• Nath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Woolies would keep the crap if people bought it. I’m unconvinced they would drop the range if it were making them buckets of money.

    I’ll bet it’s loads more profit per shelf to fill that space with back-to-school stuff.

    It’s us who don’t want Australia Day stuff. Possibly because we don’t exactly have wads of spare disposable income to spend on luxuries? Maybe because we have a personal stance on Australia Day? Maybe we just don’t care?

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Woolies would keep the crap if people bought it. I’m unconvinced they would drop the range if it were making them buckets of money.

      Nah, it’s just more DEI-led stuff where they’re trying to pander to the vocal minority to score points, like Bud Light and Target did in America, where it backfired massively. Make no mistake, they’re dropping it for “inclusivity” like Kmart did, not because it doesn’t make money. They even mentioned this in their statement:

      There has been a gradual decline in demand for Australia Day merchandise from our stores over recent years. At the same time there’s been broader discussion about 26 January and what it means to different parts of the community,"

      It’ll be back next year when they fuck around and find out this year. Keep politics and pandering out of grocery stores. Didn’t ever think I’d have to say that lol. It’s ridiculous.

      • Nath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’ll be back next year when they fuck around and find out this year.

        Ultimately, Coles and Woolies are untouchable. It’s almost impossible to boycott them. That’s the whole problem with the grocery duopoly in Australia. I don’t foresee this move having any impact on them either way. They know it, too. You may be right and they’re pandering somewhat, but I am a cynic and I believe they’re doing it because the range isn’t making enough money to justify its shelf space.

        • Lintson@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          In a large city they can be practically boycotted. Most people just can’t be bothered.

        • Salvo@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          If you utilise Aldi, IGA and/or Foodworks, you can get most of what you can get from Coles/Woolworths, and you will probably save money.

          Although making trips to multiple different supermarkets is an inconvenience.

        • trustnoone@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Fwiw I think you’re both right, the duality means they don’t give a fuck if there is a blowback as you’ll be right back there anyway and they’re likely doing this because they figure the pandering may be worth the more money.

          Wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing is just to stop people asking “why the fuck aren’t they passing on cost savings”.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          They’re absolutely pandering, which is why they put this in their statement:

          At the same time there’s been broader discussion about 26 January and what it means to different parts of the community

      • fine_sandy_bottom@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Make no mistake, they’re dropping it for “inclusivity” like Kmart did, not because it doesn’t make money.

        Even if this were true, it would be because they’ve determined that the “inclusivity” (whatever that is) is going to make them money.

            • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Bud Light tanked. It was the number 1 beer in its category up until that decision - a title it had held for 20 years. It isn’t now.

              Their vice president responsible for it was removed.

              They lost marketshare across the board.

              Their american sales have not recovered.

              Bill Gates threw $100 million at their stock in an effort to get it to go back up. Remember - Bud Light is not their whole company. Bud Light has likely been irrevocably harmed. Other beer brands have gained market share, Bud Light lost the number 1 spot it had held for 20 years. Share price isn’t everything when it’s a worldwide brand.

              • fine_sandy_bottom@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Some facebook-meme level reasoning here bro. If gates bought $100m in stock in september then he’s made $10m on that bet in the last 4 months. You can cherry-pick whatever factoids you like but the bare facts are, no one really cares.

                I guess we will see what happens when woolies share price tanks this week. SMH.

                • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  So you ignore 90% of my post that proves my point to focus on the 10% that you think proves yours? Lol

                  Let me guess - it was a coincidence that bud light got dethroned after 20 years at the same time they pulled their stunt?

                  • fine_sandy_bottom@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Dude. You asked how things worked out for Bud Light. Bud Light is InBev. Things are going great.

                    You’re trying to shoe-horn their PR failure into your narrative that left-leaning companies get cancelled to make yourself feel better about… things, but the fact is Woolies ditched the merch because most people aren’t really interested in buying shitty plastic flag stuff on the 26th of January any more. Dutton whistled, and you barked. Woolies is doing fine. Even if they walked back this decision they would just stock a token flag in January because… there’s no money in that shit.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          It means an easy excuse that they can throw out there to make people like you believe it’s not just for the stupid “inclusivity” reason, and it clearly works on the gullible.

      • 🦘min0nim🦘@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Fuck around and find out that stocking shelves for a one day event with cheap plastic crap that isn’t selling well is a bad idea?

        ‘Help help, I’m being repressed!’