Royal Mail has once again failed to hit the delivery targets set by its regulator, yet somehow emerged from the announcement with the confidence of a marathon runner who came in dead last but is thrilled about their new personal best for walking backwards.
The struggling firm, which exists in a state of perpetual near-collapse funded by taxpayers, reported that it had ‘improved performance’ while simultaneously missing the very benchmarks designed to measure whether it is doing its job. This is the corporate equivalent of your doctor saying you failed your blood test but congratulating you on the improvement from last year’s catastrophic results.
The key phrase doing heavy lifting here is ‘encouraging signs’—a phrase so vague it could describe a pigeon landing on a postbox. What makes these signs encouraging? Nobody quite knows. The firm did not deliver letters on time. That is the opposite of delivering letters on time. Yet somewhere in the gap between failure and spin, ‘encouraging signs’ emerged like a phoenix from the ashes of accountability.
What is genuinely encouraging is the consistency. Year after year, Royal Mail finds new ways to miss targets whilst somehow convincing itself—and apparently some of the people who regulate it—that this constitutes progress. It is the financial equivalent of a restaurant that serves cold food but promises you the kitchen is getting warmer.
The real question is not whether Royal Mail will hit its targets next year. It is whether the phrase ‘encouraging signs’ can be trademarked, because at this point it is the company’s most reliable product.