Bunnings price match policy.
Kelpie
another Bunnings branch, will they beat the price by 10%, as suggested in
their price match policy?
"If you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll beat it by
10%*
*Excludes trade quotes, stock liquidations and commercial quantities. Shelf
prices may be lower than advertised to ensure lowest prices every day."
Brad
Sylvia Else
I dare say it's true. But what exactly does "beat it by 10%" mean? I
think you'll find that what they'll do is offer a price that is 10% *of
the difference* less than the competitor's price.
So they don't lose much, and I doubt they often have to pay out on their
policy anyway, since few people looking for an item will go somewhere
else, note the price, and then go to Bunnings, observe that the price is
higher, then demand the promised reduction.
Sylvia.
Someone Else
<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
>On 16/08/2011 12:04 PM, Kelpie wrote:
>> If go to a Bunnings store and tell them I've found the EXACT same item at
>> another Bunnings branch, will they beat the price by 10%, as suggested in
>> their price match policy?
>>
>> "If you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll beat it by
>> 10%*
>> *Excludes trade quotes, stock liquidations and commercial quantities. Shelf
>> prices may be lower than advertised to ensure lowest prices every day."
>>
>
>I dare say it's true. But what exactly does "beat it by 10%" mean? I
>think you'll find that what they'll do is offer a price that is 10% *of
>the difference* less than the competitor's price.
That's not how I would read it, if in fact they say "beat the price by
10%" and not "beat the price difference by 10%".
DavidW
I wonder if this policy includes stocked items at international online stores.
The few times I've been to Bunnings I haven't found it cheap at all. I went to
get a rasp once and all they had was a Stanley one for $32. So I went to Crazy
Bargain and got one for $2 instead (not a name brand, and obviously crappier
quality, but it worked).
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> If go to a Bunnings store and tell them I've found the EXACT same item at
> another Bunnings branch, will they beat the price by 10%, as suggested in
> their price match policy?
Of course not; stop being silly.
Here, read this:-
Sylvia Else
And I think that if anyone took the matter to court, they'd win. But
Bunnings would cave-in first. Nevertheless, 10 gets you 1 that Bunnings
will seek to interpret it as I've described.
Sylvia.
Hanes
What is a rasp?
dechucka
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:9aupsk...@mid.individual.net...
You get 10% off the competitors price IMHE
dechucka
"Hanes" <ha...@hanes.com.not.here> wrote in message
news:j2dqqd$lac$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
a unit for rasping with
>
DavidW
I don't see how they could. The words cannot reasonably be interpreted that way.
Sylvia Else
That's why they would cave.
I can't see anything on the website that expands on their intent, but
I've certainly seen similar guarantees that have had small print
indicating that the interpretation is to be as I've described.
Sylvia.
Who_me?
Two years ago I checked both Bunnings and Mitre10 when looking to purchase
a new Air compressor. They both had an identical compressor - Made in China
- but each had their own house brand on it along with the Chinese
manufacturer's model number. No go with the ten percent deal - it has to be
the same item, same brand, not on sale, and in stock.
Last month I checked prices between the two stores again on Makita
"Aborist" petrol powered chainsaws - the little light-weight ten inch bar
saws. Mitre ten had the same model in their catalogue for thirty-six
dollars less than Bunnings. Bunning, on presentation of the catalogue, gave
me ten percent off the Mitre 10 price. No arguments at all.
DavidW
So all they have to do is house-brand everything, even if the original brand is
plainly visible, and they are in the clear.
A Little Bit
> What is a rasp?
A bit of a bastard.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
[Giggle, snicker]
dechucka
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:4e4b1bd0$0$27094$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
Way to piss of the customers. Much easier to hand out a few 10% off the
competitors price and get good word of mouth advertising
dechucka
"A Little Bit" <ti...@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:fbbm47pt90560vqfb...@4ax.com...
use hemerrhoid cream nrxt time that's what its there for
>
dechucka
what happened to the spell check
>
Hanes
So if I go into Bunnings and ask for "a bit of a bastard" they'll know?
Stephen Oakes
> If go to a Bunnings store...<silly question deleted>
The Bunnings "cheaper prices" slogan is, always has been and always will
be a lie. It is that simple.
It worked though; they are now effectively a monopoly.
- soakes
A Little Bit
> >> What is a rasp?
> >
> > A bit of a bastard.
> >
>
> So if I go into Bunnings and ask for "a bit of a bastard" they'll know?
Yes.
Who_me?
Yep. Ryobi is one of their main house brands, although it started out
independent.
Who_me?
Very droll.
dechucka
"Hanes" <ha...@hanes.com.not.here> wrote in message
Who would want to buy a little bit, upsize
dechucka
"Stephen Oakes" <soa...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:44Sdnf0TeO1NEdbT...@westnet.com.au...
> On 16/08/11 12:04 PM, Kelpie wrote:
>> If go to a Bunnings store...<silly question deleted>
>
> The Bunnings "cheaper prices" slogan is, always has been and always will
> be a lie. It is that simple.
Bullshit
>
> It worked though; they are now effectively a monopoly.
apart from the other stores
dechucka
"David Zyk" <aus.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f29cb0ed-db4a-46c2...@g8g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 16, 11:04 am, "Kelpie" <pel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If go to a Bunnings store and tell them I've found the EXACT same item at
<< SNIP >>
"LOW PRICES ARE JUST THE BEGINNING....OF THE LIES"
=======================================
what lies?
Stephen Oakes
>> The Bunnings "cheaper prices" slogan is, always has been and always
>> will be a lie. It is that simple.
>
> Bullshit
In what way?
> apart from the other stores
All of the small stores around here have closed.
There are still a few other big business branches, but far fewer than 10
years ago.
- soakes
Stephen Oakes
> "LOW PRICES ARE JUST THE BEGINNING....OF THE LIES"
Absolutely precisely spot-on-ly correct.
- soakes
dechucka
> On 18/08/11 7:12 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>> The Bunnings "cheaper prices" slogan is, always has been and always
>>> will be a lie. It is that simple.
>>
>> Bullshit
>
> In what way?
because you CAN get 10% of their competitors prices if you could be bothered
>
>> apart from the other stores
>
> All of the small stores around here have closed.
> There are still a few other big business branches, but far fewer than 10
> years ago.
True
Stephen Oakes
>>> Bullshit
>>
>> In what way?
>
> because you CAN get 10% of their competitors prices if you could be
> bothered
...except that a large proportion of their products are exclusive to
Bunnings. They do *not* match prices for "similar" products (even
identical ones that are branded differently). Their slogan is designed
to imply that they are cheaper; they know that very few people will
actually check.
FWIW, I consider that to be a lie.
- soakes
dechucka
Fair enough, it is basically a slogan for the brain dead who won't shop
around or do a bit of work. For most things it doesn't matter but for big
ticket items it is worth it
felix_unger
> On 16/08/2011 12:04 PM, Kelpie wrote:
>> If go to a Bunnings store and tell them I've found the EXACT same
>> item at
>> suggested in
>> their price match policy?
>>
>> "If you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll beat
>> it by
>> 10%*
>> *Excludes trade quotes, stock liquidations and commercial quantities.
>> Shelf
>> prices may be lower than advertised to ensure lowest prices every day."
>>
>
> I dare say it's true. But what exactly does "beat it by 10%" mean?
price less 10% of it. 'It' refers to the competitors price.
> I think you'll find that what they'll do is offer a price that is 10%
> *of the difference* less than the competitor's price.
>
> their policy anyway, since few people looking for an item will go
> somewhere else, note the price, and then go to Bunnings, observe that
> the price is higher, then demand the promised reduction.
>
> Sylvia.
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
"Dumping the Gillard/Brown Government is the 'greatest moral imperative of our time'"
“Twelve months ago, Julia Gillard told us, ad nauseum, that she was 'moving forward.' Today she tells us 'she's not going anywhere'. Aint that the truth!”
"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
“Julia Gillard's carbon dioxide tax is the most brazen fraud to be perpetrated by an Australian government. Warming believers should be outraged that the tax is so useless. Sceptics should be outraged it's so pointless. It offends the intelligence of everyone and threatens the jobs of thousands. For nothing!” - Andrew Bolt
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
“What I see is a country bravely beating along to the agenda of some ideological people, in this case the socialist left of the ALP and the Greens, to take away what is a natural advantage. Most of the abatement is premised on the fact that we will buy permits from someone else. What happens at the end of the day, is that we are paying someone else to use our coal” - Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer - http://tinyurl.com/costello-carbon-tax
The Science is now settled on Global Warming .. http://tinyurl.com/3ufy3lq
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
“Cut the baby bonus after two children. The ferals are over-breeding and causing havoc in our society” - a school teacher
The Working with Children check is a joke! .. http://tinyurl.com/insane-vcat
Sylvia Else
> On 16-August-2011 2:57 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> On 16/08/2011 12:04 PM, Kelpie wrote:
>>> If go to a Bunnings store and tell them I've found the EXACT same
>>> item at
>>> another Bunnings branch, will they beat the price by 10%, as
>>> suggested in
>>> their price match policy?
>>>
>>> "If you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll beat
>>> it by
>>> 10%*
>>> *Excludes trade quotes, stock liquidations and commercial quantities.
>>> Shelf
>>> prices may be lower than advertised to ensure lowest prices every day."
>>>
>>
>> I dare say it's true. But what exactly does "beat it by 10%" mean?
>
> It's quite clear. It means they'll sell it to you for the competitors
> price less 10% of it. 'It' refers to the competitors price.
Sylvia.
felix_unger
Mitre10 price $100, Bunnings will sell to you for $90. Subject to the
proviso that it's an item that Bunnings stock, and the item is in stock.
Sylvia Else
price? The point is that in the absence of a clear statement as to what
the 10% is 10% of, the phrase is open to interpretation, which creates
the possibility that Bunnings will say "but what we meant was..."
Sylvia.
Stephen Oakes
>>> "LOW PRICES ARE JUST THE BEGINNING....OF THE LIES"
> bunnings.,...
The entry of another huge company into the hardware market is not good
news for anyone.
- soakes
felix_unger
competitors price.
> which creates the possibility that Bunnings will say "but what we
> meant was..."
>
> Sylvia.
felix_unger
>
> - soakes .. his feet in a tub?
Sekula
"felix_unger" wrote in message news:9d6lln...@mid.individual.net...
DavidW
> price? The point is that in the absence of a clear statement as to
> what the 10% is 10% of, the phrase is open to interpretation, which
> creates the possibility that Bunnings will say "but what we meant
> was..."
agree that the "it" is the competitor's price then the only reasonable
interpretation is that they will sell the item at a 10 per cent lower price than
"it". Bunnings's own listed price is not even mentioned in the stated formula.
Sylvia Else
that the 10% is of it.
It's very easy just to assume that one's preferred interpretation is the
one that will be applied. It's equally easy to get bitten thereby (been
there, done that).
If one considers the promotion to be part of a negotiation on price,
then it's important to ensure that one has identified all the hidden
assumptions, and made them explicit. In the promotion as expressed,
there is a hidden assumption being made that the 10% is of the
competitors price, even though that is not stated, and the 10% could be
of something else.
Sylvia.
felix_unger
>
> It's very easy just to assume that one's preferred interpretation is
> the one that will be applied. It's equally easy to get bitten thereby
> (been there, done that).
>
> If one considers the promotion to be part of a negotiation on price,
> then it's important to ensure that one has identified all the hidden
> assumptions, and made them explicit. In the promotion as expressed,
> there is a hidden assumption being made that the 10% is of the
> competitors price, even though that is not stated, and the 10% could
> be of something else.
which you agree is the competitors price. You're flogging a dead horse.
Just accept that your position is without merit and walk away.
Sylvia Else
>>
>> The 'it' clearly relates to the competitors price, but it is not clear
>> that the 10% is of it.
>
> It is clear, because the 10% is stated to be of 'it'.
"If you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll beat it
by 10%*
*Excludes trade quotes, stock liquidations and commercial quantities.
Shelf prices may be lower than advertised to ensure lowest prices every
day."
end, but the words are not there.
Sylvia.
Trevor
> news for anyone.
anyway. Lets see how Bunnings price match policy stacks up when they have to
beat Woolies by 10% :-)
Trevor.
Trevor
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:4e6e8fb6$0$26282$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
> you agree that the "it" is the competitor's price then the only reasonable
> interpretation is that they will sell the item at a 10 per cent lower
> price than "it". Bunnings's own listed price is not even mentioned in the
> stated formula.
10% if you prefer, but why would you want that?
Trevor.
felix_unger
obviously does, so the 10% cannot be anything other than 10% of the
competitors price. No inferring necessary.
Sylvia Else
> On 13-September-2011 12:57 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 13/09/2011 10:52 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> The 'it' clearly relates to the competitors price, but it is not clear
>>>> that the 10% is of it.
>>>
>>> It is clear, because the 10% is stated to be of 'it'.
>>
>> From the original posting:
>>
>> "If you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll beat it
>> by 10%*
>> *Excludes trade quotes, stock liquidations and commercial quantities.
>> Shelf prices may be lower than advertised to ensure lowest prices
>> every day."
>>
>> I can't see that it's stated. You're inferring "of that price" at the
>> end, but the words are not there.
>
> You already agreed that 'it' refers to the competitors price, which it
> obviously does, so the 10% cannot be anything other than 10% of the
> competitors price. No inferring necessary.
>
Sylvia.
felix_unger
Sylvia Else
> On 13-September-2011 9:52 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 13/09/2011 7:53 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>> On 13-September-2011 12:57 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 13/09/2011 10:52 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'it' clearly relates to the competitors price, but it is not
>>>>>> clear
>>>>>> that the 10% is of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is clear, because the 10% is stated to be of 'it'.
>>>>
>>>> From the original posting:
>>>>
>>>> "If you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll beat it
>>>> by 10%*
>>>> *Excludes trade quotes, stock liquidations and commercial quantities.
>>>> Shelf prices may be lower than advertised to ensure lowest prices
>>>> every day."
>>>>
>>>> I can't see that it's stated. You're inferring "of that price" at the
>>>> end, but the words are not there.
>>>
>>> You already agreed that 'it' refers to the competitors price, which it
>>> obviously does, so the 10% cannot be anything other than 10% of the
>>> competitors price. No inferring necessary.
>>>
>>
>> Why can it not be anything other than 10% of the competitor's price?
>
> How CAN it be anything else?? "We'll beat *it* by 10%"
>
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
to.
It could be "by 10% [of the difference]", or "by 10% [of our price]".
Sylvia.
felix_unger
> On 13/09/2011 10:16 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 13-September-2011 9:52 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 13/09/2011 7:53 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> On 13-September-2011 12:57 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 13/09/2011 10:52 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 'it' clearly relates to the competitors price, but it is not
>>>>>>> clear that the 10% is of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is clear, because the 10% is stated to be of 'it'.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the original posting:
>>>>>
>>>>> "If you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll
>>>>> beat it
>>>>> by 10%*
>>>>> *Excludes trade quotes, stock liquidations and commercial quantities.
>>>>> Shelf prices may be lower than advertised to ensure lowest prices
>>>>> every day."
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't see that it's stated. You're inferring "of that price" at the
>>>>> end, but the words are not there.
>>>>
>>>> You already agreed that 'it' refers to the competitors price, which it
>>>> obviously does, so the 10% cannot be anything other than 10% of the
>>>> competitors price. No inferring necessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why can it not be anything other than 10% of the competitor's price?
>>
>> How CAN it be anything else?? "We'll beat *it* by 10%"
>>
>>
>
of grammar.
> I'm focussing on what the 10% refers to.
>
> It could be "by 10% [of the difference]", or "by 10% [of our price]".
you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll beat [by 10%
of the difference (between our price and theirs)]. ?? Doesn't make
sense. (remember you can't use the word 'it' in your argument because
you are substituting for it). And the original statement doesn't make
any reference to 10% of difference between Bunning's and the competitors
price anyway. So you have created an entirely different claim. Same
applies if you say "If you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked
item we'll beat [by 10% of our price]. Now try it my way.. "If you
happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll beat [the cheaper
price] by 10%". Fits the original claim and makes sense. I don't see how
or why you can possibly claim that 'it' refers to anything other than
the competitors price, by any rules of logic, or grammar, or even common
sense.
DavidW
> On 13/09/2011 10:16 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 13-September-2011 9:52 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 13/09/2011 7:53 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> On 13-September-2011 12:57 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 13/09/2011 10:52 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 'it' clearly relates to the competitors price, but it is not
>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>> that the 10% is of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is clear, because the 10% is stated to be of 'it'.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the original posting:
>>>>>
>>>>> "If you happen to find a cheaper price on a stocked item we'll
>>>>> beat it by 10%*
>>>>> *Excludes trade quotes, stock liquidations and commercial
>>>>> quantities. Shelf prices may be lower than advertised to ensure
>>>>> lowest prices every day."
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't see that it's stated. You're inferring "of that price" at
>>>>> the end, but the words are not there.
>>>>
>>>> You already agreed that 'it' refers to the competitors price,
>>>> which it obviously does, so the 10% cannot be anything other than
>>>> 10% of the competitors price. No inferring necessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why can it not be anything other than 10% of the competitor's price?
>>
>> How CAN it be anything else?? "We'll beat *it* by 10%"
>>
>
> refers to.
>
> It could be "by 10% [of the difference]", or "by 10% [of our price]".
Then your interpretation relies on the sentence being incomplete and
ungrammatical. If you accept the sentence as written (and there's no evidence to
suggest we should not), then the only reasonable interpretation is that "by 10
per cent" refers to "it" (the competitor's price).
Sylvia Else
version that said
"We'll beat it by 10%*
*The price we offer will be the competitors price minus 10% of the
difference between their price and our price."
That is, that the basic offer was qualified by small print. The fact
that that even makes sense depends on the basic offer being somewhat
vague. Compare with a more precisely stated basic offer
"We'll beat it by 10% of that price*
*The price we offer will be the competitors price minus 10% of the
difference between their price and our price."
In that case it would make no sense, because the purported qualification
would actually be contradicting the basic offer.
Sylvia.
Brad
felix_unger
> 55 posts on the subject and you guys aren't bored with circular arguments yet.
I am. I've given up. If she can't (or doesn't want to) see it by now she
never will.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
"Dumping the Gillard/Brown Government is the 'greatest moral imperative of our time'"
�Twelve months ago, Julia Gillard told us, ad nauseum, that she was 'moving forward.' Today she tells us 'she's not going anywhere'. Aint that the truth!�
"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
�Julia Gillard's carbon dioxide tax is the most brazen fraud to be perpetrated by an Australian government. Warming believers should be outraged that the tax is so useless. Sceptics should be outraged it's so pointless. It offends the intelligence of everyone and threatens the jobs of thousands. For nothing!� - Andrew Bolt
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
�What I see is a country bravely beating along to the agenda of some ideological people, in this case the socialist left of the ALP and the Greens, to take away what is a natural advantage. Most of the abatement is premised on the fact that we will buy permits from someone else. What happens at the end of the day, is that we are paying someone else to use our coal� - Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer - http://tinyurl.com/costello-carbon-tax
The Science is now settled on Global Warming .. http://tinyurl.com/3ufy3lq
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
�Cut the baby bonus after two children. The ferals are over-breeding and causing havoc in our society� - a school teacher
DavidW
Isn't that _the_ version? If it means what I'm saying it means, then that's a
perfectly acceptable complete sentence accurately describing the offer. If I
were in the Bunnings marketing department and I was asked to express in a clear
and accurate way what the offer is (clear and accurate because by my
interpretation Bunnings wouldn't want the public misled because the actual offer
is so attractive), then I would be very pleased to come up with "...we'll beat
it by ten per cent." It's true, it's a complete sentence, has perfect grammar,
is simple, and says exactly what I want it to say.
> *The price we offer will be the competitors price minus 10% of the
> difference between their price and our price."
>
> That is, that the basic offer was qualified by small print. The fact
> that that even makes sense depends on the basic offer being somewhat
> vague. Compare with a more precisely stated basic offer
>
> "We'll beat it by 10% of that price*
What price? You can't say "that" price without first saying what "that" means.
You seem to be using the asterisk in a way that I haven't seen before. It's
usually placed on a single word that is defined in detail elsewhere. I've never
seen it used to explain a sentence containing a pronoun ('it' or 'that') where
it's not already clear what the noun it refers to is. If you only have the
asterisk on 'price', you still have a problem with the dangling 'that'.
> *The price we offer will be the competitors price minus 10% of the
> difference between their price and our price."
>
> In that case it would make no sense, because the purported
> qualification would actually be contradicting the basic offer.
Maybe I didn't follow that properly.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> 55 posts on the subject and you guys aren't bored with circular arguments yet.
WELCOME TO USENET, NEWBIE!!!
It ain't over until Someone engages caps-lock and utters the magic
words: nazi or autistic.
Stephen Oakes
> "Stephen Oakes"<soa...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:W6udnVqPybpeffDT...@westnet.com.au...
>> The entry of another huge company into the hardware market is not good
>> news for anyone.
>
> Of course it is, the more competition the better.
It is a further nail in the coffin of small businesses. Once they are
*all* gone, prices will rise again (assuming they have actually dropped
which I don't believe).
- soakes
Brad
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> Newbie? Shit, Wolf, I've been online since 1978!
Newbie.
Trevor
>>> news for anyone.
>>
>> Of course it is, the more competition the better.
>
> ...for big business.
the supermarket business that made Coles and Woolies drop their prices.
(ALDI is NOT a small business!) IGA have never been competitive, or given
Coles and Woolies much to worry about. If IGA was gone tomorrow I'm sure a
few people would be unhappy, but it wouldn't affect most supermarket
shoppers. However if ALDI diasappeared, I'd bet the end of Coles prices
"staying down" would be swift indeed. And Woolies would follow suit in an
instant! Now if ALDI *AND* Woolies (or Coles) disappeared overnight, prices
would rise so far and fast that some people might starve.
> It is a further nail in the coffin of small businesses. Once they are
> *all* gone, prices will rise again
>(assuming they have actually dropped which I don't believe).
viable, if it ever was?
Trevor.
annily
> "Stephen Oakes"<soa...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:5Pmdnaiuo9eX8u3T...@westnet.com.au...
>>>> The entry of another huge company into the hardware market is not good
>>>> news for anyone.
>>>
>>> Of course it is, the more competition the better.
>>
>> ...for big business.
>
> And consumers. I'll give you an example, it was the introduction of ALDI in
> the supermarket business that made Coles and Woolies drop their prices.
> (ALDI is NOT a small business!) IGA have never been competitive, or given
> Coles and Woolies much to worry about. If IGA was gone tomorrow I'm sure a
> few people would be unhappy, but it wouldn't affect most supermarket
> shoppers. However if ALDI diasappeared, I'd bet the end of Coles prices
> "staying down" would be swift indeed.
"down and staying down" claim here.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which probably influences my opinions.
Trevor
"annily" <ann...@annily.invalid> wrote in message
news:4e71e36e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "down and staying down" claim here.
with. It is NO coincidence that Coles dropped their home brand bread prices
by 50% to compete with Aldi, and many other items by large amounts as well.
They are still far more expensive than Aldi for lots of items however, you
won't see them advertise those :-)
I'm sure consumers will be no worse off with more competition in the
Hardware sector as well.
Trevor.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> Hardware sector as well.
>
> Trevor.
the new 'hardware' competitor.
Trevor
"Wolfgang Wildeblood" <wolfgangw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:99ee072e-e9ad-4fd7...@hb5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> the new 'hardware' competitor.
Trevor.
Brad
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> "Wolfgang Wildeblood" <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:99ee072e-e9ad-4fd7...@hb5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I think Harvey Norman have more to worry about than Bunnings do from
> > the new 'hardware' competitor.
>
> Really, are they going to sell furniture and TV's?
>
> Trevor.
Brad
Stephen Oakes
> In which case where's the problem, why wouldn't small business still be
> viable, if it ever was?
or service, what about diversity of product, what about reputable
employment issues such as training, local employment, education, social
issues, product-miles, etc?
All of these things cheapen our society when (modern) big business takes
a stranglehold.
- soakes
Trevor
or won't be unviable if there is more competition, What I said is that the
consumer will NOT be worse off just because they have a choice.
>What about quality or service, what about diversity of product, what about
>reputable employment issues such as training, local employment, education,
>social issues, product-miles, etc?
>
> All of these things cheapen our society when (modern) big business takes a
> stranglehold.
necessary, and also thnk nobody wants them since you assume they will
happily take their business elsewhere? What is wrong with the customer
choosing for him/herself? (even assuming there was a difference between big
and small stores in that regard)
But a new hardware chain will *increase* local employment anyway, and no
hardware shops I know of require staff with higher education, so they look
like straw men to me.
Big(ger) business is just a natural consequence of a bigger population. Now
if you argued we don't need that, I'd be totally in agreement!
Trevor.
F Murtz
> On 10/09/11 11:25 AM, David Zyk wrote:
>>>> "LOW PRICES ARE JUST THE BEGINNING....OF THE LIES"
>
>> And, new Master Hardware Store [Woolies clone] shits all over
>> bunnings.,...
> The entry of another huge company into the hardware market is not good
> news for anyone.
>
I hope they send bunnings broke. I hate bunnings with a vengence.
When westfarmers took over they cancelled all account holders with less
than $500 per month spend,I have not been there since (except once when
someone gave me a $50 voucher.)