The little-known Woolworths trick that means you'll never waste time searching for items again
Rather than wasting time walking up and down aisles, shoppers can now find what they need with the press of a button using the 'wayfinding' feature.
Daily Mail understands the in-store app feature launched in October last year and is enabled in 300 stores across New South Wales.
But customers are only just discovering the handy shopping hack for themselves.
Using the Woolworths app, simply tap the 'in store' option at the top then search for the desired product.
Then, the aisle number will be disclosed beneath the product picture.
Taking things a step further, Woolworths now provides a map of the store and acts like an inbuilt GPS navigation system.
Previously customers used the aisle directory to find products, which can be found at the end of each and every aisle in Woolworths.
Rather than wasting time walking up and down aisles, shoppers can now find what they need with the press of a button using the 'wayfinding' feature
The laminated A4 sheet reveals exactly which aisle you can locate various products throughout the store, from water to bread and milk.
However, the directory can be limiting as it doesn't include every product.
A Woolworths spokesperson told Daily Mail: 'Over one million Woolworths customers now rely on the Woolworths app as an essential part of their shopping routine as they use it to find value in our weekly specials, plan meals with our recipes, and manage their shop both online and in our aisles.
'Once users have set their preferred store in the app through 'store mode', customers can access their local store floor plan to easily navigate through to find their favourite products quicker and in a more convenient way.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Dump it, or we'll dump you': secretive consultancy group sends Liberal MPs barrage of emails over net zero policy
Liberal MPs have been sent a barrage of emails demanding they drop net zero targets or 'risk losing our support' by a group connected to conservative right-wing lobby group Advance. The mass emails, seen by Guardian Australia, have been sent to multiple Liberals by Whitestone Strategic, a secretive political consultancy group and come as the Coalition reviews its energy policy. Coalition MPs began receiving the emails – which one described as looking as if they were sent by AI bots – on Monday night. Some MPs received more than 100 within 48 hours from the same address. Sign up: AU Breaking News email One of the emails reads: 'A message to the Liberal Party and Nationals: Net Zero is causing irreversible damage to our nation. Our economic health is declining … immediate action is required. Dump Net Zero policies now, or we will stop supporting your agenda.' Another reads: 'Net Zero is a dangerous joke. It's time to dump it, or we'll dump you.' The email sender appears to be Whitestone Strategic but the email address is listed as CiviClick – a US-based platform that describes itself as AI-Powered grassroots advocacy software, that allows users to 'reach elected officials with powerful policy messages'. A Guardian Australia investigation in October revealed Whitestone Strategic's close ties to Advance, the rightwing advocacy group behind the main organisation promoting a no vote in the Indigenous voice referendum, Fair Australia. A separate investigation also found Whitestone Strategic billed taxpayers almost $135,000 over two years for work providing media messaging for conservative politicians during the voice to parliament campaign. Whitestone Strategic's work for Coalition members has extended beyond the voice campaign. None of the emails, sent since Monday, are addressed directly to the politician, or signed off by a member of the public. Many of the dozens of emails received by MPs contain the same message and some contain what appears to be coding left in unintentionally. Advance announced on 8 August it would launch a campaign targeting 'weakling' Liberals, by pressuring them to drop their support for net zero by 2050. On 15 August, it said its supporters had sent 19,897 emails to coalition MPs and senators. Several members who received the emails expressed frustration over the tactic. One Liberal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they received at least 50 emails in 24 hours, none directly addressed to them. 'The policy review process is important, we must take the time to do it right,' they said. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'We cannot be distracted by external groups with their own agendas.' Another Liberal, who asked not to be named, derided the emails and said they looked like they had been sent by 'AI bots', due to multiple of the same message being sent. This MP, who said they were previously supportive of Whitestone's work, said 'Why can't Whitestone get this stuff right?'. Liberal Senator for South Australia, Andrew McLachlan, a vocal supporter of net zero and climate action, confirmed he'd received dozens of emails from Whitestone Strategic over the last 48 hours. He said maintaining emissions reduction targets is critical and said he would continue to advocate for the target. 'It is not 'weakness' to support targets to reduce pollution. You are not a 'weakling' to be committed to exploring every possible solution to respond to our changing climate,' he said. The Liberal party is reviewing its energy policies, led by the shadow energy minister, Dan Tehan. The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, hasn't committed to keeping net zero, but some vocal members of the Coalition – including Barnaby Joyce, Michael McCormack, Matt Canavan and Tony Pasin – have been publicly and privately lobbying against the target. In response to questions from Guardian Australia, Advance said they wouldn't comment on individual emails from supporters, but that 'it is no secret that we are campaigning against net zero and have asked our supporters to contact MPs to voice their opposition'.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
As the economy slows and productivity flatlines, is Australia having another banana republic moment?
When Paul Keating stepped into a noisy kitchen in a Melbourne function centre for an interview with John Laws, he didn't mince his words. It was 14 May 1986 when the then Labor treasurer told Laws that without some serious changes, a collapse in export prices meant our trade-dependent country was living beyond its means and fast on its way to becoming 'a banana republic'. 'If this government cannot get the adjustment, get manufacturing going again and keep moderate wage outcomes and a sensible economic policy, then Australia is basically done for,' Keating told Laws. Sign up: AU Breaking News email It was that sense of urgency – the threat of a 'banana republic' – that helped blow away the cobwebs of complacency and drive the massive reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. Australia in the decades since has prospered. Yet once again we are having similar conversations. The economy doesn't seem to be functioning as it should, and may only be capable of growing at a fraction of the rate it used to. The budget is in structural deficit. The population is ageing, and our demand for government services grows and grows, even as our capacity to fund that extra spending goes the other way. Younger Australians are increasingly resentful about their lot, homes are too expensive and the world outside our shores looks more dangerous than it has in decades. Used to being a standout on the global stage, we are being relegated to the back of the pack. Living standards across the rich world climbed by an average of 22% over the past decade. In comparison, our living standards are up just 1.5%, according to analysis by Chris Richardson, an independent economist. Analysts place a lot of the blame for this on a slowdown on one thing: productivity growth. They point to the fact that our economy is no more productive now than it was in 2016. Over the longer term, productivity growth is the ingredient that delivers higher real wages, generates better-quality goods and helps pay for government services. Technological change can explain a lot of productivity growth over the decades. The promise of artificial intelligence is that it ignites an explosion of new growth as AI embeds itself deeper into the economy and our lives. With so much apparently at stake, Chalmers in a recent interview was asked if flatlining national productivity was a 'crisis'. 'No,' the treasurer said, 'but it's a big challenge'. Australia and Australians have a lot of 'big challenges', and some are regularly referred to as 'crises'. Yet not all are worthy of a three-day economic reform roundtable with 900 submissions and 40 ministerial mini-roundtables leading up to it. At the National Press Club on 18 June, Chalmers declared that the government has 'a responsibility to rebuild confidence in liberal democratic politics and economic institutions – by lifting living standards for working people in particular'. Days out from the start of the roundtable, Chalmers has been at pains to play down the very reform fervour that he fanned. Anthony Albanese appears to have little appetite for spending political capital in pushing through tough economic reforms. The PM has made it clear that there will be – read his lips – no new taxes this term. The treasurer has obediently narrowed the scope of the potential 'deliverables' to regulatory reform to get more homes built, with a side promise of some progress on longstanding policy ideas, like a road user charge. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion The lack of a 'crisis' in productivity may make it hard to understand why we have spent nearly six weeks leading up to this talkfest in Canberra. But it does help explain the apparent lack of urgency to solve the issue. So what do economists reckon: do we have a productivity crisis? The answer, Richardson quips, 'depends whether you like rising living standards or not'. Are we a commodity price collapse away from becoming a 21st-century version of Keating's 'banana republic'? Saul Eslake, another independent economist, says no – the economy now is totally transformed. Rather than crisis, Eslake volunteers the word 'malaise'. 'I don't think it would help the debate to call it a productivity crisis,' he adds – that could lead to rushed and short-term measures that might just goose the economy for a year or two. 'There are no magic bullets, no short-term solutions. Nothing that can be done, even with the greatest amount of political will, to lift productivity growth in 12 months' time,' Eslake says. John Hawkins, an economics professor at the University of Canberra, says productivity is not a crisis because it's 'not something that is making people worse off'. Instead: 'It's a lost opportunity to make us better off'. 'We got used to the idea that incomes go up over time. Over the long run most of that increase has come from productivity,' Hawkins says. 'More recently we got away with low productivity growth because commodities were strong, but we need to do something if we want real income growth going forward.' Shadows of the 1980s, then, from which we can expect echoes of that era's reforms.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Australia is facing an existential tsunami. But Jim Chalmers' economic roundtable risks putting lipstick on a dinosaur
When Bob Hawke decided to host a summit in Canberra on the economic future of Australia, shortly after his election as prime minister in 1983, most thought it was a window-dressing gimmick by the flamboyant showman politician. 'This consensus is bullshit,' the New South Wales Labor premier Neville Wran declared. 'It won't work.' But it did. Hawke had been elected on Labor's promise of 'reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction', which was diametrically opposed to the confrontationist policies of the Coalition government. The nation was ready for change, and what might have been a window-dressing gimmick made things possible that had once been unimaginable. It nurtured the seeds of the policymaking and investment that grew to transform Australia. Sign up: AU Breaking News email While we can now see that some of the eventual costs were too high, at the time it changed the national climate, consensus and tripartite became the new buzzwords. There was a sense of possibility in the air. Ever since, Labor politicians have played with the model. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, is a student of history and picked up the baton to bring together people and organisations with opposing views to hear each other out and be heard by those not in the room. A crucial element is the being heard, of making public what would otherwise be private conversations by lobbyists about the desires and demands of their clients. Once it is in the open, even if hedged in bureaucratic and corporate language, the challenge is finding the middle ground that satisfies enough to provide a stable foundation. This was where Hawke excelled. A lifetime of finding tolerable settlements to intractable industrial disputes made him a master of the nuanced agreement. As his speech writer Graham Freudenberg noted: 'He actually believed his own rhetoric.' It helped that there was a real crisis. Unemployment was soaring, industrial production was plummeting, markets were collapsing, strikes were frequent, the rigidity of tariff-fortified Australia that had once served the country well had become a liability. The challenges facing the most recent bunch of Labor leaders to call an economic summit are different, but not less. Indeed, if you look past the moderately pleasing interest rate, unemployment, growth and GDP numbers, there is an existential tsunami building on the horizon – climate change, policy paralysis, geo-political realignments, militarisation, digital colonisation and intergenerational 'bastardry'. The Labor governments elected this century have not come carrying too many hard-to-keep promises, rather they have entered office vowing to redress some of the most egregious wrongs of their predecessors – sign the Kyoto treaty, apologise to the Stolen Generations, investigate Robodebt, accept the Uluru Statement. Most importantly, they were Not Howard, Not Morrison, Not Dutton (Trump). Crafting an agenda and an idea of the nation that is forward-looking is now the challenge. The treasurer has urged boldness; the prime minister is by nature more cautious. As soon as the roundtable was announced the ideas started flowing. The Productivity Commission, business groups, state and local governments, unions, thinktanks, major companies and small, university researchers and ordinary punters, all had suggestions to share. Some, like taxing the family home, were so provocative they were ruled out before getting past the submission line, others fostered debate, others generated spectacular side shows that threatened to flame out before a consensus could be reached, and others were mired in obfuscating detail. Not since Kevin Rudd's ill-fated 2020 Summit have so many ideas been set loose on the land. Corralling them into a plausible narrative is the key – something that goes beyond the drafting of possible outcomes that every conference organiser does. Chalmers has made no secret of his admiration for Abundance, the book by Erza Klein and Derek Thompson that forensically examines the ways the overlay of bureaucracy and compliance have hindered development in the United States and sold short those in most need. The detailed descriptions of an almost impossible to meet compliance regime have triggered a 'me too' response here, and a hunt for regulations that might be abolished in pursuit of productivity improvements, more houses, more approvals, more innovation, more profit. This is a worthy task, but I worry that it is like putting lipstick on a dinosaur. The beast is still a dinosaur. What is needed is a lens not a list; productivity is important but it is a retrospective measure. Klein and Thompson address this specifically: 'What we are proposing is less a set of policy solutions than a new set of questions around which our politics should resolve. What is scarce that should be abundant? What is difficult to build that should be easy? What inventions do we need that we do not yet have?' In an Australian context I would add, 'What sort of economy do we want? How can we make it more 'complex'? How can we move from being so dependent on mining? What comparative advantages do we have? How can we maximise our human capital and improve quality of life? How can we improve intergenerational equity?' As Ken Henry, Ross Garnaut and Rod Sims, some of the wisest policy brains in the country, have been saying in relation to the energy transition and the need for consistent environmental policies, first there is a need to better define the core purpose. Once the principle is agreed the objects, goals and actions can fall, or be negotiated, into place. Then we might be able to answer what a successful Australian economy in 2050, true to our abiding ethos of a fair go, might look like. Julianne Schultz is the author of The Idea of Australia
