relationship with customers

Supermarkets on defensive over food prices

Body:

Waikato supermarket owners are "blown away" by figures showing a 42.5 per cent rise in food prices since 2000.

The news has prompted Labour consumer spokeswoman Carol Beaumont to call for the Government to encourage more competition in the supermarket sector.

New Zealand grocery prices have risen 42.5 per cent between 2000 and 2009, followed by Australia which pays 41.3 per cent more, Britain's prices rose 32.9 per cent and America's were up 28.4 per cent, according to a study out yesterday.

Pak `n Save Mill St owner Glenn Miller said he was trying to obtain a grocery bill from nine years ago as he and his staff doubted the cost of many grocery items had risen to that extent.

He said a can of spaghetti cost 90c in 2000 and now customers would pay $1.09 for the same can. "At Pak n Save the margin we enjoy is lower than many other countries in the world and we think we are still very competitive given manufacturing cost and we try and keep our overheads down," said Mr Miller, who believes Pak `n Save is extremely competitive.

Vege King owner Swaran Singh said prices at his Fairfield fruit and vegetable shop would have risen by up to 10 per cent at the most. In some cases prices had not changed. He said the price tag on asparagus had stayed at $3.99 since 2000.

Progressive Enterprises, which owns Countdown, Woolworths and Foodtown, blamed international events such as drought as the main drivers of food inflation. Progressive spokesman Bill Moore said the group was consistently striving to offer the best prices and its profitability had remained at between 3 and 4 per cent since Australian-owned Woolworths Limited purchased Progressive four years ago. The group said there was plenty of competition between supermarkets, delis, butchers, green grocers and bakeries.

But Ms Beaumont has questioned why New Zealand is not following the example of Australia's Competition Minister, Craig Emerson, whose government was taking "hard measures" and lowering the barriers to other retailers competing with Coles and Woolworths on that side of the Tasman.

She was critical of Consumer Affairs Minister Heather Roy's suggestion that New Zealanders "shop around" to combat some of the fastest-rising food prices in the developed world, saying it had attracted widespread criticism. It was "poor advice" to families struggling with soaring food bills, Ms Beaumont said.

Public comments on news websites and on talkback radio produced a stream of consumers critical of grocery pricing, with many calling for overseas chains such as Aldi and Costco to compete against New Zealand's Foodstuffs (which owns Pak `n Save and New World) and Progressive Enterprises.

Hamish Wilson, of Consumer New Zealand, said there had been some attempts by other companies, such as The Warehouse, to break into the supermarket sector "but it's pretty difficult". The controversy arose in the wake of the Australian study which says the price of food in New Zealand has risen faster than in any other OECD country other than Korea.

- With NZPA

Why Foodstuffs is winning the battle with Woolworths

Body:

New Zealand businesses often have a tough time competing against larger Australian rivals.

Our corporate history is littered with failed New Zealand attempts to break into the Australian market, while large Australian companies have done well here, often buying and running dominant companies in New Zealand and increasing their profits.

The Warehouse, Telecom and Air New Zealand are the most recent examples of our corporate failures across the Tasman. Only Michael Hill comes to mind as a success.

Australian-owned media companies Fairfax (the owner of Stuff, TradeMe and the former INL chain of newspapers), APN (New Zealand Herald) and the banks (ASB, ANZ, BNZ, Westpac and National) have all done extraordinarily well since buying into New Zealand, particularly over the last five years as they profited from dominant positions in a relatively fast-growing economy.

So most assumed that when Woolworths bought the Progressive supermarket operation in 2005 it would monster the apparently outdated cooperative structure of New Zealand’s Foodstuffs operation.

There was plenty of swagger in Woolworths’ early approach in New Zealand. It flexed its muscles as a massive purchaser to drive down prices and margins for suppliers in new “Trans-Tasman” bulk purchasing arrangements. This made a lot of local suppliers very grumpy and lost it an enormous amount of goodwill with the supplier community. New Zealand is still a small place and many have not forgotten these tough negotiating tactics.

Then in August and September of 2006 Woolworths locked out workers at its Palmerston North distribution centre for almost a month to show them who was boss after they went on strike for fairer and higher pay. After a couple of weeks, gaps began to appear on shelves. Customers joined the queue of grumpy parties, alongside workers and suppliers. Eventually Woolworths settled, but the damage to its reputation was significant with customers used to well-stocked shelves.

This early robust approach may well have worked in Australia, but it just got a lot of people’s backs up here. There is definitely a difference in business cultures between New Zealand and Australia. New Zealand managers tend to be more consensual and less confrontational than those in Australia. They don’t like criticising rivals and tend to be much more careful before deciding to “burn” a supplier or rival or union.

Australian business leaders tend to be more brash, more willing to criticise rivals and debate issues publicly. Their approach is much more about a good stoush and a beer afterwards. Here we’re a little more reticent. There’s something about our national character which is more conservative and unwilling to confront rivals. We try to avoid open confrontation if we can. That means we can sometimes get monstered in negotiations.

This, of course, is a crass generalisation, but many New Zealanders would recognise it. I worked in Australia as a business journalist for five years and found it a much easier place to report business issues because leaders there are more direct and uncompromising, although ultimately had a more outward-looking and more optimistic view of the future. I admire it, but I know it’s different.

Toll Holdings is still patting itself on the back for the amazingly high price it managed to extract from a vote-hungry Labour-led government after years of arm twisting. People I talk to in Australia still can’t believe our government rolled over for this price. They just chuckle and count the money.

So the failure of Woolworths to win the battle with Foodstuffs is unusual. We like to beat the Australians in any battle and this win is particularly sweet.

Woolworths expected to “turn around” the business it bought for NZ$2.5 billion within three years by bringing in the Woolworths Australia model of using massive purchasing power and highly centralised distribution systems to pass on lower costs to customers while increasing margins.

Yet the three years is nearly up and the business, which includes the Foodtown, Countdown and Woolworths chains, is seeing its sales growth and profit margins dropping.

Figures from JP Morgan analyst Shaun Cousins show that Woolworths’ market share has dropped to 43% from 45% in New Zealand, while Foodstuffs’ share has risen to 57% in the last couple of years.

Woolworths’ results for the financial year released on Tuesday lay bare the scale of the failure in New Zealand.

Woolworths’ profit margin (earnings before interest and tax to sales) in New Zealand actually fell 4 basis points to 4.19% and its overall profit growth was up only 6.4%. This compared with 18.8% profit growth and a 5.52% profit margin in the Australian supermarkets.

So Woolworths is a full 133 basis points less profitable in New Zealand than in Australia. That may not sound a lot but for a tight-margin, high-volume business like groceries this is a big deal. Comparable sales growth (after taking into account the different number of weeks in the financial years) fell to 3.5% in the fourth quarter of the 2008 financial year from 9.9% in the first quarter.

This is shockingly weak when overall supermarket and grocery sales reported by Statistics New Zealand rose 5.3% in the June quarter from the same quarter a year ago. Woolworths itself said food price inflation ran at 4.6% for the year so a 3.5% rise actually implies a fall in volumes.

Foodstuffs, which owns the Pak’nSave, New World and Four Square chains, is winning the battle.

So what went wrong for Woolworths and right for Foodstuffs?

Woolworths’ robust approach to heavying suppliers and workers was not popular, but the problems run deeper. Woolworths believed it could make significant gains by imposing a centralised distribution system on Progressive and introduced big “Homebrand” ranges that are made under contract for Woolworths. It is also rolling out its own Select, Naytura, Organics and Freefrom brands for various specialist foods.

This sounds like a good idea, but other suppliers get nervous when the supermarket chain starts stocking and promoting its own brands in precious shelf space at the expense of real brands. Suppliers also seem to prefer Foodstuffs’ decentralised approach in New Zealand where the supermarket is itself the warehouse (stack ‘em high and sell ‘em cheap).

It’s easier to take the supplies direct from the factory to the supermarket than to some intermediate depot. Suppliers also like dealing direct with supermarket managers rather than with warehouse managers. It means they’re one step closer to the customer.

The latest clash between New Zealand suppliers and Woolworths was revealed last month by The Independent. Woolworths wanted to penalise suppliers who were selling goods on discount through Foodstuffs at the same time as through Woolworths. It’s no surprise suppliers don’t love Woolworths.

There’s also something more fundamental going on. Foodstuffs is essentially a collection of owner-operated supermarkets who share purchasing and marketing costs, but are often fiercely independent and “local” in their approach.

That means the individual supermarket owners are intensely motivated to run good supermarkets because they keep the profits and tend to guess right what the population around their supermarkets wants to buy.

The corporatised Woolworths model has lots of employees but not many owners.

The final (and probably key) factor is Foodstuffs’ dominance in the discount grocery area. Pak’nSave has become The Warehouse and TradeMe of the grocery world all wrapped into one. It is cheap and cheerful with great ranges.

That’s what New Zealanders want right now. We are feeling the pain from higher food and fuel prices and want to find a bargain whenever we can. Pak’n'Save is simply bigger and better at it than Woolworth’s Countdown brand, as can be seen in this report from The Press.

Woolworths is trying to turn this around by converting some of its Foodtown stores to Countdown stores (Greenlane in Auckland is one that comes to mind) and rejigging its ranges to take them down market.

I think of my own family’s buying habits in recent months. We have a great collection of Pak’nSaves around us in Auckland and quite a few Foodtowns. When we need something unusual such as gluten- and dairy-free stuff we go to Foodtown, but it’s less often than it used to be. The strike/lockout in 2006 and the shortages it caused were the trigger point for us to start looking elsewhere. A visit to a supermarket is useless if you can’t get everything in one visit.

We’re now doing our big shops now at Pak’n'Save. We reckon we can save up to $100 a week.

Kiwis love a bargain and right now we seem to love the Kiwi grocery chain a bit more than the Aussie one.

Investors spooked by Brambles' Wal-Mart worries

Body:

Investors have begun bailing out of Brambles Ltd after it announced a major US customer, Wal-Mart, was reviewing its pallet arrangements with the logistics firm.  Brambles shares had slumped 14.56 per cent to $A8.57 ($NZ10.28) amid uncertainty over the financial impact of the announcement.

Brambles said Wal-Mart was changing its handling of pallets, including its arrangements with Brambles' pallet and container business CHEP, and other pallet pooling companies.  But the Australian logistics company did not give details of whether the decision would have any financial impact.

CHEP is owned by Brambles and currently manages the picking up and sorting of pallets, used to move goods, at many Wal-Mart facilities in the US.  Shaw Stockbroking analyst Brent Mitchell said it was difficult to quantify the revenue and profit at risk through CHEP's Wal-Mart contracts.  "That information is not available, so it's a bit hard to put figures on it," Mr Mitchell said.  He speculated that Wal-Mart contributed no more than 5 per cent to CHEP's US profit.  "It doesn't appear that all the businesses are at risk. You'd have to expect the Wal-Mart business to be at the low end in terms of the margin range."

Nevertheless, investors were responding to the uncertainty of how the announcement might affect Brambles outlook.  "The uncertainty that it has created has caused that reaction," Mr Mitchell said.

Brambles said Wal-Mart had indicated it may contract directly with third party pallet management service providers to retrieve and sort pallets at its own facilities in the US, or provide the services itself.  The company said it was working with Wal-Mart to identify ways in which CHEP could continue to supply low-cost services to Wal-Mart and its supply chain.  "Brambles and CHEP strongly value the relationship with Wal-Mart and will continue to work with Wal-Mart to develop the optimal supply chain solution for this important customer," it said in a statement.

Brambles was bullish in its outlook at its first half results in February, with plans to expand CHEP into India.  The company booked a first half net profit from continuing operations of $US296.7 million, which was up 10 per cent, or 3 per cent in constant currency terms.

CHEP sales increased 12 per cent to $US1.75 billion in the half year, led higher by CHEP Americas, where sales rose 11 per cent on strong demand for grocery products.

New World is a super market

Body:

New World has been given the thumbs-up in the latest supermarket satisfaction survey, while Pak'n Save failed to impress shoppers.

The results of the survey appear in the latest edition of Consumer Magazine. Nearly 8000 respondents gave ratings on the range of goods, queuing times, customer service, store presentation, layout, and their overall shopping experience.

Pak'n Save, which tops the magazine's lowest-price surveys nationwide, rated below average in all four categories - product range, queuing times, helpful staff and shopping environment.  And for overall shopping experience, Pak'n Save shared the lowest ranking with Foodtown.

The main complaint with Pak'n Save was the limited range of sizes and brands. But the article's author, Bev Frederikson, says it's this limited range that allows the supermarket to order larger quantities of products and cut better deals with suppliers than their competitors.Pak'n Save's policy of not providing free plastic bags was commended.

At the other end of the scale, New World rated above average in all four categories. "Clean, efficient, high turnover of goods resulting in excellent quality, most helpful, co-operative staff, excellent layout."  Of the main supermarkets, New World topped the list for overall shopping experience with 87 per cent of respondents rating their experience as "good" or "very good".

Four Square was slightly ahead at the number one spot, but only had a very small number of respondents.

Pak'n Save shared the lowest overall shopping experience ranking with Foodtown with 73 per cent of respondents rating their experience as "good" or "very good".  The article noted that respondents felt that Countdown, which competes on price with Pak'n Save, carried a wider product range. But along with Foodtown and Woolworths, it fell down on queuing times.

Foodstuffs NZ managing director Tony Carter told the Herald yesterday that the results were what he expected.  "Obviously Pak'n Save gets marked down because it does have a limited range, but we make no apologies for that because that allows them to deliver the lowest prices."

WHO'S WHO?

Progressive Enterprises
Foodtown, Woolworths, Countdown, Fresh Choice, SuperValue.

Foodstuffs
New World, Pak'n Save, Four Square.

Supermarket ratings (main supermarkets only):

COUNTDOWN
Product Range, Shopping Environment: average

Queuing Times, Helpful Staff: worse than average

FOODTOWN
Product Range, Shopping Environment: average

Queuing Times, Helpful Staff: worse than average

NEW WORLD
Product Range, Queuing Times, Helpful Staff, Shopping Environment: better than average

PAK'N SAVE
Product Range, Queuing Times, Helpful Staff, Shopping Environment: worse than average

WOOLWORTHS
Product Range, Helpful Staff, Shopping Environment: average

Queuing Times: worse than average

Overall Shopping Satisfaction (ranking):
1 - Four Square
2 - New World
3 - SuperValue
4 - Fresh Choice
5 - Woolworths
6 - Countdown
7 - Foodtown/Pak'n Save

Warehouse pays hush money to parents

Body:

Retail giant The Warehouse has made a secret payment to a child badly burnt when his pyjamas caught fire. The Dominion Post has learnt The Warehouse has set up a fund for the victim, who was injured when his pyjamas - bought from one of its stores - was set alight by a heater.

But the money, to be paid into a trust fund for the child, came with a gagging clause - forbidding the family from confirming the payment or discussing the fire. The family was "paid to shut up", the source said. The family risked facing legal action if they failed to adhere to The Warehouse's conditions. The Consumers Institute says the claims are disturbing and any agreement to silence the family is "poor form" by the company.

The Warehouse is refusing to confirm or deny the payout, with spokeswoman Cynthia Church saying setting up a trust fund would be a highly unusual approach by the company. "Any agreement would be confidential," she said. "Therefore I cannot disclose any information at all as to the nature or even the existence of an agreement."

Since 2004 at least four children, aged between three and 10, sitting in front of heaters have been burnt when their pyjamas caught fire. The victims included four-year-old Corwin Bridge who died from burns in July. The same month, Waikato three-year-old Jack Livingstone suffered burns to 15 per cent of his body and needed skin grafts to repair his shoulder and arm. Several parents say the low-fire-danger tag on the clothing is misleading and labels need to be more specific.

Consumers Institute chief executive Sue Chetwin said any deal binding a victim's family to silence was most disturbing. Any sort of agreement setting up a fund for a burns victim should be done on the basis that that was why it was being done, not because the store did not want them talking, she said. The Consumer Affairs Ministry conducted two separate inquiries, in 2004 and 2007, after the fire incidents. At least three involved pyjamas bought at The Warehouse. Both inquiries were investigated by the Commerce Commission, which ruled that the nightwear complied with product safety standards.

The ministry, which sets the standards for product safety, is reviewing the results and whether or not regulations relating to the labelling of children's nightwear need to be changed. The ministry hopes to report to minister Judith Tizard with recommendations by March.

The pyjamas were pulled from the shelves during this year's investigation but were back on sale shortly after the commission cleared them. The Warehouse has confirmed they will be sold again next winter but the company will put labels on all children's pyjamas saying: Stay a metre from the heater from next March.

Ms Church agrees with parents that having low-fire-danger on labels gives parents a false sense of security. "They read low-fire-danger and they believe it means the pyjamas can't catch fire."