Business

The growing use of weight-loss injections could dent demand for sausage rolls and pastries at Greggs, potentially depriving the bakery chain of some of its most lucrative customers, according to City analysts.

The warning comes as Greggs continues to grapple with slower sales growth since mid-2024, a period that has prompted investor speculation over whether the UK has reached “peak Greggs”. The company has attributed its softer performance to fragile consumer confidence and last summer’s unusually hot weather, which reduced footfall, while some shareholders have questioned whether its rapid store expansion has begun to cannibalise like-for-like sales.

Analysts at Jefferies have now added another potential headwind: the rising popularity of weight-loss drugs such as Mounjaro and Wegovy. In a note to clients, the broker said the trend could represent an “enduring challenge” for Greggs and weigh on its longer-term growth prospects.

The drugs work by mimicking the GLP-1 hormone, which suppresses appetite and increases feelings of fullness. Jefferies pointed to US research suggesting that users of such treatments tend to cut back particularly on high-calorie, ultra-processed savoury foods, a category that includes many of Greggs’ core products.

The analysts estimate that as many as four million people in the UK may now be using weight-loss jabs, equivalent to around 7.5 per cent of the adult population.

“It may only be 10 per cent of GLP-1 users that would shop at Greggs,” the Jefferies team said. “But that 10 per cent would be high-BMI individuals consuming lots of calories and, we would infer, likely some of Greggs’ best customers. Those customers could go from being among the most valuable to potentially never spending a penny with the business again.”

Roisin Currie, Greggs’ chief executive, acknowledged last month that there was “no doubt” weight-loss injections were having an impact on consumer behaviour. In response, the chain has begun expanding its healthier ranges, including products such as egg pots, to reflect shifting preferences.

Despite those efforts, Jefferies said the spread of weight-loss drugs should be seen as a “structural issue” rather than a passing trend. The broker cut its forecasts for Greggs’ like-for-like sales growth and profit margins and downgraded the stock to “hold” from “buy”, underlining the growing uncertainty facing one of Britain’s most recognisable high-street brands.

Read more:
Weight-loss jabs threaten Greggs’ growth, analysts warn

The UK government must overhaul its approach to public sector procurement if it is serious about backing British innovation, according to Justin Megawarne, managing partner at Megaslice, who has accused Whitehall of hiding behind rigid frameworks and “arbitrary scoring systems”.

Megawarne’s comments follow the decision to award Fujitsu a place on a government framework worth up to £984 million, despite the company’s central role in developing and supporting the Post Office Horizon IT system. The system led to the wrongful prosecution of 736 subpostmasters across the UK and has since become one of the most serious miscarriages of justice in modern British history.

Fujitsu had previously written to the government committing not to bid for new public contracts until the public inquiry into the Horizon scandal had concluded. Its inclusion on the framework has reignited debate about how the government selects suppliers — and whether it is doing enough to support genuine domestic innovation.

“If an organisation has performed so badly for its customers that it has become a national scandal and warranted its own TV drama, surely it’s time the government spent its money elsewhere,” Megawarne said.

“With so much public money wasted on technology that isn’t fit for purpose, and in this case fraudulently criminalised people, the budget for real innovation continues to shrink. We are failing to support the next generation of founders who are building genuinely innovative businesses, instead recycling contracts to the same organisations that have failed us before.”

Megawarne argues that government procurement processes are fundamentally flawed, relying too heavily on mechanistic evaluation tools that struggle to identify real value.

“Current approaches to adopting new technology are overcomplicated and painfully slow,” he said. “Scoring sheets don’t capture innovation. If the government actually engaged with businesses instead of keeping them at arm’s length, we could save millions of pounds currently wasted on the wrong solutions.”

Rather than relying on civil servants to assess complex and novel technologies, Megawarne believes the government should enlist independent industry leaders with proven innovation credentials.

“Let experts judge ideas using their experience and judgement, not a spreadsheet,” he said. “Yes, some will say that sounds unfair, but it dramatically increases the chances of finding a genuinely game-changing solution. You simply need to ensure those experts have no conflicts of interest.”

He added that procurement decisions are too often driven by price rather than outcomes. “Spending less on the wrong solution isn’t saving money at all. Much of what’s been invested in so far has failed to solve the day-to-day problems government departments actually face.”

Megawarne also criticised what he sees as the government’s default preference for large, established suppliers, regardless of past performance.

“The mindset is still, ‘no one ever got fired for buying IBM’,” he said. “It’s a way of avoiding responsibility. If something goes wrong, you can always point at the big name.”

In the case of Fujitsu and the Post Office Horizon system, he said the failure was neither minor nor isolated. “This wasn’t a simple error. It destroyed lives. The company apologised only when it was forced to, and repeatedly resisted compensation. Yet here we are again, awarding more public contracts.”

According to Megawarne, the same pattern plays out repeatedly across government IT spending. “Huge consultancies win major contracts, fail spectacularly, and face no real consequences. It’s a cycle of failure with zero accountability.”

At the heart of the problem, Megawarne believes, is an institutional aversion to risk.

“True innovation exists in the UK, and much of it sits with founders who are building solutions that could genuinely transform public services,” he said. “But the government is fundamentally risk-averse.”

He warned that founders are being steered down the wrong path, optimising for procurement scorecards rather than solving real problems. “They chase perfect scores on frameworks that measure the wrong things, while innovation is sidelined in favour of cost-cutting and box-ticking.”

“If the government genuinely wants to unlock British innovation,” Megawarne added, “it needs to stop prioritising spreadsheets over people, and start backing ideas that actually work.”

Read more:
UK government must end its boycott of British innovation, says Megaslice

NatWest has agreed a £2.7 billion deal to acquire Evelyn Partners in its largest corporate takeover since the banking group was rescued by taxpayers during the financial crisis, and its most significant acquisition since returning to full private ownership.

The purchase of the wealth manager from private equity firms Permira and Warburg Pincus, combined with NatWest’s existing Coutts franchise, will create the UK’s largest private banking and wealth management business. The enlarged group will oversee £127 billion of assets under management and administration.

The deal, which NatWest said would deliver annual run-rate synergies of around £100 million, raises the prospect of job losses over time, although the Evelyn Partners brand will be retained initially. Around 150,000 affluent UK families will see responsibility for their investments move under the NatWest umbrella.

Edinburgh-based NatWest beat off rival bidders including Barclays and Royal Bank of Canada to secure the acquisition, as Britain’s major lenders step up their focus on wealth management to offset an expected decline in interest income as central bank rates begin to fall. Rivals HSBC and Lloyds have already expanded their presence in the sector.

Paul Thwaite, NatWest’s chief executive, said the transaction would strengthen the bank’s ability to support savers and investors. “At a time when the benefits of saving and investing are increasingly part of the national conversation, we can help customers to make more of their money through a broader range of services, while also helping to drive growth and investment across the economy,” he said.

The acquisition is NatWest’s biggest since its ill-fated joint purchase of ABN Amro in 2008, when the group was still known as Royal Bank of Scotland. That deal contributed to a crisis that culminated in a £45.5 billion taxpayer bailout. NatWest was returned to full private ownership in May last year, after the government sold its remaining shares at an overall loss of £10.5 billion.

Evelyn Partners was put up for sale last August following the spin-out of its professional services arm to Apax Partners. Formed from the 2020 merger of Tilney and Smith & Williamson, the business employed around 2,400 people at the end of 2024 and oversaw £63 billion of client assets. It has been led since 2023 by Paul Geddes, a former Royal Bank of Scotland executive who previously oversaw the stock market listing of Direct Line.

Thwaite, 54, was appointed chief executive in February 2024 after Dame Alison Rose stepped down following a row over the closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts bank account. He has repeatedly stressed that there is a “very high bar” for acquisitions.

Analysts expressed surprise that NatWest had emerged as the winning bidder. Benjamin Toms of RBC Capital Markets said: “We are somewhat surprised that NatWest has come out on top, given how tightly the chief executive holds the bank’s purse strings. While this may be seen as a bolt-on deal, it is potentially transformational, filling a clear gap in NatWest’s affluent wealth offering.”

Permira has owned Evelyn Partners since 2014, backing its expansion into a major wealth manager. NatWest said the transaction would be funded from existing resources and would reduce its core equity tier one capital ratio by around 130 basis points.

Since taking the helm, Thwaite has already overseen the acquisition of much of Sainsbury’s Bank and the purchase of a £2.5 billion mortgage book from Metro Bank, insisting that any deal must be both financially and strategically compelling.

The transaction comes amid a broader shake-up in the wealth management sector. Royal Bank of Canada acquired Brewin Dolphin for £1.6 billion in 2022, while US firm Raymond James bought Charles Stanley for £279 million. An initial public offering of Evelyn Partners had also been under consideration, raising questions about the health of the UK’s flotations market.

Alongside the deal announcement, NatWest unveiled a new £750 million share buyback ahead of its full-year results later this week. Shares in the bank fell around 3 per cent in early trading as investors weighed the impact of the acquisition on future capital returns.

Read more:
NatWest seals £2.7bn Evelyn Partners takeover in biggest deal since bailout

As artificial intelligence continues to redefine how information is created, summarized, and distributed, news organizations face one of the most significant structural challenges in modern media history.

Search engines increasingly rely on AI-generated responses, social platforms prioritize algorithmic summaries, and audiences often encounter journalism through fragments rather than full articles.

At the center of this transformation is Dev Pragad, President, Chief Executive Officer, and co-owner of Newsweek, who has emerged as one of the most outspoken media leaders addressing the long-term implications of AI on journalism. Rather than framing artificial intelligence as a short-term disruption, Pragad has described it as a permanent shift that requires publishers to rethink the foundations of their business models.z

AI and the Changing Economics of Information

For more than two decades, digital publishing operated on a relatively stable formula: create content, rank in search engines, generate page views, and monetize traffic through advertising. Artificial intelligence has begun to destabilize that system.

AI-powered interfaces now summarize news events, answer complex questions, and extract insights directly from publisher content—often without directing users back to the source. This development has intensified concerns across the media industry about declining referral traffic and diminishing visibility.

According to Pragad, this trend signals the end of an era in which traffic alone could serve as the primary indicator of success. Instead, publishers must now prepare for a future in which distribution is increasingly mediated by AI systems rather than traditional search results.

He has noted that while AI tools rely heavily on journalism as a source of information, the value exchange between platforms and publishers remains uncertain. This imbalance has prompted Newsweek to focus on resilience rather than dependency.

From Traffic Optimization to Structural Resilience

Under Dev Pragad’s leadership, Newsweek has gradually shifted its internal priorities away from pure traffic maximization toward what he describes as organizational resilience.

The goal is not to eliminate traffic as a metric, but to ensure that the business remains sustainable even as traffic becomes less predictable.

This philosophy represents a notable departure from earlier digital media strategies that prioritized viral reach and search dominance above all else.

AI as Both Threat and Catalyst

While artificial intelligence presents clear risks to publishers, Pragad has also characterized it as a catalyst for overdue change within the media industry.

In his public commentary, he has emphasized that journalism has long been overly dependent on intermediaries—search engines, social networks, and aggregators—that control distribution but not content creation. AI, in this view, merely accelerates a dynamic that already existed.

Rather than attempting to outcompete AI systems directly, Newsweek’s strategy has been to focus on what AI cannot easily replicate:

original reporting
expert interviews
verified data-driven rankings
long-form analysis
video and visual storytelling

By investing in these areas, the organization aims to preserve relevance even as automated summaries become more prevalent.

Developing AI-Resistant Content Formats

One area of focus under Pragad has been the expansion of editorial formats that resist commoditization.

For example, structured research projects and rankings require proprietary datasets, methodological transparency, and editorial oversight—elements that are difficult for generative systems to reproduce independently. These formats also serve dual purposes: reinforcing editorial authority while supporting diversified revenue streams.

Similarly, Newsweek has increased its investment in video programming, which plays a growing role in how audiences engage with news across platforms. Video interviews, panel discussions, and explainers maintain context and nuance that text-based AI summaries often lack.

In an AI-mediated environment, such formats help anchor content to the originating brand rather than allowing it to dissolve into anonymous information.

Revenue Diversification in the AI Era

A central theme of Newsweek’s AI resilience strategy has been the diversification of revenue sources.

Historically, programmatic advertising accounted for a large share of digital publisher income. However, fluctuating traffic patterns and declining ad yields have exposed the vulnerabilities of that model.

Under Pragad’s leadership, Newsweek has pursued revenue streams that are less sensitive to algorithmic shifts. These initiatives are designed to ensure that financial stability does not depend exclusively on how AI systems choose to surface content.

By broadening its commercial foundation, Newsweek aims to maintain editorial independence even as external platforms evolve.

Brand Identity in an AI-Fragmented Landscape

Another dimension of AI resilience involves brand visibility. As news increasingly appears in partial or summarized form, recognition becomes more difficult.

Pragad has argued that strong brand identity functions as a signal of trust in environments where users may not encounter full articles or traditional layouts. This belief informed Newsweek’s recent redesign, which sought to unify typography, visuals, and editorial tone across formats.

The objective was not aesthetic modernization alone, but strategic clarity: ensuring that when Newsweek content appears within AI-generated environments, social feeds, or multimedia platforms, it remains identifiable.

In an era of fragmentary consumption, brand coherence becomes a form of editorial defense.

Editorial Trust in the Age of Synthetic Content

The proliferation of AI-generated text has intensified concerns around misinformation and authenticity. In response, Pragad has emphasized the importance of transparency, sourcing, and accountability.

As synthetic content becomes easier to produce at scale, established news organizations face renewed responsibility to differentiate verified journalism from automated narratives.

Newsweek’s editorial framework under Pragad stresses the role of human judgment, fact-checking, and institutional oversight—elements that AI systems depend on but cannot independently guarantee.

In this context, trust becomes not only an ethical imperative but a competitive advantage.

Leadership Perspective on AI Regulation and Collaboration

While public debate continues around AI regulation, Pragad has advocated for dialogue between technology companies and publishers rather than unilateral solutions.

He has suggested that sustainable information ecosystems will require clearer frameworks governing attribution, licensing, and value sharing between AI platforms and content creators.

Although no single regulatory model has yet emerged, Pragad has positioned Newsweek to remain adaptable regardless of outcome—another reflection of the organization’s resilience-first mindset.

What Dev Pragad’s Strategy Signals for the Industry

The approach taken by Dev Pragad offers broader insight into how media organizations might navigate AI disruption.

Rather than relying on short-term defensive measures, his strategy emphasizes:

long-term adaptability
diversified economic foundations
brand-centered distribution
editorial credibility as infrastructure

This model does not eliminate the challenges posed by artificial intelligence, but it reduces existential risk by ensuring that journalism’s value extends beyond raw traffic.

Conclusion

As artificial intelligence reshapes the flow of global information, the decisions made by media leaders today will influence the future of journalism for decades.

Through a focus on resilience, diversification, and editorial trust, Dev Pragad has positioned Newsweek to confront these changes with strategic clarity rather than reactionary fear.

In an age when information increasingly travels through automated systems, his approach highlights a central truth: while technology may transform distribution, the enduring value of journalism lies in credibility, context, and human judgment.

Read more:
Dev Pragad and Newsweek’s Strategy for Building AI Resilience in Modern Journalism

We are now in a time of manufacturing where precision is more than a technical necessity; it’s a business requirement. The more complex, globally dispersed and demanding things get, the less slack remains in the system.

Under these circumstances tolerance management has become a decisive competence and affects competitiveness not only in terms of controlling costs, ensuring quality and improving production efficiency but also for long term market success.

What once was a niche engineering problem tolerance management has moved to straddle the design, operations and corporate boardroom. As manufacturers wrestle with digital transformation and Industry 4.0, getting to grips with tolerance strategies is a must if you’re going to build better and more importantly stronger products, not just in terms of quality but also as businesses that are disaster-proof.

The Unseen Price of Bad Weight Decisions

Tolerance choices have implications in almost every single step of the manufacturing cycle, and yet their cost implications are grossly overlooked. Too stringent of tolerances can escalate machining costs, drag production down, and soar scrap rates. A high level of scatter, on the other extreme can create assembly rejects, warranty build-ups and discontent customers.

These costs are rarely isolated. One tolerance problem can reverberate through suppliers, production lines and logistics networks, snowballing its effects. For high-volume industry and regulated industries, the effects could be recalls, compliance breaches or reputation damage.

There’s a business benefit to Tolerance Management being not a channel for the pursuit of perfection. It’s sort of striking the trade-off between precision and practicality for realizing predictable results at scale.

Why Tolerance Management Is Not Only an Engineering Problem Anymore

In the past, tolerances were pretty much in the hands of design engineers. Technical skills are necessary but not sufficient in today’s manufacturing, which requires a more expansive responsibility. Modern products are created through interdependent design, procurement, quality and production teams that frequently work across multiple companies and in exchange across geographies.

Executives need to appreciate how tolerance choices influence cost structures, supplier relationships and time-to-market. Organizations fail to capitalise on performance and profitability if tolerances are viewed as uncoupled technical parameters rather than strategic variables.

As the production becomes data centric, tolerance management is increasingly affecting executive level KPIs such as yield, uptime and ROI.

The influence of tolerance management on supply chain stability

Longer, global supply chains have made manufacturing more complex. Parts from various suppliers have to work well together, run on different production capacities and quality standards simultaneously.

Good tolerance management helps manufacturers to predict and control variation between suppliers. It allows for better-defined requirements, more realistic supplier expectations and less surprises during assembly. Poorly defined or misunderstood tolerances needlessly add friction to the supply chain, resulting in delays, rework, and damaged joints.

Those that do manage tolerances proactively have stronger supplier ecosystems and more resilient production schedules.

Quality, Compliance, and Customer Trust

In automotive, aerospace, medical devices and electronics the decisions about tolerances have a direct impact on compliance and safety. Regulatory requirements sometimes specify the need for manufacturers to show control of both variation and repeatability.

Requirements Tolerance management supports characterization of these requirements as it helps in more accurate risk assessment and validation activities. It also improves traceability to be able to prove due diligence during audits or investigations.

Quality is key for customers Customers and quality also go hand in hand. Reliability of a product over time positively supports the brand and lowers lifecycle cost. Tolerance management is one of those unsung principles that helps maintain that consistency.

Digital Manufacturing and The Call for Intelligent Tolerance Approaches

The advent of digital manufacturing tools has disrupted the way products are designed and made. Advanced simulation, model-based definition and digital twins enable manufacturers to predict performance before the physical production even starts.

Tolerance analysis is an integral part of such digital ecosystem. When introduced into the design process early, it lets teams analyze trade-offs, assess risk areas and determine options before costs are committed.

Companies investing in tolerance knowledge have a competitive advantage through less late stage design change and faster product to market.

Building Organizational Capability Through Training

It’s ironic, but tolerance management is the most neglected skill in organizations despite its criticality. Engineers are forced to turn to rule of thumb estimates, and management doesn’t have clear insight on how tolerance decisions translate into business outcomes.

Structured education can help to helm this deficit. Tolerance theory integrated with application in the shop floor marries academia and manufacturing best practice, where teams can make informed decisions involving cross-functional considerations. Aside from the big picture, in a training targeted at business goals and technical precision like Sigmetrix, specific learning experiences are supported.

Manufacturers who invest in training related to tolerance are reinforcing cross-functional teamwork and will become less dependent on individual experts.

Tolerance Management and Cost Optimization

Cost Saving This is one of the areas where tangible benefits for a Successful tolerance management are witnessed. By matching tolerances to functional needs instead of random values, manufacturers can minimize over-machining, inspection and reworking.

This is an overall but not a one part optimization. More predictable assembly processes, lower inventory buffers and improved throughput result. These savings compound over time, leading to better margins and more scalable operations.

By doing so, tolerance management turns into a lever for continuous improvement in the eyes of companies rather than be perceived as something static.

The Role of Leadership on the way to Tolerance Excellence

Leaders who realise the strategic potential of tolerance management foster to its success in their organisations. When leaders focus on controlling variation, and facilitate data-informed decision making, teams can address causes of problems rather than just the symptoms.

Leadership participation also guarantees that considerations to tolerance are developed in conjunction with other enterprise wide initiatives like lean manufacturing, 6 Sigma and digital transformation. The alignment ensures that silos don’t develop and fosters a culture of quality and accountability.

In today’s manufacturing, tolerance management is not a “one and done” practice but rather an enduring regiment that grows with products and processes.

Preparing for the Future of Factory Work

Tolerance struggles are only going to get worse as more and more customization, automation, material alike continues to flood the market. Manufacturers that don’t have close control over their tolerances risk getting left in the dust by more nimble rivals.

Organizations that are future looking see tolerance management as a core capability that enables innovation and yet maintain reliability. They spend on tools, training and teamwork to be proactive about complexity.

Where precision must co-habit with speed, tolerance management is the platform for growth.

Conclusion: From Technical Detail to Competitive Advantage

“Tolerance management is the fastest growing skill in manufacturing.” Once viewed as a technical detail, it is now strategically positioned to impact cost-efficiency, quality of service, compliance and customer satisfaction.

Manufacturers who move tolerance management out of the drawing room and onto the boardroom table are in a position to achieve precision, power and peace of mind. By coordinating technical accuracy and business objectives they turn variation from a danger into an opportunity.

In a tough, dynamic world of manufacturing, competence in tolerance has become anything, but an option. It is a business-critical even puts resilient manufacturers ahead of the game.

Read more:
Why Tolerance Management Is a Business-Critical Skill in Modern Manufacturing

If you’ve ever tried to get a home “handover ready,” you’ll know the difference between a normal tidy-up and a proper, tenancy-level clean.

It’s not just about making things look presentable—it’s about resetting a property so it feels fresh, hygienic, and genuinely cared for. That matters whether you’re moving out, preparing a rental, selling, or simply trying to protect the value of your home.

For many homeowners, the quickest route to that standard is bringing in specialist support—especially if you’re dealing with a tight schedule, a family move, or a property that’s seen a lot of daily life. And if you’re local, using experienced cleaners in Birmingham can take a stressful, time-consuming job off your plate and turn it into a predictable, tick-box step on your moving checklist.

Because here’s the truth: tenancy cleaning isn’t “just cleaning.” It’s a structured deep clean designed to stand up to scrutiny.

The handover window problem nobody plans for

Most homeowners underestimate how many tasks stack up in the final week of a move. Packing, utilities, broadband, forwarding addresses, last-minute repairs, decluttering, and the inevitable “why is the fridge still full?” moment. Cleaning gets squeezed into the gaps—usually the end of the day, when you’re exhausted and the property is half-empty, echoing, and showing every mark.

Tenancy cleaning services exist because that window is brutal. They bring a team, a system, and the kind of focus that’s hard to replicate when you’re juggling everything else. Instead of guessing what “good enough” looks like, you get a consistent standard aimed at leaving the home in a genuinely move-in-ready condition.

Not a sparkle—an inspection-level finish

A tenancy clean is built around what people actually notice when they walk in: kitchens, bathrooms, floors, and anything that suggests neglect. That’s why professional teams don’t clean the way most of us clean on a Sunday afternoon.

They work methodically—top to bottom, room by room—with a repeatable process that targets the high-impact areas:

Kitchen grease zones: extractor fans, hob edges, cupboard fronts, splashbacks
Bathroom build-up: limescale, soap scum, grout lines, shower screens
Touch points: handles, switches, bannisters, door frames
The “why does it smell like…” stuff: bins, drains, fridge seals, hidden corners
Edges and lines: skirting boards, corners, floor thresholds

You can absolutely do this yourself. But doing it fast, thoroughly, and with a clear checklist—while also moving house—is where it becomes a different challenge.

Why end-of-tenancy cleaning is a lifesaver for owners (not just tenants)

It’s easy to assume “end of tenancy” cleaning is only relevant if you rent. In reality, homeowners use the same type of service because it solves the same problem: a property needs to be handed over in a condition that feels reset.

This is especially true if you’re:

Selling your home and want it to show well for viewings and survey visits
Moving out of a family home that’s been lived in hard (kids, pets, busy routines)
Returning a rental property to a high standard after a long-term tenant leaves
Switching a property to serviced accommodation where reviews depend on cleanliness
Finishing a renovation and need the dust and residue properly dealt with

And for landlords who also own their property portfolio (which is a big slice of BM Magazine’s readership), using specialist end of tenancy cleaners Birmingham is often the difference between a smooth re-let and a week of chasing issues you didn’t even know were there.

The professional advantage: tools, chemistry, and surface know-how

Superior results usually come down to three things most households don’t have ready to go.

Commercial equipment

Professional vacuums, steam units, and agitation tools lift dirt from places a standard clean barely touches—especially in textured flooring, grout, and upholstery edges.

Correct product selection

A tenancy clean isn’t “bleach everything.” It’s using the right products for the right surfaces—so you don’t damage finishes while trying to remove grime. That matters more than people think, particularly with modern kitchens, chrome fittings, and bathroom sealants.

Experience with the awkward stuff

Ovens, limescale, mould staining, thick grease film, sticky cupboard tops—these aren’t hard because they’re impossible. They’re hard because they’re time-hungry and easy to do badly. Professionals see the same problems every day, so they know what works, what’s safe, and what takes longer than it looks.

Deposits, disputes, and the peace-of-mind factor

If you’re a homeowner who rents out a property (even occasionally), cleaning becomes more than a preference—it becomes a friction point. Most deposit arguments don’t start with “the place was filthy.” They start with “it was fine.”

That’s why tenancy cleaning services are so useful: they create a clear, defensible standard. When a clean is handled professionally, it’s easier to document, easier to align with check-in/check-out expectations, and less likely to spiral into a back-and-forth that drains time and goodwill.

Even if you’re not dealing with deposits, there’s a similar benefit when selling: a clean, neutral, fresh-smelling home reduces buyer hesitation. People may negotiate on price, but they also negotiate emotionally—if they feel the place has been cared for, they’re more confident moving forward.

“But I can do it myself”—the real cost is time and attention

DIY cleaning isn’t free. It costs time, energy, and mental bandwidth—at the moment you have the least of all three.

Homeowners usually hit the same bottlenecks:

Underestimating how long deep cleaning actually takes
Running out of supplies halfway through
Cleaning in the wrong order (wet first, dust later, and you redo work)
Missing the small but obvious details (skirtings, switches, inside cupboards)
Getting stuck on one nightmare task (the oven) and losing the day

A professional service compresses that workload into a defined appointment. You buy back your time—and you reduce the risk of an almost-finished clean that still looks “lived in.”

The hidden business benefit for property-minded owners

If you own property as an investment, cleaning is one of the simplest levers you can pull to improve outcomes.

A properly cleaned property:

Photographs better (kitchens and bathrooms are the difference-makers)
Shows better (freshness and odour control matter more than people admit)
Lets faster (viewers decide quickly; cleanliness speeds up “yes”)
Reduces complaints after move-in (tenants notice corners you didn’t)

It also supports your reputation. If you manage multiple properties, the “standard of handover” becomes part of your brand. Tenancy cleaning services help you keep that standard consistent, even when you’re busy.

How to get a “landlord-grade” clean without micromanaging

If you want the results to be genuinely tenancy-level, give the cleaner a simple briefing. You don’t need to write a novel—just be specific about what matters.

Useful things to mention:

Any problem areas: mould spots, grease build-up, stubborn limescale
Appliances included: oven, fridge/freezer, washing machine
Whether inside cupboards/wardrobes should be cleaned
Any delicate finishes (natural stone, specialist flooring, new paint)
Your deadline and access details (keys, parking, utilities on/off)

Good services work best when expectations are clear. The goal is a clean you don’t have to “finish off” afterwards.

When it’s essential rather than “nice to have”

If you’re on the fence, here are the moments tenancy cleaning becomes less optional:

You’re moving out and the property must be handed over quickly
You’ve got a buyer viewing schedule and want the home to present flawlessly
A rental is turning around fast and you need it ready without delays
You’ve had pets, children, or heavy kitchen use (grease and odours build up)
You’ve renovated and there’s dust residue everywhere
You simply can’t spare a full day (or two) to deep clean properly

In those scenarios, tenancy cleaning isn’t indulgent. It’s a practical shortcut to a high standard—without sacrificing your weekend, your sanity, or your timeline.

The bottom line

Tenancy cleaning services are essential for homeowners because they remove uncertainty. Instead of hoping you’ve cleaned “enough,” you get a structured deep clean designed to make a property feel reset—ready for a new occupant, a new tenant, a new buyer, or simply a new chapter.

And in a world where first impressions are made in minutes, that level of clean isn’t cosmetic. It’s strategic.

Read more:
What Makes Tenancy Cleaning Services Essential for Home Owners

When standard solutions start holding you back, it might be time to think about something built for your business.

Most UK businesses start with off-the-shelf software. Makes sense. Tools like Xero, Salesforce or Monday.com are affordable, quick to deploy, and cover the basics well. For early-stage companies focused on survival and growth, these ready-made solutions provide what you need without a big upfront investment.

But as your company grows and your processes get more sophisticated, you may notice these standard solutions becoming more hindrance than help. The software that once felt like a perfect fit starts to feel restrictive. Frustrations build. Work slows down.

Here are five warning signs that your business might be ready for bespoke software and what to do about each one.

Your team spends hours on manual workarounds

When staff resort to copying data between spreadsheets, keeping shadow systems in Excel, or doing repetitive tasks that feel like they should be automated, something is wrong. These workarounds creep in gradually; a quick fix here, a temporary solution there, until suddenly your operations depend on a patchwork of manual processes.

Workarounds rarely stay small. What begins as a simple spreadsheet to track information your CRM cannot handle eventually becomes a document that multiple team members depend on. Before long, you have unofficial systems running alongside your official ones. That creates risk.

One manufacturing client we spoke to had three staff spending two days each week manually reconciling data between their CRM, accounting system, and inventory management tool. The annual cost? Over £45,000 in wages alone. That’s before counting the errors that crept in, the delays in decision-making, or the frustration the team felt every week.

Manual processes often also end up kept in the minds of certain colleagues. When the person who understands how all the workarounds fit together goes on holiday or hands in their notice, the business faces real operational risk.

What to look for: Ask your team where they spend time on repetitive data entry or checking. If you hear phrases like “we have to do it this way because the system can’t” or “I keep my own spreadsheet for that”, you’ve found a workaround worth investigating.

You’re paying for features you don’t use

Enterprise software bundles hundreds of features into their pricing tiers. Sales teams show off impressive functionality during procurement. Six months later you realise your team only uses a fraction of what you bought. You’re subsidising functionality designed for completely different industries.

This isn’t just about money, though the costs add up. Research from Productiv found the average UK business wastes roughly 30% of its software spend on unused licences and features. For a company spending £50,000 a year on software subscriptions, that’s £15,000 going nowhere.

Those unused features also create clutter. Staff waste time clicking through menus and options that have nothing to do with their work. Training new employees gets complicated because they need to learn which parts of the system to use and which to ignore. The cognitive load slows everyone down.

There’s also an opportunity cost. Money spent on features you don’t need is money not spent on solutions that could actually change how you work.

What to look for: Review your software subscriptions and honestly assess feature usage. If you’re on an enterprise tier but only using basic functionality, or if new staff consistently struggle to learn your systems, feature bloat may be costing you more than you think.

Your processes have to fit the software, not the other way around

This is the most telling sign. When you find yourself changing how your business operates to accommodate software limitations, the tail is wagging the dog.

Every business has processes that give it an edge – how you handle customer enquiries, manage stock, or deliver services. These processes often evolve over years of learning what works best for your specific customers, suppliers, and market. They represent hard-won knowledge.

Off-the-shelf software is designed for the average business in your sector. It bakes in assumptions about how companies like yours typically operate. If your approach is what sets you apart from competitors, forcing it into a standard mould risks eroding the very thing that makes customers choose you.

A recruitment agency we know built its reputation on a distinctive candidate screening process. When they adopted a popular applicant tracking system, they had to abandon several steps that candidates consistently praised. Within a year, their placement success rate had dropped measurably. The software worked exactly as designed. It just wasn’t designed for their approach.

This cuts both ways. Sometimes adapting to software best practices improves your operations. The question is whether you’re making a conscious choice to adopt better processes, or simply surrendering to software limitations because you have no other option.

What to look for: Listen for phrases like “we used to do it differently but the system wouldn’t allow it” or “I know this seems inefficient but that’s how the software works”. Your tools should support your processes, not dictate them.

Integration has become a nightmare

Modern businesses rely on multiple software tools working together. The average SME now uses between 20 and 50 different applications. When your systems can’t talk to each other properly, you end up with data silos, duplicate entries, and a fragmented view of your operations.

Maybe your ecommerce platform doesn’t sync properly with your warehouse management system. Your CRM can’t pull data from your accounting software without someone doing it manually. Your project management tool doesn’t connect with your time tracking system, forcing staff to log hours in two places.

These headaches multiply as businesses grow. Each new application creates potential connection points with every existing system. What starts as a manageable set of integrations can quickly become an unwieldy web of data flows, many of which break whenever one vendor updates their software.

The real cost is often invisible. Decisions made on incomplete information. Customer service hampered by lack of data access. Management flying blind because no single system shows the full picture.

Some businesses try to solve this with integration platforms like Zapier or Make. These work well for simple connections but struggle with complex business logic. They can also become a maintenance burden, with automations breaking silently and causing data problems that take hours to untangle.

What to look for: Map out how data flows between your systems. If you rely on manual exports, scheduled batch updates, or integration tools with dozens of conditional rules, your systems may have outgrown their ability to work together.

Your software vendor’s roadmap doesn’t match yours

Software companies prioritise features based on what benefits their largest customer segments. If your business has specific requirements outside the mainstream, you may wait years for functionality that never arrives. Worse, you might watch features you depend on get removed.

This dependency creates strategic risk. When your plans hinge on whether a third-party vendor decides to build a particular feature, you’ve lost control of something important. You’re essentially outsourcing part of your product roadmap to a company with entirely different priorities.

The challenge gets sharper as your business becomes more sophisticated. Early-stage companies need generic functionality – invoicing, customer management, basic reporting. Standard software handles this fine. But as you develop your own processes, enter niche markets, or pursue differentiation strategies, your requirements diverge from the mainstream.

Vendor lock-in makes it worse. Once your data and processes are embedded in a platform, switching costs become substantial. You may find yourself stuck with software that no longer serves you well, but which you can’t easily leave.

What to look for: Review your feature request history with key vendors. If you’ve been asking for the same functionality for years without progress, or if recent updates have moved the product away from your needs, the fit between your business and your software may be weakening.

What are the alternatives?

Seeing these signs doesn’t mean you need to replace everything tomorrow. Wholesale system replacement is expensive, disruptive, and often unnecessary. Many businesses do better with a hybrid approach – keeping off-the-shelf tools for commodity functions like email or basic accounting, while investing in bespoke software development for the processes that truly set their business apart.

The UK bespoke software market has changed a lot in recent years. Fixed-price quotes, transparent development processes, and specialist firms focused on SMEs have made custom software accessible to businesses that would never have considered it a decade ago. Projects that once needed enterprise budgets can now be delivered at realistic prices for growing companies.

The key is working out where standard software genuinely serves you well, and where it’s quietly costing you money, time, or competitive advantage. Not every process needs custom software. But the processes that define your business – that create value for customers and set you apart from competitors – often benefit from purpose-built tools.

A sensible approach might involve:

Auditing your current software to identify which tools deliver value and which create friction
Adding up the cost of workarounds including staff time, error rates, and delayed decisions
Prioritising pain points based on business impact rather than technical complexity
Starting small with a focused project that addresses your most pressing issue

Making the business case

If you’re thinking about bespoke software, you’ll likely need to justify the investment to stakeholders. The good news is that the business case often writes itself once you add up the hidden costs of your current setup.

Start by documenting the workarounds your team performs daily. Calculate time spent on manual data entry or reconciliation. Note the features you wish existed but can’t find. Estimate revenue lost to slow processes or poor customer experiences. This audit often shows that the true cost of sticking with ill-fitting solutions far exceeds the investment needed for something better.

Think about the strategic value too. Software built around your processes protects and strengthens what makes your business distinctive. It can become a competitive advantage – something rivals can’t simply buy from the same vendor you use.

Choosing the right partner

If several of these signs ring true for your business, it’s worth talking to a specialist UK software company. A good one will help you work out whether bespoke software makes commercial sense and be honest when it doesn’t.

Look for partners who take time to understand your business before proposing solutions. Be wary of those who jump straight to technical specifications without grasping the commercial context. The best development relationships feel collaborative, with technical expertise applied in service of business outcomes.

Ask about their experience with businesses your size and in your sector. Request references and speak to previous clients. Understand how they handle changes in requirements, because they will come up. Clarify pricing structures upfront – surprises in software development tend to be expensive.

The decision to invest in bespoke software is a big one. But for businesses showing these warning signs, it can unlock operational improvements that standard solutions simply can’t deliver.

Read more:
Five signs your business has outgrown off-the-shelf software

Choosing a mortgage lender in Canada is not just about chasing the lowest rate. Just as importantly, it’s about picking terms you can live with, penalties you can understand, and service you can count on when life changes.

Because a mortgage is usually the biggest debt you’ll ever take on, the “best” lender is the one that aligns with your plan — whether that’s flexibility, certainty, speed, or hands-on advice.

Fortunately, Canada gives borrowers a wide, well-regulated menu of choices. Beyond the big banks, you can work with credit unions, online banks, and specialised mortgage lenders. Each comes with different strengths, and once you know what to look for, comparing them becomes far more straightforward. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) recommends focusing on core building blocks like term length, amortisation, payment frequency, and fixed versus variable interest options when you shop.

In that spirit, if you’re weighing community-based lending against national brands, it helps to remember why credit unions remain a serious contender. For many borrowers, finding the perfect mortgage with Innovation Credit Union can be a useful reference point for the kind of local decision-making and member-focused support credit unions are known for.

Start with What “Best” Means for Your Mortgage

Before comparing lender names, lock in your own priorities. This prevents you from being dazzled by a promotional rate that comes with terms you won’t like later. FCAC’s guidance on choosing a mortgage highlights features that shape both cost and risk over the life of a term, especially the difference between fixed and variable structures and how payment mechanics can work.

A Practical Checklist to Compare Lenders Fairly

Use the same checklist for every bank and credit union you consider:

Type of rate: Fixed vs variable (and whether payments can change, or the amortisation can extend).
Term flexibility: Options to shorten, extend, or convert your term.
Prepayment privileges: The ability to make lump-sum payments or increase regular payments.
Penalties: How the lender calculates fees if you break the mortgage early.
Portability and assumability: Can you take the mortgage to a new home or transfer it to a buyer?
Service model: Branch-based advice vs online-first convenience.
Approval and underwriting style: Speed, document requirements, and how exceptions are handled.

Once you know which of these matters most, “best” becomes easier to define — and easier to shop for.

Canada’s Big Banks: Broad Options and National Reach

Most Canadians start with the major banks, partly because they’re everywhere and partly because they offer full-service banking under one roof. The largest national players are commonly referred to as the “Big Six”: RBC, TD, Scotiabank, BMO, CIBC, and National Bank.

Why Borrowers Choose Big Banks

Big banks can be a strong fit when you want:

A wide range of mortgage products (including specialty programs in some cases)
Bundled services (chequing, savings, credit cards, investments)
Branch access if you prefer in-person meetings
Long-term continuity across multiple financial needs.

That said, big banks can vary significantly in how flexible they are on exceptions, renewals, and retention offers — so it pays to compare, even if you’re staying “within the Big Six.”

A Note on Negotiating

Even within the same bank, offers can differ based on channel (branch vs mobile specialist) and relationship. So, when you compare, ask for the full picture: rate, features, and penalty structure — not one in isolation.

Credit Unions: Relationship-based Lending with Local Strengths

Credit unions are member-owned and typically serve specific provinces or regions, which often leads to a different service experience than a national bank. While the product line-up varies by institution, many credit unions compete strongly on flexibility and borrower support, especially for people who prefer a relationship model rather than a transactional one.

You’ll find large, well-known credit unions across provinces (for example, institutions like Innovation, Vancity, Meridian, Coast Capital, Servus, and others are frequently cited in roundups of major Canadian credit unions).

Why a Credit Union Mortgage Can Be a Smart Choice

Credit unions often stand out for:

Local decision-making (which can matter for nuanced applications)
Community presence and a more personal service model
Member-centric approach to support and guidance
Competitive mortgage offerings that can rival banks, depending on the province and borrower profile

Because credit unions can be provincial, your “best” option may depend on where you live and whether membership eligibility applies.

Online Banks and Monoline Lenders: Streamlined and Often Competitive

Beyond banks and credit unions, many Canadians get mortgages from online-focused brands and “monoline” lenders (lenders that specialise in mortgages rather than everyday banking). These lenders are commonly accessed through mortgage brokers, although some also lend directly.

When These Lenders Can Be a Great Fit

They’re often appealing if you want:

A simpler, digital-first application process
Strong focus on mortgage features rather than cross-selling other products
Clear prepayment and renewal options (depending on the lender).

However, as with any lender, the details matter. Two mortgages can share a similar headline rate but differ drastically in penalties, portability, and prepayment rules, so always compare the contract terms.

A Short, Practical “Best-of” List by Borrower Priority

Instead of naming one universal winner, here are reliable paths depending on what you value most:

If You Want Convenience and National Coverage

Consider Big Six banks, especially if you prefer branches and bundled banking.

If You Want a Relationship-first Experience

Consider credit unions, particularly if you want local advice and a community-based model.

If You Want Streamlined Digital Shopping

Consider online banks and monoline lenders, often compared through brokers or digital mortgage platforms.

If You Want Independent, Consumer-focused Guidance While Shopping

Use FCAC’s tools and learning resources to stay grounded in the fundamentals as you compare offers.

Final Take: “Best” Is the Lender Whose Terms Match Your Plan

In Canada, you have strong options across banks and credit unions, and the right choice depends on the mortgage features you’ll actually use and the risks you’re willing to carry. Start by clarifying your priorities, then compare lenders using the same checklist every time. From there, the decision tends to become clearer: the best lender isn’t the loudest or the biggest — it is the one whose mortgage contract fits your life.

Read more:
The Best Banks and Credit Unions for Mortgages in Canada

Small business owners struggling with the stress caused by late or unpaid invoices have been offered new support, as fresh guidance is launched to address the mental health impact of cashflow pressure.

Timed to coincide with Time to Talk Day, the Office of the Small Business Commissioner (OSBC) has published new online guidance designed to help SMEs and freelancers access mental health support while also pointing them towards practical steps to tackle late payment issues.

Late payment is typically framed as a financial problem, but growing evidence suggests it can also take a significant toll on wellbeing. For many business owners, uncertainty over when they will be paid can trigger ongoing anxiety about meeting overheads, paying staff and keeping their business viable.

The new guidance brings together business-focused advice and trusted mental health resources in one place, offering support for owners who may be feeling overwhelmed. It also outlines practical actions SMEs can take when unpaid invoices begin to affect their financial stability and mental health.

The resource has been developed alongside research from Leapers, which examined the link between financial stress and mental health among small business owners and freelancers.

Emma Jones, Small Business Commissioner (pictured), said running a business can be mentally demanding, particularly when payment delays are involved. She said it was vital that freelancers and small business owners know where to turn for support and feel able to ask for help.

“Having founded a small business support platform and network before becoming Small Business Commissioner, I have seen the profound and positive impact when freelancers join a community of like-minded peers,” Jones said. “At the Office of the Small Business Commissioner we are committed to playing our part, with a focus on tackling and challenging late payment, so those going into self-employment can realise the full benefits of working for yourself.”

However, some industry figures have warned that support alone will not solve the underlying problem.

Stephen Carter, Director of Payment Strategy at Ivalua, said the guidance was right to acknowledge the mental health impact of late payment but argued that the government must go further.

“UK SMEs don’t just need mental health support to cope with late payments. They need legislation and enforcement to stop delays in the first place,” he said. “Late payments aren’t an unavoidable fact of life; they are a failure of governance, accountability and outdated payment processes.”

Carter added that delayed payments are often driven by poor internal controls within large organisations, including fragmented procurement and finance systems, manual processes and a lack of visibility over supplier commitments. He warned that the consequences can be severe, with supply chains disrupted and smaller suppliers pushed to the brink.

Research cited by Ivalua suggests more than a third of UK businesses have seen suppliers go out of business due to cost pressures linked to late payment.

Carter urged the government to publish its response to last year’s late payment consultation without further delay, warning that continued inaction risks signalling to larger organisations that poor payment practices will be tolerated, while SMEs are left to absorb the financial and emotional strain.

Read more:
New guidance aims to help small business owners cope with mental strain of late payments

Political judgement matters to markets as much as it does to voters. As fresh revelations from the Epstein files trigger police interest and intensify scrutiny of Peter Mandelson’s role in public office, the controversy is fast becoming a wider test of Labour’s credibility in government.

In this exclusive commentary for Business Matters, former Downing Street strategist Alastair Campbell reflects on how a story once seen as historical embarrassment has evolved into a live political risk,  and why the consequences for Keir Starmer’s leadership could be profound.

Fresh revelations linking Peter Mandelson to Jeffrey Epstein have escalated rapidly from a troubling disclosure into a full-blown political crisis for the Labour government, raising urgent questions about judgement, accountability and leadership at the top of British politics.

In the days since the latest tranche of Epstein files was published, two issues have come to dominate the debate in the UK: whether Mandelson could face criminal investigation for misconduct in public office, and whether Keir Starmer can weather the political fallout from appointing him as Britain’s ambassador to the United States, despite his known association with the convicted paedophile.

The intensity with which those questions are now being asked underlines how precarious the situation has become for Labour. What might once have been dismissed as historical embarrassment has morphed into a live test of political judgement and ethical standards at the heart of government.

For many observers, the shock lies not only in the scale of Epstein’s abuse, and the casual disregard shown towards his victims, but in the tone of some of the correspondence now in the public domain. The suggestion that Mandelson was providing Epstein with commentary on sensitive political developments during the fraught period surrounding the 2010 general election, alongside allegations of sharing potentially market-sensitive material and receiving money, has been particularly damaging.

These revelations sit uneasily with Labour’s attempts to project integrity and seriousness after years of Conservative scandal. They also reopen long-standing concerns about Mandelson’s judgement, concerns that were well known during his earlier Cabinet career, but which now carry far heavier consequences given the role he was asked to play on the world stage.

The political danger for Starmer is compounded by the perception that this controversy was avoidable. Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein was already on the record when the ambassadorial appointment was made. Critics argue that failing to anticipate how further disclosures might land reflects a broader pattern of miscalculation that has frustrated Labour MPs and unsettled supporters.

At the same time, there is a striking contrast between the scrutiny now facing the UK government and the relative lack of accountability for many prominent American figures named in the Epstein files. That imbalance has fuelled a sense of injustice and disbelief, particularly among Labour supporters who fear their party is paying a disproportionate political price.

The timing could hardly be worse. With elections looming and opinion polls offering little comfort, the government is grappling with a restless parliamentary party and a Downing Street operation that many MPs privately describe as error-prone and overly defensive. The Epstein-Mandelson affair has become a focal point for wider discontent about direction, competence and political instincts.

For Labour veterans, the disappointment is acute. After a landslide victory that promised stability and renewal, the government now finds itself firefighting a crisis that cuts to the core of trust in public life. External pressures – from a harsher media environment to geopolitical instability, undoubtedly make governing harder than in previous eras. But they do not explain why unforced errors continue to accumulate.

The deeper question is whether this moment marks a turning point or a slow-burning erosion of authority. Can the government regain control of the narrative, reassert clear ethical standards and restore confidence among its own ranks? Or does the Epstein affair expose structural weaknesses in Labour’s leadership and decision-making that will continue to surface?

As police inquiries progress and political pressure mounts, one thing is clear: this story will not fade quickly. It will shape how voters, investors and international partners assess the judgement and resilience of the current government. And for a party that returned to power promising higher standards, the stakes could hardly be higher.

Read more:
Why the Epstein files have become a serious political risk for Labour