Have you seen the latest chain email, claiming that Woolworths/Safeway are going to donate all their profits on January 23rd to drought relief?
As someone who gets chain emails regularly, and has to almost always Reply All and tell people it’s crap (generally providing a snopes.com URL to prove it) I initially scoffed at it when I heard, but to my surprise it turns out to be true.
Shame they’ve chosen a Tuesday. I normally do my grocery shopping on Sunday. But that’s okay, I’ll move it for that week.
11 replies on “It’s true about Safeway”
Hmm…
Ignoring the spelling mistake, ‘families’ is a turn-off word for me.
‘help famring families’
Strike One!
‘need to support Australian farming families’
Strike Two!
‘financial hardships faced by rural families’
Strike Three! You’re Out!
I’ll keep doing my shopping where I always do it, and on the day that suits me, until they learn to use more inclusive language.
The cynic in me suggests that Tuesday was chosen as it’s one of the slower retail days of the week!
Good call Vaughan. Safeway is using the language of politicians.
Pah, some big corporation wants to give away a bunch of its dosh, and you guys are complaining because the temp didn’t use the spell checker, and they overdid the rural cliches in the press release?
The actual farmers only get a fraction of what we, as retail consumers pay, in the supermarkets.
I consider it a worthwhile noble gesture (TM), but the cynic in me says that it is mostly a marketing ploy to make the city folk feel good and buy from Woolies.
(do your kids really know where (for example) milk actually comes from ?, or do they think that the supermarkets magically make it)
Yep, Tuesday is a slow day for Woollies (Safeway in Victoria only). But given that Woolies makes over $1 million profit per day (something like $400+ million last year from memory) even if it is a slow day, it’s still likely to be $500k. I have no love for Woollies because of their (and Coles) anti-competitive activities, but it’s a worthy effort.
Of course, the cynic in ME says “Just pay the farmers a better price for their produce/livestock/etc and we wouldn’t need charity for them…”.
$2 per lamb paid at the stock sales. And lamb is how much on the shelf? $32 at times? And you should be able to net about 6-7 kilos of meat from a lamb (horrid thought I know…) so their investment of $2 returns them $180….
I’ll overlook the spelling mistake, but yes, the word ‘families’ to me denotes a religious-right social-conservative view of the world and a narrowly focused notion of society. Screw that.
Anyway, I don’t actually approve of companies using their (shareholders) money for charitable purposes. If executives want to support a charity, they can do it with their own money. And if I want to support one, I’ll do it with my own money. Directly, rather than by shopping at any particular supermarket.
In fact, as a Woolworths shareholder I’m half inclined to shoot them an email saying so.
I thought I was cynical but vaughan you take the cake!
What do you want them to say – “helping individual persons of no particular relationship to any other specific persons and living in an area outside the most densely populated areas of Australia” or some such crap. Get a life! They are trying to talk to their target market which I think you will find is socially conservative and has a fairly entrenched view of family (that has to do with historically relious views but nothing to do with current religious leanings). You might noy like it but that’s the real world.
Yes, this particular gesture as much to do with marketing as it is to do with being good corporate citizens but there will be a significant amount more money in drought relief funds that wouldn’t be there if Woolies didn’t do this. Can’t we just accept that it is a good thing? I suspect I’ll be joining Daniel.
For my part, I will continue to use my spending to encourage changed behaviours. For example I make every effort not to shop at major supermarket chains where I can avoid it and choose not to buy shares in Woolies/Coles/etc because of their poor corporate practices. I believe companies, like individuals, need to reflect positive values in all they do.
One last thing, paraphrasing awful Americans but with sincerity, “Have a nice day”
> They are trying to talk to their target market >which I think you will find is socially conservative > and has a fairly entrenched view
That’s fine. I’m clearly not their target market, so I’ll take my business elsewhere.
PS: as for what they should say, what’s wrong with ‘people’? Or even ‘Australians’, if you’re feeling parochially patriotic?
Meanwhile, I’ll keep making my views on the use of the f-word well known to any company, politician, charity, nonprofit or other person or entity who tries to get my support by using it. ‘Real World’ or not, it’s offensive.
I’m with Randall on this one. Why not pay the producers of not only meat but other perishables a better price ALL the time? But that would be eating into the shareholders profits and hey wouldn’t want that we’d have to go offshore for cheap(er) groceries.