Feb 5, 20243 min read

The Future of UK Nightlife: Is it Dying or Evolving?

Person waiting outside a pub in manchester — Photo by Tak-Kei Wong on Unsplash

With nightclub chain PRYZM closing down most of its venues, is this the beginning of the end for the UK’s night scene or is this simply a new era?

Last year I genuinely believed that UK Nightlife for most UK cities was close to dying and there was certainly some truth to that. Many venues were either downsizing or closing down completely due to high rent, lack of income and lack of staff. Whilst this is still the case, I’ve noticed a trend of many new venues opening up and being successful in addition to smaller clubs expanding.

The lockdowns were brutal for nightclubs up and down the country. There was no way for these places to generate income but there was still expensive rent to pay. These clubs are in prime city centre locations and tend to be large plots too so understandably the rent isn’t cheap. Many larger venues were forced to close down and whilst some have returned many haven’t. Take one of Sheffield’s largest clubs CODE. It used to be packed out most nights but after not making money for a prolonged period they had no choice but to close. Whilst they’ve returned on the odd night for Halloween or freshers there’s been no sign of a permanent return.

I don’t believe this is due to a lack of customers. If anything I’ve noticed nights out becoming busier than previously, I believe that those going on a night out are looking for something different than the previous generation may have enjoyed. The big clubs playing cheesy pop hits just aren’t appealing to people anymore. People don’t tend to enjoy staying in one venue, they want to “crawl” between different smaller venues, each with their charms and quirks for a collective night out. I’ve noticed a lot of these smaller venues having started opening more nights of the week and many have even expanded. The smaller clubs also allow for promoters to rent the club out to put on their nights making the promotion the main event rather than the venue. It means the clubs don’t have to cater to a specific genre, they can just focus on creating a nice venue and then rent the club out to promote the theme of the night accordingly.

A busy London Pub — Photo by Gonzalo Sanchez on Unsplash

A great example of this is one of Newcastle’s most popular clubs TupTup Palace. It's by no means the biggest club in the city by size but probably is by popularity. The club opens every night apart from Mondays, every event is busy including Sundays. With each night being slightly different you’ll find some people will prefer a Wednesday to a Tuesday. This is perfect for TupTup as whilst they won’t have the same people attending each night they will have the same weekly visitors. Having that loyal customer base who will most likely attend their favourite night every week means the club is constantly getting heads through the door, selling tickets and drinks which leads to the most important thing; turning a profit.

Does this mean large clubs can’t exist anymore? Far from it, they’ve just had to evolve. There must now be a greater selling point than a “large club that plays pop music”. This is where raves come in. I don’t mean raves like in the 90s. These are organised nights where a lineup of popular DJs will each perform a set. The draw for the customer comes in a similar way to how a concert works. This is one of a few chances you will get to see your favourite artist so lots of people will want tickets to this one chance they have to see their favourite DJ in the city.

The Warehouse Project in Manchester is a great example of this. They use the huge old train shed at Depot Mayfield to create events with incredibly popular DJs. The line-ups will be different every weekend with different genres catered to. One night may be Drum and Bass with the next being Techno. Both are incredibly popular but don’t tend to be liked by the same people. When compared to how large clubs would have used an unknown DJ to play cheesy pop, these are well-renowned DJs with massive followings of fans desperate to see their sets. This gets people through the door, buying tickets and drinks which of course leads to profit.

Whilst many clubs have sadly closed their doors this, at least in my opinion, is due to them not evolving with the times. The UK night scene is still very much alive and active just not in the way it once was.

TikTok ban: An Act of Market Control, Not Freedom

All Articles

15 January 2025

Connor Banks

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

The Supreme Court of the United States met on Friday the 10th of January to discuss the imminent TikTok ban in the United States, and it's looking like the Supreme Court is going to uphold the ban. This means that TikTok will have to be sold off to an American company or be banned from America.

Facebook and Tiktok fighting each other. Felt design

The United States has long prided itself on being a champion of innovation and free-market competition. Yet, the recent push to ban TikTok exposes a different reality. While the ban is often framed as a measure to protect American "freedoms," closer scrutiny reveals that the motivations behind it are less about safeguarding national security or personal liberty and more about protecting the dominance of American tech giants who have failed to create a competing product.

The National Security Argument: A Convenient Scapegoat

The primary justification for the TikTok ban centres on national security concerns. Critics argue that TikTok’s ownership by a Chinese company poses risks of data misuse or surveillance by the Chinese government. While these concerns warrant investigation, the evidence presented so far has been largely speculative. Moreover, TikTok has taken significant steps to address these concerns, such as pledging to store U.S. user data domestically and offering unprecedented transparency in its operations.

In contrast, American tech companies, including Facebook and Google, have faced numerous scandals over data breaches and misuse, yet these incidents rarely spark discussions of bans. This double standard suggests that the TikTok ban isn’t truly about protecting users’ data but about something far more self-serving: market control.

A Failure to Innovate: American Companies’ Struggle to Compete

TikTok’s meteoric rise exposed a glaring weakness in American tech innovation. Despite their immense resources and influence, companies like Meta (formerly Facebook), Google, and Snapchat have failed to develop a platform that resonates with younger audiences in the same way TikTok does. Meta’s Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, both designed to mimic TikTok’s short-form video format, have not captured the same cultural zeitgeist or user engagement.

Rather than innovating, these companies have leaned heavily on their lobbying power to stifle competition. The push to ban TikTok can be seen as an attempt to remove a superior competitor from the market, allowing American platforms to reclaim dominance without addressing their own shortcomings. This approach not only stifles competition but also sets a dangerous precedent for using regulatory measures to quash innovative foreign products rather than improving domestic ones.

The Hypocrisy of “Freedom”

American lawmakers have framed the TikTok ban as a measure to protect citizens' freedoms, yet the ban itself directly contradicts the principles of choice and access that underpin those freedoms. TikTok’s success is driven by millions of Americans who have chosen to use the app, finding value in its unique algorithm, diverse content, and engaging user experience. Restricting access to the platform undermines these users’ autonomy, suggesting that their freedoms are secondary to corporate interests.

Furthermore, the United States’ tech landscape is already dominated by monopolies. Companies like Meta, Google, and Amazon control vast swaths of the internet, often using their market power to squash smaller competitors. The TikTok ban does not address this monopolistic behaviour; instead, it reinforces it by eliminating a rare instance of genuine competition in the social media space.

A Global Perspective: The Irony of “Protection”

The ban also highlights a broader irony. For years, American tech companies have championed global free markets, often entering foreign countries and out-competing local businesses. Yet when faced with competition from a foreign company on their own turf, the response has been to cry foul rather than adapt.

This hypocrisy weakens America’s global standing as a proponent of innovation and fair competition. Instead of banning TikTok, the United States could use this moment to examine why its own companies failed to create a comparable product and what can be done to foster domestic innovation.

The Real Solution: Compete, Don’t Constrain

If the goal is to protect American freedoms and ensure data security, a TikTok ban is a shortsighted solution. Instead, lawmakers should focus on regulating data privacy across all platforms, domestic and foreign, to ensure robust protections for users. Simultaneously, the tech industry should be incentivised to innovate rather than rely on protectionist policies.

TikTok’s popularity is a testament to its ability to connect with users in ways that American platforms have failed to replicate. Banning the app does not solve this problem; it simply papers over it. To truly champion freedom, the United States must allow competition to flourish, even when it means facing uncomfortable truths about its own shortcomings.

The push to ban TikTok is less about protecting American freedoms and more about protecting American monopolies. Framed as a national security issue, the campaign against TikTok is ultimately an admission that American tech giants have failed to keep up with their global counterparts. If the U.S. truly values innovation and freedom, it must resist the urge to eliminate competition through regulation and instead focus on fostering a market where the best product, not the most powerful company, wins.