In the last issue of Consumer News we showed, in an article detailing the
research carried out by two of our Corporate Associates, that rip-off Britain is
not quite the scandal that had been reported. Since then the climate of opinion
has changed as people begin to realise that the whole of Europe is at a price
disadvantage compared to the USA (and even that comparison is not
straightforward) but that, between individual countries in the EU, there are
swings and roundabouts which even up the comparisons.
The Department of Trade and Industry investigation into prices internationally found that only eight of the one hundred items examined were more expensive in the UK than abroad. Mind you, questions could be asked about the items selected. Perhaps they were chosen to show a good comparison. Now the Competition Commission, having found "at most only limited evidence of excessive profits" has announced that its investigation into the Supermarket business is to focus on the issue of local monopolies. Is this a case of not being able to catch them one way so concentrating on another, more easily identifiable, competition issue? For consumers it is possibly a situation which we are more pleased to see investigated, though the Editor's experience is that, with three major super markets within walking distance of his house and - another five minutes away in the car (and none of them Tesco), overkill is more of a problem than monopoly. As with the abundant DIY stores, one wonders whether they will all survive? Opinion seems to be that they will, but at a cost to local small scale suppliers.
Part of the Competition Commission announcement detailed the powers it has to force supermarkets to sell stores to rivals if it finds they have too much of a monopoly situation in a particular town or city. They have three particular areas of concern, local concentration of power, pricing and relations with suppliers. Among the steps they can take is establishing a voluntary code of conduct for dealing with suppliers. As you can imagine, this was welcomed by the National Farmers' Union. Another is setting up a nationwide list of grocery price comparisons, available on the Internet.
When Wal*Mart took control of Asda there was speculation. (hope perhaps?) of a supermarket price war. But has it happened? A newspaper article gave details of a stockbroker report undertaken by Dresdner Kleinwort Benson, and written by Fraser Nelson, into a supermarket shopping situation in Cambridge, Peterborough and Huddersfield. Cambridge is surrounded by six Tesco stores and two Sainsbury's. Huddersfield and Peterborough are less affluent but have a number of supermarkets battling for business.
The report gave details of a 'shopping basket' exercise where 120 common products were priced in supermarkets in the three cities. The Sainsbury basket came to £199 in all three. Prices in Tesco stores varied only very slightly (£197 in Huddersfield and £196 in Cambridge and Peterborough) but at Asda in both Peterborough and Huddersfield the basket came to £178 (no Asda in Cambridge). It would be interesting to know what was in the shopping baskets. Were they full of goods that are relevant to what people really buy on a regular basis?
So, has the war started? Perhaps the above is evidence of a small skirmish. The report raised the question of whether the Competition Commission should argue that a lack of a low price competitor in a local monopoly or a duopoly, as in Cambridge, is against the public interest. What is missing from this study is the influence of other low price operators. Also there is the convenience factor. If you have supermarkets close by which will be a little bit more expensive, is a saving of £,21 in a basket costing £199 enough of an incentive to get the car out and drive three or four miles to the cheaper one? It probably is, particularly when you consider that if your shopping is going to come to nearly £200 for common, non luxury items, a car is necessary to get it home, wherever you shop.
The editor's shopping basket usually contains the necessities of life, bread, cheese, milk, cat food and a couple of bottles of wine.
Anyone with a cat knows how difficult it is to get anything done using a
computer keyboard without 'help' from the furry friend. The Editor's example,
after being ejected from the keyboard, displays his enduring affection by
gripping the editorial thigh with long sharp claws and kneading away
enthusiastically. This is not good for the concentration and may explain the
occasional garbled sentence.
A suggestion in the Los Angeles Times on May 4th, courtesy of Margaret Williams, NfCG's far reaching Development Officer, therefore caught his attention. This was to let the cat view the special cats' only web site - www.meowmail.com. where technocrats can view digital toys, including a parrot which calls "here, kitty, kitty" (how degrading) and a realistic mouse which scurries round the screen. The article even suggests that cats should have e-mail addresses but that seems to be going a bit far, even for Los Angeles.
A San Francisco-based animal rights group is campaigning to ban the word 'owner' in relation to pets. It suggests 'guardian' instead. This is obviously nonsense. One has only to watch a worried cat 'guardian' locked in uncertainty at the cat-food shelves in any supermarket to know that guardian is the wrong word; 'personal servant' seems more appropriate.
back to menu
Click Logo to Return to
Main Magazine Index