The ABC analysed the online prices of nearly 44,000 products at Coles and Woolworths, revealing a sales technique used on thousands of items.
I wonder if its less about habit forming as the article supposes, to lock consumers into shopping at one or the other, and more about confusing consumers. If both discount in an alternating fashion, consumers are not benefitting by going to one or the other regularly. They only benefit if they plan their spend across both but that becomes too time consuming. It might be more about keeping pricing much more fluid. If the price is always different, there is no usual price. Its hard to price compare and less likely for price rises to he noticed as consumers can’t possibly track all prices of all products.
GlenRambo@jlai.lu 3 weeks ago
“This can create price changes that may look like price fixing … however, this is unlikely to be illegal as long as each business is making independent decisions about its prices.”
How can such clear trends be independent.
They claim its supplier’s. Likely the supplier is selling to both parties. Still doesn’t seem independent.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If that were the case, which I hard doubt, then the solution would be to target suppliers with enhanced consumer and business laws that make it illegal to charge different prices for the same product and volume; they should ultimately require absolute transparency for pricing up the entire supply chain, too. Shine light on everywhere the price gouging and exploitation are taking place.
I believe it’s not currently illegal for retailers to advertise and charge 2 different customers 2 different sets of targeted prices, and it should be, as retailers are nearing the capability to alter the shelf price based on the customer standing in front of it. This exploitation attack vector should be cut off before they try to get away with it (probably already are).