REBRANDING
Morrisons is going to rebrand itself, with a new
logo, new staff uniforms and a replacement for
its slogan "more reasons to shop at
Morrisons". The supermarket is to
"de-clutter" its stores and market
itself as "the food specialist for
everyone".
The company is the UK's fourth largest
supermarket chain and now has 11% of the grocery
market following its purchase of rival Safeway in
March 2004. As part of its revamp, the
supermarket is also aiming to introduce more
healthy and fresh foods.
The company is also in talks to create a property
partnership for 25 of its stores as a first step
to extracting more value from its portfolio of
freehold properties. (Source: BBC News, Mar/07) |
TROLLEY
SPIES
Supermarket trolleys could soon be
fitted with transmitters to track the habits of
shoppers. They will monitor how long customers
spend in each area, the products they buy and the
time spent waiting at the checkout. The
information will be stored on a giant database to
enable retail chiefs to build up the biggest-ever
picture of our weekly buying habits.
They insist the information will be used to boost
efficiency and improve the layout of stores but
civil liberty campaigners claim the surveillance
system gives supermarket's a dangerous tool that
could be used to invade people's privacy and
track their movements.
Doug Jewell of Liberty said, "We're moving
into Big Brother land here. If they are
monitoring shopping patterns it is all right. But
if they link this information to individual
shoppers, it's very scary." The transmitter
is smaller than a 10p piece and gives off a radio
signal which is picked up by scanners placed at
different locations around the store.
Tesco spokesman Greg Sage insisted the system was
not intended to monitor individual shoppers and
said, "The purpose is to look at how we can
improve the layout of stores and whether we
should give more space to certain products."
(Source: Sunday Mirror) |
|
|
SUPERMARKETS
Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Supermarket
"three-for-two" and kilo discount offers can
save shoppers only a few pence, according to a survey by
consumer magazine Which? They are designed to tempt
people into buying more than they want and in some cases
the deals actually cost MORE than buying items
individually. One Asda deal offering "three for
99p" pasta shapes saved just 3p and a similar
Sainsbury promotion for one-litre bottles of tonic and
soda water saved only 6p. An Asda promotion for three
two-litre bottles of soft drink was 18p dearer than
buying the bottles individually. Granny Smith's apples at
Asda were 96p in 1kg bags while the loose version were
£1.07 a kg. Tesco's "save £1 per kilo" on
pre-packed broccoli worked out at £2.99 per kg but loose
broccoli, without a discount, was just £1.58 per kg.
Even buying bigger packs and more bottles, believing they
represent good value, can cost punters extra. A 200g jar
of Tesco's Classic coffee cost £2.20 but two 100g jars
of the same product cost 88p each, a total of £1.76.
Another ploy is to inflate the price of certain products
for 30 days then cut them, giving the impression of a
great bargain. Tesco doubled the price of a 24-pack of
beer for a month then halved it, announcing a huge
saving. In the past 17 years, the real price of food has
gone down, staying well below the rate of inflation, yet
we spend 25% more on groceries. Tesco spokesman John
Church said, "The key thing is transparency. We
don't pretend promotions go on for ever or that prices
don't ever go up, they do." Doesn't really answer
the question though does it? He should be a politician.
Every major supermarket spends millions of
pounds a day making sure their warehouse-sized stores are
brimming with products ranging from Kenyan mangetout to
Scottish potatoes. But the true costs of producing and
transporting food to and from the supermarket shelf are
far greater than any checkout receipt suggests. A study
that tries for the first time to calculate the real size
of our food bill has found we are indirectly spending
billions of pounds a year extra on food without realising
it. Government statistics show each person in Britain
spends an average of £24.79 a week on food. But if the
hidden costs of transport and the impact on the
environment were included, this bill would rise by 12%,
the study found.
Professor Jules Pretty, of Essex University, and
Professor Tim Lang, of City University, in London, said
another way of looking at the problem was to assess the
national savings that could be made if everything was
done differently. They reckoned more than £4bn a year
could be saved if farmers grew organically, farming
subsidies were abolished and if consumers shopped for
local produce, preferably on their bikes. The issue
centres on the concept of "food miles" which
refers to the distance travelled by produce from farm to
fork. The scientists tried to assess the added expense of
bringing food from around the UK and the wider world to
the typical British dinner table. By analysing
foodstuffs, farming methods and transport policies,
professors Pretty and Lang found that if all of our food
came from within 12.4 miles of where we live we could
save £2.1bn a year in environmental and congestion
costs.
They also found that if shopping by car was replaced by
bus, bicycle or walking, these savings would amount to a
further £1.1bn. And if all farms in Britain were to
follow organic principles, the costs to the environment
would fall from £1.5bn a year to less than £400m, a
further saving of £1.1bn. "Food miles are more
important than we thought and buying local is more
important than buying green," Professor Pretty said
at the Science Media Centre in London. "It's better
to buy a local lettuce than an organic one from the other
side of Europe." The study, in the journal Food
Policy, found 28% of all freight on the roads of Britain
is agricultural produce. Not only is more food being
transported by road, up by 23% in 20 years, but it is
being carried 65% further than it was in the 1980s. In
effect, Professor Pretty said, Britons are paying three
times for their food: once at the supermarket till, twice
in costs to the environment and the third time in farming
subsidies.
The study found the "air mile" costs of
importing food from abroad were trivial compared with the
huge costs of transporting home-produced food around the
country. "The most political act we do on a daily
basis is to eat, because our actions affect farms,
landscapes and food businesses," Professor Pretty
said. "Food miles are much more significant than we
thought, and much needs to be done to encourage local
production and consumption of food." Professor Lang
said he invented the concept of food miles 15 years ago
to articulate the problem of hidden costs of agricultural
production. "How far food travels is becoming more
important for policy makers and consumers alike," he
said. "For example, fruits and vegetables travelling
long-distance or short-distance may deliver similar
nutrition or look the same, but environmentally they are
poles apart."
One way to tackle the problem would be to force
supermarkets to label food with the distance it has
travelled. "Supermarkets should put food miles on
products," Professor Lang added. "They have
invested billions in a hyper-efficient, just-in-time
system of food distribution, and actually, it's just
cuckoo. This is an area where consumers are suffering
from an information deficit."
Environmental cost of farming - £1.1bn a year:
If all farms were organic it would save £1.1bn a year.
Removing pesticides from water supplies, for example,
adds £250m a year to water bills. Other costs range from
pollution to losses in soil and biodiversity, and costs
in human and animal health, such as BSE and antibiotic
resistance. Hidden costs of £1.5bn a year could be cut
to £385m.
Environmental cost of food transport - £2.1bn a
year:
28% of road freight is food or produce; 1.6 billion tons
are carried 149 billion ton-kilometres. 23% more food
than 20 years ago is on the roads and it is travelling
65% further. Each person makes, on average, 221 shopping
trips per year with an average length of 6.4km, up from
4km in 1985. £2.1bn could be saved if all food was
locally sourced.
Hidden farming subsidy costs - up to £1bn:
The average annual cost of agricultural subsidies paid by
the UK taxpayer was £3.1bn with an extra £2bn in
2001-04 for the foot-and-mouth epidemic. Until 2004,
agricultural subsidies mostly supported production that
caused adverse environmental impacts. Some subsidies can
improve the environment but without them, subsidies still
total £2.9bn a year.
|
|
|