19 April 2016

It’s Time… to stop Coles and Woolworths

| Steven Bailey
Join the conversation
36
Barr

Andrew Barr, I don’t want another Coles in Dickson. I want more small business – and I think Jon Stanhope would agree with me.

The greatest moral struggle of our generation is whether governments have the capacity, or the will, to represent their fellow citizens firstly and fundamentally, and at the exclusion of vested interests that set to exploit populations and markets upon which a citizenry depends.

The Labor/Liberal duopoly obediently supports the corporate duopoly of Coles and Woolworths.

It often strikes me that so many freethinking men and women (mostly men) will run to the defence of large corporations with such vigilance, and yet to the defence of individuals with an equal force of laxity.

My moral objection to Coles and Woolworths is echoed by countless entities throughout Australia including The Council of Small Business of Australia, every independent politician I know, and most small political parties in Australia.

I have met so many people who have lost so much to this corporate duopoly as a result of their predatory and unprecedented market power.

Coles and Woolworths control 80% of Australia’s food, 400 hotels, Dan Murphy’s, BWS, First Choice, Liquor Land, Vintage Cellars, Big W, Kmart, Target, Bunnings, Office Works and Magnet Mart, and more pokie machines than any other consortium in Australia.

The food market is the most important market to a country, and for it to be controlled by a duopoly is a moral repugnance that does not exist in other developed nations. Such repugnance should not be supported by the ACT.

Coles and Woolworths are gradually replacing wholesome ingredients with rubbish like corn starch, vegetable oils and palm oils. They have become both the producer and the processor. In doing so, they seek to corporatise regional Australia, condemning the family farm to a national memory. This ruthless duopoly strangles small business and exploits consumers with misleading food labelling. They are dictating what food you eat, and they are dictating the way you buy fuel.

Canberra has lost its independent fuel suppliers, and we are now exposed to prices often in excess of 10 cents per litre higher than Sydney and Melbourne. This is not a result of transportation.

Do we want to live in a country where people on low incomes are forced to buy groceries from one corporate entity just so they can afford fuel for their family car?

There is no precedent for such a duopoly to exist in a modern developed economy.

Not even in America will you find such market dominance. Franklin D. Roosevelt dismantled Rockefeller’s and J.P. Morgan’s empire, and all without harming the shareholders. Through a sensible process of divestiture, Australia can do the same.

The ACT may hold her head high in many respects but when it comes to supporting small businesses, our Government has failed.

Join the conversation

36
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
VYBerlinaV8_is_back3:05 pm 13 Nov 14

I use woollies fuel because it’s the closest servo to my house, has lots of turnover, for some strange reason seems to be one of the cheapest in the region, and has premium diesel. Getting 4 cents per litre off is a nice warm, fuzzy feeling, but in reality saves me about 65 cents per week.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JimCharles said :

justin heywood said :

JC said :

…..many blame Coles and Woolworths for the closure of smaller local supermarkets, when reality is the customers have voted with their feet. If the small guy was so good the customers would stay and they would stay in business.

Yes, customers have voted with their feet. But in my view the results of the Colesworth duopoly have been terrible, and it is the job of responsible governments to occasionally step in and limit the negative impacts of capitalism.

-The duopoly has hollowed out the main streets of many towns and suburbs around Australia. We now go to soulless malls, where small shop-owners must pass on huge rents to their customers. The huge rents subsidise Coles and Woolworths, who usually occupy the largest spaces in the mall while paying small rent. The duopoly is now so big a mall can’t function without a Colesworth, whose rent is subsidized by all the other shop owners and their customers.

-The duopoly has done much to promote industrialised agriculture in this country, with many negative effects. Their buying power is so huge, growers and suppliers unwilling or unable to become industrialised themselves are forced out by ever larger corporate agriculture.

-The duopoly is developing a bit of a history of dodgy treatment of their customers and suppliers. We have seen the fuel docket scandals, the ‘fresh baked in store’ lie, the ‘fresh’ fruit and vegetable lie and a few others as well. In the past, customers could choose to shop elsewhere if a shop displeased them. But now the duopoly is now so dominant that there is now little alternative to the majors. Small stores cannot hope to compete on price or convenience. And ‘that’s the way they like it’

Interestingly, there’s an unexpected British backlash against the convenience of the bigger supermarkets and you may have seen the Tesco scandal of overstating profits amid dropping customer numbers..uncharted territory for the behemoth who everyone else has copied.
It turns out after destroying high streets across the world, customers are now happy to return to local independents because they’ve finally realised the knock-on damage to local economies.
This is despite food prices rising fast and the ultra modern shopping experience over there…it’s miles ahead in convenience but people are beginning to reject it all the same, while the smaller (than Tesco) players are getting more custom because they’re sourcing locally and giving a better deal for local suppliers.

There is a place for supermarkets, but there is also a case of going too far.
I reject Coles and Woolies over here because they’re taking the piss, especially since they started closing checkouts and forcing you to take trolleys through the self-checkout that were designed for baskets only.
I’ve no problem with self service but they were designed for convenience at really busy supermarkets where you’re stuck behind a load of trolleys and only want to pay for a dozen eggs.
If these sharks are bastardising the design and making you stack your shopping on the floor because your trolley’s still half full of unscanned goods…it’s a trip hazard, you’re blocking the cramped space off, it’s unhygienic, it’s slower and there’s no convenience…so you may as well go and get served properly somewhere else.
I had a heated discussion with another customer (a moron girl holding about 3 items) in Coles Belco when she said “everybody else can manage it dude”, thus missing the point entirely.
If Coles group are blaming this practice on a lack of staff when they made 1.7 billion last year and took it straight offshore to avoid tax, they’re doing the local economy another disservice by not even pumping enough money back into the community in the form of staff wages to help sell the goods that they’ve already crushed suppliers for. A double whammy.

I’m now quite content to walk round the other shops buying a bit from everybody because it makes me feel good. These small business owners can now use a bit of my money to buy a meal in another local restaurant, take their car to get a service at a local mechanic, give their kids a bit more pocket money to spend in a local shop etc. Keep the money localised and keep it in Canberra…it might keep us in a job one day.

Aldi are expanding rapidly in the UK, planning to employ another 35,000 this year.
It won’t be too long before Aldi will dominate Europe and the UK with Costco and Walmart dividing up the rest of the world (Coles and Woolworths will sell out rather than close down).
This is a consequence of globalisation that wasn’t foreseen.

Walmart has been in the UK for ages, though they trade under the name ASDA which is the company they brought.

Fair comment – I should have said “the rest of the Western world…”
The UK will be a Islamic caliphate in a few years. I don’t think Mr Cohen and his Tesco business will be around then either.

watto23 said :

The 7-11 at Erindale is rarely cheaper than the Woolies near the college, yet it gets as many cars through as the Woolies one does, so why would they lower their price? they are making plenty on fuel here in Canberra.

People like convenience, and have probably worked out that the paltry 2 cents per litre saved (usually much less) only equates to a massive 80 cents in a small car. People are not going to bother trecking the extra 500 metres through back streets for 80 cents. Especially not for E10.

watto23 said :

Petrol is an interesting one in Canberra. The non Caltex/Woolies and Shell/Coles servos are free to set whatever price they want, but because they can make more money selling at the same price as those 2 they do that rather than try to get more customers in at a few cents a litre less. Basically Canberrans are less price sensitive to fuel than other cities. After all a majority of us will still drive cars with no passengers and pay $10-15 a day for parking, rather than say use a bus for much less, because its more inconvenient to us.

The 7-11 at Erindale is rarely cheaper than the Woolies near the college, yet it gets as many cars through as the Woolies one does, so why would they lower their price? they are making plenty on fuel here in Canberra.

Actually the Caltex/Woolworths and Shell/Coles servo’s can set what ever price they like too. As mentioned many times the supermarkets do not own the actual service stations, except Woolworths who own 10% of the sites that carry their brand. They also do not have any say in price, that is up to the oil companies.

The servo’s are for the most part franchised out, with one owner owning multiple sites, (multisite franchises saw many smaller servos shut and saw some of the smaller franchisees out of business about 15-20 years ago) it is then up to the franchisee to set the price. That price will depend upon whether the supply agreement charges a price for supplying fuel into the servos tanks, or if they are charged for volume sold. The difference if you pay for say 40,000l of fuel you margin will need to be based on the money you payed for that fuel, but if on volume sold you rate changes on a daily basis. So if prices drop your better off paying for volume rather than for supply.

Other servos are privately owned and they enter into branding and supply agreements, but again are free to set their own price.

dungfungus said :

JimCharles said :

justin heywood said :

JC said :

…..many blame Coles and Woolworths for the closure of smaller local supermarkets, when reality is the customers have voted with their feet. If the small guy was so good the customers would stay and they would stay in business.

Yes, customers have voted with their feet. But in my view the results of the Colesworth duopoly have been terrible, and it is the job of responsible governments to occasionally step in and limit the negative impacts of capitalism.

-The duopoly has hollowed out the main streets of many towns and suburbs around Australia. We now go to soulless malls, where small shop-owners must pass on huge rents to their customers. The huge rents subsidise Coles and Woolworths, who usually occupy the largest spaces in the mall while paying small rent. The duopoly is now so big a mall can’t function without a Colesworth, whose rent is subsidized by all the other shop owners and their customers.

-The duopoly has done much to promote industrialised agriculture in this country, with many negative effects. Their buying power is so huge, growers and suppliers unwilling or unable to become industrialised themselves are forced out by ever larger corporate agriculture.

-The duopoly is developing a bit of a history of dodgy treatment of their customers and suppliers. We have seen the fuel docket scandals, the ‘fresh baked in store’ lie, the ‘fresh’ fruit and vegetable lie and a few others as well. In the past, customers could choose to shop elsewhere if a shop displeased them. But now the duopoly is now so dominant that there is now little alternative to the majors. Small stores cannot hope to compete on price or convenience. And ‘that’s the way they like it’

Interestingly, there’s an unexpected British backlash against the convenience of the bigger supermarkets and you may have seen the Tesco scandal of overstating profits amid dropping customer numbers..uncharted territory for the behemoth who everyone else has copied.
It turns out after destroying high streets across the world, customers are now happy to return to local independents because they’ve finally realised the knock-on damage to local economies.
This is despite food prices rising fast and the ultra modern shopping experience over there…it’s miles ahead in convenience but people are beginning to reject it all the same, while the smaller (than Tesco) players are getting more custom because they’re sourcing locally and giving a better deal for local suppliers.

There is a place for supermarkets, but there is also a case of going too far.
I reject Coles and Woolies over here because they’re taking the piss, especially since they started closing checkouts and forcing you to take trolleys through the self-checkout that were designed for baskets only.
I’ve no problem with self service but they were designed for convenience at really busy supermarkets where you’re stuck behind a load of trolleys and only want to pay for a dozen eggs.
If these sharks are bastardising the design and making you stack your shopping on the floor because your trolley’s still half full of unscanned goods…it’s a trip hazard, you’re blocking the cramped space off, it’s unhygienic, it’s slower and there’s no convenience…so you may as well go and get served properly somewhere else.
I had a heated discussion with another customer (a moron girl holding about 3 items) in Coles Belco when she said “everybody else can manage it dude”, thus missing the point entirely.
If Coles group are blaming this practice on a lack of staff when they made 1.7 billion last year and took it straight offshore to avoid tax, they’re doing the local economy another disservice by not even pumping enough money back into the community in the form of staff wages to help sell the goods that they’ve already crushed suppliers for. A double whammy.

I’m now quite content to walk round the other shops buying a bit from everybody because it makes me feel good. These small business owners can now use a bit of my money to buy a meal in another local restaurant, take their car to get a service at a local mechanic, give their kids a bit more pocket money to spend in a local shop etc. Keep the money localised and keep it in Canberra…it might keep us in a job one day.

Aldi are expanding rapidly in the UK, planning to employ another 35,000 this year.
It won’t be too long before Aldi will dominate Europe and the UK with Costco and Walmart dividing up the rest of the world (Coles and Woolworths will sell out rather than close down).
This is a consequence of globalisation that wasn’t foreseen.

Walmart has been in the UK for ages, though they trade under the name ASDA which is the company they brought.

Petrol is an interesting one in Canberra. The non Caltex/Woolies and Shell/Coles servos are free to set whatever price they want, but because they can make more money selling at the same price as those 2 they do that rather than try to get more customers in at a few cents a litre less. Basically Canberrans are less price sensitive to fuel than other cities. After all a majority of us will still drive cars with no passengers and pay $10-15 a day for parking, rather than say use a bus for much less, because its more inconvenient to us.

The 7-11 at Erindale is rarely cheaper than the Woolies near the college, yet it gets as many cars through as the Woolies one does, so why would they lower their price? they are making plenty on fuel here in Canberra.

JimCharles said :

justin heywood said :

JC said :

…..many blame Coles and Woolworths for the closure of smaller local supermarkets, when reality is the customers have voted with their feet. If the small guy was so good the customers would stay and they would stay in business.

Yes, customers have voted with their feet. But in my view the results of the Colesworth duopoly have been terrible, and it is the job of responsible governments to occasionally step in and limit the negative impacts of capitalism.

-The duopoly has hollowed out the main streets of many towns and suburbs around Australia. We now go to soulless malls, where small shop-owners must pass on huge rents to their customers. The huge rents subsidise Coles and Woolworths, who usually occupy the largest spaces in the mall while paying small rent. The duopoly is now so big a mall can’t function without a Colesworth, whose rent is subsidized by all the other shop owners and their customers.

-The duopoly has done much to promote industrialised agriculture in this country, with many negative effects. Their buying power is so huge, growers and suppliers unwilling or unable to become industrialised themselves are forced out by ever larger corporate agriculture.

-The duopoly is developing a bit of a history of dodgy treatment of their customers and suppliers. We have seen the fuel docket scandals, the ‘fresh baked in store’ lie, the ‘fresh’ fruit and vegetable lie and a few others as well. In the past, customers could choose to shop elsewhere if a shop displeased them. But now the duopoly is now so dominant that there is now little alternative to the majors. Small stores cannot hope to compete on price or convenience. And ‘that’s the way they like it’

Interestingly, there’s an unexpected British backlash against the convenience of the bigger supermarkets and you may have seen the Tesco scandal of overstating profits amid dropping customer numbers..uncharted territory for the behemoth who everyone else has copied.
It turns out after destroying high streets across the world, customers are now happy to return to local independents because they’ve finally realised the knock-on damage to local economies.
This is despite food prices rising fast and the ultra modern shopping experience over there…it’s miles ahead in convenience but people are beginning to reject it all the same, while the smaller (than Tesco) players are getting more custom because they’re sourcing locally and giving a better deal for local suppliers.

There is a place for supermarkets, but there is also a case of going too far.
I reject Coles and Woolies over here because they’re taking the piss, especially since they started closing checkouts and forcing you to take trolleys through the self-checkout that were designed for baskets only.
I’ve no problem with self service but they were designed for convenience at really busy supermarkets where you’re stuck behind a load of trolleys and only want to pay for a dozen eggs.
If these sharks are bastardising the design and making you stack your shopping on the floor because your trolley’s still half full of unscanned goods…it’s a trip hazard, you’re blocking the cramped space off, it’s unhygienic, it’s slower and there’s no convenience…so you may as well go and get served properly somewhere else.
I had a heated discussion with another customer (a moron girl holding about 3 items) in Coles Belco when she said “everybody else can manage it dude”, thus missing the point entirely.
If Coles group are blaming this practice on a lack of staff when they made 1.7 billion last year and took it straight offshore to avoid tax, they’re doing the local economy another disservice by not even pumping enough money back into the community in the form of staff wages to help sell the goods that they’ve already crushed suppliers for. A double whammy.

I’m now quite content to walk round the other shops buying a bit from everybody because it makes me feel good. These small business owners can now use a bit of my money to buy a meal in another local restaurant, take their car to get a service at a local mechanic, give their kids a bit more pocket money to spend in a local shop etc. Keep the money localised and keep it in Canberra…it might keep us in a job one day.

Aldi are expanding rapidly in the UK, planning to employ another 35,000 this year.
It won’t be too long before Aldi will dominate Europe and the UK with Costco and Walmart dividing up the rest of the world (Coles and Woolworths will sell out rather than close down).
This is a consequence of globalisation that wasn’t foreseen.

justin heywood said :

JC said :

…..many blame Coles and Woolworths for the closure of smaller local supermarkets, when reality is the customers have voted with their feet. If the small guy was so good the customers would stay and they would stay in business.

Yes, customers have voted with their feet. But in my view the results of the Colesworth duopoly have been terrible, and it is the job of responsible governments to occasionally step in and limit the negative impacts of capitalism.

-The duopoly has hollowed out the main streets of many towns and suburbs around Australia. We now go to soulless malls, where small shop-owners must pass on huge rents to their customers. The huge rents subsidise Coles and Woolworths, who usually occupy the largest spaces in the mall while paying small rent. The duopoly is now so big a mall can’t function without a Colesworth, whose rent is subsidized by all the other shop owners and their customers.

-The duopoly has done much to promote industrialised agriculture in this country, with many negative effects. Their buying power is so huge, growers and suppliers unwilling or unable to become industrialised themselves are forced out by ever larger corporate agriculture.

-The duopoly is developing a bit of a history of dodgy treatment of their customers and suppliers. We have seen the fuel docket scandals, the ‘fresh baked in store’ lie, the ‘fresh’ fruit and vegetable lie and a few others as well. In the past, customers could choose to shop elsewhere if a shop displeased them. But now the duopoly is now so dominant that there is now little alternative to the majors. Small stores cannot hope to compete on price or convenience. And ‘that’s the way they like it’

Interestingly, there’s an unexpected British backlash against the convenience of the bigger supermarkets and you may have seen the Tesco scandal of overstating profits amid dropping customer numbers..uncharted territory for the behemoth who everyone else has copied.
It turns out after destroying high streets across the world, customers are now happy to return to local independents because they’ve finally realised the knock-on damage to local economies.
This is despite food prices rising fast and the ultra modern shopping experience over there…it’s miles ahead in convenience but people are beginning to reject it all the same, while the smaller (than Tesco) players are getting more custom because they’re sourcing locally and giving a better deal for local suppliers.

There is a place for supermarkets, but there is also a case of going too far.
I reject Coles and Woolies over here because they’re taking the piss, especially since they started closing checkouts and forcing you to take trolleys through the self-checkout that were designed for baskets only.
I’ve no problem with self service but they were designed for convenience at really busy supermarkets where you’re stuck behind a load of trolleys and only want to pay for a dozen eggs.
If these sharks are bastardising the design and making you stack your shopping on the floor because your trolley’s still half full of unscanned goods…it’s a trip hazard, you’re blocking the cramped space off, it’s unhygienic, it’s slower and there’s no convenience…so you may as well go and get served properly somewhere else.
I had a heated discussion with another customer (a moron girl holding about 3 items) in Coles Belco when she said “everybody else can manage it dude”, thus missing the point entirely.
If Coles group are blaming this practice on a lack of staff when they made 1.7 billion last year and took it straight offshore to avoid tax, they’re doing the local economy another disservice by not even pumping enough money back into the community in the form of staff wages to help sell the goods that they’ve already crushed suppliers for. A double whammy.

I’m now quite content to walk round the other shops buying a bit from everybody because it makes me feel good. These small business owners can now use a bit of my money to buy a meal in another local restaurant, take their car to get a service at a local mechanic, give their kids a bit more pocket money to spend in a local shop etc. Keep the money localised and keep it in Canberra…it might keep us in a job one day.

HiddenDragon6:49 pm 12 Nov 14

arescarti42 said :

rosscoact said :

Pork Hunt said :

People are saying WW in Dickson is overpriced. Are you saying different Woollies stores have a different price for the same good?

Yes, its called differential pricing

Exactly.

Take Woolies Jerrabomberra and Woolies Queanbeyan for instance, which are only a few km apart. Why on earth would the Jerrabomberra store, which has no immediate competition and a comparatively wealthy customer base, charge the same prices as the Queanbeyan store, which is in direct competition with Coles and Aldi and has a comparatively less wealthy customer base?

Sure, heavily advertised basics like milk, bread and mince are standard prices everywhere, but the prices on pretty much everything else are going to be highly variable from store to store.

And when one of the majors has a location to itself, they tend to carry less of their own brand (usually appreciably cheaper) products and seem to make less effort with the quality of the produce, availability of freshly baked bread etc. – so some competition seems to be better than none.

justin heywood1:09 pm 12 Nov 14

JC said :

…..many blame Coles and Woolworths for the closure of smaller local supermarkets, when reality is the customers have voted with their feet. If the small guy was so good the customers would stay and they would stay in business.

Yes, customers have voted with their feet. But in my view the results of the Colesworth duopoly have been terrible, and it is the job of responsible governments to occasionally step in and limit the negative impacts of capitalism.

-The duopoly has hollowed out the main streets of many towns and suburbs around Australia. We now go to soulless malls, where small shop-owners must pass on huge rents to their customers. The huge rents subsidise Coles and Woolworths, who usually occupy the largest spaces in the mall while paying small rent. The duopoly is now so big a mall can’t function without a Colesworth, whose rent is subsidized by all the other shop owners and their customers.

-The duopoly has done much to promote industrialised agriculture in this country, with many negative effects. Their buying power is so huge, growers and suppliers unwilling or unable to become industrialised themselves are forced out by ever larger corporate agriculture.

-The duopoly is developing a bit of a history of dodgy treatment of their customers and suppliers. We have seen the fuel docket scandals, the ‘fresh baked in store’ lie, the ‘fresh’ fruit and vegetable lie and a few others as well. In the past, customers could choose to shop elsewhere if a shop displeased them. But now the duopoly is now so dominant that there is now little alternative to the majors. Small stores cannot hope to compete on price or convenience. And ‘that’s the way they like it’

Felix the Cat said :

Stephen Bailey and others that don’t want to shop at Colesworth can drive (walk?) 1km down the road to North Lyneham IGA. Except IGA aren’t really “independent”. They are owned by Metcash which also owns at least many other grocery, hardware and liquour chains – http://www.metcash.com/

I agree with your basic sentiment that there is choice, especially in the general Dickson, but it is not quite true to say Metcash own IGA stores.

IGA stores are for the most part privately/independantly owned (many in Canberra by a couple of not so poor families). What they do is enter into a branding and purchasing agreement with Metcash so not really owned.

Perhaps what we need in this town is a WALMART. They seem to sell damm near everything at a cheap price, and attract a lot of customers.
According to some piccys I’ve seen of their customer base in the US, the inner north side citizens would fit the bill very well.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back10:10 am 12 Nov 14

rosscoact said :

Pork Hunt said :

People are saying WW in Dickson is overpriced. Are you saying different Woollies stores have a different price for the same good?

Yes, its called differential pricing

It occurs even within the same store through rebranding of products.

Felix the Cat10:09 am 12 Nov 14

Stephen Bailey and others that don’t want to shop at Colesworth can drive (walk?) 1km down the road to North Lyneham IGA. Except IGA aren’t really “independent”. They are owned by Metcash which also owns at least many other grocery, hardware and liquour chains – http://www.metcash.com/

arescarti42 said :

rosscoact said :

Pork Hunt said :

People are saying WW in Dickson is overpriced. Are you saying different Woollies stores have a different price for the same good?

Yes, its called differential pricing

Exactly.

Take Woolies Jerrabomberra and Woolies Queanbeyan for instance, which are only a few km apart. Why on earth would the Jerrabomberra store, which has no immediate competition and a comparatively wealthy customer base, charge the same prices as the Queanbeyan store, which is in direct competition with Coles and Aldi and has a comparatively less wealthy customer base?

Sure, heavily advertised basics like milk, bread and mince are standard prices everywhere, but the prices on pretty much everything else are going to be highly variable from store to store.

You can afford to eat mince?

pepmeup said :

The fact is Labor want big business.

Big businesses have Union member, labor want big business big unions and big government.

Labor wants people to be union members on low wages and the on the pension. That way they can control people from first job to grave.

Most Canberrans like to think they support small business, but still line up at Coles and Woolies and their other brands. Supporting small business for most Canberrans is visiting them once a year to ask for a donation for their kids fete.

So true.

rosscoact said :

Pork Hunt said :

People are saying WW in Dickson is overpriced. Are you saying different Woollies stores have a different price for the same good?

Yes, its called differential pricing

Exactly.

Take Woolies Jerrabomberra and Woolies Queanbeyan for instance, which are only a few km apart. Why on earth would the Jerrabomberra store, which has no immediate competition and a comparatively wealthy customer base, charge the same prices as the Queanbeyan store, which is in direct competition with Coles and Aldi and has a comparatively less wealthy customer base?

Sure, heavily advertised basics like milk, bread and mince are standard prices everywhere, but the prices on pretty much everything else are going to be highly variable from store to store.

Pork Hunt said :

People are saying WW in Dickson is overpriced. Are you saying different Woollies stores have a different price for the same good?

Yes, its called differential pricing

The fact is Labor want big business.

Big businesses have Union member, labor want big business big unions and big government.

Labor wants people to be union members on low wages and the on the pension. That way they can control people from first job to grave.

Most Canberrans like to think they support small business, but still line up at Coles and Woolies and their other brands. Supporting small business for most Canberrans is visiting them once a year to ask for a donation for their kids fete.

What a load of drivel, seriously, especially the comment that “Canberra has lost its independent fuel suppliers, and we are now exposed to prices often in excess of 10 cents per litre higher than Sydney and Melbourne. This is not a result of transportation.”

Fuel in Canberra has ALWAYS been higher, even when there were a lot more independent service stations around. Besides it wasn’t Coles or Woolwoths that has lead to smaller suburban servos shutting, as I’ve said in several threads Coles owns NO service stations, they just have a co-branding agreement for the shops in SHELL service stations. Whilst Woolworths does own some of their own stations, 90% of the Woolworths branded servos are owned/licenced by CALTEX with Woolworths co-branding like Coles and Shell do.

What killed off many smaller service stations was the drive by the big 4 fuel providers to enter into what they call multisite franchises, which in turn lowered the costs compared to single operator sites and the result can be seen. Of course the motorist is also to blame as they are the ones who changed their fuel shopping preferences.

Same is true for supermarkets too, many blame Coles and Woolworths for the closure of smaller local supermarkets, when reality is the customers have voted with their feet. If the small guy was so good the customers would stay and they would stay in business.

People are saying WW in Dickson is overpriced. Are you saying different Woollies stores have a different price for the same good?

Holden Caulfield9:15 pm 11 Nov 14

Steven Bailey said :

I’m referring to the national percentage of market dominance, not the number of shoppers.

Yes, but I’m asserting that the two are linked. That is, if Australia had a similar population to the US then smaller players such as Aldi etc would have the room to move upwards into the space dominated by Coles/Woolies.

Perhaps more importantly, having more customers means (potentially) a greater number of people/corporations willing to invest/speculate on smaller players and thereby put pressure on established in the market to achieve greater yields for their investors.

Let’s say Aldi has 10% of the Australian market, surely 10% of 320m can exert a lot more influence than 10% of 22m. Even if the bad guys still have 80%.

Alas, there are enough people like me who don’t really like the duopoly but for reasons of apathy and/or convenience surrender to it. Which brings us to…

Steven Bailey said :

I agree that there is little the territory can do, but sometimes doing something little is still the right thing to do.

Hear, hear! And more power to you for having a crack at doing something about the issue instead of being a lazy so and so like me, haha.

The erstwhile supermarket competition policy comes to mind.

HiddenDragon said :

arescarti42 said :

There are two critical things you’ve missed.

1. The new Coles in Dickson isn’t predominantly taking the business of small firms, it’s encroaching on the near complete monopoly that Woolworths Dickson has in the inner north. Anyone who lives in this area knows what an overpriced, understaffed, shithole Woolworths Dickson is, and is desperate for some major competition to shake things up.

2. It isn’t just Coles that is coming to Dickson, they’re also building a new Aldi there too, so the change is hardly just supporting the Colesworth duopoly. The ACCC reckons that an Aldi in close proximity reduces Colesworth prices by ~5% on some items.

Personally, I can’t wait for Aldi and Coles to open.

I’ve certainly observed the same thing in other locations – if one of the major supermarkets has a shopping area/centre to itself then service, price (interestingly) and range tends not to be as good as in locations where the other major is present. A nearby ALDI usually shakes things up, too.

I shop in Woden and the Coles and Woolies (which are next to one another) are priced the same as they are anywhere else.

Steven Bailey6:51 pm 11 Nov 14

arescarti42 said :

There are two critical things you’ve missed.

1. The new Coles in Dickson isn’t predominantly taking the business of small firms, it’s encroaching on the near complete monopoly that Woolworths Dickson has in the inner north. Anyone who lives in this area knows what an overpriced, understaffed, shithole Woolworths Dickson is, and is desperate for some major competition to shake things up.

2. It isn’t just Coles that is coming to Dickson, they’re also building a new Aldi there too, so the change is hardly just supporting the Colesworth duopoly. The ACCC reckons that an Aldi in close proximity reduces Colesworth prices by ~5% on some items.

Personally, I can’t wait for Aldi and Coles to open.

Notwithstanding that I have ‘missed’ nothing, I would add to one of your points that the ACCC believes that Coles acts illegally. I agree that the Dickson Woolworths is an overpriced and understaffed shithole. I would simply assert that the Dickson Coles would be just as overpriced, understaffed, and… shitholish.

Steven Bailey6:50 pm 11 Nov 14

Holden Caulfield said :

“There is no precedent for such a duopoly to exist in a modern developed economy.

Not even in America will you find such market dominance.”

320,000,000 shoppers > 360,000 shoppers

Comrade, I agree with the theory of your angst against the supermarket duopoly. However, the root cause rests much further up the capitalism chain than any decisions our local council can make.

All of the negatives you list put a big tick in the box of mum and dad investors (and the corporates too, of course). At once the vicious cycle becomes complete.

I’m referring to the national percentage of market dominance, not the number of shoppers. I agree that there is little the territory can do, but sometimes doing something little is still the right thing to do.

HiddenDragon6:02 pm 11 Nov 14

arescarti42 said :

There are two critical things you’ve missed.

1. The new Coles in Dickson isn’t predominantly taking the business of small firms, it’s encroaching on the near complete monopoly that Woolworths Dickson has in the inner north. Anyone who lives in this area knows what an overpriced, understaffed, shithole Woolworths Dickson is, and is desperate for some major competition to shake things up.

2. It isn’t just Coles that is coming to Dickson, they’re also building a new Aldi there too, so the change is hardly just supporting the Colesworth duopoly. The ACCC reckons that an Aldi in close proximity reduces Colesworth prices by ~5% on some items.

Personally, I can’t wait for Aldi and Coles to open.

I’ve certainly observed the same thing in other locations – if one of the major supermarkets has a shopping area/centre to itself then service, price (interestingly) and range tends not to be as good as in locations where the other major is present. A nearby ALDI usually shakes things up, too.

Andrew Barr,
I’m glad you are putting another Coles at Dickson.
They have everything I need under the one roof, meaning I can do my shopping a lot quicker and get on with the important things in life.

While you are trying to fix up the Woolies/Coles duopoly, can you also please get the often unacceptably long queues at the checkouts at Woolworth’s at Erindale, fixed. They don’t seem to have much regard for their customers time nor queue management by opening up more checkouts at peak useage time !. Grrrrr.

I for one appreciate the market dominance of megalomaniacal supermarket chains run by Bond villains who keep celebrity chefs chained up in basements and only let them out to film unscripted endorsements. Besides where else am I gonna buy my floppy zucchinis and mouldy strawberries?? Not to mention service that makes me genuinely fearful the dude behind the register is going to snap at any moment and leap across the counter to beat me to death with the EFTPOS machine? Stop Coles and Woolworths? I say never!

Holden Caulfield4:26 pm 11 Nov 14

“There is no precedent for such a duopoly to exist in a modern developed economy.

Not even in America will you find such market dominance.”

320,000,000 shoppers > 360,000 shoppers

Comrade, I agree with the theory of your angst against the supermarket duopoly. However, the root cause rests much further up the capitalism chain than any decisions our local council can make.

All of the negatives you list put a big tick in the box of mum and dad investors (and the corporates too, of course). At once the vicious cycle becomes complete.

Call me blissfully ignorant, but I simply don’t get much of this article.

– Duopoly was legal the last time I checked. What isn’t is abuse of monopoly/duopoly power by such behaviour as predatory pricing, vertical restraint – but I thought ACCC looked after that?
– Should businesses be judged by their size?
– Price vs Quality – the consumers will decide what they will put up with with respect to quality (or ‘rubbish’, and price is currently trending. They aren’t being forced.
– Fuel dockets – this IS a problem. Isn’t this related to tying arrangement, which is illegal in a lot of countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
– Moral? Please don’t mix up moral with economics, as they are mutually exclusive. The first and foremost assumption of any economic theory is GREED.
– Misleading food labeling – good on Chasers for expose their “fresh” ideas..

The bottom line is that this duopoly works – supported both by regulatory bodies (most of the time) and the consumers.

However, it is up to the government bodies to ensure that these corporations are following the commercial law at all times.
If the law isn’t working then it needs to be fixed. For example, the fuel docket is definitely a loophole in the Australian commercial law. That’s where you can vent your moral argument, in fixing laws.

The ACT government is not responsible for retail competition, nor should it be. It has already wasted a lot of our money creating a useless policy about this.

We operate in a free market society which is designed to have minimal Govenment interference, and what you see in the supermarket industry is normal market competition of a mature industry whereby it starts with many businesses which reduces over time through market forces.. something learnt in a first year uni course..

While there should be appropriate (Commonwealth) government regulation should be in place, that shouldn’t be the government interfering in the market. The best way of stopping their spread is for people to stop shopping at the big supermarkets and to go shop somewhere else. However, since they provide a service that most people are reasonably happy with, so I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Blen_Carmichael1:31 pm 11 Nov 14

Actually, make that Steven Bailey, not Andrew Barr.

Blen_Carmichael1:12 pm 11 Nov 14

I think Andrew Barr might give more credit to Theodore Roosevelt for this rather than his fifth cousin. Of course, that would mean complimenting a Republican.

There are two critical things you’ve missed.

1. The new Coles in Dickson isn’t predominantly taking the business of small firms, it’s encroaching on the near complete monopoly that Woolworths Dickson has in the inner north. Anyone who lives in this area knows what an overpriced, understaffed, shithole Woolworths Dickson is, and is desperate for some major competition to shake things up.

2. It isn’t just Coles that is coming to Dickson, they’re also building a new Aldi there too, so the change is hardly just supporting the Colesworth duopoly. The ACCC reckons that an Aldi in close proximity reduces Colesworth prices by ~5% on some items.

Personally, I can’t wait for Aldi and Coles to open.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.