this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
41 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
30 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is what happens when you try to "save" money by forcing people to use self-checkout.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They can afford these insane security measures, and buying all the equipment that goes with it, but lowering prices? Paying their employees more? No no, that's too much money.

I get when a company puts wheel locks to ensure carts don't leave the property, believe it or not, buying new carts is quite expensive; each one is several hundred dollars and the store likely has nearly 100 of them, if not more. It's not a cheap asset. I get that.

Loss due to theft is also a non-trivial problem for obvious reasons, though there's plenty of loss due to damage, best before expiry, bad handling by workers, defective products, etc.

I've worked in grocery and every store I worked at had a bin on a pallet overflowing with damaged or otherwise unsellable stuff. It happens.

But, criminalizing your shoppers? The vast majority of them are people who live local, and are regular shoppers spending thousands a month on products. In business, this is the 80/20 rule. 80% of your sales comes from 20% of your clients (the ones who shop there regularly). I'm betting for grocery stores, that number is a bit different, but the concept stands. Start alienating those regular shoppers, and they will walk, and 80% of your sales get flushed down the drain as a result. It's both shocking, and completely unsurprising to me that Loblaws doesn't seem to understand this.

[–] PenguinTD@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

maybe hard for some region or if your next store is another 20km away. I think those store probably rip off their local customer most.

[–] AmosBurton_ThatGuy@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I live in a small town/city of 40k and there's 4 Loblaws stores and one save on, and save on is considerably more expensive than any of the other options so it's either give Loblaws money or stretch an already limited budget to give even more money to a different company. Lose - lose for me. There's a Wal mart but they have 4 shitty aisles of packaged food a pathetic selection of food so they don't count for groceries up here for the most part.

[–] PenguinTD@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I don't know if it's possible but if you have some local resident that can band together and buy fresh product directly from the farmers? or do a group buy for common household supplies that should be cheaper with bulk order(ie, a costco account that helps to buy stuff for 10 household and everyone shares the cost) . I know it would replace all the purchase required, but in less competition area, at least you would have some form of "competition" from your own independent source.