analysis 分析
Coles and Woolworths hit with more reputational damage after year of negative headlines
Coles 和 Woolworths 在经历了一年的负面新闻后遭受了更大的声誉损害
With the price of everyday items front of mind for many consumers at the check-outs, it shouldn't come as a shock that the actions of our major supermarket giants are under the microscope.
由于许多消费者在结账时首先考虑的是日常用品的价格,因此我们主要超市巨头的行为被置于显微镜下也就不足为奇了。
Negative headlines about Australia's two biggest grocers have dominated the past 12 months, and accusations have run the gamut from price gouging to tricky relationships with suppliers.
在过去的 12 个月里,关于澳大利亚两家最大杂货店的负面头条新闻占据了主导地位,指控从哄抬价格到与供应商的棘手关系,无所不包。
And then there was that now-infamous Four Corners interview walkout.
然后是现在臭名昭著的 Four Corners 采访罢工。
Adding to the deluge of bad press was the news on Monday, that Australia's biggest grocers would be hauled to the Federal Court by the consumer watchdog.
周一有消息称,澳大利亚最大的杂货店将被消费者监管机构拖到联邦法院,这让负面新闻层出不穷。
Why? Because Coles and Woolworths systematically misled customers about discounts on hundreds of products — including Tim Tams, Doritos salsa and Energizer batteries — according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
为什么?因为根据澳大利亚竞争和消费者委员会 (ACCC) 的数据,Coles 和 Woolworths 系统性地误导了客户关于数百种产品的折扣,包括 Tim Tams、Doritos 莎莎酱和 Energizer 电池。
Both companies allegedly did this by selling items at regular prices for up to six months before increasing the prices of those items by at least 15 per cent and then placing them in the "Prices Dropped" Woolworths promotion or "Down Down" Coles promotion.
据称,这两家公司都以正常价格销售商品长达六个月,然后将这些商品的价格提高至少 15%,然后将它们置于“降价”Woolworths 促销活动或“Down Down”Coles 促销活动中。
It meant consumers were duped by promotions about discounts that were "illusory" and, rather than being lower, some prices were actually higher, according to the ACCC.
据 ACCC 称,这意味着消费者被关于“虚幻”折扣的促销活动所欺骗,而且一些价格实际上非但没有降低,反而更高。
After months of scrutiny over supermarket prices, the court action is yet another blow to Coles' and Woolworths' reputations, which were already under a cloud due to growing consumer distrust.
在对超市价格进行了数月的审查之后,法院诉讼是对 Coles 和 Woolworths 声誉的又一次打击,由于消费者日益增长的不信任,这些声誉已经笼罩在阴影之下。
But perhaps one of the more interesting details from Monday's announcement was not the accusation nor the court case, but who prompted the action.
但周一公告中更有趣的细节之一可能不是指控或法庭案件,而是谁促使了这一行动。
It was largely people power — not consumer action groups — that spurred the ACCC to take the supermarket giants to court.
主要是人的力量——而不是消费者行动团体——促使 ACCC 将超市巨头告上法庭。
Regular customers, fed up with Coles and Woolworths' marketing tactics, had complained to the ACCC and taken to social media to hold supermarkets to account.
老顾客厌倦了 Coles 和 Woolworths 的营销策略,向 ACCC 投诉,并在社交媒体上要求超市承担责任。
In doing so they set off a chain of events that eventually saw our biggest grocers dragged before the courts for allegedly breaching consumer law.
他们这样做引发了一连串事件,最终导致我们最大的杂货店因涉嫌违反消费者法而被拖上法庭。
Coles and Woolworths under the microscope
显微镜下的 Coles 和 Woolworths
For some time now, the supermarket giants' pricing of everyday items has been under scrutiny.
一段时间以来,超市巨头的日常用品定价一直受到审查。
Not only have the mega-grocers been aware of it but they have been quick to pull apart the claims made against them.
大型杂货商不仅意识到了这一点,而且他们很快就拆解了针对他们的指控。
When a Choice survey in June found that a list of 14 staples at Aldi was roughly 25 per cent cheaper than it was at Coles and Woolworths, the two grocers questioned the data.
当 6 月份的 Choice 调查发现 Aldi 的 14 种主食清单比 Coles 和 Woolworths 便宜约 25% 时,这两家杂货店对数据提出了质疑。
But the consumer group argued the real value of its findings for consumers would come as more reports were handed down.
但该消费者组织认为,随着更多报告的发布,其调查结果对消费者的真正价值将随之而来。
It wasn't wrong. More reports are on the way — and Choice isn't the only one holding supermarkets to account.
这没有错。更多的报告正在发布中——而 Choice 并不是唯一一家要求超市承担责任的公司。
For most of this year, the ACCC has been examining the prices of the mega-grocers.
在今年的大部分时间里,ACCC 一直在审查大型杂货店的价格。
After receiving tens of thousands of submissions, the consumer watchdog handed its interim report to the government on August 30.
在收到数万份意见书后,消费者监管机构于 8 月 30 日向政府提交了中期报告。
While seemingly occurring at the same time as its probe into misleading claims, ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said the issues raised in its court action, on Monday were "brought to us before the commencement of the supermarket inquiry".
虽然似乎与对误导性声明的调查同时发生,但 ACCC 主席吉娜·卡斯-戈特利布 (Gina Cass-Gottlieb) 表示,周一在法庭诉讼中提出的问题“是在超市调查开始之前提交给我们的”。
"The supermarket inquiry is excluding and not considering those specific elements," she added.
“超市调查排除了这些具体因素,也没有考虑这些具体因素,”她补充说。
So it's likely another potentially damning supermarket report is on the way, though the results may not be all that surprising to consumers.
因此,另一份可能具有破坏性的超市报告可能即将发布,尽管结果对消费者来说可能并不那么令人惊讶。
For months, households grappling with higher interest rates and higher inflation have complained of price gouging at the check-out and deceptive marketing campaigns.
几个月来,努力应对更高利率和更高通胀的家庭一直在抱怨结账时哄抬价格和欺骗性营销活动。
"You see some of these signs [on supermarket shelves] that say it's on special and then you look underneath it and it's five cents off, 10 cents off. It's all rubbish," Brisbane resident Steve told the ABC.
“你看到一些 [超市货架上] 的标志说它是特价的,然后你看看它下面,它有 5 美分的折扣,10 美分的折扣。都是垃圾,“布里斯班居民史蒂夫告诉 ABC。
Even as both supermarkets have denied allegations of price gouging, the perception it is occurring has driven angry consumers to take their complaints to their family, friends and social media.
尽管这两家超市都否认了哄抬价格的指控,但这种看法的发生促使愤怒的消费者将投诉提交给他们的家人、朋友和社交媒体。
Hundreds of consumers report 'prices that aren't genuine'
数百名消费者报告“价格不正”
In announcing the court action on Monday, ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb was quick to point out what prompted the action or, more accurately, who.
在周一宣布法庭诉讼时,ACCC 主席吉娜·卡斯-戈特利布 (Gina Cass-Gottlieb) 很快指出了促使该行动的原因,或者更准确地说,是谁。
"We first identified this conduct because of contact from consumers," she said.
“我们最初发现这种行为是因为消费者的接触,”她说。
"We then tracked social media and saw on X, Reddit and TikTok that hundreds of consumers were reporting prices that they did not consider were genuine.
“然后,我们跟踪社交媒体,在 X、Reddit 和 TikTok 上看到,数百名消费者报告的价格他们认为不是真实的。
"We followed that up with our own in-depth investigation using our compulsory powers."
“我们随后利用我们的强制权力进行了深入调查。”
The results spoke volumes. Woolworths has been accused of increasing the prices temporarily of at least 266 different products before putting them on the Prices Dropped campaign, while at least 245 different products have been affected at Coles.
Coles said in a statement it would defend the proceedings brought against it and the allegations related to a period of significant cost inflation when it was receiving a large number of cost price increases from suppliers.
Woolworths Group said in a statement it would carefully review the claims and engage with the ACCC on the matter.
As many consumers seek to manage their household budgets with the use of discounts, Ms Cass-Gottlieb said "it is critical that all pricing claims and price discount claims are accurate".
With inflation outstripping earnings growth, the impact of the current economic climate on households is undeniable.
Price changes are being deeply felt across the board, and nowhere is that more noticeable than at the check-out.
As many as 3.7 million households in Australia are estimated to have battled concerning levels of food insecurity last year, according to Foodbank Australia's 2023 Hunger Report, with the cost of living cited as the most common cause.
So what could the ACCC court action mean for everyday consumers?
If found guilty, both Coles and Woolworths would be required to pay fines, which could act as a deterrent to any future bad behaviour.
The ACCC has also said it will seek "declarations" and "community service orders", which may result in both supermarkets funding a registered charity "to deliver meals to Australians in need".
JP Morgan retail analyst Brian Raymond also wrote in a note that the retailers will likely experience "further negative price perception and brand trust impacts".
This could drive consumers to shop elsewhere or, as Mr Raymond wrote, "underpin market share shift to Aldi".
Expect more scrutiny in the months ahead
Over the past year, supermarket profit margins have remained robust even as Australians have cut back on their consumption.
It goes against the understanding that as consumers spend less, retailers are forced to compete more aggressively with deep discounts and promotions.
While the major supermarkets argue there is healthy competition, the reality is that the sector remains one of the least competitive in the world.
And it is not just consumers who feel they have been impacted, but suppliers too.
They have routinely accused the grocers of increasing their profits by enforcing cost cuts on them.
The accusations date as far back as the 2011 milk wars, which began when Coles discounted its private-label brands to $1, prompting Woolworths to do the same.
While consumers benefited from the deep discounts on a basic commodity, the dairy industry complained that its branded products were undercut by contract milk it was supplying the supermarkets for their private labels.
Demand for brand milks slumped, while sales of cheaper, private-label products rose at the time.
A separate inquiry looking at how big-box retailers engage with their suppliers, which was recommended after the ACCC supermarket probe, is currently underway, with submissions open until the end of the week.
In the meantime, consumers looking for changes at the supermarkets will likely have to wait for an outcome in the court case against Coles and Woolworths.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has already declared the allegations against Coles and Woolworths do not reflect "the Australian spirit".
"Customers don't deserve to be treated as fools by the supermarkets," he said on Monday.
If found guilty, the ACCC hopes that "significant" fines could deter these billion-dollar companies from carrying out the practice in the future.
But they might not.