BWS "McDonaldising" our Pubs

[42.57lb]

Interestingly enough the way corporations "diversify" is amazing.

One example, LINFOX they have property business, Airport business, OBVIOUSLY the transport business, ARMAguard etc etc and so on and so forth.

Then you look at fosters. Beer you'd think right? uh no, not just BOOZE, heaps of ventures, it's amazing. Have a look at their annumal reports if you are accountancy inclined (if you are, you probably already know the scale)

[MO]

Originally Posted by MO

Thats ...Todd Tavern..Outbackjack your a wimp..and full of it!!!!!!!!!!

Go on, make the Animal bar your watering hole...............LOL.

Sorry outbackjack...could'nt resist.

[Kapn_Kiwi]

Oh, man, am I glad that the supermarkets over here haven't gone into liquor stores and pubs (so far as I know).
I don't look forward to the day when we have a nice homogenous shopping experience.

[max]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

http://www.woolworthslimited.com.au/



It is indeed one hell of a liquor store!! Long live woolies

I'll drink to that! Woollies has got it right in just about every respect in my view. And I don't care what ever else they have their 'midas touch' fingers on,
so long as it serves me well. In the future, who knows, it might go all pear-shaped. Something else might take its place in another guise. But one thing is for sure competition will grow keener and keener, and it is the consumer to be wooed every time. I have, however, a certain amount of concern for the retail staff who may ultimately get the squeeze in the corporate effort to remain No.1. I'm sure the head office folk won't miss out.
:

[biomechanic]

A lot of pubs are also owned by Lion Nathan/Carlton United Breweries

[max]

Originally Posted by MickyB

Coles also owns First Choice liquor, which have been set up as a direct competitor for Dan Murphy's. Dan's (and First Choice) can afford to sell their alcohol so cheaply because they purchase it in such large quantities, and rarely have more than a dozen decent discounts at their mainstream liquor stores such as Liquor Land and Safeway Liquor. I work casually for the largest independent liquor and grocerery chain in Australia, but we are small fry compared to the 2 chains in terms of buying power. The days of a non-aligned bottleshop are numbered indeed, you would probably have noticed locals affilliating with groups such as Cellarbrations, Duncans etc, in the face of the big two is it the only way for them to survive. I am all for competition, and the guiding hand of the free market economy, which is about where it is at at the moment, we just don't want to get to the stage where the only bottleshops in town are all subsidiaries of one entity because that is when liquor prices will skyrocket, as was stated by a previous post.

Ah... a bit like what's going on with petrol prices. I mean we're getting screwed something wicked there and its not just govt. excise. That stays constant but fuel outlet prices change daily/hourly by whom?????
And the independents are all but squeezed out of the market place.

[max]

Originally Posted by MickyB

Interesting article here

Oh I get it! The barstards are turning me into an alco 'cause I can't resist my Riddoch Shiraz at $12.99 a bottle. Then down the track I'll be selling off the family jewels to pay $120 a bottle 'cause I'm so hooked. I knew there had to be a catch!!!!

[It'sTheVibe]

MAX

You're only half an hour from the source of some of the best reds. Why would you buy retail when the cellar doors at McClaren Vale await?

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by max

I'll drink to that! Woollies has got it right in just about every respect in my view. And I don't care what ever else they have their 'midas touch' fingers on,
so long as it serves me well. In the future, who knows, it might go all pear-shaped. Something else might take its place in another guise. But one thing is for sure competition will grow keener and keener, and it is the consumer to be wooed every time. I have, however, a certain amount of concern for the retail staff who may ultimately get the squeeze in the corporate effort to remain No.1. I'm sure the head office folk won't miss out.
:

The thing is - all of the various brands and the price differentials that go with them are nothing more than branding excercises.

Coles vs Bi-Lo is the classic example.

Coles for shoppers who want somewhere nice to shop, well presented ailes, better fruit and veg/meats, a more refined shopping experience - and they dont mind paying a little extra. For coles myer, Coles is a lower volume, higher margin.

Bi-Lo for people who just want the best prices and dont care if the place is a ***** hole. For coles myer - its a higher volume, lower margin.

The distribution network is the same - the warehouse would load a pallet of whatever onto a truck headed for coles and a pallet onto the truck headed for Bi-Lo.

Think its just theoretical rubbish? Head down to the respective stores and see it for yourself.

Same deal with booze outlets. Some people would refuse to shop at a place like murphy's purely because they wouldnt buy their booze at a place where people are walking around with shopping carts - and would prob want more range than murphy's offers. Others, like myself, wont go to the higher-end places because im only looking for vanilla products (beer and middle priced wine) at a good price.

As such - there is little concern about them shafting everyone once they've got a total monopoly. Dan murphys will always be cheap - as that's what the brand is built upon. If dan murphys cost the same as everyone else, you wouldnt go there would you? And if you're a more disconcerning consumer, you wouldnt go to the higher-end brands if their range was no better than the riff-raff over at murphys....

Believe it or not, the goals of these corporations are not opposed to what we, the consumers, are looking for.

[max]

Originally Posted by It'sTheVibe

MAX

You're only half an hour from the source of some of the best reds. Why would you buy retail when the cellar doors at McClaren Vale await?

Because the cellar door prices are outrageous! I have never been able to figure that out. Why does a winery charge significantly more for its produce than a retail outlet????????

[Dazza XLT]

Originally Posted by max

Because the cellar door prices are outrageous! I have never been able to figure that out. Why does a winery charge significantly more for its produce than a retail outlet????????

Probably because they discount it to buggery to get it into the big chain stores, they then have to up the price for the direct cellar door sales to make a quid...
But I am not an expert! :

[max]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

The thing is - all of the various brands and the price differentials that go with them are nothing more than branding excercises.

Coles vs Bi-Lo is the classic example.

Coles for shoppers who want somewhere nice to shop, well presented ailes, better fruit and veg/meats, a more refined shopping experience - and they dont mind paying a little extra. For coles myer, Coles is a lower volume, higher margin.

Bi-Lo for people who just want the best prices and dont care if the place is a ***** hole. For coles myer - its a higher volume, lower margin.

The distribution network is the same - the warehouse would load a pallet of whatever onto a truck headed for coles and a pallet onto the truck headed for Bi-Lo.

Think its just theoretical rubbish? Head down to the respective stores and see it for yourself.

Same deal with booze outlets. Some people would refuse to shop at a place like murphy's purely because they wouldnt buy their booze at a place where people are walking around with shopping carts - and would prob want more range than murphy's offers. Others, like myself, wont go to the higher-end places because im only looking for vanilla products (beer and middle priced wine) at a good price.

As such - there is little concern about them shafting everyone once they've got a total monopoly. Dan murphys will always be cheap - as that's what the brand is built upon. If dan murphys cost the same as everyone else, you wouldnt go there would you? And if you're a more disconcerning consumer, you wouldnt go to the higher-end brands if their range was no better than the riff-raff over at murphys....

Believe it or not, the goals of these corporations are not opposed to what we, the consumers, are looking for.

Dan Murphy's has an exhaustive range of local, interstate, international ales wines, spirits and liquers. They are a HUGE shop. The reason you need a trolley is the friggin realestate you gotta cover and the likelihood you'll find interesting stuff you want to try and all you really went in for was a 2l cask but you front up to the check out with $$$$$$$'s of various booze. But the prices are sensational. It by no means has a "budget" or "set range" feel about it. Gee, why am I so going into bat for the joint?????
:

[melbzetec]

Originally Posted by BAFalconXT

We should remember that it is Woolworths that owns BWS. They have bought every bottle shop in Murray Bridge, including the Pub with a drive thru bottlo. Prices here are crazy, maximum rrp for everything. Its interesting Woolworths will screw people under the BWS name, but not their own....

If they have literally taken over every bottle shop in Murray Bridge and jacked up prices, sounds like a case for the ACCC. Write them a letter

[4.9 EF Futura]

^ i think you'll find the ACCC devotes a significant amount of time to monitoring woolworths and coles. Their massacre of small liquor retailers is not really a big secret - the watchdogs are watching.

[melbzetec]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

^ i think you'll find the ACCC devotes a significant amount of time to monitoring woolworths and coles. Their massacre of small liquor retailers is not really a big secret - the watchdogs are watching.

But they monitor on a national basis. If they have stitched up a whole town, the ACCC would be interested.


If it's true of course!!!!

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by melbzetec

But they monitor on a national basis. If they have stitched up a whole town, the ACCC would be interested.

That's a good point.

It'd be interesting to compare the prices of the murray bridge stores to one of their more metropolitan outlets.

[Perana]

Originally Posted by melbzetec

If they have literally taken over every bottle shop in Murray Bridge and jacked up prices, sounds like a case for the ACCC. Write them a letter

I live in Muarry Bridge.. The bottle shops have always been very expensive here.. In my experiance they are now cheaper than they were but still too dear compared to the likes of Dan Murphys etc, but I have yet to compare prices to BWS stores in Adelaide.

[Feathers]

I found it funny to read an interview with Roger Corbett in which he stated that he felt uneasy with Woolies buying into so many liquor shops and pubs, because he's such a devout Christian, and it was a moral struggle for him.

Until one of the superfluous, overpaid accountants did the math and told him how much money it would make the company, so he could retire with his 20 million dollar payout and whatever else he's getting.

They've re-hired him as a "consultant" for the next 6 years at $600,000 a year, so Michael Luscombe (current Director of Supermarkets) will only be a puppet, doing what Corbett tells him to.

I hate Woolworths.:gren:

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Feathers

I found it funny to read an interview with Roger Corbett in which he stated that he felt uneasy with Woolies buying into so many liquor shops and pubs, because he's such a devout Christian, and it was a moral struggle for him.

Until one of the superfluous, overpaid accountants did the math and told him how much money it would make the company, so he could retire with his 20 million dollar payout and whatever else he's getting.

They've re-hired him as a "consultant" for the next 6 years at $600,000 a year, so Michael Luscombe (current Director of Supermarkets) will only be a puppet, doing what Corbett tells him to.

I hate Woolworths.:gren:

Apparently you're not fond of accountants either?

Such a shame to alienate a field of thousands of hard working people based on some ill conceived image in your head that they're just fat cats sitting around thinking up new ways to screw people over.

Never mind the gainful employment provided to 75,000 australians as a result of the leadership team's success.

Or did you not mean to stereotype an entire profession?

The chartered accountant in my office, having read the post over my shoulder, did not word his response quite as politely as i have. He assures me that he is not grossly overpaid and his wife and two children thankfully dont see his job as being superflous either.

Perhaps the comment itself was a little misguided? Of course a material change in strategy is something that doesnt go ahead without approval from the board. A quick glance at the directors serving on the Board show 6 undergrad degrees, 2 phds, 2 MBAs and a list of associate/fellowships as long as one's arm. Such a shame that the vast wealth of corporate expertise at AFF was not polled as well.

Having touched on the subject, perhaps you'd care to share your views on the appropriate level of remuneration?

I assume you are a stockholder in woolworths? If this is not the case, one might ask what business it is of yours to be commenting on the remuneration of the executive team, consultants and support staff... or the governance role of the board and the influence a consultant is likely to have. It appears you have significant insight into the operations of the Board of one of Australia's most successful companys. You might say that corporate governance is a keen interest of mine - so please share.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Believe it or not, the goals of these corporations are not opposed to what we, the consumers, are looking for.

Not opposed to? Not supportive of either, otherwise they would be charging lower prices like Franklins or Aldi which they could afford to. Their first loyalty is to their profits and shareholders. As for the ACCC they seem to spend a lot of time looking and not much time doing. But I suppose they work for a govt that's not going to upset its corporate mates too much.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Not opposed to? Not supportive of either, otherwise they would be charging lower prices like Franklins or Aldi which they could afford to. Their first loyalty is to their profits and shareholders

The shareholders provide the capital which allows the business to exist. Why should their loyalties rest anywhere else? The fact that we get cheap products as a result of the economies of scale is an added bonus.

No shareholders = no company = no employees = go and make your own booze and grow your own food.

And i bet you werent complaining about the 13% return your super fund got 2 years ago

But I suppose they work for a govt that's not going to upset its corporate mates too much.

Working for a regulatory authority myself - im happy to state that you dont know what you're talking about there.

For starters, the ACCC would be strictly prohibited by legislation from speaking in detail about actions it has taken, what its doing. Any decision would have to be watertight, otherwise it will be overturned in the appeals process of administrative law (ADJR or AAT depending on legislation).

i.e. if they were doing anything about it - they wouldnt be allowed to tell you, or even object when you claim "they're not doing anything". I know we cant.

Going after a company is not something a government body does lightly.

If i were not prohibited by legislation from doing so, i would be happy to go through specific examples where our agency has taken direct action against a corporation which is at odds with its desires.

[new2ford]

4.9 EF Futura - A product is not cheap when it is more expensive than a competitor's product. Australian Consumer Association surveys do not place Woolworth's (or Coles) at the top of the cheapness stakes.

Loyalty to shareholders is a neutral comment, not a criticism. So we both agree.

I worked for a regulatory authority too. I've seen what happens when actions are filtered through Ministers/cabinet.

My super fund lost about 100 grand for me!

Point is the big ones like Coles and Woolworths are ruthless players of the market (e.g. the clever false bait of the petrol discount coupon and the buying up of independent servos). They would have a battery of lawyers working to ensure they stay one step clear of ACCC. Consumers would benefit if there was widespread competition from other players (and they do in pockets of Sydney, especially inner areas with large populations) but in recent years the options have been closing down fast.

[opto]

Isn't there a town in Queensland that is not being patronised by locals because they are protesting against them and every day the aisles are empty of shoppers.
Sure it was on Today Tonight some time ago.

[Lumpen Proletariat]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

<snip>I assume you are a stockholder in woolworths? If this is not the case, one might ask what business it is of yours to be commenting on the remuneration of the executive team, consultants and support staff...<snip>

So merely because you aren't a shareholder of a company, you can't pass comment on any facet of their operation?

I can't pass comment on BHP's handling of Octeddy as I'm not a shareholder.

I'm not allowed to express an opinion on James Hardie's asbestos compensation avoidence because I'm not a shareholder?

I'm not in the position to form the opinion that Telstra is profiteering because I'm not gullible enough to buy into a federally backed poker machine?


Let's divide society even more into the have's and the have-not's. Why not extend the right of franchise solely to people who have shares? Merely because not evenone buy's into a capitalist lifestyle doesn't mean they can't express an opinion on those who do because it sure as hell works the other way.




Brendan :

[Feathers]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Apparently you're not fond of accountants either?

Such a shame to alienate a field of thousands of hard working people based on some ill conceived image in your head that they're just fat cats sitting around thinking up new ways to screw people over.

Never mind the gainful employment provided to 75,000 australians as a result of the leadership team's success.

Or did you not mean to stereotype an entire profession?

The chartered accountant in my office, having read the post over my shoulder, did not word his response quite as politely as i have. He assures me that he is not grossly overpaid and his wife and two children thankfully dont see his job as being superflous either.

Perhaps the comment itself was a little misguided? Of course a material change in strategy is something that doesnt go ahead without approval from the board. A quick glance at the directors serving on the Board show 6 undergrad degrees, 2 phds, 2 MBAs and a list of associate/fellowships as long as one's arm. Such a shame that the vast wealth of corporate expertise at AFF was not polled as well.

Having touched on the subject, perhaps you'd care to share your views on the appropriate level of remuneration?

I assume you are a stockholder in woolworths? If this is not the case, one might ask what business it is of yours to be commenting on the remuneration of the executive team, consultants and support staff... or the governance role of the board and the influence a consultant is likely to have. It appears you have significant insight into the operations of the Board of one of Australia's most successful companys. You might say that corporate governance is a keen interest of mine - so please share.

You missed the point of my post entirely. It's Corbett, and the others that sit up in their offices, who have forgotten what it's like to work in stores, and actually have to deal with the restraints they put on us through budget cuts, and cutting hours that I despise.

We don't have enough checkout staff, three departments in my store alone don't have assistant managers, because we don't have the hours for them.
When people call in sick they are not to be replaced, so the store can save money in wages. We can't even have plactic spoons in the lunchroom for coffee and tea (Homebrand of course), because they cost too much!

It's the same story in every store, and there are plenty of staff members who will tell you the exact same thing.

We need more staff in stores, not more people sitting in offices telling us to do more in less time.

But obviously no one cares, because they made a billion dollars profit!!

[GreenMachine]

Originally Posted by opto

Isn't there a town in Queensland that is not being patronised by locals because they are protesting against them and every day the aisles are empty of shoppers.
Sure it was on Today Tonight some time ago.

Maleny, on the Sunshine Coast. Was a nice little town, became known as a nice little town, filled up with Porsche Cayennes that soccer mums didn't want to drive 20k's to the nearest shops, so Woolies filled in a creek and set up shop. The hippies, predictably, went feral - chaining themselves to platypuses etc. It went ahead and it's been full every time I've driven through there.

You can't stop progress, apparently.

[max]

Originally Posted by Lumpen Proletariat

So merely because you aren't a shareholder of a company, you can't pass comment on any facet of their operation?

I can't pass comment on BHP's handling of Octeddy as I'm not a shareholder.

I'm not allowed to express an opinion on James Hardie's asbestos compensation avoidence because I'm not a shareholder?

I'm not in the position to form the opinion that Telstra is profiteering because I'm not gullible enough to buy into a federally backed poker machine?


Let's divide society even more into the have's and the have-not's. Why not extend the right of franchise solely to people who have shares? Merely because not evenone buy's into a capitalist lifestyle doesn't mean they can't express an opinion on those who do because it sure as hell works the other way.




Brendan :

Well spoken! Anyone thinks the corporate world are altruists got to be kidding. Do we need to trot out the examples??????

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by max

Well spoken! Anyone thinks the corporate world are altruists got to be kidding. Do we need to trot out the examples??????

It is indeed a great point - and considering the member's username it comes as no suprise that he wishes to detract from the (imaginary) bourgeoisie. I would think it must be a frustrating society for the marxists amoungst us to live within.

Although i would note that there is no real scope for a proletariat/bourgeousie divide to exist in a country where any man or woman can purchase equity in a company and therefore have a hand in whatever the said company produces. By definition, a prole must be prevented from ownership of production means.

However, it would appear that our lumpenproletariat is speaking of corporate issues of a different nature.

The environmental issues surrounding BHP, the moral issues which surround james hardy and the obscure attack upon Telstra's profitability (your claims regarding their profiteering appear to be at odds with legislated service requirements imposed upon Telstra and their poor financial performance in recent times) are all issues which impact external third parties.

Environment, sufferers of asbestos related diseases and this alleged profiteering are all things which adversely impact upon third parties. In the case of the environement, its something which affects us all. Of course it's not "out of school" to pass judgement on such matters - regardless of your equity holding in a company or otherwise.

But I fail to see the impact upon you when an managing director of woolworths receives compensation of $x. Would your life be any different if corbett was paid only $1 per annum? $10,000 pa? $100,000pa?

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by max

Well spoken! Anyone thinks the corporate world are altruists got to be kidding. Do we need to trot out the examples??????

Oh... and i never claimed these companies were committing unselfish acts. Altho i'd hazard a guess and say wollies probably diverts more resources to chairty than the members of this forum combined...

It would be inappropriate for a company to be committing unselfish acts. Its existence, by definition, occurs because the shareholders want it to make money.

I'm saying that in the pursuit of the shareholder's goals, consumers can stand to benefit. Consider it an added bonus - and thank the bourgeosie for it

[max]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Oh... and i never claimed these companies were committing unselfish acts. Altho i'd hazard a guess and say wollies probably diverts more resources to chairty than the members of this forum combined...

It would be inappropriate for a company to be committing unselfish acts. Its existence, by definition, occurs because the shareholders want it to make money.

I'm saying that in the pursuit of the shareholder's goals, consumers can stand to benefit. Consider it an added bonus - and thank the bourgeosie for it

Yeah well I'm no fool. PS I picked up a $100 cache of reds at DM's last night! Wine rack is looking a bit healthier! 9 bottles for $96, and not crap either! I'll use the advantage where I can, but make no mistake I know what the conniving bastards are really up to! Actually I used to have an endless argument with a mate of mine(he was 50% marxist) that I am immune to the insidious effects of advertising. His view was that at some stage EVERYONE gets sucked in. I used to say yes I absorb it all, but I filter it and act on the subliminal messages only to my advantage. I still hold to that. I know I should not buy products made by multi-nationals who ruthlessly exploit the poor in sweat-shops in 3rd world countries, but I just love that tick design down the side of my runners. And I know that I should buy Australian Made but the styles/range/prices of imports from China is much more appealing to me, and they do get a dollar or two a month from me. But I do drive two Australian built Fords, and when it comes to parts and service(barring my legendary mechanic mate) I know I'm being screwed mercilessly. Cripes I'm crapping on, I remind myself of my grandmother! The thing is, its unfortunate when people have to get on their high horse about things and thump their chests saying well I know more than you blah blah... and generally getting patronizing and condescending when there is the tapestry and diversity of thought to be savoured.
: