Latest news with #BeaSherwood
ABC News
15-05-2025
- Business
- ABC News
Colourful price tags at major Australian chemists are 'misleading' shoppers into believing they're getting a discount
Major chemists' colourful promotional tags are confusing shoppers who may be duped into believing they are receiving a discount, according to new research. Consumer Advocacy Group, Choice, asked more than 1,000 consumers if they could tell if price tags, usually bright yellow or pink, at Chemist Warehouse, Priceline, and Terry White represented a discount on the usual price. One in three shoppers surveyed said they found it difficult to determine if the item was discounted or not. Choice also found a number of products at these major brand Australian chemists had colourful supersized tags that obscured smaller shelf labels offering the same prices. It meant some customers thought they were getting discounts that did not exist. "Our new research has found that those yellow and pink sales tags consumers are often bombarded with in pharmacy aisles are highly confusing," Bea Sherwood, senior campaigns and policy adviser at Choice, said. Swinburne University marketing professor, Sean Sands said retail signage could influence consumer behaviour through subtle psychological cues. "Bright, bold price tags, especially in colours typically associated with discounts like red or yellow, can trigger assumptions of savings, even when no discount is offered," he said. Australian National University marketing lecturer, Andrew Hughes has researched the role of emotions and emotional responses in communications and marketing. He said some big brand pharmacies used unethical marketing tactics, "which should be illegal," to drive sales. Professor Hughes said the overuse of colourful price tags created an emotional response in consumers who felt they were getting the best price, when in reality, that was not always the case. "It's in every single aisle to the point where it's saturated," he said. "So the consumer would believe that in every single aisle in every category, there's a bargain to be had. "But we have no reference point to ensure that we are getting a bargain." Professor Hughes said using marketing like this was not necessarily illegal, which has made it hard to regulate. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission states that businesses must not mislead customers, including by offering a displayed price against a recommended retail price that the product has never been sold at. Professor Hughes said what constituted as misleading customers could be a "grey area" which could be used against the consumer. "There's very few areas where you are breaking the law in pricing," he said. "So as long as you're not misleading consumers about the know that consumers are vulnerable to it and are able to be exploited," he said. He said slowing down when at these big stores and thinking about the prices objectively could help shoppers sift out the marketing tactics from the real bargains. But these marketing ploys were not exclusively used by the major brand pharmacies, he said. "Once the big players do it, everyone else goes well, 'either I do what they do or I lose my business' and follow the same pricing models, because they want to be tapping into that sort of same style of marketing," he said. Choice has also called for better transparency on pharmacy labels, particularly the use of "recommended retail prices" which could result in people overestimating the value of the deal on offer. Priceline told Choice that one of its labels, Love Lower Prices, did represent a discount, but another, Great Value, did not. Chemist Warehouse, Terry White Chemist have been contacted for comment.
The Guardian
14-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Colourful price tags at Australian chemists may trick shoppers into buying full-price items, Choice says
Promotional price tags used by major chemists may be enticing shoppers towards products that are not discounted at all, with new research finding bright labels are confusing one in three customers. Consumer advocacy organisation Choice found that some pharmacies said they were offering discounts from the recommended retail price (RRP) despite having never charged the higher rate, which is a suggestion from the manufacturer. Other products had colourful supersized tags that obscured smaller shelf labels offering the same prices, meaning some customers thought they were getting discounts that did not exist, Choice's senior campaigns and policy adviser, Bea Sherwood, said. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'Walking down the aisles, you're bombarded by yellow and pink sales tags,' Sherwood said. 'Discounts should be clear and transparent, not confusing.' Choice found around one in three people – from a survey of 1,000 customers – found it difficult to tell if price tags at Chemist Warehouse, Priceline and Terry White offered discounts. Jana Bowden, a marketing professor at Macquarie University, said the issue was not limited to major chains, pointing to her recent discovery that a local chemist was charging her elderly neighbour double the price a big competitor would have. 'Many pharmacies prey on consumer complacency,' Bowden said. 'Bright sales tags, stickers, and promotional flags trick consumers into thinking there's a sale to be had.' Clare Mullen, executive director at Western Australia's Health Consumers' Council, said the alleged practice could be particularly concerning where consumers were seeking medical products to treat health issues. 'Going into some of these places is a visual assault,' Mullen said. 'When we're talking about health-related items, it's just unfair that the onus is on the consumer to put in the extra effort.' One Terry White store analysed in the research sold a tube of toothpaste discounted to $6 from a recommended $11.99, despite the typical price being only $8.99, Choice said. Seven in 10 survey respondents believed they were getting a $5.99 saving on the product's usual price – double the actual saving. Priceline labels included phrases such as 'great value' and 'lower prices' next to some products' existing sale prices without directly claiming a discount. Australia's consumer watchdog has said businesses must not mislead customers, including by offering a displayed price against a recommended retail price the product had never been sold at. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) also identifies the promoting of an item's normal price as a sale or special as misleading behaviour. Supermarket chains have previously faced pressure over discount labels, with Choice finding widespread confusion among customers over whether price labels represented real value, with the phrases 'while stocks last' and 'prices dropped' flagged as the most confusing. In a separate case, the ACCC is suing Coles and Woolworths over allegations they misled shoppers by offering 'illusory' discounts on hundreds of common supermarket products. Sherwood said Choice began the research into pharmacy prices after customer feedback that sale confusion made shopping at chemist chains difficult. The survey asked respondents to judge whether they were getting a discount and whether they found it easy to identify the discount or lack thereof, using an unsystematic selection of shelf stickers at major chains in November 2024. The bright and bold sticker-pricing practice has long been a feature of Australia's chemist chains. Guardian Australia sought comment from Chemist Warehouse, Terry White and Priceline. Priceline told Choice some of its labels were not intended to represent a discount. Terry White told Choice its recommended price labels were quoted from each product's supplier and did not reference a previous retail price. Chemist Warehouse's website indicated recommended prices matched supplier quotes on the condition at least 5% of all sales used a similar price.
The Guardian
11-03-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Labor's bid to bolster Australian airline customer rights may prove weaker than existing law, Choice warns
Labor's proposal to bolster airline customers' rights to empower them against poor service and disruptions offers weaker protections than those Australians are already entitled to under consumer law, Choice has warned. The consumer advocacy group also criticised the use of timeframe 'targets' instead of 'deadlines' as being more likely to let airlines off the hook more easily. It issued a range of warnings about the draft version of the aviation customer rights charter – an initiative that emerged from the Albanese government's year-long white paper process for the industry. The draft charter revealed that the government had bowed to pressure from Qantas and other airlines advocating against laws that would force them to pay cash compensation to passengers whose flights were delayed or cancelled – similar to a scheme that exists in the EU – after carriers said such rules would force them to preempt costs and bake them into higher base air fares. Choice, along with several other consumer groups, had long advocated for Australia to introduce a scheme to compensate passengers on delayed or cancelled flights for their lost time, on top of additional expenses incurred by the disruption. Having accepted the omission of a cash compensation scheme, Choice's senior campaign and policy adviser, Bea Sherwood, said that even the provisions that had been included in the draft needed strengthening. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'The draft charter may be weaker than existing consumer protections under the Australian consumer law, such as consumer guarantees,' Sherwood said. As an example, Sherwood identified how the draft charter appeared to be less prescriptive about a passenger's rights if their flight was cancelled or delayed due to bad weather as opposed to an operational decision made by the airline. However, under Australian consumer law, passengers have the same rights if the flight disruption is not their fault. 'Consumers are entitled to a refund or replacement where flights are delayed or cancelled due to weather events under [existing] consumer guarantee rights, but may not be under the draft charter.' In its submission, Choice urged the draft charter be strengthened to include the right to a replacement flight or a refund when a flight is cancelled or significantly delayed through no fault of the consumer. 'The charter should include the right to rebook or receive a refund, regardless of whether the reason for the delay or cancellation is inside or outside the airline's control,' Sherwood said. Choice's submission also called for minimum reimbursement amounts that airlines must pay. 'The charter should set minimum amounts … for meals, accommodation and airport transfers for significant delays and cancellations. These measures will ensure that a consumer knows what to expect regardless of the airline they fly with, and ensure that the charter has all of the information a consumer needs in the event their flight is delayed or cancelled,' Sherwood said. Choice criticised the draft charter's wording about a passenger's rights when their luggage was lost, and called for 'specific standards for claim times and compensation for damaged, delayed or lost baggage'. 'Currently, the charter does not outline any specific timing for both making claims and receiving compensation from the airline when a bag is damaged, delayed or lost. We strongly recommend the charter includes specific standards to ensure consumers have one source of information and that all airlines treat consumers the same,' she said. Sherwood was also disappointed about how the draft charter used terms such as 'target' instead of 'deadline' when outlining fair timeframes to expect either refunds, responses to complaints or luggage claims. 'Let's be real; we need deadlines. Because if it's a target, what happens if it's not met? 'What happens if a passenger's rights are breached? We were hoping for concrete penalties to be applied … but we're not sure how these rights will be enforced.' More broadly, Sherwood said the 'vague' wording around rights outlined in the charter could be confusing for customers in its current form. Meanwhile, the Australian Services Union (ASU), whose members include some sections of flight crews, called for the charter to require a minimum staff presence at airports to deal with displaced passengers after disruptions. Too often, airlines rely on apps or call centres to handle rebooking, reimbursements and passenger needs, without any airline representatives to deal with in person, the ASU said. 'Aviation staff do their best, but when there aren't enough staff on the floor, passengers get frustrated, and that frustration is directed at them … Our members are committed to providing quality service, but the increasing reliance on digital platforms and staff shortages typically infuriates passengers, creating difficult workplace conditions for our members and a poor experience for air travellers,' the ASU submission said.
