How much is enough?
Posted by: ErikL on 03 October 2004
The fortress thread had me thinking of something I often discuss with friends and family-
How much personal wealth and how many personal assets are enough?
Why does a sense of guilt escape the wealthy, when they know others can't afford the basics?
What's the point of spending one's life buying expensive objects?
I'm being serious here.
Frugal Ludwig
How much personal wealth and how many personal assets are enough?
Why does a sense of guilt escape the wealthy, when they know others can't afford the basics?
What's the point of spending one's life buying expensive objects?
I'm being serious here.
Frugal Ludwig
Mud hut® - isn’t that the new Naim listening room they’re about to launch 
Tesco reported record half year profits of £822m last week, and Chief Executive
Terry Leahy, a dour former shelf-stacker got the usual plaudits from the City
moneymen. Leahy puts his success down to giving the public what it wants; and in
recent weeks has invested millions of pounds of shareholders money in an
advertising campaign which purports to show that Tesco offers consistently low
prices "every little helps", as the jingle says. The facts, however, seem to
suggest quite the opposite. Two weeks ago the Sunday Times business section led
on a story showing that Tesco had raised its prices on hundreds of items while
at the same time claiming in its ad campaign that it was slashing prices by more
than £30m. This is a confidence trick that the store has used to brilliant
effect over the years.
The price-cuts on low-volume items - 2p off L'Oreal ginger
hair colouring, for instance - are paid for by hikes on best selling staples.
Although a Tesco spokesman insisted that some of the price rises were on
"seasonal products", The Sunday Times pointed out that this hardly applies to
Heinz baked beans (up from 69p to 78p for a four-pack) or McVities chocolate
digestives (up 6p) or indeed boxes of Tetley tea-bags (up 8p). Needless to say
Tesco was furious at the coverage. But the story was not new. It followed a
Spectator article earler this summer in which former City hack Dominic Prince
did a price comparison between shopping locally at a fruit and veg market at a
farmers shop and at a local Tesco. He found that Tesco charged an astonishing 40
percent more for the equivalent goods. "We are all being done", he concluded.
"We are being misled, brainwashed cheated and we don't even know that it's
happening. The trick has yet to be exposed, but there is nevertheless a very
clever marketing trick being perpetrated and we are all the victims of the
rip-off". Surprisingly Tesco did not react to this assault. A spokesman claimed
that he hadn't even seen the piece. But that was certainly not the case several
weeks later when Prince wrote a similar article for the London Evening Standard
demanding copies of reciepts and verification of the purchases made. She warned
that "in the absence of a satisfactory response" the store would sue. The
Standard was having none of it (not least because Prince had indeed kept all the
receipts, which proved beyond doubt that Tesco was overcharging)and sent the
retailing Goliath a swift rebuff in the style of Arkell v's. Pressdram, Tesco
immediately instructed the Mayfair solicitors M Law to sue for libel. On 6
August the firm sent off a fiery missive to the Standard claiming that "your
allegations about price amount to a very serious libel of our client". For the
appalling slur on Tesco's "honesty and business ethics", the company was
entitled "to seek very sunstantial damages". The Standard sent another letter
telling Tesco to bugger off, offering again to do the cost comparison with Terry
Leahy present. It also wondered why the company was not threatening to sue the
Spectator. Since then the Standard has heard nothing and the Sunday Times has
heard nothing, even though all three papers have stated unequivocally that Tesco
is ripping off its customers.
Tesco has wrought revenge on the Sunday Times by
refusing to let the business section interview Leahy, instead offering the
great man to the rival Sunday Telegraph instead. It will be interesting to see
how much of the lucrative Tesco advertising ends up in the pages of the Sunday
Times in future. Meanwhile, there have been several complaints to the
advertising standards authority (ASA) about the misleading nature of Tesco
adverts, particularly one that appeared ironically enough in the Sunday Times.
The ad boldly stated that "for eleven years now we've been adding more and more
products (to the value range) in a concerted effort to help our customers spend
less." But he ASA decided that "readers are likely to understand that the claim
is a reference to their 'Value' product only and not a definative comparitive
claim." This is doubly absurd since Tesco does indeed make "definitive
comparative claims" and has itself complained to the ASA and Ofcom over an
advert from Asda claiming that it is the cheapest supermarket. Having drawn
attention to its pricing policy, Tesco must now put up and risk getting into a
McLibel situation, or shut up and effectively admit that it does indeed charge
too much. How else do you make £822m profit in six months?
Taken from Guess where (issue 1116 Octoger 2004)
N.B.
By putting this story here, I obviously feel that it belongs here showing
that greed can be so very back-firing sometimes. A certain purchase manager (or
ex), as well as possibly quite a few others will not see, nor understand why
I've bothered to put this here either, seeing Tesco's practice as pure
marketing & business savvy, and nobody's forcing anybody to shop there, no more
than anybody has to read certain thread they don't find funny or interesting
(Tony's Choice Innit) and why the fuck does Fritz persist with all these
rantings (or rantins as Mr Anan would say). A large percentage of folk in this
cell are, I suspect although careful with their spending in respect of not going
daft too often, probably don't worry much about a few pence here and there on
Beans etc, and wouldn't shop somewhere else just for a small saving, though a
few less sovs on a naim set up is a different ball game no doubt, I concur.
Graham George Von Foundermemberoftheskynewsbillyconnollyappreciationsociety²
Woosh: Micky the fish reckons that the sale of nails should be banned to all
people under the age of 50 in case they're missused in the use of terrorist
explosive devices for evil porpoises.
Terry Leahy, a dour former shelf-stacker got the usual plaudits from the City
moneymen. Leahy puts his success down to giving the public what it wants; and in
recent weeks has invested millions of pounds of shareholders money in an
advertising campaign which purports to show that Tesco offers consistently low
prices "every little helps", as the jingle says. The facts, however, seem to
suggest quite the opposite. Two weeks ago the Sunday Times business section led
on a story showing that Tesco had raised its prices on hundreds of items while
at the same time claiming in its ad campaign that it was slashing prices by more
than £30m. This is a confidence trick that the store has used to brilliant
effect over the years.
The price-cuts on low-volume items - 2p off L'Oreal ginger
hair colouring, for instance - are paid for by hikes on best selling staples.
Although a Tesco spokesman insisted that some of the price rises were on
"seasonal products", The Sunday Times pointed out that this hardly applies to
Heinz baked beans (up from 69p to 78p for a four-pack) or McVities chocolate
digestives (up 6p) or indeed boxes of Tetley tea-bags (up 8p). Needless to say
Tesco was furious at the coverage. But the story was not new. It followed a
Spectator article earler this summer in which former City hack Dominic Prince
did a price comparison between shopping locally at a fruit and veg market at a
farmers shop and at a local Tesco. He found that Tesco charged an astonishing 40
percent more for the equivalent goods. "We are all being done", he concluded.
"We are being misled, brainwashed cheated and we don't even know that it's
happening. The trick has yet to be exposed, but there is nevertheless a very
clever marketing trick being perpetrated and we are all the victims of the
rip-off". Surprisingly Tesco did not react to this assault. A spokesman claimed
that he hadn't even seen the piece. But that was certainly not the case several
weeks later when Prince wrote a similar article for the London Evening Standard
demanding copies of reciepts and verification of the purchases made. She warned
that "in the absence of a satisfactory response" the store would sue. The
Standard was having none of it (not least because Prince had indeed kept all the
receipts, which proved beyond doubt that Tesco was overcharging)and sent the
retailing Goliath a swift rebuff in the style of Arkell v's. Pressdram, Tesco
immediately instructed the Mayfair solicitors M Law to sue for libel. On 6
August the firm sent off a fiery missive to the Standard claiming that "your
allegations about price amount to a very serious libel of our client". For the
appalling slur on Tesco's "honesty and business ethics", the company was
entitled "to seek very sunstantial damages". The Standard sent another letter
telling Tesco to bugger off, offering again to do the cost comparison with Terry
Leahy present. It also wondered why the company was not threatening to sue the
Spectator. Since then the Standard has heard nothing and the Sunday Times has
heard nothing, even though all three papers have stated unequivocally that Tesco
is ripping off its customers.
Tesco has wrought revenge on the Sunday Times by
refusing to let the business section interview Leahy, instead offering the
great man to the rival Sunday Telegraph instead. It will be interesting to see
how much of the lucrative Tesco advertising ends up in the pages of the Sunday
Times in future. Meanwhile, there have been several complaints to the
advertising standards authority (ASA) about the misleading nature of Tesco
adverts, particularly one that appeared ironically enough in the Sunday Times.
The ad boldly stated that "for eleven years now we've been adding more and more
products (to the value range) in a concerted effort to help our customers spend
less." But he ASA decided that "readers are likely to understand that the claim
is a reference to their 'Value' product only and not a definative comparitive
claim." This is doubly absurd since Tesco does indeed make "definitive
comparative claims" and has itself complained to the ASA and Ofcom over an
advert from Asda claiming that it is the cheapest supermarket. Having drawn
attention to its pricing policy, Tesco must now put up and risk getting into a
McLibel situation, or shut up and effectively admit that it does indeed charge
too much. How else do you make £822m profit in six months?
Taken from Guess where (issue 1116 Octoger 2004)
N.B.
By putting this story here, I obviously feel that it belongs here showing
that greed can be so very back-firing sometimes. A certain purchase manager (or
ex), as well as possibly quite a few others will not see, nor understand why
I've bothered to put this here either, seeing Tesco's practice as pure
marketing & business savvy, and nobody's forcing anybody to shop there, no more
than anybody has to read certain thread they don't find funny or interesting
(Tony's Choice Innit) and why the fuck does Fritz persist with all these
rantings (or rantins as Mr Anan would say). A large percentage of folk in this
cell are, I suspect although careful with their spending in respect of not going
daft too often, probably don't worry much about a few pence here and there on
Beans etc, and wouldn't shop somewhere else just for a small saving, though a
few less sovs on a naim set up is a different ball game no doubt, I concur.
Graham George Von Foundermemberoftheskynewsbillyconnollyappreciationsociety²
Woosh: Micky the fish reckons that the sale of nails should be banned to all
people under the age of 50 in case they're missused in the use of terrorist
explosive devices for evil porpoises.