Member log in

Foodstuffs backdown over 3% ad levy

Foodstuffs Wellington has postponed plans to impose a 3% “promotional rebate” on suppliers.

The supermarket giant – which has the Pak’N’Save, New World and Four Square brands – had planned to implement the levy from October 1.

The charge, announced on August 28, aimed to cover the cost of advertising and marketing both in-store and by mail promotional efforts. This included them funding the supermarkets' own-label Pams or Budget brands.

However, the move sparked an outcry from suppliers, who accused the retail giant of imposing a profits grab. They also feared the rival Progressive Enterprise would impose a similar levy for its Countdown stores.

Together, the two retail giants control 95% of the domestic grocery market.

But Foodstuffs Wellington today announced a backdown, saying it needed to negotiate more with suppliers.

“We are keen to give our suppliers the assurances they need on the rebate model, and based on the feedback we have received further collaboration would be beneficial,” group communications director Antoinette Shallue says.

“We can confirm that we will not be implementing the 3% promotions rebate terms with effect from October 1 as a standard 'one size fits all' term,” she says.

“Instead. we will be engaging with our suppliers in each category over the next six months to negotiate the roll-out of this new term in a more methodical manner.”

Foodstuffs Wellington claims some suppliers actually supported the promotional levy. It already has suppliers “paying into the co-op”  to fund advertising campaigns.

Such “rebate charges were not new”, Ms Shallue says, it was just suppliers were opposing “the new way of going about it.”

The Food and Grocery Council has earlier this week branded the levy plan “disappointing”, with chief executive and former National MP Katherine Rich saying suppliers are under considerable financial pressure and such a levy is too costly for them.

Ms Rich was unavailable for comment.

dgreenwood@nbr.co.nz

More by Darren Greenwood

Comments and questions
7

tripped up by their own arrogance - they could try putting their prices up by 3%, they have 75% market share in the Wellington region. What will happen now is that they get the 3% anyway by beating up individual suppliers, pick them off one by one.

It would be a delight to see a "must have" supplier add a 3% odium premium to stock supplied to New World, or refuse to supply at all.
Imagine the outrage from a certain quarter should Caricare not be stocked at all.

They could actually increase their bottomline significantly if they dragged their systems and processes out of the 70's.

It currently costs more for a supplier to service a Foodstuffs supermarket than it cost to service a Progressive supermarket.
Why?
Because both get the product at the same price , but the supplier has to go out the back and count the stock for the typical Pak'n' Save; load the shelves and do the re-order.
Progressive does all that themselves, and does a good job of it.

How things have changed.
Smug producers, years back, used to say ; "we don't have anything to do with Woolworths" or "we won't supply Progressive".
The boot's on the other foot now.

Thanks for that insight into Foodstuffs,greedier than I thought.Does the Commerce Commission keep an eye on these hyenas.?

Couldn't have happened to nicer bunch of greedy leeches getting caught out,trouble is they will put the 3% somewhere else for the consumer,so it is reasonably hidden.I guess they do sleep at night,these peolple?

This is what you get when you have a duopoly operating. Comcom should stop turning a blind eye to this and sort them once and for all!