconnected factors. Heavily reducing prices (as

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

171

described by Goviers) infers the opposite of the illusion of scarcity. Apparently, Royal Doulton reduced prices because of a decline in demand, but this was only made possible because of cheaper labor costs in the Far East. Indeed, it has been proposed by McCracken that “collectibles are not available to any one with means. Their availability is constrained by the fact that they are no longer made (as in the case of antiques) or that they are not the products of mass manufacture and can therefore claim to be unique (as in the case of art)” (1990: 113). In a similar manner, there is a fragile relationship between price and scarcity that makes the perception of ceramic collectibles extremely complex to understand.

Portmeirion and Heritage It was considered in Chapter 7 how, based on the opinions of retailers, there were often adverse reactions to high-end ceramic brands, such as Wedgwood and Spode, being outsourced to the Far East. However, determining whether perception issues have actually influenced the behavior of manufacturers, beyond those involved in the collectible market is another issue. As shown above, perception greatly influences the manufacture of the smaller category of prestigious collectibles. The issue of maintaining manufacturing and design agility was more of a factor that influenced the behavior of tableware manufacturers. However, Portmeirion, and its relationship with designs by Spode, demonstrates an exception to this rule. Spode’s “Blue Italian” is an iconic ceramic design that first appeared in c.1816, and was in continuous production until Spode fell into administration in 2008 (The Sentinel August 3, 2009). The border is based on an Imari design, and the central image has been associated with the engravings by Piranesi (Whiter 1989: 168–69). Typical of much UK ceramic design, it is a blend of cultural styles and motifs. Portmeirion of Stoke purchased the design rights to “Blue Italian” and “Woodland” ranges from Spode for £3.2 million in April 2009. At this time it was reported that a certain amount of production would return to Stoke, rather than being outsourced to the Far East (The Sentinel August 3, 2009). This was not at the old Spode works in Stoke, but at the Portmeirion factory, also in Stoke. Rather than Portmeirion continuing to promote Spode’s designs as a lifestyle brand (as was an argument laid down by Spode in 2004—see Chapter 4), it developed a marketing strategy that encompassed a return to emphasizing place of production. The decision to shift production back to Staffordshire was made shortly after April 2009. Initially, it appeared that the reason why Portmeirion brought their production back to Stoke was due to quality issues. The press referred to the fact that when Spode had their “Blue Italian” manufactured in China and Malaysia, there were variations in quality and whiteness (The Sentinel August 3, 2009; February 8, 2010). However, when Portmeirion was approached for information, their marketing team pointed out that perception issues had been involved: The decision to manufacture at our factory in Stoke-on-Trent is based on the composition of the product. The importance of the “made in England”

172

Ceramics and Globalization

backstamp to the consumer varies by international market. The value of the “made in England” backstamp has not diminished over the years and remains highly regarded by certain consumers. We remain proud that we are a successful factory in the heart of The Potteries delivering high quality products to our customers.

This view encapsulates the existing paradoxes faced by the UK ceramic industry, and is evidence of a relationship between consumer perception and the decision where to locate tableware production. This demonstrates how even some versions of commodities do not make a seamless transition into becoming globalized, as the pathway can be less clear and more uneven. Tableware may be subject to the same authenticity debate as determined by examining collectibles, but it depends on whether the actual design has a distinctive heritage. Seen in this way, a situation is reached whereby the methods of conducting the UK ceramic business are still increasingly complex having to allow for some of these design anomalies. What appears to be peculiar to the collectible or ornamental items, may also apply to tableware design. It is the case that not all products in the “Blue Italian” pattern are made in Stoke. The flatware is produced in Stoke, compared with the hollowware in China, which parallels what Royal Stafford reported in Chapter 6, which is that manufacturers in Staffordshire may be more competitive in the production of flatware because of greater reliance on mechanized forms of production. Nevertheless, Portmeirion distinguishes between the Chinese and Stoke production on the backstamp and on detachable labels. A plate manufactured in Staffordshire is permanently marked “Made in England,” whereas a mug produced in China is marked “Made in China,” “Spode.” When produced in China, “Blue Italian” is produced in porcelain, while in the UK it is manufactured in earthenware. In 2011, the cost of two “best” items from the factory shop was £12.50 for the plate manufactured in Stoke, and £10 for the mug produced in China (see Figure 8.4). Having passed through a period of UK ceramic manufacturers moving production to the Far East and Asia, Portmeirion’s acquisition of Spode’s designs has not resulted in place of manufacture becoming irrelevant. On the contrary, Portmeirion’s approach to the backstamp corresponds with the view of the marketing team. Theoretically, if “made in England” is relevant to a certain type of consumer, it has to be acknowledged by the backstamp in order for it to be appreciated and recognized. Portmeirion appears to be an example of a manufacturer affected by consumer perceptions, not just led by manufacturing competitiveness. Portmeirion perceived their working with China as invaluable in terms of supplying goods of quality and price, and this view parallels the view of sociologist, Les Back, who argued that the local and global could be perceived as a relationship, rather than “a binary opposition” (1998: 76). However, Portmeirion’s varied approach to their “Blue Italian” backstamps implies that the prejudice of consumers might differ from the views of the manufacturer.

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

173

Figure 8.4 Spode Blue Italian, side plate, earthenware, manufactured by Portmeirion, Stoke, made in England, 2011. Spode, Blue Italian, mug, porcelain, manufactured for Portmeirion in China, 2011. Detachable label on side of mug.

Exports and “Made in England” One final area that needs to be considered is whether the perception that influences the behavior of UK ceramic manufacturers relates to exports. Research by Carroll et al. referred to a fine china manufacturer who insisted that the “Made in England” backstamp was “especially” relevant to export markets, because of an association with quality and tradition (2002: 336). However, it is unclear which export markets were being referred to. An earlier study by Tableware International of 1997—undertaken because it was argued there had been a “. . . dearth of any sophisticated market research in the international tabletop and giftware industry . . .”—raised the following question: “Does outsourcing seriously damage a brand image?” (August 1997, Vol. 27, No. 7). The research used questionnaires collected from retailers and manufacturers at the Birmingham, Frankfurt, and New York Trade Fairs in 1997. Results from the United States indicated that 38 percent of respondents considered that outsourcing did have a negative effect, while 46 percent thought it did not. In Germany, 50 percent thought it did, while 34 percent thought it did not, and in the United Kingdom, 56 percent of the respondents considered that outsourcing had an adverse impact, while only 24 percent disagreed. Based on this research,

174

Ceramics and Globalization

the US market was far less concerned with where the ceramics were produced. These findings coincide with wider country-of-origin research, which has established that from a sample of American consumers there is “only a modest knowledge of the national origin of brands” (Samiee, Shimp, and Sharma 2005: 379). The controversial move by Wedgwood to move Johnson Brothers’ production to China in 2003 was bolstered by claims that American consumers placed little importance as to where ceramics were manufactured. An article in The Sentinel entitled “Black day for the Potteries, but the sun rises in the East” referred to leaked documents, précised as follows: Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. does not have any problems with country of origin. The fact is that most customers are more concerned with price, design and brand as opposed to country of origin. It is also a fact that the UK does not really care. We would like to think that we buy British, but the reality is that a majority of products we buy, such as cars and home appliances, are imported (June 4, 2003).

Likewise, when Norman Tempest of Royal Stafford was interviewed, his view was that Americans were less interested in Royal Albert’s “Old Country Roses” being made in Indonesia (see Chapter 6). Although the experiences of a UK retailer specializing in selling Wedgwood implied a different set of prerogatives, this may not be entirely a sign of English consumers (compared to American consumers) supporting UK manufacturing. Reasons for why some buyers might be intrinsically interested in where the product was manufactured in Staffordshire, or the UK, vary. As established in the previous chapter, the Wedgwood retailer referred to instances of consumers wanting a British-made product because it had some relevance, being, as an example, given as a gift from the UK to America. The different ways to consider the issue of country of origin remain complex. Historically, the UK pottery industry accounted for the largest single share of all exported UK consumer durables in 1969, amounting to 18 percent (Gay and Smyth 1974: 152), but the nature of UK pottery exports has changed in the period investigated by this book. In the early 1990s, it was calculated that around 60 percent of all UK pottery production was sold abroad (Whipp 1990: 201). The largest single export market for UK ceramic tableware was the United States in 1991 (Key Note 1993, Tables 12 and 13). However, by 1997, the value of UK china and porcelain tableware exported to Japan was marginally higher than that exported to the United States. Indicative of the growing importance of the Far Eastern market was when it was suggested that a reduction in Wedgwood’s fine china sales could be attributed to a downturn in Japanese consumer spending (Financial Times September 2, 1993). In 2010, the value of UK ceramic exports to the United States was almost half of what it was in 2000, but China’s import of UK ceramics has steadily increased in the 2000s (Table 8.1). By 2010, South Korea imported more UK earthenware tableware than the United States, although the United States was still the largest

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

175

Table 8.1  UK Ceramic exports to China—porcelain or china, 1997, 2000, 2005, and 2010. China 1997 2000 2005 2010

£124,566.00 £43,392.00 £395,850.00 £1,307,033.00

Source: HM Revenue and Customs—Trade Statistics, 69111000.

importer of UK porcelain and china tableware (Tables 8.2 and 8.3). The Far East has not only been a producer of many Staffordshire brands, but consistent with other research and predictions, it has become a significant consumer of Western commodities (Fishman 2005). In a 1997 article entitled “UK combats cheap imports,” representatives from John Tams, Staffordshire Tableware, and Dunoon argued that there was a cachet in the Far East for English fine bone china. In short, “English bone china has a very high value perception,” and according to the marketing director of Staffordshire Tableware, “Having ‘made in England’ on a mug will help it sell well in the far east” (Tableware International, May 1997, Vol. 27, No. 4). In addition, an article in Tableware International entitled “Selling china to the Chinese” pointed out that, “one of the difficulties in exporting to China is the fact that Chinese manufacturers can always undercut on price—as many UK tableware manufacturers sourcing product from China know”; but it was envisaged that the premium end of UK ceramic production could be sold to this market (Autumn 2005, Vol. 36, No. 4). Portmeirion was quoted as stating that China wanted to buy English-made products because in an article entitled “Turning over a new market by selling China to China” of 2004, these were perceived as “status symbols.” The article refers to Chinese incomes increasing by 10 percent in five years. Although Alan Miles, managing director of Portmeirion, realized that it could be expensive to export UK goods to China, it was recognized that an emerging Chinese middle class was keen to demonstrate an ability to buy relatively expensive goods and brands (The Sentinel June 27, 2004). Korea was also Portmeirion’s third largest market. Miles added that, “In Korea they like to buy quintessentially English products and brand names to show this affluence” (The Sentinel June 27, 2004). It has been mentioned above how when Portmeirion acquired the “Blue Italian” and “Woodland” designs from Spode, some of the production was shifted back to Stoke. Table 8.2  UK Ceramic Tableware Exports—earthenware, 2010, showing the largest five worldwide markets.

2010

South Korea

United States

Netherlands

Spain

Italy

£9,206,019.00

£6,258,511.00

£1,817,864.00

£1,242,308.00

£1,238,784.00

Source: HM Revenue and Customs—Trade Statistics, 69120050.

Ceramics and Globalization

176

Table 8.3  UK Ceramic Tableware Exports—porcelain or china, 2010, showing the largest five worldwide markets.

2010

United States

Irish Republic

Japan

Italy

£15,236,187.00

£8,531,253.00

£6,107,362.00 £4,865,759.00

Germany £4,416,026.00

Source: HM Revenue and Customs—Trade Statistics, 69111000.

Portmeirion’s exports to North America had increased by 21 percent (equivalent to 44 percent of their business). Consistent with UK ceramic export figures mentioned above, sales to Korea also rose by 31 percent (The Times December 16, 2010). Portmeirion considered 2010 to be a record year for sales to North American and South Korea with exports representing 70 percent of their turnover (Asian Ceramics, December/January 2011). More precisely, according to Portmeirion’s group Marketing Manager, Carol Wright, “Botanic Garden” was considered to be “huge” in Korea, and “Blue Italian” “big” in Europe (Tableware International, January/February 2011, Issue no. 1, Vol. 133). But, whether the place of production, rather than just a sense of an English brand name or “English” design, is a factor in creating the appeal of certain UK ceramic brands in these developing export markets is a question that still remains. While it has been suggested that the American market was less concerned with “place of origin,” Denby of Derbyshire acquired Burgess and Leigh (Burleigh), of Longport in 2010 and Hartley, Green & Co., of Longton in 2011 (Tableware International, May/June 2012, Vol. 134, No. 3). Both of these firms had continued to manufacture in the United Kingdom, and were considered by Denby’s managing director to be “heritage giftware brands.” Denby’s exports were described as 30 percent of their business, and their largest market was still the United States followed by Canada. However, Garry Biggs, Denby’s managing director at the time of conducting the research, acknowledged that “one of the benefits” of acquiring Burgess and Leigh was that half of their £2 million turnover was generated from exports, particularly to Japan and Korea. It was also added that Denby’s fastest growing export markets were in the Far East, led by Korea. Biggs believed: . . . for me the made in England thing, in the main, when we talk about our home market—UK, Ireland and probably North America is secondary to design and quality and price. In some markets like the Far East, probably the made in England is the No.1 thing that they need reassurance on, and then, of the things that are made in England, which one do I want to buy.

Although it was felt that more quantitative research was required to support this view, this was an impression that Biggs had gleaned from talking to the trade and to consumers. The unique selling point of Burgess and Leigh, and Hartley Green & Co., was that they had a large following abroad, somewhat invigorated by their products still being made in England. Burleigh ware is rather a unique product (because of using older transfer printing methods), and the backstamps

UK Ceramic Manufacturing in Relation to Consumer Perception

177

Figure 8.5  Hartley Greens & Co., Leeds Pottery, candlesticks, creamware, 2009. Backstamped “Hartley Greens & Co., Leeds Pottery, Hand Made in England.” Burgess & Leigh (Burleigh), side plate, “Asiatic Pheasant,” transfer printed, earthenware, purchased 2011. Backstamp indicating “Made in England.” Burgess & Leigh (Burleigh), small jug, “Calico,” transfer printed, earthenware, purchased 2011. Backstamp indicates “Staffordshire, England.”

on wares typically reinforce links to Staffordshire and England (Figure 8.5). Thus, the views of some manufacturers relate to Kevin Robins’s alternative globalization theory that the “so-called world culture may reflect a new valuation of difference and particularity,” while at the same time making a “profit from it.” Robins speculated that globalization could in fact create encounters and collisions, while raising questions about the “other” and “otherness” (1991: 31, 32–33). In spite of suggestions of greater hybridization and homogenization caused by globalization, in order to optimize on a desire for otherness, there will always be a need to maintain selected forms of UK ceramic production.

Summary This chapter has identified more precisely where consumer perception can apparently influence the behavior of UK ceramic manufacturers. There can be instances where the views of manufacturers and retailers can come closer together, but it depends on certain factors. The first is whether the type of production can

178

Ceramics and Globalization

be categorized as ceramic collectibles, as this is far more at odds with the attitudes of some UK tableware manufacturers who perceive “place of origin” to be less critical (Chapters 4 and 6). Significantly, Lash and Urry’s theory that meaning can be added to the product wherever it is manufactured is too narrow when applied to collectibles. A potential problem with Lash and Urry’s model is that it deals with a kind of consumption that is perhaps shaped by outward display, rather than a personal gratification, typical of collecting behavior. Collecting can still involve a complex set of elaborate ideals that relate to the heritage of localization production, and a sense of regional craftspeople practising the same time-honored skills. Another influential factor where consumer perception was found to be relevant was illustrated by Portmeirion’s relationship with Spode’s “Blue Italian” pattern, manufactured again in Stoke. Here, unusually, tableware production can be influenced by heritage, although the longevity of the “Blue Italian” surface pattern is unusual. Finally, Denby, the new owners of Burgess & Leigh of Longport, supported their continued UK place of production for attracting consumers from newer emerging export markets. Initially the findings of this chapter appear to contradict globalization theories, although as outlined in Chapter 1, it depends which views are considered. John Tomlinson’s Globalization and Culture speculated that there could be the issue of “manufacturing a ‘culture’ to coincide with the diverse manifestations of the globalization process” (1999: 101). This seems to be borne out by some Staffordshire manufacturers’ fears concerning the reaction to their “collectibles” if produced in the Far East. Consequently, some writers who have discussed a greater global convergence have importantly considered whether it could be entirely seamless. Some theorists have gone a step further considering what the potential consequences of globalization might be. As early as 1983, Theodore Levitt, from the Harvard Business School, wrote The Marketing Imagination. This influential publication apparently caused Saatchi & Saatchi to adopt more global marketing strategies (Leiss, Kline, and Jhally 1997: 171–72). However, an aspect of Levitt’s investigation also predicted, “the growth of so-called ethnic markets the world over—specialty segments in foods, clothing, entertainment, and even retail institutions such as delicatessens, boulangeries, and antique shops” (1983: 30). Levitt did not perceive these segments as a contradiction, but rather as affirmation of globalization. He added, “The global growth of ethnic markets confirms the greater presence of global standardization in all else . . .” (Levitt 1983: 30). As far as Levitt was concerned, “Such differences as remain are vestiges of the hardened inherited past as to cultural preferences, national tastes and standards” (1983: 30). In other words, the continuation of often small, specialty forms of UK ceramic production parallel what some theorists have predicted. Therefore, perhaps a perverse way to consider the long-term impact of globalization is that it results in vestiges of the UK ceramic industry remaining, or even being initiated because, on a deeper level, certain commodities still have cultural dimensions that cannot always be created or engineered by skillful marketing.

Conclusion

This book has explored how globalization has transformed UK ceramic manufacturing and the marketing and design of ceramics. It has examined what happens to a strongly regional industry when it clashes with tendencies broadly associated with globalization. With a proliferation of Far Eastern ceramic imports, there was the case of a UK manufacturer experimenting with different types of ceramic bodies, moves to reposition Staffordshire brands, and the development of more bespoke services. But most significantly of all, there was a decline in the number of the substantial ceramic firms producing lower-priced tableware. In some quarters, to counteract competition, there were controversial moves to reduce production costs by outsourcing to the Far East and Asia that inevitably had an impact on the marketing of UK ceramics. As the phrase “Made in England” could no longer be used on backstamps, outsourcing created the need for alternative marketing. Some Staffordshire companies were found to focus on the brand name, avoiding references to “place or origin” that had tended to be included in marketing strategies of the past. Alternatively, other ways were found to reinforce links with England or Staffordshire, using phrases such as “Designed in England” or “Decorated” when utilizing white ware obtained from alternative sources. In this sense, the behavior of the UK ceramic industry paralleled predictions made by the globalization theorists who suggested that design in the west, rather than manufacturing, would become more significant. However, some ceramic manufacturers continued to maintain production in the UK, and sometimes there was even growth in the size of these firms. Their backstamps and even the surface pattern designs could occasionally draw attention to the place of production. In fact, an interesting manifestation of the impact of globalization has been the development of surface pattern designs that declare that the product was manufactured in Britain or England. Changes in marketing and design developments have been considered, and there has been an attempt to comprehend why, in spite of the surge of Far Eastern imports and the greater use of outsourcing, elements of the UK ceramic industry have continued. It was proposed in the Introduction of this book that the factors that might account for certain forms of ceramic production continuing in the UK, could be related to the immediate problems of maintaining manufacturing and design agility, and consumer perception issues. With regard to the issue of manufacturing agility, it was found to be significant. Difficulties with outsourcing to Asia and the Far East may be caused by the length

180

Ceramics and Globalization

of time it takes to deliver a product to the customer (lead times). A view that UK manufacturing can be uneconomic depends on the type of product being produced. Efficient mechanization of ceramic flatware meant that it could still be competitive with Far Eastern production. Another advantage in keeping production in the UK could be an ability to adapt to the demands of different markets that have, in spite of discussion on global homogenization, continued in the case of ceramics. There was also the interesting example of Denby Pottery of Derbyshire, maintaining production of their stoneware in the UK because the firm still uses local clay. In this sense, traits still peculiar to the production of ceramics make it at odds with the inevitable globalization arguments of shifting production elsewhere, or a tendency of previous research to consider modern, electrical commodities. A ceramic designer, working within the context of outsourcing, found interpretation problems when sending off designs to the Far East for production. The introduction of new technology helped with communication problems. However, a focus on design, rather than manufacturing, would seem to be counterproductive if the designer had no knowledge of where the outsourced design ended up, especially as the ceramic industry is still focused on catering for different market tastes. If UK “industries” are to survive by emphasizing design, this will still depend on maintaining a comprehensive knowledge of responses to products from the eventual market place. In terms of whether perception of where things were manufactured still resonates with consumers increasingly defined as postmodern or living in a global village, the findings of the investigation were complex and at the same time intriguing. While this book has illustrated examples of how outsourcing to the Far East appears to be manageable, and does not necessarily have a detrimental impact on perception, problems occurred when considering UK ceramics with a stronger status value, a design heritage, and craft and collectible dimensions. Outsourcing encroached on perceptions of the brand, and this opinion tended to surface through the recollections of retailers. Even in this period of globalization, distinctions between exchange and value should not be neglected. As outlined by Baudrillard’s For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign of 1972, the differences between use, differential, and symbolic are still valid (Poster 1988: 57). If the prominent aspect of a ceramic commodity is to symbolize a certain heritage, this meaning may not be easily grafted onto a product if manufactured elsewhere. Lash and Urry’s proposal that the meaning of the product can be created through branding is thrown into doubt when examining a broader range of UK ceramic products. Similarly, Lash and Urry’s suggestion that attachment to a nationality is invariably constructed through imagery is not entirely the case for all ceramics. The conclusion from this study is that there are limits to what branding can achieve, and to propose that consumers no longer search for the authentic rather depends on what is being examined. Creating an emotional attachment to a brand through advertising is not the same as fabricating a sense of “place of origin.” The case study of this book supports a view that denial of a relevance of “COO” is “probably more emotional than logical” (Johansson 1993: 81), but it does appear to be relevant

Conclusion

181

to certain sectors of the UK ceramic industry. The notion of a continued place of production can still be intrinsic to its meaning and cultural significance to the consumer. Examining UK ceramics, and the range of commodities that it produces, highlights how the impact of globalization has created enormous difficulties even for just one industry. There is a real need to avoid generalizations about the future development of globalization on the English ceramic industry. By continuing to accentuate the UK place of ceramic production, it appears to support the notion of adverse consumer reactions to foreign competition and outsourcing. Indeed, some writers have interpreted evidence of “regional resilience” as a reflection of how shifting production to the Far East could undermine the image of Staffordshire brands (Hervas-Oliver et al. 2011: 377–95). However, the motivation for some manufacturers to maintain UK production, particularly if they are private businesses, can be to preserve local employment, rather than reap huge financial rewards from consumers who are loyal to British-made goods. It was assumed and predicted at the beginning of this research that when the marketing of manufacturers accentuated regional links, this was to purposely attract a particular niche market. This might be defined as appealing to an ethnocentric consumer. However, there may not always be a correlation between the interpretation of the ceramic marketing and designs and the central motivation of the manufacturer. This is worth emphasizing since accounting for the appeal and survival of some Staffordshire products has focused on how it links to firms becoming rare survivors of a craft-based industry principally associated with the Stoke-on-Trent Potteries (Qureshi 2010: 14). In reality, manufacturers can be more ambivalent about the relevance of “place of manufacture” with regard to consumers. Care has to be taken not to assume that the ceramic object has the same meaning to the consumer as it does to the manufacturer. On occasion, the marketing and design might suggest a strong attachment to maintaining Staffordshire production, but this research has established how the intentions of manufacturers can be varied. Demonstrating that there can be a gulf between how some ceramics are described, and how the manufacturer views them, is an interesting discovery. Designs and marketing have developed in a more intuitive or experimental way. Consequently, for future interpretations of ceramics from this era, it has been important to document how marketing strategies can be similar but the actual motivation of UK ceramic manufacturers can be different. While the inspiration for surface pattern designs of UK ceramics have been cross-cultural for centuries, shifting production away from the Staffordshire region has not simply resulted in the further evolution of a more globalized product. Those manufacturers who have continued to produce in the UK have also tended to adapt their marketing to emphasize where the product is still being produced. This suggests how careful distinctions need to be drawn between the more global nature of surface pattern designs and a value that may be placed on the actual place of manufacture. In a period of growing ambiguity of places of production, even the most resolutely “local” UK ceramic manufacturer has not continued regardless. The result has often been the reaffirming of their “authenticity.” Not only has globalization resulted in diverse approaches to production (traditional

182

Ceramics and Globalization

or progressive in terms of outsourcing), it has created marketing that is obliged (legally or purposely) to declare where it sits within the various approaches to manufacturing. The evidence from a combination of manufacturers’ attitudes, the approaches to marketing, and, on occasion, ceramic surface patterns is that the interdependence of globalization, ironically, creates expressions of fragmentation. The fragmented behavior of the UK ceramic industry parallels the predictions of Ernest Sternberg’s research paper entitled “Transformations: The Eight New Ages of Capitalism.” Here it was argued that from the Western, postindustrial age there could be a potential move to eight alternative ages. In Sternberg’s fourth age (called the new mercantilism), manufacturers set up foreign plants to hire low-cost labor (1993: 1025–26), which parallels Staffordshire manufacturers outsourcing, as discussed in Chapter 3. However, in Sternberg’s eighth age (the age of new fundamentals) it is argued that “turbulent change” creates “refurbishing antique cultures, rediscovering original values, reclaiming eternal truth” (1993: 1031). Sternberg did not see his “ages” as a paradox, but as reflecting the “divergent possibilities of our time” (1993: 1037). Thus, Sternberg’s analysis of postindustrialism seems more in keeping with what has occurred within of the UK ceramic industry in recent times. But where, ultimately, does a sense of refurbishment reside? Marketing literature tends to analyze the wider issue of “COO” from the consumer perspective (Jain and Griffith 2011). Less research has been undertaken on the attitudes of producers and suppliers. Manufacturers who showed a concern for where the ceramics were produced were not confined to one area, since they embrace the tableware as well as the decorative and collectible sector. But, while there can be differences in what manufacturers produce, these companies do have something in common. There appears to be a phenomenon whereby individuals who had “alternative routes” into the industry tended to take the “place of origin” more seriously as part of the product’s appeal. For example, the proprietor of Big Tomato was a woman formerly involved in selling antiques; the chairman of Moorcroft was previously a lawyer, but collected Moorcroft; the founders of The New English were two individuals who came from Stoke-on-Trent and appreciated the heritage of the industry, yet they had no prior knowledge of ceramic manufacturing; the codirector of The Figurine Collective was previously involved in marketing collectables through the retailer Compton and Woodhouse. Rather than attempts to continue place of production stemming entirely from the demand of consumers, an interesting possibility is that it may be driven by ceramic manufacturers’ interest in antiques, collecting, and heritage, impacting on their own perception and behavior. Through collecting, handling, and local knowledge there grows an interest and appreciation of the heritage of the UK ceramic industry. Theoretically, the perceptions of individuals who were “newer” to the industry have been initially influenced by their experiences as consumers. As consumers an affinity with the mythologies of the UK ceramic industry is gained that, in turn, affects their own attitudes when embarking on manufacturing. This further complicates the argument that a concern for “COO” will decline due to the gradual convergence of economics, technology and communication associated

Conclusion

183

with the supply side, but not necessarily from the demand side, because of cultural appreciation of difference (Johansson 1993: 81). Regardless of problems of marketing outsourced, high-value UK ceramics and collectables, there can be a desire to be involved in some form of ceramic production. The emergence of many “newer,” small-scale manufacturers has replaced one structure with another, and in this sense the “past” still has the capacity to influence the “present,” in spite of globalization. In this respect, this book has found parallels with a view that it could “produce, simultaneously, a new ‘global’ and new ‘local’ identifications” (Hall 1992: 304). In Chapter 1 the question was raised of whether UK ceramics are caught up in what they may mean socially as a commodity. If it were simply a question of Western labor costs versus Eastern labor costs, it would make a great deal of economic sense to switch ceramic production entirely abroad. Although design and manufacturing agility could remain an issue for some, there are still manufacturers keen to maintain the UK ceramic industry instead of merely maximizing profits. The existence of social reasons for influencing the attitudes of manufacturers—not entirely linked to the perception demands of the consumer—makes the debate about the impact of globalization even more complex to understand. Inevitably, this book is a snapshot of an industry at a particular point in time. Given the rapid and significant changes that have taken place within the industry, it would be hard to repeat some of these primary interviews in the future. For instance, the interview with a Waterford Wedgwood seller was undertaken when the company had gone into temporary administration in 2009, and the Doulton designer recorded his own the first encounters with outsourcing. During the intervening period between completing the research and the publication of this book, the economics of manufacturing has altered, and businesses have continued to evolve. In 2012, it was announced that a levy on imported Chinese ceramic tableware was to be imposed by the European Union (The Sentinel, November 17 and 19, 2012). Steelite International, the hospitality manufacturer (a sector of the industry which has more typically maintained UK production), employing around 700 people in Staffordshire, acquired Royal Crown Derby at the end of 2012 (The Sentinel December 20, 2012 and April 21, 2013). Halcyon Days of Mayfair acquired Caverswall China of Fenton in 2015 (The Sentinel April 20, 2015). The ownership of Wedgwood Waterford Royal Doulton (WWRD) was transferred from the American KPS Capital Partners to the Finnish firm Fiskars, in 2015 (The Sentinel May 11, 2015). While the business The Figurine Collective was dissolved in mid-2015, Roy Kirkham & Co. reduced their amount of foreign outsourcing and increased production in Stoke-on-Trent in 2016. Due to illhealth, Paul Bishop sold The New English to Barbara Desax in January 2016, who continues the business with the same ethos and has moved the firm to be in the center of Stoke-on-Trent. The turnover of Emma Bridgewater of Hanley had reached £15 million by 2016. The need to document changing business structures, approaches to manufacturing, and then marketing and design strategies inevitably continues. More research could be undertaken into the backgrounds of those who have

184

Ceramics and Globalization

become involved in manufacturing. This could be a fascinating angle of how an importance of “COO” can also be related to collecting and retailing, or to regional backgrounds of those who have become involved in production. To continuously document the new, small manufacturers and how they market their products will be important in the future for understanding the globalization debate in the twenty-first century. Theorists, such as David Harvey, previously suggested in The Condition of Postmodernity that as barriers diminish, we may become much more “sensitized to what the world’s spaces contain” (1990: 294). This research has been able to find more evidence to support the observation. Export markets have previously been a vital important aspect of the UK ceramic industry, but a demand for ceramics in the Far East actually manufactured in the UK has significant implications for how the continued development of globalization might evolve. In the future it will be useful to know whether “place of origin” and the “Made of England” backstamps will continue to carry a value in these developing markets. In addition, it will be interesting to see if different ceramic export markets will continue to have varying tastes, compared to the home market. If so, the need for UK ceramic firms to maintain manufacturing and design agility, and to quickly respond to taste and demand, will continue. Alternately, and from a British perspective, one wonders whether the connotation of the cheapness of Far Eastern production that caused problems when high-status UK ceramic brands were outsourced to Asia will evolve over time. Clearly, good quality ceramics can be manufactured elsewhere, but segments of the ceramic industry will remain in UK because of status issues, unless attitudes to the Far East begin to change. If it is the older generation who are interested in “place of origin,” their significance will inevitably diminish. However, it has been suggested that younger age groups are taking an interest in where ceramics originated. This could simply be a temporarily wave, or a significant feature for the future development of Western industries. Whether an interest in “place of origin” is influenced by factors such as age, class, as well as gender, since women were often identified as the consumer of tableware or collectables, could be explored in more depth. Whatever the long-term consequence of tendencies ushered in by globalization might be, there are wider implications of how to record this period. In the past, the preserving of objects of a local, cultural significance fell on the regional museum. For the purposes of future research, it needs to be resolved where the responsibility lies for recording ceramic objects branded as an English firm, but perhaps manufactured in Asia. There is no easy overarching principle that encapsulates why some forms of ceramic manufacturing have continued in the UK. The heterogeneity of manufacturing strategies, marketing, and design is a reflection of the nuances of function, status, and heritage of the product. The type of ceramic product, the nature of the brand, and even just the heritage of a single surface pattern can make a difference to the behavior of manufacturers, and apparently how consumers interact with these products. This book has attempted to draw attention to a

Conclusion

185

series of fascinating paradoxes. Any analysis of the UK ceramic industry, or of the consequences of globalization, has to be far more subdivided to reflect the types of commodities being produced. In the 1980s, the UK ceramic industry could be characterized as predominately a Stoke-on-Trent industry, with ceramic firms from other regions still being linked by business connections. From the 1990s, the industry, due to globalization, is no longer so easy to describe, but the future seems to be one of a continuous desire to adapt. In fact, the consequences of “globalization” on the English ceramic industry can be strikingly contrary to what the word actually implies. Thus, it appears that Emmanuel Cooper’s opinion (referred to in the Introduction), which assumed a terminal decline of the UK ceramic industry, was premature.

Trademark Acknowledgments Royal Doulton The Royal Doulton brand and trademark are part of the Fiskars portfolio of brands and trademarks, www.fiskarsgroup.com. Registered office: Wedgwood Drive, Barlaston, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST12 9ER. Registered in England. Company registration number: 6805116. VAT number: GB946915581. Wedgwood The Wedgwood brand and trademark are part of the Fiskars portfolio of brands and trademarks, www.fiskarsgroup.com. Registered office: Wedgwood Drive, Barlaston, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST12 9ER. Registered in England. Company registration number: 6805116. VAT number: GB946915581.

186

Ceramics and Globalization

Whittard Whittard is a trademark of Hamsard 3145 Limited. Principal address: Windrush House, Windrush Park, Witney, Oxfordshire, OX29 7DX. Company registration number: 06753143. Denby Denby Pottery Company Limited . . . Company registration number: 06800973. Heron Cross Pottery All Trademarks, service marks and trade names (Collectively the “Marks”) are proprietary to Heron Cross Pottery Limited or other respective owners that have granted Heron Cross Pottery Limited the right and license to use such Marks. Burgess & Leigh (Burleigh) Burleigh Pottery Limited was dissolved in 2012. Its registered office was Clarence House, St James’s, London SW1A 1BA. Its company registration number was 07162414. Emma Bridgewater Emma Bridgewater is the trading name of Emma Bridgewater Ltd. Registered office: Jubilee Barn, Ham Court, Bampton, Oxfordshire, OX18 2HG. Registered number: 1943787 (England & Wales). VAT number: GB592 6862 92

References Books Appadurai, A., ed. (1986), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Appadurai, A. (1990), “Disjunction and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy,” in M. Featherstone (ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, 295–310, London: Sage Publications. Appadurai, A. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Arendt, H., ed. (1992), Walter Benjamin: Illuminations, London: Fontana Press. Ashworth, F. (2002), Aynsley China, London: Shire Publications Ltd. Atterbury, P., ed. (1982), The History of Porcelain, London: Orbis Publishing. Back, L. (1998), “Local/Global,” in C. Jenks (ed.), Core Sociological Dichotomies, 63–77, London: Sage Publications. Baker, J. (1984), Sunderland Pottery, Tyne and Wear County Council Museums: Thomas Reed Industrial Press Ltd. Bao, Y., S. Zhang, and J. T. Simpson (2011), “Promoting Products from Developing Countries: Roles of Brand Name and Spokesperson,” in S. C. Jain and D. A. Griffith (eds.), Handbook of Research in International Marketing, Second Edition, 48–67, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Barker, D. (1991), William Greatbatch: A Staffordshire Potter, London: Jonathan Horne. Barker, D. and S. Cole, eds (1998), Digging For Early Porcelain: The Archaeology of Six 18th century British Porcelain Factories, Stoke-on-Trent: City Museum & Art Gallery. Barker, D. and S. Crompton (2007), Slipware in the Collection of the Potteries Museum & Art Gallery, London: A. & C. Black Ltd. Barnard, M. (2005), Graphic Design as Communication, London and New York: Routledge. Baudrillard, J. ([1968] 2005), The System of Objects, New York: Verso. Baudrillard, J. ([1976] 1993), Symbolic Exchange and Death, London: Sage Publications. Baudrillard, J. ([1981]1994), Simulacra and Simulation, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Baughn, C. and A. Yaprak (1993), “Mapping Country-of-Origin Research: Recent Developments and Emerging Avenues,” in N. Papadopoulos and L. A. Heslop (eds.), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, 89–115, New York: International Business Press. Bauman, Z. (1998a), Work, Consumerism and the New Poor, Buckingham: Open University Press. Bauman, Z (1998b), Globalization: The Human Consequences, New York: Columbia University Press. Belk, R. W. (1995a), “Studies in the New Consumer Behaviour,” in D. Miller (ed.), Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies, 58–95, London and New York: Routledge. Belk, R. W. (1995b), Collecting in a Consumer Society, London: Routledge.

188

References

Bell, D. (1974), The Coming Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, London: Heinemann. Bocock, R., ed. (1993), Consumption, London: Routledge. Boger, L. A. (1971), The Dictionary of World Pottery and Porcelain, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Boulay, A. du (1973), Chinese Porcelain, London: Octopus Books. Bourdieu, P. ([1979] 1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, London: Routledge. Boyle, D. (2003), Authenticity: Brands, Fakes, Spin and the Lust for Real Life, London: Flamingo. Brewer, J. and R. Porter, eds (1993), Consumption and the World of Goods, London: Routledge. Brunner, J. A., A. B. Flaschner and L. Xiaogang (1993), “Images and Events: China Before and After Tiananmen Square,” in N. Papadopoulos and L. A. Heslop (eds.), ProductCountry Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, 379–400, New York, London and Norwood: International Business Press. Buckley, C. (1990), Potters and Paintresses: Woman Designers in the Pottery Industry 1870–1955, London: The Woman’s Press. Buckley, C. (2007), Designing Modern Britain, London: Reaktion Books. Casey, A., M. Goodby, and M. Rice (2010), Emma Bridgewater: Spot on for 25 years, Stokeon-Trent: Published by Emma Bridgewater Ltd. Cooper, E. (2009), Contemporary Ceramics, London: Thames & Hudson. Cooper, R. and M. Press (1995), Design Agenda: A Guide to Successful Design Management, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Copeland, R. (2009), Manufacturing Processes of Tableware during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, Cumbria: Northern Ceramic Society. Corrigan, P. (1997), The Sociology of Consumption, London: Sage Publications. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and E. Rochberg-Halton (1981), The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Damanpour, F. (1993), “Temporal Shifts of Developed Country Images: A 20-Year View,” in N. Papadopoulos and L. A. Heslop (eds.), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, 357–78, New York, London and Norwood: International Business Press. Dawson, A. (1984), Masterpieces of Wedgwood in the British Museum, London: British Museum Press. Dicken, P. (2003), Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century, London: Sage Publications. Dormer, P. (1990), The Meaning of Modern Design, London: Thames and Hudson. Douglas, M. and B. Isherwood ([1979] 1996), The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption, London: Routledge. Du Gay, P., ed. (1997), Production of Culture/Cultures of Production, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Dunn, R. (2008), Identifying Consumption: Subjects and Objects in Consumer Society, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Evans, M., A. Jamal, and G. Foxall (2006), Consumer Behaviour, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Fairs, M. (2006), Twenty-First Century Design: New Design Icons from Mass Market to Avant-garde, London: Carlton Books Ltd. Featherstone, M. (1991), Consumer Culture & Postmodernism, London: Sage Publications.

References

189

Featherstone, M. (1995), Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity, London: Sage Publications. Fishman, T. C. (2005), China, Inc.: How the Rise of he Next Superpower Challenges America and the World, New York: Scribner. Forty, A. (1986), Objects of Desire: Design and Society 1750-1980, London: Thames and Hudson. Foxall, G. (1990), Consumer Psychology in Behavioral Perspective, Washington, DC: BeardBooks. Foxall, G., R. Goldsmith, and S. Brown (1998), Consumer Psychology for Marketing, London: International Thomas Business Press. Gabriel, Y. and T. Lang (2006), The Unmanageable Consumer, London: Sage Publications. Gay, P. W. and R. L. Smyth (1974), The British Pottery Industry, London: Butterworths. Giddens, A. (1991a), The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1991b), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press. Godden, G. A. (1964), Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain marks, New York: Bonanza Books and Crown Publishing. Godden, G. A. (1971), The Illustrated Guide to Mason’s Patent Ironstone China: The Related Ware—“Stone China,” “New Stone,” “Granite China”—and their Manufacturers, London: Barrie & Jenkins. Godden, G. A. (1974), British Porcelain, An Illustrated Guide, New York: Clarkson N. Potter. Godden, G. A. (1978), “Continental Decorators of English Ceramics in the Victorian era,” in P. Atterbury (ed.), English Pottery and Porcelain: An Historical Survey, 271–4, London: Peter Owen. Godden, G. A. (1979), Oriental Export Market Porcelain and its Influence on European Wares, St. Albans and London: Granada Publishing. Godden, G. A. (1985: 2nd revised edition), Ridgway Porcelains, Suffolk: Antique Collectors’ Club. Godden, G. A. (1990), The Concise Guide to British Pottery and Porcelain, London: Barrie & Jenkins. Golomb, J. (1995), In Search of Authenticity: From Kierkegaard to Camus, London: Routledge. Goodwin, J. and D. Barker (2009), Small Pieces of History: Archaeological Ceramics from Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent, Stoke-on-Trent: Stoke-on-Trent Archaeology Service Monograph, No.2. Grant, J. (1999), The New Marketing Manifesto: The 12 Rules for Building Successful Brands in the 21st Century, London: Texere Publishing Limited. Griffin, L. (1998), The Fantastic Flowers of Clarice Cliff: A celebration of her floral designs, London: Pavilion Books Limited. Hall, S. (1992), “The Question of Cultural Identity,” in S. Hall, D. Held and T. McGrew (eds.), Modernity and its futures, 273–326, Cambridge: Polity Press with Blackwell Publishers. Hampson, R. ([1994] 2010, revised edition), Churchill China: Great British Potters since 1795, China: Shanghai Mainz. Hannah, F. (1986), Ceramics: Twentieth Century Design, New York: E. P. Dutton. Hannerz, U. (1996), Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places, London and New York: Routledge.

190

References

Harvey, D. (1990), The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Oxford: Blackwell. Harvey, D. (2000), “Theorizing the Transition,” in M. J. Lee (ed.), The Consumer Society Reader, 258–70, Oxford: Blackwell. Haslam, M. (1975), English Art Pottery, 1865-1915, Suffolk: Antique Collectors’ Club, Baron Publishing. Henrywood, R. K. (2002), Staffordshire Potters 1781-1900: A Comprehensive List Assembled from Contemporary Directories with Selected Marks, Suffolk: Antique Collectors’ Club. Heskett, J. (2003), Toothpicks and Logos: Design in Everyday Life, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heslop, L. A. and N. Papadopoulos (1993), “‘But Who Knows Where or When’: Reflections on the Images of Countries and Their Products,” in N. Papadopoulos, and L. A. Heslop (eds.), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, 39–75, New York, London and Norwood: International Business Press. Hildyard, R. (2005), English Pottery 1620-1840, London: V&A Publications. Hirsch, F. (1977), Social Limits to Growth, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hodder, I. (2011), “The Interpretation of Documents and Material Culture,” in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research: Second Edition, 703–15, London: Sage Publications. Holdway, H. and R. Holdway (2006), 20th Century Ceramic Designer, Derbyshire: Landmark Publishing. Honey, W. B. ([1928]1977), Old English Porcelain: A Handbook for Collectors, London: Faber and Faber Limited. Honey, W. B. ([1948]1956), Wedgwood Ware, Glasgow: The University Press. Hughes, G. Bernard (1965), The County Life Collector’s Pocket Book of China, Middlesex: Country Life Books, The Hamlyn Publishing Group. Huygen, F. (1989), British Design: Image & Identity, London: Thames & Hudson. Irwin, D. (1979), John Flaxman 1755-1826: Sculptor, Illustrator and Designer, London: Studio Vista. Jackson, I., S. Leech, M. O’Keefe, and L. Trustrum, eds (2000), Ceramic Ambitions and Strategic Directions: Perspectives on the UK Ceramics Industry arising from a series of executives seminars organized by Staffordshire University Business School, Staffordshire: Staffordshire University Business School. Jain, S. C. and D. A. Griffith, eds (2011), Handbook of Research in International Marketing, Second Edition, UK and USA: Edward Elgar. Jameson, F. ([1983] 1993), “Postmodernism and Consumer Society,” in H. Foster (ed.) Postmodern Culture, 111–25, London: Pluto Press. Jobber, D. (1995), Principles and Practice of Marketing, London: McGraw-Hill Companies. Johansson, J. K. (1993), “Missing a Strategic Opportunity: Managers’ Denial of Countryof-Origin Effects,” in N. Papadopoulos and L. A. Heslop (eds.), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, 77–87, New York, London and Norwood: International Business Press. Jones, M. (1961), Potbank: A Social enquiry into Life in the Potteries, London: Secker & Warburg. Jörg, C. J. A. (1984), Interaction in Ceramics: Oriental Porcelain & Delftware, Hong Kong: Urban Council. King, A. ed. (1991), Culture, Globalization and the World-System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity, Basingstoke and London: MacMillan Press Ltd.

References

191

Kitchin, R. and Tate, N. J. (2000), Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Methodology and Practice, Harlow: Prentice Hall. Kopytoff, I. (1986), “The Cultural Biography of Things: commoditization as Process,” in A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, 64–91, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kowalsky, A. A and Kowalsky, D. E. (1999), Encyclopedia of Marks on American, English, and European Earthenware Ironstone, and Stoneware, Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd. Lash, S. and J. Urry (1994), Economies of Signs and Space, London: Sage Publications. Leiss, W., S. Kline, and S. Jhally ([1990] 1997) Second edition, Revised and enlarged), Social Communication in Advertising: Persons, Products & Images of Well Being, London and New York: Routledge. Levitt, T. (1983), The Marketing Imagination, New York and London: The Free Press. Lipovetsky, G. ([1987] 2002), The Empire of Fashion: Dressing Modern Democracy, Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Littler, J. (2009), Radical Consumption: Shopping for Change in Contemporary Culture, London: McGraw-Hill Open University Press. Lorenz, C. (1986) The Design Dimension: The New Competitive Weapon for Business, Oxford: Blackwell. Lury, C. (1996), Consumer Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press. Mackay, H., ed. (1997), Consumption and Everyday Life, London: Sage Publications. McCracken, G. (1990), Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. McKendrick, N., Brewer, J. and Plumb, J. H. (1982), The Birth of a Consumer Society, London: Europa Publications Limited. McLuhan, M. ([1962]1988), The Gutenberg Galaxy: the making of the typographic man, Toronto: University of Toronto. Mah, A. (2012), Industrial Ruination, Community, and Place: Landscapes and Legacies of Urban Decline, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Magnusson, P. and S. A. Westjohn (2011), “Is there a Country-of-Origin Theory?” in S. C. Jain and D. A. Griffith (eds.), Handbook of Research in International Marketing, Second Edition, 292–316, UK and USA: Edward Elgar. Mauss, M. ([1954]1990), The Gift: The Form and Exchange in Archaic Societies, London: Routledge. Medley, M. ([1976]1986), The Chinese Potter: A Practical History of Chinese Ceramics, Oxford: Phaidon. Miller, D. (1997), “Consumption and its Consequences,” in H. Mackay (ed.), Consumption and Everyday Life, 13–46, London: Sage Publications. Mollerup, P. (1997), Marks of Excellence: The History and Taxonomy of Trademarks, London: Phaidon Press Ltd. Morello, G. (1993), “International Product Competitiveness and the ‘Made in’ Concept,” in N. Papadopoulos and L. A. Heslop (eds.), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, 285–309, New York, London and Norwood: International Business Press. Myland, A. H and Brownsword, N. eds (2015), Topographies of the Obsolete: Site Reflections, Stoke-on-Trent: Norwegian Artistic Research Programme. Niblett, K. (1990), Dynamic Design: The Pottery Industry 1940-1990, Stoke-on-Trent: City Museum & Art Gallery.

192

References

Oppenheim, A. N. (1992), Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, London: Continuum. Padley, H. (2009), The Joys of Entrepreneurship: “small is beautiful,” London: Discovered Authors. Padley, H. and Pugh, G. (2000), “The Pottery Industry: Exploding the Myths and Charting the Way,” in I. Jackson, S. Leech, M. O’Keefe, and L. Trustrum (eds.), Ceramic Ambitions and Strategic Directions: Perspectives on the UK Ceramics Industry Arising from a Series of Executives Seminars Organized by Staffordshire University Business School, 14–33, Staffordshire: Staffordshire University Business School. Papadopoulos, N. (1993), “What Product and Country Images Are and Are Not,” in N. Papadopoulos and L. A. Heslop (eds.), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, 3–38, New York, London and Norwood: International Business Press. Papadopoulos, N. and L. A. Heslop, eds (1993), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, New York, London and Norwood: International Business Press. Papadopoulos, N., A. el Banna, S. A. Murphy, and J. I. Rojas-Méndez (2011), “Place Brands and Brand-Place Associations: The Role of ‘place’ in International Marketing,” in S. C. Jain and D. A Griffith (eds.), Handbook of Research in International Marketing, Second Edition, 88–113, UK and USA: Edward Elgar. Pearce, S. M. (1998), Collecting in Contemporary Practice, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Poster, M. ed. (1988), Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings, Cambridge: Polity Press. The Potteries Museum & Art Gallery (1999), Potteries Pots: The Best in the World, Norwich: Jarrold Publishing. Press, M. and R. Cooper (2003), The Design Experience: The Role of Design and Designers in the Twenty-First Century, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Rice, M. (2010), The Lost City of Stoke-on-Trent, London: Frances Lincoln Limited. Richards, S. (1999), Eighteenth-century Ceramics: Products for a Civilized Society, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Robacker, E. F. and Robacker, A. F. (1978), Spatterware and Sponge—Hardy Perennials of Ceramics, New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. Robins, K. (1991), “Traditional and Translation: National Culture in its Global Context,” in J. Corner and S. Harvey (eds.), Enterprise and Heritage: Crosscurrents of National Culture, 21–44, London and New York: Routledge. Sandino, L. and M. Partington, eds (2013), Oral History in the Visual Arts, London and New York: Bloomsbury. Shaw, S. ([1829]: 1970), History of the Staffordshire Potteries and the Rise and Progress of the Manufacture of Pottery and Porcelain: With References to Genuine Specimens, and Notices of Eminent Potters, Yorkshire: David & Charles Publishers Ltd. Smith, A. (1990), “Towards a Global Culture?” in M. Featherstone (ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, 171–191, London: Sage Publications. Smith, A. (1991), National Identity, Harmondworth: Penguin Books Ltd. Smith, A. (1995), Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, London: Polity Press. Snyder, J. B. (1997), Romantic Staffordshire Ceramics, Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd. Spooner, B. (1986), “Weavers and Dealers: Authenticity and Oriental Carpets,” in A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, 195–235, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spretnak, C. (1999), The Resurgence of the Real: Body, Nature, and Place in a Hypermodern World, London: Routledge.

References

193

Steers, R. M. and L. Nardon (2006), Managing in the Global Economy, New York and London: M. E. Sharpe. Steinberger, P. (2010), “Global Regional,” in A. Sachs (ed.) Global Design: International Perspective and Individual Concepts, 228–31, Switzerland: Lars Muller Publishers. Street, F. ([1997] reprint 2010), Moorcroft: the Pheonix Years, Essex: W. M. Publication Ltd. Tomlinson, J. (1999), Globalization and Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press. Trustrum, L. and P. Doane (2000), “Measuring and Managing Customer Satisfaction,” in Jackson et al. (eds.), Ceramic Ambitions and Strategic Directions: Perspectives on the UK Ceramics Industry Arising from a Series of Executives Seminars Organized by Staffordshire University Business School, 34–9, Staffordshire: Staffordshire University Business School. Turner, M. (1995), “Early Modern Design in Hong Kong,” in D. Doordan (ed.), Design History: An Anthology, 200–12, Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press. Veblen, T. ([1925]2000), “Conspicuous Consumption,” in M. J. Lee (ed.), The Consumer Society Reader, 31–47, Oxford: Blackwell. Walby, S. (2009), Globalization and Inequalities: Complexity and Contested Modernities, Los Angeles and London: Sage Publications. Walker, S. (1992), Queensberry Hunt: Creativity and Industry, London: Fourth Estate and Wordsearch Ltd. Wang, Shou Zhi (1995), “Chinese Modern Design: A Retrospective,” in D. Doordan (ed.) Design History: An Anthology, 213–41, Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press. Waters, M. (2001: 2nd ed.), Globalization, London: Routledge. Weatherill, L. (1971), Pottery Trade and North Staffordshire, 1660-1760, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Whipp, R. (1990), Patterns of Labour: Work and Social Change in the Pottery Industry, London: Routledge. Whiter, L. (1989), Spode: A History of the Family, Factory and Wares from 1733 to 1833, London: Barrie & Jenkins. Woodham, J. (1997), Twentieth Century Design, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Youds, B. (1996), Susie Cooper: An Elegant Affair, London: Thames & Hudson. Young, H. ed. (1995), The Genius of Wedgwood, London: Victoria and Albert Museum.

Journals Alexander, N. (2009), “Brand Authentication: Creating and Maintaining Brand Auras,” European Journal of Marketing, 43 (3/4): 551–62. Baugh, B. (1988), “Authenticity Revisited,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 46 (4): 477–87. Beverland, M. B. (2005), “Managing the Design Innovation-Brand Marketing Interface: Resolving the Tension between Artistic Creation and Commercial Imperatives,” The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (2): 193–207. Bill, K. (1993), “Attitudes Towards Women’s Trousers: Britain in the 1930s,” Journal of Design History, 6: 45–54. Campbell, J. (1997), “Opportunities for Ceramics Industry,” British Ceramic Transactions, 96 (6): 237–46. Carroll, M., Fang Lee Cooke, J. Hassard, and M. Marchington (2002), “The Strategic Management of Outsourcing in the UK Ceramic Tableware Industry,” Competition and Change, 6 (4): 327–43.

194

References

Christopherson, S., J. Michie, and P. Tyler (2010), “Regional Resilience: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives,” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3 (1): 3–10. Clark, H. (2009), “Back to the Future, or Forward? Hong Kong Design, Image and Branding,” Design Issues, 25 (3): 11–29. Cockerill, J. (1995), “English Earthenware made in Belgium,” Northern Ceramic Society Newsletter, 100: 39–46. Day, M., J. Burnett, P. Forrester, and J. Hassard (2000), “Britain’s Last Industrial District? A Case Study of Ceramic Production,” International Journal of Production Economics, 65 (1): 5–15. DeFanti, M., D. Bird and H. Caldwell (2013), “Forever Now: Gucci’s Use of a Partially Borrowed Heritage to Establish a Global Luxury Brand,” in L. C. Neilson (ed.), Varieties, Alternatives, and Deviations in Marketing History: Proceedings of the 16th Biennial Conference on Historical Analysis and Research in Marketing (CHARM), CHARM Association, Copenhagen, Denmark: 14–23. des Fontaines, U. (1987), “Wedgwood or Wedg Wood? Filling a gap in Ceramic History,” Journal of the Northern Ceramic Society, 6: 143–63. Ewins, N. (1997), “‘Supplying the Present Wants of Our Yankee Cousins ...’: Staffordshire Ceramics and American market 1775-1880,” Journal of Ceramic History, City Museum & Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent, 15: 1–154. Fiss, K. and H. Clark eds (2009), “Design in a Global Context,” Design Issues, 25 (3): 1–91. Hall, S. (1988), “Brave New World,” Marxism Today, October: 24–9. Hampson, R. (1990), “Potteries Jotteries: Ten Years on,” Northern Ceramic Society Newsletter, 80: 46–7. Hassink, R. (2010), “Regional Resilience: A Promising Concept to Explain Differences in Regional Economic Adaptability,” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3 (1): 45–58. Hervas-Oliver, J-L., I. Jackson and P. R. Tomlinson (2011), “‘May the Ovens Never Grow Cold’: Regional Resilience and Industrial Policy in the North Staffordshire Ceramics Industrial District – with Lessons from Sassoulo and Castellon,” Policy Studies, 32 (4): 377–95. Imrie, R. F. (1989), “Industrial Restructuring, Labour, and Locality: The Case of the British Pottery Industry,” Environment and Planning A, 21: 3–26. Johansson, J. K. and I. D. Nebenzahl (1986), “Multinational Production: Effect on Brand Value,” Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (3): 101–26. Kabadayi, S. and D. Lerman (2011), “Made in China but sold at FAO Schwarz: Countryof-Origin Effect and Trusting Beliefs,” International Marketing Review, 28 (1): 102–26. Available online: www. emeraldinsight. Com/0265-1335.htm (accessed October). Kitson, M., R. Martin and P. Tyler (2004), “Regional Competitiveness: An Elusive yet Key Concept?,” Regional Studies, 38 (9): 991–9. Leibenstein, H. (1950), “Bandwagon, Snob and Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumer Demand,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64 (2): 183–207. Liefeld, J. P. (2004), “Consumer Knowledge and use of Country-of-Origin Information at Point of Purchase,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (2): 85–96. Pharr, J. M. (2005), “Synthesizing Country-of-origin Research from the Last Decade: Is the Concept Still Salient in an era of Global Brands?,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13 (4): 35–45. Respicio, N. A. (2007), “The Nishijin Tradition: Past and Prospects, Issues and Problems as Viewed by Various People Involved in Production and

References

195

Dissemination.” Paper for Symposium, International Research Centre for Japanese Studies, Kyoto, 27: 321–35. Rovine, V. (2009), “Colonialism’s Clothing: Africa, France and the Deployment of Fashion,” Design Issues, 25 (3): 44–61. Rowley, C. (1992), “The British Pottery Industry: A Comment on a Case of Industrial Restructuring, Labour and Locality,” Environmental and Planning A, 24: 1645–50. Rowley, C. (1994), “The Illusion of Fexible Specialization: The Case of the Domesticware Sector of the British Ceramics Industry,” New Technology, Work and Employment, 9 (2): 127–39. Rowley, C. (1998), “Manufacturing Mobility? Internationalization, Change and Continuity,” Journal of General Management, 23 (3): 21–34. Sacchetti, S. and P. R. Tomlinson (2009), “Economic Governance and the Evolution of Industrial Districts under Globalization: The Case of Two Mature European Industrial Districts,” European Planning Studies, 17 (12): 1837–51. Samiee, S., T. A. Shimp and S. Sharma (2005), “Brand Origin Recognition Accuracy; its Antecedents and Consumers’ Cognitive Limitations,” Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (4): 379–397. Sandino, L. (2006), “Oral Histories and Design: Objects and Subjects,” Journal of Design History, 19 (4): 275–82. Sternberg, E. (1993), “Transformations: The Eight New Ages of Capitalism,” Futures, Cedar Falls, Iowa, December: 1019–40. Tomlinson, P. R. and I. Jackson (2013), “Cooperative Ties and the Impact of External Factors upon Innovation in an Industrial District: Some Insights from the North Staffordshire Table and Giftware Sector,” Regional Studies, 47 (4): 580–96. Weinberger, D., B. Weindruch, G. Arnold, J. H. Gilmore, B. J. Pine, and G. Brackett (2008), “Authenticity: Is It Real or Is It Marketing?,” Harvard Business Review, 86 (3): 33–43.

Reports Churchill China, Annual Report, 2009. Churchill China plc, 2010. Provided by Churchill China. Ecotec Research and Consulting Ltd (1999), Strategic Analysis of the Ceramics Industry in Staffordshire, Birmingham: Ecotec. (Ecotec is now called Ecroys UK Ltd. According to Ros Grimes of their Keele University Office, the 1999 report was written by Paul Jeffrey). Key Note Report, China and Earthenware, years 1993, 1997, 1998, 2005, 2007, and 2010, supplied electronically by Catherine Cable, Senior Account Manager, July 2011.

Ceramic catalogs Adams catalog, mid-1970s (N.Ewins collection). Bishop, P. (2010), Reviving the Lost Art of Collecting and Displaying Plates: Tectonic Plates, Barlaston (N.Ewins collection). Moorcroft catalog, 2007 (N.Ewins collection). Wedgwood promotional pamphlet for the “Home” range, c.1995 (N.Ewins Collection).

196

References

Ceramic periodicals Calderwood, J. A. “Trade with China.” Ceramic Industry, Volume 150, Issue 1, January 2000: 12–3. Available online: Pdf http://ehis.ebschost.com/eds/pdfviewer Executive Overview, “Behind the Scenes with Chris Johnson, Group Manufacturing Director for Waterford Wedgwood Plc” Ceramic Industry, Volume 151, Issue 6, June 2001: 55–6. Available online as a pdf http://ehis.ebschost.com/eds/pdfviewer The Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review Diary, 1924, 1933 and 1936. University of Sunderland, Murray Library. Tableware International (1989–2008), Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Hanley, Stokeon-Trent. Consulted from Volume 19, No. 11 December 89/January 90, to Volume 130, Issue 5, October 2008. Tableware International from 2009 to 2014 supplied directly from Tableware International, Lema Publishing Ltd, 1 Churchgates, The Wilderness, Berhamsted, Herts, HP4 2AZ.

Newspapers Newspapers supplied by Lexis® Library, and the British Library. Available online: Lexis® Library, http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/frame Hampson, R. (1987–1998), “Potteries Jotteries” Northern Ceramic Society Newsletter, No. 68, March 1987, to No. 109, March 1998.

HM Revenue and Customs Trade Statistics, Imports and Exports, see Tables 1–6. Available from HM Revenue & Customs, 3rd Floor Central, Alexander House, 21 Victoria Avenue, Southend on Sea, Essex, SS99 1AA. Available online: http://[email protected] (accessed from July 2011).

Parliamentary Papers “Country of Origin Marking” debate in the House of Commons on May 9, 2011 (Hansard, HC Deb, May 9, 2011, vol 527, cols 1000–1001). Available online: http:// www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-05-09a.997.0&m=40582 (accessed electronically on 19/5/2011).

Museums and Archives

Beamish Archive, Beamish, Living Museum of the North Argos catalogs for Autumn/Winter 1989, Spring/Summer 1992, Spring/Summer 1996, Spring/Summer 2000, and Spring/Summer 2002. Habitat catalogs for 1974 and 1993.

References

197

Hugh Saunders’ archive A private collection of ceramic tableware designs and documentation relating to Saunders’ work for Royal Doulton.

The National Archives, Kew Gardens, London: Custom Papers. (Cust 5. Vol. 9, Cust 5. Vol. 62, Cust 5, Vol. 62 and Cust 5, Vol. 123).

The Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Tableware International, 1989–2007.

The Sentinel, Etruria, Stoke-on-Trent Copies of The Sentinel, supplied by David Knapper, Reporter.

Stoke-on-Trent City Archives, Hanley Library Hampson, R. “North Staffordshire Potters in 2005,” reference number P738.94246, Stokeon-Trent City Archives, Hanley Library.

Magazines Brownsword, N. (2009), “The rise and fall of the Wedgwood empire,” Crafts: The Magazine for Contemporary Craft, 217: 16–7. Homes & Antiques magazine, December 2009 (Advertisement for Goviers of Sidmouth). Home & Antiques magazine, May 2011 (Advertisement for Goviers of Sidmouth). Qureshi, H. (2010), “From Brixton to Bond and Beyond,” Crafts: The Magazine for Contemporary Craft, 224: 14.

Index Abberley, John  57 Acme Marls  43 Adams  26, 32, 154 Adams, Elise  164 Adams, John  160 Adams, Louise  160, 163 Adams family, Tunstall  26 Allied English Potteries  23 American market  95, 97, 115 American style  96 Angliker, Chrissy  166 Appadurai, Arjun  19, 114, 115, 137 Arcopal, France  31 Argos  31, 32, 40, 134, 143 Argyll 34 Arnoux, Leon  25 artists 25–8 Art Nouveau  94 Asda  33–4, 46, 134, 139 Ashcroft, John  90 Ashley, Laura  19 Ashwell, Kneale  139 Asia Pacific markets  56 Australia  54, 102 Australian Fine China Ltd  145 Australian market  164 authenticity 15–17 Aynsley China  44, 45, 46, 63, 67, 75, 155, 156 Back, Les  27 Bagnall, Geoff  46, 58, 105 Bailey Artware, Lorna  87 Bailey Decals  125 Bairstow, Roger  73 Bairstow Manor Pottery  73, 74 Ball, William  23 Bangladesh  59, 60, 83 Banks, Jeff  84 Barlaston  27, 48, 60, 119, 168 Barratts  111, 115

Barthes, Roland  154 Baudrillard, Jean  11, 16, 153, 158, 159, 163, 180 Baugh, Bruce  15 BBC, Keeping up Appearances  118 Beckham, Victoria  135 Begbies Traynor  69 Belk, Russell  16, 170 Bell, Daniel  3 Belleek Pottery Group  63 Benetton 19 Benjamin, Walter  164 Berkshire China, Fenton  37, 63, 111 Beswick 157 Beverland, Michael  15 Biggs, Garry  121–3, 131, 176 Big Tomato Company  50, 127–9, 130, 137, 182 Bill, Katrina  6 Bilston 159 Biltons Tableware  31, 41, 42 Birks, Gary  51 Birmingham Spring Fair  125 Birmingham Trade Fair  173 Bishop, Judith  48, 49, 166 Bishop, Paul  48, 49, 166–8, 183 Blair, Tony  74 Bocock, Robert  151 Boehm, Malvern, Worcestershire  37 bone china  21, 23, 24, 27, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 94, 95, 96, 98, 101, 102, 107, 111, 112, 115, 125, 126, 128 Boots 40 Bossons, Emma  164 Böttger, Johann Friedrich  22 Bourdieu, Pierre  138 Bow 22 Boyle, David  15 Boyle, Michael  67 Branscombe, June  160 Brazil 85

Index Bridgewater, Emma  2, 3, 19, 23, 45, 67, 70, 76, 107–10, 131, 144, 147, 183 Bridgwood, Sampson  84, 86 British Ceramic Confederation (BCC)  11, 34, 60 British Ceramics Biennial  48, 108 British Home Stores (BHS)  32, 40, 111, 115, 134 British market  174 Britishness 2 Broadhurst, James  84 Bromac Importers  34 Bromley, John  48 Bronte Porcelain  159 Brown, Gordon  120 Brown, Stephen  33 Brownsword, Dr. Neil  1 Bryan, Lawrence  73 Buckingham Palace  67 Bullers Plc  161 Burgess, Dorling and Leigh  107 Burgess and Leigh (Burleigh)  32, 176–8 Burslem  23, 25, 26, 40, 42, 43, 94, 96, 97, 98, 103 Burslem School of Art  25, 48 Caithness Glass  159 Calderwood, James  97 California  9, 10 Canada 97 Canadian market  169 Carnes, Bryan  69, 80 Carroll, Marilyn  11, 19, 53, 101, 173 Castellon 18 Castle, Jane  145 Castlechurch China Ltd.  34 Caverswall China Company Ltd.  46, 50, 67, 76, 86, 98, 129, 161–3, 183 centralization of design  99–101 Centrum Corporation  117 Ceramica 120 Ceramic and Allied Trades’ Union (CATU)  46, 58, 65, 90, 105 Ceramic Decals  89 Ceramic Development Group (CDG)  47 Ceramic Industry Forum (CIF)  44, 46, 72 Ceramic Resource Centre  67 Ceramics Biennial  67 Ceramics by Design  50

199

Ceramics Festival  106 Ceramics Showcase  74 Ceylon Ceramic Corporation  119 Chan, Keith  30 Chaozhou ShunQiang Ceramics Making Co. 34 Chelsea 22 China  21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29–31, 32, 34–5, 36–7, 40, 43, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 72, 73, 75, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 91, 157, 165, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175 China, made in  138, 146 China Impex  96 Chinese imports  57 Chinese office  103 Chinoiserie 22 Chown, John  161 Christopherson, Susan  18 Churchill China  18, 35, 41, 43, 57, 63, 66, 75, 83–6, 91, 103, 109, 110, 140, 144, 147 Churchill China Inc., Chicago  83 Churchill China Ltd.  86 Clarence House  67 Clark, Alex  85 Clark, Hazel  10 Cliff, Clarice  25, 41 Coalport  48, 55, 135 collectables  159, 184 Collectible World Studios  69 collecting 16 Collector’s Club  164 Collectors’ Guild  160 Coloroll Group  41 Columbia 75 commemoratives  155, 156, 161 Compton and Woodhouse  48, 67, 169, 182 computers  97, 103 Conran, Jasper  32–3, 133, 134, 139, 141, 150 Conran, Sir Terence  44 Conran, Sophie  72–3 Constantine, Jan  88 consumption 12–15 Cooke, Fang Lee  11 Cooper, Emmanuel  1, 185 Cooper, Rachel  11, 13, 25, 44, 88, 89, 99

200

Index

Cooper, Susie  25 Copeland, William  80 Copeland, W. T.  161 Copeland & Garrett  80 Coral Ceramics  68 Corrigan, Peter  14 Cosmic Design Works  67 Costelloe, Paul  44, 133, 135 country of origin  12, 13 craft  15–17, 139, 140, 151 craft issues  67–8 Crafts magazine  2, 108 Crate & Barrel  115 creamware  106, 128 Creative Tableware division  9 cross-cultural 10 Crownford Company  84 Crown Stafford China  46 Crown Trent China  55 Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly  14 Daily Telegraph, The  109 Daniel-Washington, Gloria  50, 127–9, 137 Dawson, Robert  25 Day, Marc  10, 97 Deaville, Mike  67 Debenhams  33, 119 Decorated in England  88–9, 179 Dema 87 Denby  23, 72, 90–1, 176 Denby Group  41 Denby Pottery  111, 121–3, 135, 144, 145, 180 Department of Trade and Industry  46, 90 Deptford Pottery, Sunderland  23 Derby  22, 23 Desax, Barbara  183 design 73–4 Designed in England  87–91, 99, 179 designers  25, 26, 32, 48 design history  5–6 Design Issues  10, 153 design process  99 Design Studio, Burslem  98 deterritorialization  10, 33–6, 141, 145 devaluation 170–1 Dhaka 59 Dinning, Lisa  47 Disney  37, 85

Doane, Peter  132 Doran, Ella  85 Dormer, Peter  16–17 Douglas, Mary  14 Doulton Multifortuna  56 Downes, Colin  67, 68 Drinkwater, Clive  85 Duchess China  34, 46, 67 Dudson  4, 18, 66, 109, 110 Dudson, Ian  45, 66 Dudson Group  66 Dunoon  34, 45, 175 Dunoon Ceramics  144 earthenware  21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 42 Eastwood works  67 Ecotec report  11 Ecotec Research  105 Edward, Louise  144–8, 157, 158 Edwardian 80 Edwardian China  50 Edwards, Hugh  46, 67, 163–6 Edwards, William  88–9 Egypt 98 Elliot Hall  159 employment figures  65–7, 76 Enesco 157 English East India Company  22 English Ironstone  31, 37, 41 English Ironstone Tableware Ltd  88 Englishness 95 ethnocentric 13 Etruria 5 European Union (EU)  75, 183 Evans, Martin  13 Evans, Sue  44, 72 exports 173–7 Far East  154 Far Eastern demand  157–8 Far Eastern imports  41 Farmer, Paul  58 Farrell, Kevin  34, 60 fashion 10 fashion industry  12, 140 Faulkner, Mark  125 Featherstone, Mike  138, 139 Fedden, Mary  107 Fegg Hayes Pottery  74

Index Fenton  23, 37 Ferris, Paula  131 Figurine Collective, The  48–9, 50, 168–70, 183 fine china  98 Finney, A. T.  37 Fiskars 183 Flairware 47 Flaxman, John  25 Flello, Robert  44 Flux 50 Fortnum & Mason  34 Foxall, Gordon  13, 33 France 168 Franciscan Pottery  9, 10 Frankfurt Trade Fair  173 Freestyle Trading Company  57 function 184 Gabriel, Yiannis  16, 137, 138, 158, 169 Gay, Philip W.  9, 23, 136, 174 George V  155 Germany  22, 28, 60, 61, 135, 150, 173 Gibson, Hugh  23, 28, 75 Giddens, Anthony  9, 17 global 183 global context  153 globalization  1, 9–10, 11, 12–20 global taste  95 global village  18, 103 Godden, Geoffrey  22, 26 Godley, Georgina  25 Goldsmith, Ronald  33 Golomb, Jacob  15 Goode, Thomas  148–50, 161 Goode & Co., Thomas  161 Goviers, Sidmouth  158–9, 166, 169, 170 Grafton Fine Bone China  43 Gray & Co. Ltd., A. E.  25 Grosvenor Collection, The  37 Guangdong 21 Guangdong Enterprises Ltd.  35 Guest, Andrew  149–50 Guild of Specialist China and Glass Retailers 95 Habitat  13, 27, 32 Halcyon Days  39, 183 Hammond, Matthew  43

201

Han Dan  82, 118 Hand, Jeff  106 hand-drawn 97 hand-made  106, 108 Hanley  23, 25, 34, 42, 43, 56 Hannah, Frances  9–10, 114 hard paste porcelain  21–2 Hare Duke, Barney  48, 108 Harper, Tim  34, 56 Harris, Anita, Art Pottery  47 Harrods  34, 67, 138, 145 Hartley Greens & Co.  105–7, 176 Harvard Business School  178 Harvey, David  12, 19, 184 Hassard, John  11 Hassink, Robert  18 Heals  113, 125 Hemingway, Wayne  68 Herend, Hungary  150 Heritage  154, 160, 164, 165, 167, 168, 171, 172, 176, 178, 184 Heron Cross Pottery  124–5, 129, 130 Hervas-Oliver, J.-L.  18–19 Heskett, John  18 Hewitt, Beverley  46–7 HiFive  37, 39, 63, 115 Highland Stoneware  144 Hirsch, Fred  170 Hiscock, Tim  66 Hockenhull, Lucy  79, 87 Hodder, Ian  16 Holdway, Harold  68 Holland, Peter  48 Homes & Antiques magazine  158, 166 homogenization  10, 17, 18, 114–16, 177 Hong Kong  30, 96, 131, 136 Hong Kong design  10 Hothouse 18 House, R.  55 House of Commons  75 Hudson & Middleton  34, 67 Hunt, Martin  26 Hutter, Florian  49 Huygen, Frederique  2 hybrid  10, 12 hybridization  4, 13, 17, 177 IKEA  43, 44, 50, 106, 129, 137 Imari design  160, 171

202 Imperial works  56–7 imports 28–32 Imrie, Rob F.  9, 142 India  60, 82, 86, 90, 146 Indonesia  54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 70, 72, 74, 96, 97, 98, 141, 142, 143 International style  10 internet 169 Iran 120 Ireland 120 Isherwood, Baron  14 Jackie, Gregory  36 Jackson, Ian  4, 18, 50 Jakarta  64, 98 Jamal, Ahmad  13 Jameson, Fredric  14, 33 Japan  28, 30, 34, 55, 56, 60, 70, 71, 96 Japanese demand  174, 176 Japanese market  95 Jemappes, Belgium  54 Jenkins, Russell  1 Jingdezhen 21 John Lewis  26, 107, 115, 125, 131, 141, 149 Johnson, Andy  74 Johnson, Chris  45, 138 Johnson, Paul  74 Johnson, Trevor  46, 64, 67, 76, 86, 149, 156 Johnson Brothers  31–2, 54, 55, 82, 107, 133, 138, 143, 174 Johnson Matthey, Burslem  97–8 Jones, Mervyn  23 Just Mugs, Shelton  34, 37 Just Mugs Limited  88, 89 Keele University  72, 156 Kent, Jones & Done, Stoke-on-Trent  36 Key Note  45, 156 Key Note Market Report  2 Key Note report  65, 76, 108 Kiangsi province  21 Kidston, Cath  84, 85, 144, 147 Kilncraft 31 Kilta, Finland  32 Kingsbury Fine Bone China  31 Kirkham, Ian  40–1, 62, 86

Index Kirkham & Co., Roy  34, 40–1, 62, 86, 183 Kitchin, Rob  6 Kitson, Michael  18 Kopytoff, Igor  3 Kowloon 35 KPS Capital Partners  74, 183 Kumar, Amil  55 labor costs  60, 64, 65, 68, 74, 76, 183 labor process  99 Lalique, France  150 Lang, Tim  14, 16, 137, 138, 158, 158, 169 Lash, Scott  10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 82, 91, 99, 100, 140, 154, 163, 178, 180 Lauren, Ralph  85 Lawson, Nigella  44 lead-times 116 Lebeau, Edith  166 Leeds Pottery  105 Leibenstein, Harvey  138 Lenox 67 Lenox China  67, 95 Lessore, Emile  25 Levi’s  12, 167 Levitt, Theodore  178 Liberty, London  163 lifestyle 44 Lifestyle Product Group  111 Liling Guoguang, Hunan  96 Lilliput Lane Land of Legend  69 Limoges  120, 150, 168 Lipovetsky, Gilles  18 Lladro, Spain  150 Llewelyn-Bowen, Laurence  68 local 183 localism 17–19 Longton/Longton Hall  18, 22, 23, 34, 36, 37, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 51 Lord Mayor  75 Los Angeles  96 Lovatt, John  43 Lury, Celia  13 Lutyens, Dominic  108 McCracken, Grant  16, 171 McGettigan, Terrie  49 Mackay, Hugh  16 McLuhan, Marshall  103 Macy’s, USA  68

Index Made in England  1–2, 99, 106, 156, 157, 160, 163, 164, 168, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 179 Magnusson, Peter  12 Maguire, Liam  63 Malaysia  55, 58, 65, 70, 75, 171 Marchington, Michael  11 Marketing  12–15, 16, 25 marking acts  26 Marks & Spencer  111, 113, 114 Martin, Geoff  64 Martin, James  135 Mascheroni, Sarina  143 Mason Cash  87 Mason’s Ironstone China Ltd.  144, 149 Mauss, Marcel  137 Maxim 166 Maxwell & Williams  145, 146, 149 Meakin, Alfred  54 Meakin, J. & G.  107, 138 meaning 12–15 mechanization 180 Meir 97 Meissen 22 Middleton, Catherine  35, 156 Midlands purple  22 Midwinter  25–6, 32 Midwinter, Roy  25 Midwinter & Co, Roy  138 Mikasa 97 Miles, Alan  62 Miller, Daniel  132 Minton  66, 94, 95 Moffat, Jim  138, 139, 140 Moorcroft Ltd., W.  4, 19, 46, 67, 159, 163–5 Moore, Bernard  160 Moores, Mike  88 Moorland Pottery  40, 106–7 Morgenroth, Alan  158–9 Morrisons  33, 88 multinationals 61 multiplechoice 30 Mumbai, India  34 Museo Capitolino  25 Mylum, Gary  70 Myott Meakin  54 Nassau, William  155 National Trust, The  67

203

Naylor, Gillian  125 New English company, The  48–50, 128, 166–8, 169, 183 new technology  102–3 New York  102, 114 New York Trade Fair  173 New Zealand market  169 Next 32 Niblett, Kathy  45–6, 93 Nike  12, 72, 167 Nishijin textiles  74 Nishijin tradition  17 Noritake 119–20 North American demand  176 North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce 80 North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership 48 Nutbeen, Wayne  58, 59, 60, 70, 82, 83, 101–2 Oakes, Garry  51 Oakes, Kevin  65, 75 Observer, The  25 O’Donoghue, Redmond  62 Oliver, Jamie  84, 85, 150 Oppenheim, Abraham  6 oral evidence  5–6 O’Reilly, Sir Anthony  82, 135, 143 organization 10–12 outsourcing  53–77, 93, 95–6, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102–3, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 173 outsourcing, the problems  116–17 Overhouse Pottery  111 Pacific Rim  58, 76 Paddington Bear  56 Padley, Dr. Hugh  4, 37–9, 42, 46, 54, 63, 64, 65, 68, 70, 73, 76, 88, 107, 111, 162 Pakistan 54 Palmer, Keith  166 Papadopoulos, Nicolas  12–13 Parker, Kim  73 Pascoe 169 Paterson, Dr. Matthew  72, 156, 165 Patterson, Brian  54 Pearce, Susan  16, 155

204 Pearson and Son  23 Pearson family  23 Pegg, Elizabeth  32 Philippines  70, 120 Piranesi, Giovanni  171 Pirie, James, St. Andrews, Scotland  144–6, 149 place of origin  146–7, 180, 182, 184 place of origin debate  69–73 Plant, Jonathan  40, 106 Poland 13 politics 72 Pollyanna Pottery  68, 156 Poole 72 Poole Pottery  111, 112, 113, 114, 160 porcelain 21–2 Portmeirion  19, 21, 41–2, 46, 62, 63, 73, 75, 90, 108, 131, 145, 146, 147, 178 Portugal  30, 44, 55 post-Fordism 12 post-industrial 11 postmodern  11, 14–15, 16, 19, 33 potteries  22–4, 32, 33, 41 Potteries Museum  4, 169 Pottery Gazette  23, 136 Prada, Camilia  167, 168 Press, Mike  11, 12, 13, 25, 88, 89, 99 Price & Kensington  70, 87–8 PricewaterhouseCoopers 43 pricing 141–2 Prince Harry  35 Prince of Wales  161 Prince William  35, 156, 161 Prodigy, The  166 profits and outsourcing  63–7 Psaros, Michael  74 Pugh, Geoff  4, 107 quality issues  98–9 Queen Elizabeth  156 Queens  84, 85 Queensberry, David  25–6, 45 Queensberry Hunt  67 Ralley, Arthur  62 Ransat 55 Ravenhead 87 Rayware  87, 88 Reebok  12, 167

Index regional competiveness  17–19 regional resilience  17–19 Reid, Jamie  114 Repeat Repeat, Fenton  23, 125–7, 130 Respicio, Norma  17, 74 Rice, Matthew  107–10 Richards, Sarah  24 Rickmansworth-based Lifestyle Group 111 Ridgways 160 Ritchie, Robin  57 Robins, Kevin  19, 177 Rocha, John  134 Rochberg-Halton, Eugene  14 Romania  40, 53, 54, 61, 62, 63 Roper, Andrew  84 Roper, Stephen  35–6, 57 Roper family  84 Rosenthal 61 Rose of England China  89–90 Roslyn Works  18, 46 Rovine, Victoria  10, 153 Rowley, Chris  9, 12, 71, 72, 73 Rowley, Claud  34 Royal Albert  34, 56, 59, 66, 80, 83, 98, 120, 174 Royal College of Art  25, 160 Royal Crown Derby  23, 66, 75, 108, 136, 183 Royal Designer for Industry  115 Royal Doulton  10, 23, 26, 28, 31, 33, 36, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 51, 56, 58–61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 70, 72, 73, 74, 82, 83, 96–8, 118, 120, 136 Royal Doulton figurines  155, 156, 158, 159, 169, 170 Royal Grafton  43 Royal Oxfordshire Fine China  90 Royal Society of Arts (RSA)  115 Royal Stafford  23, 58, 75, 111–14, 172, 174 Royal Warrant  161 Royal Winton  127 Royal Worcester  37, 43, 62–3, 131, 136, 145, 149, 150, 154, 156 Royal Worcester Spode Inc.  37 ‘Rule Britannia’ Conference  65 Saatchi & Saatchi  178 Sacchetti, Silvia  18, 58

Index Sadler, James  70, 72, 84 Sadler & Green  54 Sadler & Sons, James  42–3 Sainsbury’s 33 St.Georges Fine Bone China  43 Sanderson 85 Sassoulo 18 Saunders, Hugh  93–103, 157 Scott-Cooper, Janette  47 Scripdec 37 selective outsourcing  101 Selfridges  34, 125 Sentinel, The 5 Servian, Michael  36 Sèvres 25 Shanghai 103 Shaw, Simeon  87, 153 Shaw, Tracie  124–5 Shepherd, Wayne  45 Shine-pukur Ceramics Ltd  59 Showcase 47 Simpson, Clive  156 Sinclair, John  157 slipware 26 Small Company Merit Award for Research and Technology (SMART)  37 Smallridge, David  44 Smith, Anthony  51, 91, 154, 167 Smith, Fenella  47 Smith, Paul (Paul Smith)  135, 141 Smith & Co., William  54 Smyth, Robert L.  9, 23, 136, 174 Sneyd Ceramics  40 soft paste  22 Solon, Marc L.  25 South Korea  30, 111, 174, 175, 176 Spode  23, 37, 42, 43, 46, 54, 62, 63, 64, 68, 72, 73, 76, 79, 80, 87, 110, 120, 136, 141, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 178 Spode, Josiah I  79 Spode, Josiah II  24 Sponged ware  107 Spooner, Brian  15, 73, 158 Spretnak, Charlene  18 Sri Lanka  85, 90, 96 Staffordshire Fine Bone China Ltd.  39, 46, 63, 111 Staffordshire Heritage Fine China  51 Staffordshire Potteries  41

205

Staffordshire press  96 Staffordshire Tableware  41, 42, 53, 54, 57, 61, 73, 175 Staffordshire University  44, 48, 49, 50, 67 status 184 status value  138–41 Steamer Trading  131, 145 Steelite  4, 18, 65, 75, 109, 110 Steelite International  183 Steinberger, Petra  18 Sternberg, Ernest  182 Stoke-on-Trent  45, 97, 103, 181, 182, 183, 185 Stoke-on-Trent City Council  73 Stoke Potteries Ltd  41 Stoke-upon-Trent  23, 94 Stubbs, George  25 Superlambanana 40 supply problems  142–4 Tableware 184 Tableware International  5, 96, 131, 132, 135, 143, 158, 173, 175, 176 Tams, Gerald  60, 142 Tams, John  41, 60, 67, 69, 142, 175 Tams Group Ltd  36, 98 T’ang period  21 Tanner, Andrew  113 Tate, Nicholas  6 Tempest, Norman  58, 75, 95, 111–21, 138, 143, 174 Tesco  33, 37, 40, 139 Thailand  60, 70, 83, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 158 The Money Programme  37 Three Wishes  87 Tien Shan  117 Tiffany & Co.  106 Times Square  50 Tinsley, Adrian  106 Tittensor, Philip  34, 37 Tomlinson, John  10, 33, 178 Tomlinson, Philip R.  18, 58 Tomori, Mike  119 Tomorrow’s World 37 Topceram 30 Topchoice  30, 136 Top Drawer  47 traditional production  181

206

Index

Treaty of Rome  120 Trudel, Mo  134 Trustrum, Les  132 Tunstall  23, 34, 103 Turner, Lisa  167 Turner, Matthew  22 United States  96, 97 UNITY, Ceramic Industry Trade Union  65 Urry, John  10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 82, 91, 99, 100, 140, 154, 163, 178, 180 USA  67, 68 USA market  111, 157 Veblen, Thorstein  138 Vettriano, Jack  37 Victoria & Albert Museum  106 Victorian  80, 95, 106, 111 Villeroy & Boch  43 Vista Alegre  54, 82 Vuitton, Louis  85 Wade  34, 58, 69 Wang, Vera  133, 134, 135, 150 Warner Brothers  37 Waterford crystal  137 Waterford Wedgwood  1, 43, 45, 61, 62, 63, 67, 82, 131, 133, 138, 183 Waterford Wedgwood Royal Doulton (WWRD) 183 Waters, Malcolm  10, 12, 167 Weatherby, J. H.  42 Wedgwood  25, 27, 32, 33, 34, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48 Wedgwood, Alison  1, 73 Wedgwood, changing demand  136 Wedgwood, Josiah I  1, 23, 25, 27, 54, 154, 167 Wedgwood, perception  136–7 Wedgwood, pricing  141–2 Wedgwood & Sons, Josiah  138 Wedgwood retailer  132–44 Wedgwood (Waterford Wedgwood)  9, 10, 15, 106, 107, 110, 119, 120

Weightman, Raymond  154 Wemyss Pottery  144 Wenger, Patrick  97, 156 Westjohn, Stanford A.  12 Westwood, Vivienne  135 Whieldon, Thomas  153 Whieldon ware  153 Whitehurst, Cynthia  106 Whittard of Chelsea  70 Wild & Co., Thomas  59 Wilkinson, A. J.  25 Wilkinson’s  33, 34 Wilko 34 Williamson, Gavin  74–5 Windsor, Ray  136 Windsor Castle  67 Winterthur Museum and Gardens, USA 139 Wood, Anthony  65, 87, 88 Wood, Enoch  87 Wood, John Wedg  154 Wood, Ralph I  87 Wood, Ralph II  87 Wood & Sons Ltd, Arthur  31, 65, 66, 70 Wood Group, Arthur  87 Woods, Vicki  109 Woolworths  33, 134 Worcester 22 World Capital of Ceramics  169 World Capital of Ceramics backstamp 48 World Trade Organisation  43 Wren Giftware  41 Wright, Carol  176 WWRD (Waterford Wedgwood Royal Doulton) 74 Yeoward, William  150 Young, Bob  69 Young, Tony  48, 169–70 Zarzycka, Basia  169 Zeisel, Eva  115

1

Plate 1  The New English, plate, “Crusades” pattern, bone china, from 2009, and The New English, cup and saucer, “Inkhead” pattern, bone china, from 2009.

2

Plate 2 Spode, side plate, “Chicory Hymn” flower pattern, designed by Kim Parker, earthenware, © 2006. Spode, mugs, “Sophie Conran, for Portmeirion,” porcellaneous, from 2006.

3

Plate 3  Roy Kirkham & Co., mug, “Tuscany” pattern, bone china, © 2004. Roy Kirkham & Co., mug, “Lifeboats,” bone china, c. 2010.

4

Plate 4  Royal Doulton, tableware, “Orchard Hill” pattern, designed by Hugh Saunders, bone china, backstamp © 1994.

5

Plate 5  Emma Bridgewater, side plate, designed by Mary Fedden, earthenware, from mid1990s. Emma Bridgewater, mug, sponged decorated with hearts, earthenware, 2010. Emma Bridgewater, small mug, hand painted Union Jack pattern, earthenware, 2010. Both mugs have a backstamp that was only used during 2010 (Casey et al. 2010: 37).

6

Plate 6  Royal Stafford, plate and bowl, “Britannia” range, earthenware, c. 2009. Royal Stafford, mug, “Made in Britain” phrase in surface pattern, earthenware, c. 2010.

7

Plate 7  Royal Crown Derby, dinner plate, “Chelsea Garden,” bone china, © 1997. Royal Crown Derby, small dish, commemorating Royal Diamond Wedding, designed by June Branscombe, c. 2007. Royal Crown Derby, Collectors’ Guild ceramic paperweight, “Woodland Pheasant,” surface pattern designed by Louise Adams, c. 1998.

8

Plate 8  The New English, Tectonic Plate, “Isabelle” (No. 27) designed by Chrissy Angliker, bone china, c. 2010 (left). The New English, Tectonic Plate, “Beassiette” (No. 252) designed by Edith Lebeau, bone china, c. 2010 (right). The New English “Girlz 1,” coffee cup and saucer, designed by Camilia Prada, bone china, from 2009. The New English, “mug, Anatomica” range, designed by Lisa Turner, bone china, 2010 onward.