Starlink can afford to sell the link as a loss leader as they can recoup on subscriptions, Bunnies can’t so why would they stock the product at an unsustainable price?
No sensible business is going to set up a system that has the potential to send them broke, there has to be a way of limiting losses. No law is going to compel them to stock every product that any competitor stocks if in doing so they lose money each time.
They promise a deal on stocked products, they didn’t promise to stock everything you desire - they can’t.
As is known on the Community and some other places, the Bunnings 10% match is mostly a marketing gimmick of little substance. As you surmise they can withdraw products when it suits, and more importantly even when it seems a competitor has the same product, one or both of them usually has a unique product code, eg the brush at a paint store might be 10001PAINTbrush and what looks like the same brush at Bunnings might be 10001PAINTbrushbs - the pub test and the preponderance of evidence is they are the same brush but the differing product numbers make Bunnings unique, hence no need to price match according to their matching T&C…
Taking it further, many of the lines at Bunnings are Bunnings exclusives (essentially the same as being house brands) so they can price to the market, not to any competition.
I don’t think that argument is solid though when they actually do stock an identical stocked item and then intentionally withdraw the product to ensure that the “guarantee” is worthless. Doubly so, if they then do reintroduce the item come 1st Feb.
If they can get away with this for one product then they can get away with it for all identical stocked items (if there are any) and make the “guarantee” permanently worthless.
Is it possible that that would then be found to be intentionally misleading?
I can tell you that Bunnings does devote significant resources to managing the risk of the “guarantee”. For example, if they themselves discover an identical stocked item where the Bunnings price is higher then it may make sense to match the competitor’s price (and avoid the additional 10% discount to the customer), taking into account the probability of discovery by customers, the sales volume of the item in question, etc.
Absolutely right. However a law might compel them to do what they say they are going to do i.e. be truthful.
Absolutely agree flight, but remember, Bunnings would have paid a wet behind the ears advertising company thousands of dollars for that slogan - so they think that’s awesome.
I have to say unless bunnings explicitly advertised the product with a start and end date, ie the starlink was in a distributed catalogue in which case there is obligation to have reasonable quantities available.
Otherwise
In Stock does not mean in storage, it means saleable stock and if any company chooses to withdraw an item from saleable stock then any company is within ther right to do that, many businesses keep stock in reserves for seasonal events for example or summer/winter fashion
If anything starlink is acting in a highly unethical manner to undercut their resellers, usually the vendors would offer the resellers to also sell at 299 and compensate them somehow the difference in cost price of already in stock items
We had a successful price match today A hose end spray at Bunnings was $39.98. A garden shop not convenient but not too far away had it on sale for $29. Bunnings honoured the 10% for $26.10.
Good to hear - thats been my experience as well, and saved me a couple hundred dollars on two occasions. Often they do seem to notice other retailers drop their prices and align with them to avoid the 10% customer bonus, but I see this as a win also …
In case a reminder is needed: the “beat it by 10%” guarantee technically applies only to “same in-stock items”, but a significant proportion of Bunnings offerings are home-brand, made only for Bunnings.
Bunnings does say – but not openly on their website – that
[Bunnings] “empowers” staff to take a “common sense approach” and will price match on similar items. It makes no mention of this in the “Price policy” on its website.
“We reduce prices on our exclusive products to respond to competition in the market if the similarities of the relevant product are strong,” Bunnings told a Senate inquiry last year.
So the customer has to find a lower-priced and sufficiently ‘similar’ item elsewhere and then negotiate with Bunnings staff, who might or might not decide that it meets the similarity test. If that works, the price reduction only applies for that one item and customer.
[John Dahlsen, a competition lawyer and former chairman of Woolworths] says if a consumer was to find a similar item, which is not always easy, and then is successful in convincing a Bunnings staff member to apply the price guarantee, then the hardware giant still only has to reduce the price on one item.
And in case it is not obvious … that ABC web site article is cross-promotion for tonight’s Four Corners episode.
My beef with the general problem here is “fake brands” i.e. brands that don’t look like home brands but are / brands that are wholly owned by larger entities who have their own brands / illusion of competition. I don’t care as much about the “beat it by 10%” chicanery but I would like to see the government change the rules to require fake brands to be identified for what they are.
“if you find the same stocked item - but you literally cannot because this is one of our exclusive brands so the joke’s on you - then …” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
What this has also done is it has removed potentially better quality competition. This is particularly the case in many hardware items. It is a discussion with a builder friend who no longer sources supplies from Bunnings. The impression gathered is Bunnings is chasing the best price from its suppliers. Suppliers are pressured into reducing prices and to do this, it can affect product quality. Builders are responsible for their work and many don’t want to make compromises to gain a job.
We have noticed some items ourselves over time. Products labelled as stainless steel corrode, chrome and galvanised coatings seem thinner, softer steels used in fasteners etc.
A hose end spray at Bunnings was $39.98. A garden shop not convenient but not too far away had it on sale for $29. Bunnings honoured the 10% for $26.10.
