Supermarkets accused of baffling customers with ‘feel-good’ offers

SUPERMARKETS have been accused of potentially misleading customers by offering items at reduced prices that had spent just days at the higher price.

According to an investigation into special offers by consumer body Which?, supermarkets were potentially confusing shoppers with their pricing, giving them a false impression of buying groceries at a heavily discounted price.

Government guidelines to guarantee that special offers are a good deal say that an item should be at the stated higher price for 28 days before being put on offer, and, overall, should not be on offer for longer than it was at the higher price.

However, supermarkets can circumvent these points if they put up a sign explaining their offer, or if something is going out of date.

Another caveat of the government’s guidelines is that what is deemed reasonable will depend on the individual circumstances.

Which? said this meant that even offers it felt were not good enough “were still potentially compliant with the rules”.

Examining a number of food items that often attract special deals, the report said fruit was found to have “the greatest potential to baffle consumers”.

Martin Hawking, editor of Which? magazine, said that supermarkets were attempting to create a “feel-good factor” with such pricing.

“We go into supermarkets on Saturday expecting our shopping to cost more than it did the previous Saturday, and super-markets are trying to defuse this expectation by throwing as many deals at us as they can”.

He said stores were playing a “psychological game” because they knew people were worried about food prices.

He said: “The research shows people are walking away thinking they’ve got a bargain when they would have been unlucky to have paid the full price in the first place.”

Among some of the examples given were raspberries advertised by Asda as part of a cut-price “rollback” scheme when they were not; Sainsbury’s cherries marked at half-price for eight weeks, though the supermarket admitted they had spent only 15 days at the higher price; and Tesco Hardy’s Crest Cabernet Shiraz Merlot 75cl, which was on offer for 12 weeks out of 14. Elsewhere, Waitrose blueberries were discounted for ten weeks out of 14, while Marks & Spencer blueberries were reduced for 13 weeks out of 14.

Morrisons’ 250g packs of cherries were not at the higher price in the shop used in the investigation – though Which? said a sign explaining this was present. The report concluded such notices did little to help consumers.

“We think even some of the offers that had a sign explaining the offer in more detail might still confuse shoppers.”

Mr Hawking said Which? wanted to see a policy of transparency that showed genuine deals in supermarkets.

Dr Jonathan Elms, an expert on retailing and consumer behaviour at Stirling University’s Institute of Retail Studies, said the supermarkets’ tactics could backfire.

“For the consumer there are two prongs to this policy: at one level they are getting a good deal; but on another level they may feel a little bit upset or annoyed to know the underpinnings of the pricing policy.”

Responding to the investigation, Marks & Spencer said: “We always aim to follow guidelines on promotions and had done so here,” adding: “[We] always explain our offers and the price comparisons we make with in-store ticketing and decor.”

Asda said “human error” was responsible for the raspberries being advertised as part of the “rollback” scheme; while Morrisons said its offers complied with guidelines as “the relevant deal information would have been displayed at point of sale”.

Sainsbury’s said it “would never seek to mislead our customers” and clearly communicated special offer information in stores – failure to do so, as in the case of the cherries, was due to human error. Tesco said it had strict rules on pricing, while Waitrose said it would “never intend to mislead customers”.