A week ago, we bought a dual purpose step ladder at Bunnings but discovered it was not high enough for our needs.
I checked the manufacturer’s website and saw it was the shortest in a series of 3, and then checked Bunnings website which listed the required tallest model as being in stock as well as the manufacturer’s actual model number, which was also printed on the Bunnings receipt for the one we had bought.
I called the other major hardware group in FNQ who had the model in stock and quoted a price of a few dollars less than Bunnings.
A few days ago I rechecked Bunnings website and both the model we had bought and the one we needed had both mysterioualy disappeared.
I returned the shorter ladder to Bunnings and received the refund and then went to check the stock of ladders but the series and their shelf labels were not there so I asked a staff member who finally found that the system claimed that they had 3 of them in some sort of quarantined stock listing so she called a staff member from the section that handles ladders.
He could not find them and he checked his hand held gadget which showed that the only one in Qld was supposedely at a Townsville store.
I went to the other hardware group and bought the ladder for the slightly lower price.
So after believing I was going to get the famous “beat it by 10% price guarantee” I only got Bunningised instead.
I price matched a fold away clothes line at Bunning’s today 6 Feb 2020 and they replied that as my price was a sale item that the 10% discount did not apply. I read the terms and conditions on the link below and there is no mention of sale prices being excluded. Not happy Jan!
It does seem as if you have been ripped off. The Terms and Conditions don’t appear to specify that exclusion. I believe that you should report Bunnings to Fair Trading or the ACCC. You might want to get that date straightened out though. Today is 6 Feb, not 6 Jan.
Which vendor was it that was offering a price lower than Bunnings?
Don’t forget this excludes trade quotes, stock liquidations and commercial quantities.
I wonder if they are trying to claim that the reason it was on sale at a competitor is due to the stock being liquidated. I wonder what Bunnings defines ‘stock liquidation’. Company liquidation is a legal term, but stock liquidation is possibly one penned by Bunnings (for their own interpretation?)
I assume that ‘Stock Liquidation’ literally means to turn the stock into cash to pay a creditor. If this is the case, their price match policy is marketing nonsense as every other retailer liquidates their stock.
Exactly. Hence why Fair Trading / ACCC should take a look at it. Is this an intent to mislead by using terms with no common meaning or with a meaning that differs from the common meaning? Or is it acceptably misleading? Or not misleading at all?
If so, then it would surely be excluded by the other fine print “available for same-day delivery or collection”? I believe that the intention behind that Bunnings exclusion is that no purely online stores qualify for comparison. (Up to a point that is fair enough because it costs real money to have a bricks-and-mortar store and employ people to work in it.)
It appears they are online stores only…there is no information about having shop front.
Secondly, if there were say a shop front, one would need to add in freight if one was not near the store. Bunnings is likely to consider the delivered price compared to the Bunnings shelf price.
The Bunnings exclusions clearly state that the competitor’s price includes delivery charges when they apply. (That particular clothesline place offers free delivery however.)
As I wrote a year ago, the most important thing is that the customer does their research and having done that, if you find a lower price, just buy it!
Yes, I checked the link ‘why buy from us’ and it is an online store. I also contacted Bunning’s head office and they said sale items are also excluded. I suggested they add that online stores and sale items exclusion to the fine print in the 10% or less offer.
I don’t buy it. Sounds like BS that should be referred to Fair Trading or the ACCC - with the difficulty that a) it is your word against theirs, and b) another exclusion applies anyway (so you are not disadvantaged by whatever interpretation is applied to the idea of “sale”).
I don’t think that sale items can meaningfully be excluded. What would they define a “sale” as? What if the other retailer is promoting it as a sale but it isn’t really? What if the other retailer is not promoting it as a sale but Bunnings decides that it is a sale?
Online stores are already effectively excluded by the existing fine print. However if an online store does operate a shop front where you can pick up some items that are ordered online and they can do that “same day” (or an online store offers same-day delivery - but this seems unrealistic) then an online store is not excluded by the existing fine print - and so shouldn’t be excluded from comparison.
Was this because the sale item in question was not in the same capital city to where you live (e.g. you don’t live in Sydney/NSW as these are the locations of despatch for the two online stores you linked above). If this is the case, then they could say that the sale item you have presented to them is excluded as you would not be able to meet the ‘same-day delivery or collection’.
The offer in NZ by Bunnings is 15% if you find an item cheaper elsewhere. 5% better than Australia and we have noticed Bunnings is in very small towns in NZ when in Australia they just wouldn’t even bother with a store. I think perhaps the 5% extra is to make them more attractive to NZ customers as there seems to be stiffer competition in NZ in the hardware market.
Should Australians be seeking to get that extra 5% offer? Though with the very unlikely chances of actually getting the same product elsewhere is almost nil.
I wonder if competition laws are diferent and companies can create monopolies by pushing out competition. Then even it was giving the product away for free. …wouldn’t mean much as it couldn’t be bought elsewhere.
Something we noticed on previous trips. A good guess is they have a separate business model for these smaller format stores. See link below.
The big cities in NZ can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Although they are where most of NZ resides.
P.S.
I’m aware of at least one smaller, Bunnings trade only outlet Maroochydore, while Birtinya, Dalby and Kingaroy in Qld also have smaller format stores.
My rule of thumb is, if I find a product for a cheaper price elsewhere I shop there instead. I take “we’ll beat it by 10%” as a worthless marketing slogan that isn’t worth my time.
Unless you are spending over $500, you too should consider it worthless. Under $500 we’re really not talking about any kind of worthwhile savings. We don’t get to any kind of significant savings until spending a grand.
One guy in this thread was complaining about the price of a bag of Dynamic Lifter. Those run for $27.15, so he went back and forth to bunnings and Big W over $2.71, very likely using far more $$ in petrol than he could potentially save.
Think it through, 10% really isn’t worth your time. Ask yourself, why are you so committed to buying from Bunnings instead of the cheaper retailer? And, if you aren’t buying from the cheaper retailer, how will they stay in business long enough to continue offering cheaper product?
By supporting the cheaper retailer you encourage real market competition. You put pressure on Bunnings to lower their prices, and allow smaller businesses to grow and create jobs. By insisting on buying from Bunnings and arguing over 10%, you are supporting a stagnant market and giving Bunnings no incentive to lower prices or actually compete.
Support competition, healthy markets and jobs growth.
My sentiment too, although I often pay more to shop local. Similar reasoning is the cost to travel another 50-100km to get a cheaper price. Secondly the extra time consumed in doing so. Finally a fear that ignoring the local store will see it close and the only option is going to be wasting more fuel and time each week.
The greatest fear is that Bunnings who trade on volume and aim to be the sole supplier might soon turn up locally. Coles are keen to set up shop. They are claiming that the new stores will create 100’s of additional permanent jobs, as might a Bunnings. There is no accounting for the local jobs and businesses lost through all the closures of the smaller local retailers displaced.
Cheap is best, seems to rule the day. Bunnings is neither the cheapest nor the best. It is being allowed to become the one and only.
Also an end for the price match guarantee, if that makes any one happier.
All independent hardware stores in the Cairns area are long gone with some help from Bunnings. Mitre 10, True Value Hardware, Home Timber & Hardware, etc.
The only competitor is Cairns Hardware which is now owned bu Dahlsens in Victoria and is way too strong for Bunnings to bother.
