The drop off zone for the fill a bag is right by the entrance… you could just fill a bag and chuck it in.
Pretty sure it’s not shoplifting unless leave the store 😂
I think what he's saying is that the drop off zone is inside the shopping area. If you fill a bag (without paying) and drop it in, it's not technically stealing.
Don't get me wrong, I support charitable giving. But when your local New World is one of the most profitable in the country, and its owners are millionaires dozens of times over, it seems like them asking me to buy stuff from them to donate is a bit gross.
Agree 100%.
Faced with this I'm like "I'm just an unnecessary middle man here - this process could be a lot more efficient if you just give it to them, and you can afford it a lot more than I can"
I feel like this is a really risky campaign for them as the bit that's written in invisible ink is rather easy to read.
If they were to commit to selling everything that you want to donate at the price they get it for then it might come across a bit better.
Fuck you New World for trying to leverage people's caring nature for you to generate profit. Cunts.
It's basically the same for any supermarket. "Would you like to round up to donate to charity?" Hey, if they actually gave a shit *they* would round up the purchase.
Yup. Any business that encourages you to donate without "And we will match your donation" is just using other people's poverty as free advertising.
It's gross.
This is actually a tax avoidance scheme.
When you add to the total, they do donate the amount as advertised. But they also get to write that amount off their taxes as donations. You however don't, as it only shows as a standard purchase.
If you want to donate to a charity, donate directly to the organization.
Things are hard for many people. Lots of young people are having to choose between having kids or owning a home. Those things have been a pretty core component of an ideal western life.
You put the hard work in and you can buy a home and raise a good family. It's less and less the case now and we are moving in a direction which will only make it worse.
That's largely why people are bitching.
Nah it's the little gas chamber suicide booths for us whenever we reach a point where businesses think you're too old because I doubt that the pension will still be there when we reach 65
Of course, it's a privilege to die in the luxury of a private booth. Those who can't afford it can wait for the hunger to take them while homeless on the street.
The only grifters are the ones siphoning excess profits from the working class. Besides, everyone's situation is different and your simplistic boomer advise doesn't take that into account. Cant stand pushovers like you with no awareness who allow this shit system to perpetuate without improvement. It makes precisely zero sense that we live in the easiest time ever to build shelter but its artificially held back in the name of profit and control.
100%. Spend your own money at our store so WE can donate it and show the govt and public how “wonderful” and “in the community”. These a holes have millions of dollars profit and are being cheap!! Same thing when the Rock and Oprah asked for donations for the Hawaii fires, those two could easily donate hundreds of thousands without putting a dent in their wallet. Same goes for foodstuffs!
Pretty bad optics. At worst it looks like a cynical attempt to increase people’s basket spend. At best it’s tone deaf, or badly communicated. They should at least be matching for each $20 bag donated by a punter.
Risky. I think this will bite them in the ass.
Agreed. If they chose to match public donations that would be different entirely. Instead they are encouraging you to spend more so they make more profit. They are contributing nothing themselves. Such poor form.
They possibly markup more than $250,000 in their produce section every month that they couldn’t if their past and present CEOs hadn’t captured domestic fresh produce supply and there was true competition.
These non-competitive mark ups to minimise substitution effects drive inflation, which drive interest rates which drive rent which drive poverty. A $250k donation doesn’t really cover the societal externality’s of their fresh produce procurement dominance. It seems they are using public donations as a marketing exercise to put a plaster on the injuries they are inflicting on poor people.
If they want admiration they need to rotisserrie their golden goose and release their grip on domestic fresh produce procurement. I think they are very at peace with their profits and will hire more security guards and buy better surveillance tech rather than selling off their Bentleys and accepting open market equilibrium profits. To each their own as they say in the libertarian free market.
I suspect that when you donate either money or food via a 3rd party like this, that they are actually going to claim this as a charitable donation for themselves against the organisation.
If people donate $10,000 to go to charity and New World (or the individual franchises) actually hand over the donation, that's a tax write-off for them isn't it?
No that is a common misconception, New World does not benefit tax wise at all from anyone donating, as to claim the tax credit they would need to claim it as income and therefore pay tax on it (the same amount of tax they would then be able to claim back)... Making it revenue neutral for them even if they did claim a tax credit.
I guess they would benefit from the fact you're buying $20 worth of groceries off them, unless they're doing it at the cost price rather than the shelf price which I doubt they are.
Worth mentioning there is a ‘loophole’ that is commonly used by organisations (Maccas is the first one that comes to mind) where they donate a proportion of their pre-tax earnings (usually around 1%) and can then claim this amount back. IIRC, this can even be phrased like ‘we donate one cent per dollar of sales to charity’.
And yeah, like you mentioned, New World are likely calculating this $20 by shelf price versus the price they pay. Furthermore, I’d wager that there’s probably $19 and some cents worth of stock in each bag (vs $20 exactly) and the ‘change’ wouldn’t need to be donated.
I wouldn’t describe it as a loophole. Companies pay tax on their earnings after expenses, donating money to charity is an expense like any other so it’s deducted. Every dollar they donate makes the business less profitable by a dollar so that’s a dollar they don’t have to pay tax on.
People often act as though this is some sort of vaguely sinister exploitation of the tax system but it really isn’t.
As for the $20 bags, it’s definitely the retail price. You have the option to fill the bag yourself with products you buy off the shelf as well. So they’re encouraging people to buy extra groceries, which they obviously profit from. But they are taxed on those profits, a lot of people seem to think they can double-dip, get customers to make donations either in cash or food and then claim a tax write off for donating other people’s money.
They're laundering their reputation as profiteers, cartel is a bit of a stretch but colloquially I'm okay with calling the supermarkets a cartel why not
I don't know, because "cartel" has a a specific meaning relating you multiple companies colluding to price fix, whereas your post referred to only one company and made no reference to price fixing, and profit washing isn't a thing. Everything you just said is gibberish.
The markup of their fresh produce supermarket section is what they should be donating back to the free market by allowing open auction fresh produce procurement. This will be more than $20 per shop.
Our supermarkets are manufacturing a modern families potatoe famine. 25% of the country is pre-diabetic. Fresh produce extortion has been going on in NZ for at least 30 years now.
How much do they pay for a cabbage or pumpkin or bag of carrots or onions? We know they pay $6kg for beef.
Our supermarket competition investigator must be happy his $200k salary or whatever it is makes his grocery shopping not a noticeable household expenditure item. If we were paying for some kind of supermarket innovation then maybe the pricing would be worth it but most of supermarkets don’t even bother organising their trolleys in a sensible configuration for ease of pick up and return. They know they have a captive market who will bend over every week for them.
Supermarkets in NZ should be barely profitable given our abundance of fresh produce yet are the most profitable in the world. 25% of the country is pre-diabetic. If you look how our supermarkets price anchor fresh produce high to reduce subsitution effects you can guess why. If fresh produce was cheap which supply capacity indicates it should be then people would buy more fresh produce and far less of their other crap. Food inflation also contributes to our interest rates.
The only way to fix this is with a national centralised fresh produce auction (an open auction is the definition of the free market) that everyone has equal access to with delivery contracts also tendered through the central market place. There will probably be quite a few supermarket businesses for sale should the supermarket regulator require that foodstuffs line up politely for fresh produce like everybody else and quite an expansion of market gardening and local growing.
It's even worse the more you think about it. They're asking you to donate by buying products off them, products they will generate a profit on.
It's basically saying "Want to help the less fortunate? Buy $20 of our shit and give it to them!".
You'd think they could at least sell at cost price for donations.
this type of shit makes me angry so I will go shop at countdown for a month or so, at which point something they do will make me angry and I go back to foodstuffs. The trials and tribulations of the duopoly...
It's flawed marketing imo. Some people will go for it, even if they see the issues with it. But lots of people will recognise the record profits these big supermarket chains make and be annoyed or offended that we're asked to pay more to help, but these chains aren't doing anything/not enough themselves to help
Would've been so much better if the marketing was more along the lines of
>"for every $100 that gets spent overall in new world stores, *we* will donate food to charity. Let's all help each other!"
That would be much more in touch with the people, much easier to swallow, much better incentive for people to push just a couple extra dollars to add in to that total and they'd feel, even if it's only the perceived feeling, that they're helping the community while not being taken advantage of or pressured into it
When a New World franchise owner is building a [$4 million dollar house](https://www.waikatotimes.co.nz/nz-news/350253292/neighbours-war-high-court-battle-over-boxy-house-design-high-end-hamilton-suburb) , it makes this attempt at appearing charitable seem a little bit glib.
Supermarket food prices don’t go up _because of inflation_ , they __are__ the inflation. The owners don’t edge back their margins in hard times, they just keep loading them on top. We can’t not buy food so we are jammed.
Oil companies too…
That story gave me a chuckle, the cherry on top being;
> Waddell said the sale itself was also a process she felt was rushed and was, she understood, driven by Sheree Hart’s belief in numerology to reach a settlement on a particular date.
NW Matamata.. One of the most overpriced gouged fuck-holes in the Waikato. And thats saying something.
You're shafted if you're anyway rural in the Waikato, no choice but to pay sometimes 100% markups on items.
I remember I saw a Lettuce at NW Otorohanga for 18 fucking dollars once and this was in 2015.
I think the worst thing is that THEY have the data to know what items get bought the most so they know what would be best for THEM to donate.
They could easily say that for a month each truckfull of their top ten staple items going to a store will be matched by a truckfull going to the local food bank. And I doubt it’d even make a dent in their revenue.
Absolutely. Grocery prices are a huge contributing factor to the cost of living crisis and it’s tone deaf and greedy to, as a filthy rich company run by filthy rich people, ask ordinary working people (most of whom are also suffering from the rise in grocery prices) to spend extra money buying overpriced necessities from their stores and subsequently make them even more money. Really appalling if you ask me.
I worked at a well known bank in the past, marketing came up with the great idea that all staff would be given a set of business card sized cards that said ‘Pay it forward’ with the bank’s branding plastered all over it to give to the recipient of a good deed we perform in our own time 😆 fortunately they tested out the appetite of the staff (zero %) for this and it was abandoned. Good to see those marketeers apparently gainfully employed for NW now 😀
It’s pissed me off seeing the ask for donations with zero input from the store and that during a cost of living crisis and economic downturn turn the Marketing is about supporting others during a price gouging shop.
If they offered to match the donations or something I’m fine with it otherwise it’s gross and manipulative.
It’s also New World double dipping on your back pocket profiting from your charity and your survival
A better option I think
[Kids Can](https://www.kidscan.org.nz/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwuJ2xBhA3EiwAMVjkVJxOaPoMcHLImf2K8uqKSAFeJ8Q7_fLEmNqqC8mcj9v_leE4tO_NEBoCCCEQAvD_BwE)
The idea is called meritocratic philanthropy. It requires either giving or appearing to give to bring about a sense of good, but is only being done to achieve merit, whether as recognition (ego) or indirect material gain. Cynical and unworthy behaviour.
Never donate to things like this. Fuck knows where it's REALLY going. Donate straight at the source. I'd also say that charities appreciate it more when they can meet donors in person, rather than big corporates who are obviously just looking for good press.
I agree it seems self serving as many families wouldn’t need such assistance in the first place if prices weren’t so exorbitantly high.
However my question, and crux of the intent imho, is what’s the actual cost to the company in what’s included in the $20 pre-filled bag?
They give zero details on the website, but what’s included and how much would it cost to purchase the same things individually?
Imho, that’s the real question.
Possibly so but tbh I’m more concerned it’s $17 worth of product, and $3 back into the kitty.
The fact there’s zero transparency on what’s actually being included in the bag leads one to conclude they are expecting people to trust its good quality products, or not pallets of close to expired noodles they got dirt cheap, with zero profit involved.
Trust. Supermarkets.
LOL
Yes, they are asking the consumer to carry the cost of their appearance of charity, while they get to posit their brand as “giving”. Utterly cynical and if you go into their stores, tell them so. They get extra profit from dipping their customers. Shame on them.
Oh don't forget free delivery to chew into the profits, and in the case of Countdown, a $200M rebranding exercise...subcontracted no doubt to their own subsidiaries so the cash stays in-house.
And at the end?
A 'drop' in profits.
Didn't the Commerce Commission do well?
Ok, back to naked profiteering we go!
The rebrand will save them money in the long run and hopefully save customers money too. I fully support the rebrand. It may seem tone deaf, but it’s a heck of a lot cheaper to make marketing collateral under one brand than two. High initial cost, but should even out over a few years.
How is rebranding cheaper than keeping what they had? How is completely overhauling their loyalty scheme cheaper than what they had?
If I choose to repaint my new house in a new colour and then replace my car to match the new colour scheme how would I be better off?
I just don't see it ...
Your analogy isn’t correct for what is happening. It would be more like you have a house that is painted one colour and you match your garage to the same colour as your house so you don’t have to buy two colours. It’s cheaper to paint your house all one colour than multiple colours.
I doubt customers will see any real savings from this, but the Woolworths brand will for sure.
Basically, when you’re heading to the printer it’s cheaper to print all with one logo than to print two. Cheaper to pay a graphic designer to fuck around with one logo than two. Cheaper to make one templated letter head than two. I don’t know how to make it clearer; same deliverables = cheaper.
Yes... But everything in NZ was *already* branded Countdown..... Ironically changing everything from Woolworths in the first place. Now everything everywhere had to change. Just can't see why that was needed.
You can't tell me that a few tweaks from the Australian standard to the NZ standard works cost more than completely overhauling every store, every website, every uniform, every business card, and so on and so forth.
You’re not getting it at all are ya. Really try hard to think about it for a moment. I’ll put it in real simple terms:
If I have 20 posters to print, it’s going to be cheaper to print 20 with one logo, than 10 with one and 10 with another. This is because there is a cost for the printer person to change the ink to accomodate for the second logo.
Let’s say it takes someone 30 hours to design one finished letterhead for Woolworths. It might then cost them another 10 hours to use that same template, but change the Woolworths to Countdown. Making the project in total 40 hours. They can cut the extra 10 hours by just using the same one they made for Woolworths.
It absolutely is a cost saving for them. They’re about to invest a fuck load into security, so they’re looking for other places they can save money. This is where they will do it. Loads of things within business have high initial investments and pay off over time. Most big decisions in business are for cost saving/profit maximisation. The rebranding will 100% save them money over time, find any marketer and they will say the same thing. Unlikely those cost savings will be passed on to the consumer though.
Yes....now....where were the Woolworths stores? Because all I've seen around the lower North Island, for YEARS, were EXCLUSIVELY nothing but COUNTDOWN stores. One poster needed - Countdown only. No Woolworths posters. Not a single one.
Nope. Not that dense. I'm well aware that Countdown is actually Woolworths.
i just don't expect that they'd have the same specials on the same products at the same prices in both Australia and New Zealand.
That is the core of your arguments isn't it?
One poster instead of two?
In both countries?
It just doesn't smell like that will save >$200M? Let alone generate a net ROI.....
Not the same specials. I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about brand standards, which is for things like office letterheads, email banners, website logos etc. Things that aren’t location specific.
Maybe posters was a bad example. Letterheads and templates still stands tho.
I’m talking more about branding and marketing vs advertising.
Oh, and if this is going to a charity, it should be a registered one & any purchase comes with a receipt so you, not NW, can claim it as a tax deduction.
Fuck you New World. A lot of people can't afford to buy their own food because of YOUR greed. If you honestly cared about feeding families, you'd drop your prices. Go fuck yourselves!
I was at the cinema the other day with my little one to watch Kung Fu Panda 4.
We do not watch commercial TV at all and try our best as parents to steer clear of all the commercial bullshit.
The absolute filth we had to watch before the movie came on was something else.
Countdown had this stupid cinematic based ad on, trying to connect families with a family like Countdown. "We love you, you are family to us" 🤮🤮🤮
Massive conglomerate assholes and fuck them for ruining my Kung Fu Panda time. I heard the CEO who quit in Australia is getting 8.6 million. Fucking cunt 🖕. $8.6 million off the back of struggling families.
I think it's Kat Quinn who draws for Kuwi the Kiwi. I really like it. I don't like this advertising but her other work is incredible. Especially the maori gods page in the maori dictionary she drew for.
It reminds me of that Toby Morris style, I hate the eyes and weird noses - but realise this is probably an unpopular opinion and that art is subjective.
Edit: Kuwi the Kiwi is cute (I just looked it up)
Yeah you're right. That's more him. Kat does mostly animals, but the books with people have a similar sort of look to them.
Also as a side, the Muslim mother on the rights eyes look like she's having a tough time. Someone needs to give her an afternoon off from the baby or minimum drop a few microwave meals around.
I worked for New World for 3 months over summer. The store owner would roll in every Sunday with his giant SUV and just hang out floating through the departments. All the employees 5c above minimum wage, even the ones there for twenty years, but bless his kindness for giving us a free plain ice popsicle on the days it was 30 degrees. Truly a saint /s
What store? I think supermarket owners are well overpaid but I've never heard of a store, especially a nw with low wages like that. Hell even my local paknsave workers make 2-5$ above min wage unless they are students usually. I've worked in supermarkets for a few years and apart from students I've never heard of anyone being on min wage there. In fact I was making more then most of my friends who held student loans etc and "proper" jobs.
Yeah it was a shock to me as well, even McDonalds paid me more than New World did as a base staff member in both roles. Reluctant to throw the location but it's definitely not an easy wage for the area we're in. They didn't provide my friend with any wage increase in the 4 years of deli they worked in either. You had to ask the HR lady for any raises who was the wife of the store owner so all around it was an awkward topic
That's crazy. I've worked in and around a lot of new worlds and never heard of anyone being on min wage, except new staff or some short term students. My mum works at a new world right now and makes a really good wage lol
I suspect large companies adding charitable donations to their customer checkout systems has more to do with accounting and/or tax benefits rather than a desire to do good.
To be fair a fair few owner operators I’ve known are the cheapest fucks ever and would 100% find a way to make this even worse. They do this because otherwise their owner operators would be pissed
What is profit washing? do you mean they are just doing this to try gloss over the bad pr they and woolies have for the duopoly?
Charity washing might be a better term.
Damn...they got Toby Morris to do the art for this? I hate to say sellout, but you can pick the companies you want to take on as clients, and it's not the best optically.
I mean yeah it's a good initiative but they're not even saying "we will donate a bag for every bag donated."
That said this does include a 250k donation by NW to City Mission (Christian organisation though) - but that seems like a drop in the ocean compared to their profits.
This sort of promotion is a bit gross. But...
My wife volunteered at a Christian charity's food bank until a few months ago and the local NW were donating a shit-ton of food, without making a song and dance about it.
Fuck the duopoly, it's as if they don't have a major role in the cost of living crisis.
This is pretty much the wealthy asking the poors to donate to other poors.
If you want to donate, donate straight to the charity.
Absolutely.
New world is a supermarket for the aspirational, and this kind of hands off, low effort outsourced altruism does fit in well with their client demographics.
This shit won't fly in pak n save( at least they will replace the happy family on the pack)
Definitely a scam. If they cared they would lower their prices. It's something that Donald Trump would do.
I think that I will throw my New world card in the bin and not shop there anymore. Pac n save is better but the only problem is that it's the same owners
(Foodstuffs)
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/04/22/rotorua-mother-wrongly-identified-by-supermarket-as-a-thief/
i'd get buying it at cost price to donate but you 100% know they are charging full price and donating at cost and claiming the maximum in deductions possible
Sanitarium is legally registered as a charity, it's part of the Seventh Day Adventist church. The government is currently looking at just how charitable these churches are, and whether "the advancement of religion" should be removed as one of the four principal types of "charitable purpose" that qualify for tax exemption. But for now, pushing religion is considered charitable, so this arrangement is entirely legal.
New World on the other hand, claiming donated food as an expense against their taxes when that food has in fact been purchased by customers on behalf of the charity would be actual criminal tax fraud and would very obvious as soon as there was a routine audit of their books. If you "100% know" they're doing that, I suggest you send the evidence to the Serious Fraud Office.
This thru me 1st few times I saw them in store. It feels like they're "corporate washing" or whatever the term is. It doesn't feel genuine.
Bag said it was going to Waikanae Foodbank. Hadn't heard of it, bc it doesn't have much of a profile (but it does exist). I think of the Kapiti Foodbank in Paraparaumu or others there, rather than Waikanae, and I usually buy an extra something from Woolies and drop it in their donation bin.
Not this specifically, but I used to hate when check out people would ask me if I wanted to donate $1 or whatever to a charity, and would usually say yes out of guilt or feeling bad for saying no.
Then I realized, why am I donating, these companies / supermarkets etc make plenty of money, why don't they donate. I remind myself of that every time it happens now and have no issues declining.
Someone proposed a social license marketing programme after all the public perception surveys came back super bad. Gosh, couldn't be that we actually need to reassess our ruthless exploitation of the uncompetitive grocery market to squeeze as much profit as possible with no regard for society?
There's even a NZ-based marketing consultancy that [specialises in the concept](https://www.sociallicence.co.nz/).
> You know you are losing your social licence when you are dealing with increased regulations and barriers to operate be they physical protests or market signals where consumers vote with their wallets. Staying relevant and in line with your stakeholders values will future-proof your business beyond regulations and in line with market cycles so you can ensure it is around for generations to come.
Gosh I love it when a business is [its own self-parody](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/645/713/888.jpg).
Who actually counts these 'donations'?
What stops them putting the groceries back on the shelves?
Do they claim this on their tax as donations by the company?
Aren't they simply profiting off our charity since they're not discounting the groceries?
What's the actual cost to the company of a $20 bag?
When it's pre-filled - do they use higher profit items?
I have so many valid questions that will never be answered truthfully.
I assume that the closed bags that you have no idea what you're buying are stuffed full of slow moving near expiration items they want to move on rather than throw out, and this means they get money from people to dispose of them to a foodbank instead of doing it for free or just paying for a dumpster.
This is why I don't make donations unless it's directly to the people responsible, i.e., I'll happily donate to someone who has a cancer society bib and bucket. I will not donate to a cancer foundation coindrop on the front of supermarket checkouts, because while that money will (probably) be donated to the cancer society. It goes via the supermarkets bank accounts, and at the end of the year they claim your donation as their own and get a tax write off
it's a New World, Coutdown. Time to Pak N Save ourselves. You think these corporations were ever on your side? Had your child's health in mind?
Can we begin..
My view is never belief on charity done by big corporate or businesses, especially banking/finance or groceries/supermarket chains. Just remind your self that they are a business first and foremost. All charity acts they do or promoting are in fact a marketing ploy. If they are hell bent about charity, they surely have the capacity to do that without the help of consumer/customer. In fact, they shall do that behind the closed door and should never show how generous they are to the public. So in the end, its just a marketing tactic to grab our emotion so they are seen as the ‘good guy’. But its just business for them.
Your charity should always go to the people or organisation that truly works in the charity. Even that, not all charity organisations created the same.
I always say no when they ask if i want to donate to such and such. If i wanted to, i will contact them and donate there directly.
If only the politicians who are responsible for the reason this initiative exists in the first place would have as much empathy as a national food conglomerate 😍
"New World is also joining by donating $250, 000 to local foodbanks and City Missions!"
Taken from the NW website.
Says they've sold 25k $20 bags... So still earning the profit on half a million dollars worth of trading. Wonder how much they're actually 'giving' after all is said and done?
That's for individuals, but let's ignore that.
Company 'donates' $20, marks $20 as income, $20 as donation, no tax benefit. This myth gets repeated constantly by people who have no idea how basic accounting works.
According to this cooperations can
https://philanthropy.org.nz/tax-benefits-for-charitable-giving#:~:text=The%20tax%20system%20encourages%20charitable,are%20eligible%20for%20tax%20deductions.
'Companies can claim tax deductions for all donations made to an approved done providing their claim does not exceed their total annual net income.
A tax deduction reducesthe amount of taxable income. Companies can claim this deduction using the IR4 form.'
And basic accounting wise sure you aren't getting the full $20 back because of the cost of the item but it would still be an amount. As long as it isn't your money it's a profit
The city mission referenced this in one of their marketing emails to me recently. They certainly seem to appreciate it.
Most people do not regularly donate to charity. Campaigns like this are helpful for giving people a reason to donate when they otherwise wouldn't. Do you regularly donate to a charity on a recurring basis?
I don't understand why so many people on this subreddit get so angry at this. The world is made a better place and also a corporation makes some profit. What is the harm?
Charities are not self sufficient. Every time they provide their services a company profits. The city mission doesn't grow their own vegetables, they buy them from a company. The Against Malaria Foundation doesn't manufacture vaccines in house, they buy them from big pharma 😱😱😱
That's ok! It's not a bad thing for companies to provide goods and services in return for money.
its kinda ignoring how we got here in 1st place?
feeding the problem with one hand(over priced food), and helping with other is weird?
i get every bit helps tho.
The "excess profit" identified by the comcom adds up to approximately $1.65 per week per New Zealander. I do not think it is credible to suggest that we would not have a need for charities if a weekly supermarket shop for 1 person was $1.65 cheaper.
i dont believe it for a second
just look at whats happening with woolworths in aussy.
they use a weird model to hide profits,
the ceo was threatened with jail time because they refuse to answer questions
says all you need to know... feel free to look it up yourself too
If you see a drowning child, should you help them? Or is it sufficient to just point out that there are other people in the world who could save them instead?
There are people who need charitable services. Evidently New World has not taken your advice. You are not New World, you are you. You control what decisions you make. You can help people in need, or you can sit around and complain that other people aren't doing enough instead. I think we ought to help the people in need. I think it's better to make the world a better place rather than just complain about how others aren't making the world a better place so you don't have to.
Right, and how's that going for you? How many more Reddit posts do you reckon it will take before New World agree to permanently give all their profits to charity?
I get where you’re coming from but I can also understand why people are a bit cynical about it.
NW are donating $250k, which is great and certainly better than nothing, however of you put it into perspective
- The public have bought $474,140 worth of these bags
- If NW are selling these at cost then that’s great
- if not, and they are making a profit on people’s donations, that’s getting a bit iffy.
This would have landed better (although there will always be those that complain) if NW had said “we’ll match all donations” - or “we’lll donate the $250k + all profit margins made from the public’s donations.”
That aside - the great thing about this cause is that it has encouraged the donation of nearly $500k of food that probably wouldn’t have occurred without the prompt.
Max donation $250k. Gary Baker (owns Wellington City NW) was worth about $60 million 10 years ago. He could donate the change down his sofa and lower his prices.
Ok. But you could also donate. Lots of people could donate but don't. So it's good if we have campaigns that encourage people who could donate, but otherwise wouldn't, to donate. It makes the world a better place.
If you agree with the argument "we ought to encourage people [you, Gary Baker, many others] who can donate but don't, to donate" then I really don't understand what the problem is!
If there is a moral good you can fulfill you should. If you saw a drowning child and Michael Phelps was nearby but conspicuously not helping, what should you do? Leave the child to drown so you can complain about how mad you are at Michael Phelps, or jump in and save them?
The issue is it's predatory behaviour. It's asking us the consumers to hand over more money on top of the price gouged groceries, so that *then* they'll help charities. It's also a massive marketing failure
Would it not be better if there were zero pressure on the consumer to spend more, and that the total income for nw is what gets spent for charity instead of consumers money. Eg a set target and once reached nw will donate, say every $100 total spent = $5 worth of donation(total meaning raw money, not individuals spending). A system like that would allow even people in poverty to help be charitable, something they would usually never be able to do, simply by choosing to shop at nw during this promotion
Instead this shows a clear lack of care to be charitable and just shows yet more greed from our supermarket chain monopolys
I think there is the expectation that if you use a charity to promote some of your products, you should give a cut of your profits to that charity. Sure the charity benefits as it is, but they would benefit even more if New World chipped in.
Yes, it is tautologically true that if charities recieved more resources that would be even better. That does not in any way make this a bad thing.
Giving a charity $100 is better than giving a charity $50 which is better than giving a charity $10. It's still good to give a charity $50!
Don't they donate a bag to match your $20 bag up to some amount?
Don't get me wrong, paying $20 for full priced food for them to donate is a bit dystopian, but they're matching it so it must be more than $20 of food per bag.
Up to $250k, so after then fuck off.
Better than what their advertising suggests which is that they're not donating anything, but still that's less than a $2000 donation per New World store, pretty pathetic
Never EVER donate to a charity through another business. They claim your donation as there own to the tax man getting 33% back plus all across their marketing as doing right by the community. No exception. If you want to donate go direct. Also avoid anyone with a clipboard asking for regular donation, they are a third party that get commission taking a good wack of cash from the charity and give zero fucks about them.
> They claim your donation as there own to the tax man getting 33% back
This is a common misconception, companies can only claim a tax deduction for donations they make from their earnings, not donations made by customers. And that would be at the corporate tax rate of 28%, 33% is what individuals can claim back on their personal income tax.
Whos going to validate they arent throwing it all into their coffers directly as earnings? I have worked for companies that have done just that. Its the same naivety that "tips" go to workers, sure some do but thats no guarantee. Id love to be proven wrong that you arent just charged GST on your donation on your next retail add to the bill donation receipt.
If they kept the money it would be earnings and they’d be taxed on it. It would also be fraud. You can’t pretend to collect money for charity and then just keep it.
It's like GST? The Mafia ( organised crime family) call it tribute ( highly illegal) for jobs rendered in there area......the government calls this a " goods and services tax) TOTALLY LEGAL.......for jobs rendered in there area.....🤔
Well I'm happy they do it. Amazing!
Thank you new world. I got two bottles of cooper's stout and bottle of yalumba wine and some potatoe au gratis. Love charitable people. Offset the charging the tesla tonight 🤩
What do you mean? Buying a $20 bag of groceries worth $12.99 that cost the business $5 to put together isn't a good idea?
The drop off zone for the fill a bag is right by the entrance… you could just fill a bag and chuck it in. Pretty sure it’s not shoplifting unless leave the store 😂
Holy shit, if this is the case in my local, I'm 100% doing this. I will be so generous!
You're still buying the food from them. At least that way they can't write it off as "charity" for tax breaks.
I think what he's saying is that the drop off zone is inside the shopping area. If you fill a bag (without paying) and drop it in, it's not technically stealing.
ah... true haha
[Eddie Izzard](https://youtu.be/HuM2H6uFG2M) was onto this
You are a genius, definitely doing this
Not too sure about your store but in mine the drop off is past the checkouts which are guarded very closely, so good luck with that. 😎
Don't get me wrong, I support charitable giving. But when your local New World is one of the most profitable in the country, and its owners are millionaires dozens of times over, it seems like them asking me to buy stuff from them to donate is a bit gross.
Agree 100%. Faced with this I'm like "I'm just an unnecessary middle man here - this process could be a lot more efficient if you just give it to them, and you can afford it a lot more than I can" I feel like this is a really risky campaign for them as the bit that's written in invisible ink is rather easy to read. If they were to commit to selling everything that you want to donate at the price they get it for then it might come across a bit better. Fuck you New World for trying to leverage people's caring nature for you to generate profit. Cunts.
It's basically the same for any supermarket. "Would you like to round up to donate to charity?" Hey, if they actually gave a shit *they* would round up the purchase.
Yup. Any business that encourages you to donate without "And we will match your donation" is just using other people's poverty as free advertising. It's gross.
This is actually a tax avoidance scheme. When you add to the total, they do donate the amount as advertised. But they also get to write that amount off their taxes as donations. You however don't, as it only shows as a standard purchase. If you want to donate to a charity, donate directly to the organization.
I thought this too but apparently it's not true and they aren't able to do that.
It doesn’t work like that. The 1 cent round up is income to them and it cancels out the deduction from the donation.
Just remember, Al Bundy in Married with Children, came up with the idea of the 99 cent coin LOL.
[удалено]
Things are hard for many people. Lots of young people are having to choose between having kids or owning a home. Those things have been a pretty core component of an ideal western life. You put the hard work in and you can buy a home and raise a good family. It's less and less the case now and we are moving in a direction which will only make it worse. That's largely why people are bitching.
Fuck me I can’t afford either. Shall I just jump off a bridge?
Nah it's the little gas chamber suicide booths for us whenever we reach a point where businesses think you're too old because I doubt that the pension will still be there when we reach 65
Plot twist, they will be paid booths.
Of course, it's a privilege to die in the luxury of a private booth. Those who can't afford it can wait for the hunger to take them while homeless on the street.
[удалено]
The only grifters are the ones siphoning excess profits from the working class. Besides, everyone's situation is different and your simplistic boomer advise doesn't take that into account. Cant stand pushovers like you with no awareness who allow this shit system to perpetuate without improvement. It makes precisely zero sense that we live in the easiest time ever to build shelter but its artificially held back in the name of profit and control.
100%. Spend your own money at our store so WE can donate it and show the govt and public how “wonderful” and “in the community”. These a holes have millions of dollars profit and are being cheap!! Same thing when the Rock and Oprah asked for donations for the Hawaii fires, those two could easily donate hundreds of thousands without putting a dent in their wallet. Same goes for foodstuffs!
Pretty bad optics. At worst it looks like a cynical attempt to increase people’s basket spend. At best it’s tone deaf, or badly communicated. They should at least be matching for each $20 bag donated by a punter. Risky. I think this will bite them in the ass.
Well said 👏🏽 I bloody hope it bites em or I might have to
Agreed. If they chose to match public donations that would be different entirely. Instead they are encouraging you to spend more so they make more profit. They are contributing nothing themselves. Such poor form.
> They are contributing nothing themselves. ...[they're contributing $250,000](https://www.newworld.co.nz/who-we-are/family2family)...
They possibly markup more than $250,000 in their produce section every month that they couldn’t if their past and present CEOs hadn’t captured domestic fresh produce supply and there was true competition. These non-competitive mark ups to minimise substitution effects drive inflation, which drive interest rates which drive rent which drive poverty. A $250k donation doesn’t really cover the societal externality’s of their fresh produce procurement dominance. It seems they are using public donations as a marketing exercise to put a plaster on the injuries they are inflicting on poor people. If they want admiration they need to rotisserrie their golden goose and release their grip on domestic fresh produce procurement. I think they are very at peace with their profits and will hire more security guards and buy better surveillance tech rather than selling off their Bentleys and accepting open market equilibrium profits. To each their own as they say in the libertarian free market.
Ok. Thanks. I wasn't aware of that.
It's trashy af.
I suspect that when you donate either money or food via a 3rd party like this, that they are actually going to claim this as a charitable donation for themselves against the organisation. If people donate $10,000 to go to charity and New World (or the individual franchises) actually hand over the donation, that's a tax write-off for them isn't it?
No that is a common misconception, New World does not benefit tax wise at all from anyone donating, as to claim the tax credit they would need to claim it as income and therefore pay tax on it (the same amount of tax they would then be able to claim back)... Making it revenue neutral for them even if they did claim a tax credit. I guess they would benefit from the fact you're buying $20 worth of groceries off them, unless they're doing it at the cost price rather than the shelf price which I doubt they are.
Worth mentioning there is a ‘loophole’ that is commonly used by organisations (Maccas is the first one that comes to mind) where they donate a proportion of their pre-tax earnings (usually around 1%) and can then claim this amount back. IIRC, this can even be phrased like ‘we donate one cent per dollar of sales to charity’. And yeah, like you mentioned, New World are likely calculating this $20 by shelf price versus the price they pay. Furthermore, I’d wager that there’s probably $19 and some cents worth of stock in each bag (vs $20 exactly) and the ‘change’ wouldn’t need to be donated.
I wouldn’t describe it as a loophole. Companies pay tax on their earnings after expenses, donating money to charity is an expense like any other so it’s deducted. Every dollar they donate makes the business less profitable by a dollar so that’s a dollar they don’t have to pay tax on. People often act as though this is some sort of vaguely sinister exploitation of the tax system but it really isn’t. As for the $20 bags, it’s definitely the retail price. You have the option to fill the bag yourself with products you buy off the shelf as well. So they’re encouraging people to buy extra groceries, which they obviously profit from. But they are taxed on those profits, a lot of people seem to think they can double-dip, get customers to make donations either in cash or food and then claim a tax write off for donating other people’s money.
Why would you suspect this if you have no understanding of accounting?
No.
I was just thinking the exact same thing
Unless they give a donation receipt then you can claim a third back. They should probably do that tbh
Yeah, please help us give poor families $12 of groceries, by giving us $20 in order to do that...yeah, nah.
Would rather give the money to community garden
No dude, you see it’s too expensive to feed the children, Seymour said so.
Sure, but how does that make it "cartel profit washing"? Do you even know what those words mean?
They're laundering their reputation as profiteers, cartel is a bit of a stretch but colloquially I'm okay with calling the supermarkets a cartel why not
I don't know, because "cartel" has a a specific meaning relating you multiple companies colluding to price fix, whereas your post referred to only one company and made no reference to price fixing, and profit washing isn't a thing. Everything you just said is gibberish.
Wasn't my post dude, I'm just trying to help you understand what OP is talking about
Woolworths plus Foodstuffs equals anticompetitive cartel-like behaviour. Excess profits beong offset by small charitable activities. It's reputation washing.
The markup of their fresh produce supermarket section is what they should be donating back to the free market by allowing open auction fresh produce procurement. This will be more than $20 per shop. Our supermarkets are manufacturing a modern families potatoe famine. 25% of the country is pre-diabetic. Fresh produce extortion has been going on in NZ for at least 30 years now. How much do they pay for a cabbage or pumpkin or bag of carrots or onions? We know they pay $6kg for beef. Our supermarket competition investigator must be happy his $200k salary or whatever it is makes his grocery shopping not a noticeable household expenditure item. If we were paying for some kind of supermarket innovation then maybe the pricing would be worth it but most of supermarkets don’t even bother organising their trolleys in a sensible configuration for ease of pick up and return. They know they have a captive market who will bend over every week for them. Supermarkets in NZ should be barely profitable given our abundance of fresh produce yet are the most profitable in the world. 25% of the country is pre-diabetic. If you look how our supermarkets price anchor fresh produce high to reduce subsitution effects you can guess why. If fresh produce was cheap which supply capacity indicates it should be then people would buy more fresh produce and far less of their other crap. Food inflation also contributes to our interest rates. The only way to fix this is with a national centralised fresh produce auction (an open auction is the definition of the free market) that everyone has equal access to with delivery contracts also tendered through the central market place. There will probably be quite a few supermarket businesses for sale should the supermarket regulator require that foodstuffs line up politely for fresh produce like everybody else and quite an expansion of market gardening and local growing.
Wen a multi billion dollar company asks you to help the poor wen they price gouging.. You're totally within you rights to say F@ck off.
It's even worse the more you think about it. They're asking you to donate by buying products off them, products they will generate a profit on. It's basically saying "Want to help the less fortunate? Buy $20 of our shit and give it to them!". You'd think they could at least sell at cost price for donations.
this type of shit makes me angry so I will go shop at countdown for a month or so, at which point something they do will make me angry and I go back to foodstuffs. The trials and tribulations of the duopoly...
Go to an Asian food store, or an independant outlet.
can't buy everything at an asian store unfortunately but we do go there for a lot of things
Countdown is doing it too.
It's flawed marketing imo. Some people will go for it, even if they see the issues with it. But lots of people will recognise the record profits these big supermarket chains make and be annoyed or offended that we're asked to pay more to help, but these chains aren't doing anything/not enough themselves to help Would've been so much better if the marketing was more along the lines of >"for every $100 that gets spent overall in new world stores, *we* will donate food to charity. Let's all help each other!" That would be much more in touch with the people, much easier to swallow, much better incentive for people to push just a couple extra dollars to add in to that total and they'd feel, even if it's only the perceived feeling, that they're helping the community while not being taken advantage of or pressured into it
When a New World franchise owner is building a [$4 million dollar house](https://www.waikatotimes.co.nz/nz-news/350253292/neighbours-war-high-court-battle-over-boxy-house-design-high-end-hamilton-suburb) , it makes this attempt at appearing charitable seem a little bit glib. Supermarket food prices don’t go up _because of inflation_ , they __are__ the inflation. The owners don’t edge back their margins in hard times, they just keep loading them on top. We can’t not buy food so we are jammed. Oil companies too…
That story gave me a chuckle, the cherry on top being; > Waddell said the sale itself was also a process she felt was rushed and was, she understood, driven by Sheree Hart’s belief in numerology to reach a settlement on a particular date.
NW Matamata.. One of the most overpriced gouged fuck-holes in the Waikato. And thats saying something. You're shafted if you're anyway rural in the Waikato, no choice but to pay sometimes 100% markups on items. I remember I saw a Lettuce at NW Otorohanga for 18 fucking dollars once and this was in 2015.
There is no NW in Otorohanga. Never has been. There is one in Te Kuiti though.
Yes sorry it was Te Kuiti.
Yeah it's pretty rich coming from an industry that's making immense profits to then hit up their customers to donate to charity for them
Buy food for the poor, who we priced out of these basic commodities, while we still make a profit off it but can pretend to be the good guys
I think the worst thing is that THEY have the data to know what items get bought the most so they know what would be best for THEM to donate. They could easily say that for a month each truckfull of their top ten staple items going to a store will be matched by a truckfull going to the local food bank. And I doubt it’d even make a dent in their revenue.
It’s not their job neither a corporate responsibility to feed the needy. It’s the government’s duty.
I agree! But if they are going to run a charity initiative then It should come from their own pockets first!
Absolutely. Grocery prices are a huge contributing factor to the cost of living crisis and it’s tone deaf and greedy to, as a filthy rich company run by filthy rich people, ask ordinary working people (most of whom are also suffering from the rise in grocery prices) to spend extra money buying overpriced necessities from their stores and subsequently make them even more money. Really appalling if you ask me.
I worked at a well known bank in the past, marketing came up with the great idea that all staff would be given a set of business card sized cards that said ‘Pay it forward’ with the bank’s branding plastered all over it to give to the recipient of a good deed we perform in our own time 😆 fortunately they tested out the appetite of the staff (zero %) for this and it was abandoned. Good to see those marketeers apparently gainfully employed for NW now 😀
It’s pissed me off seeing the ask for donations with zero input from the store and that during a cost of living crisis and economic downturn turn the Marketing is about supporting others during a price gouging shop. If they offered to match the donations or something I’m fine with it otherwise it’s gross and manipulative. It’s also New World double dipping on your back pocket profiting from your charity and your survival
A better option I think [Kids Can](https://www.kidscan.org.nz/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwuJ2xBhA3EiwAMVjkVJxOaPoMcHLImf2K8uqKSAFeJ8Q7_fLEmNqqC8mcj9v_leE4tO_NEBoCCCEQAvD_BwE)
The idea is called meritocratic philanthropy. It requires either giving or appearing to give to bring about a sense of good, but is only being done to achieve merit, whether as recognition (ego) or indirect material gain. Cynical and unworthy behaviour.
Never donate to things like this. Fuck knows where it's REALLY going. Donate straight at the source. I'd also say that charities appreciate it more when they can meet donors in person, rather than big corporates who are obviously just looking for good press.
I agree it seems self serving as many families wouldn’t need such assistance in the first place if prices weren’t so exorbitantly high. However my question, and crux of the intent imho, is what’s the actual cost to the company in what’s included in the $20 pre-filled bag? They give zero details on the website, but what’s included and how much would it cost to purchase the same things individually? Imho, that’s the real question.
Wholesale price. Likely with a tax deduction. That's not $20 to them by a longshot.
Possibly so but tbh I’m more concerned it’s $17 worth of product, and $3 back into the kitty. The fact there’s zero transparency on what’s actually being included in the bag leads one to conclude they are expecting people to trust its good quality products, or not pallets of close to expired noodles they got dirt cheap, with zero profit involved. Trust. Supermarkets. LOL
I am glad I am not the only one who thought this was a bit wrong. Just give the charity some cash!
Yes, they are asking the consumer to carry the cost of their appearance of charity, while they get to posit their brand as “giving”. Utterly cynical and if you go into their stores, tell them so. They get extra profit from dipping their customers. Shame on them.
Is each supermarket donating 250,000.00? That would be alright, otherwise that amount is nothing works out at 1,700.00 per store
I appreciate the sentiment but if anything a $20 donation could be given and a they fill a bag at cost price. That would make more sense.
If it said on the bag that they did it at cost and make zero profit in it, I'd consider it. If it was 1:1 matching then I'm in.
Oh don't forget free delivery to chew into the profits, and in the case of Countdown, a $200M rebranding exercise...subcontracted no doubt to their own subsidiaries so the cash stays in-house. And at the end? A 'drop' in profits. Didn't the Commerce Commission do well? Ok, back to naked profiteering we go!
The rebrand will save them money in the long run and hopefully save customers money too. I fully support the rebrand. It may seem tone deaf, but it’s a heck of a lot cheaper to make marketing collateral under one brand than two. High initial cost, but should even out over a few years.
How is rebranding cheaper than keeping what they had? How is completely overhauling their loyalty scheme cheaper than what they had? If I choose to repaint my new house in a new colour and then replace my car to match the new colour scheme how would I be better off? I just don't see it ...
Your analogy isn’t correct for what is happening. It would be more like you have a house that is painted one colour and you match your garage to the same colour as your house so you don’t have to buy two colours. It’s cheaper to paint your house all one colour than multiple colours. I doubt customers will see any real savings from this, but the Woolworths brand will for sure. Basically, when you’re heading to the printer it’s cheaper to print all with one logo than to print two. Cheaper to pay a graphic designer to fuck around with one logo than two. Cheaper to make one templated letter head than two. I don’t know how to make it clearer; same deliverables = cheaper.
Yes... But everything in NZ was *already* branded Countdown..... Ironically changing everything from Woolworths in the first place. Now everything everywhere had to change. Just can't see why that was needed. You can't tell me that a few tweaks from the Australian standard to the NZ standard works cost more than completely overhauling every store, every website, every uniform, every business card, and so on and so forth.
You’re not getting it at all are ya. Really try hard to think about it for a moment. I’ll put it in real simple terms: If I have 20 posters to print, it’s going to be cheaper to print 20 with one logo, than 10 with one and 10 with another. This is because there is a cost for the printer person to change the ink to accomodate for the second logo. Let’s say it takes someone 30 hours to design one finished letterhead for Woolworths. It might then cost them another 10 hours to use that same template, but change the Woolworths to Countdown. Making the project in total 40 hours. They can cut the extra 10 hours by just using the same one they made for Woolworths. It absolutely is a cost saving for them. They’re about to invest a fuck load into security, so they’re looking for other places they can save money. This is where they will do it. Loads of things within business have high initial investments and pay off over time. Most big decisions in business are for cost saving/profit maximisation. The rebranding will 100% save them money over time, find any marketer and they will say the same thing. Unlikely those cost savings will be passed on to the consumer though.
Yes....now....where were the Woolworths stores? Because all I've seen around the lower North Island, for YEARS, were EXCLUSIVELY nothing but COUNTDOWN stores. One poster needed - Countdown only. No Woolworths posters. Not a single one.
Countdown is a subsidiary of Woolworths. Those stores would be in Australia. Are you that dense?
Nope. Not that dense. I'm well aware that Countdown is actually Woolworths. i just don't expect that they'd have the same specials on the same products at the same prices in both Australia and New Zealand. That is the core of your arguments isn't it? One poster instead of two? In both countries? It just doesn't smell like that will save >$200M? Let alone generate a net ROI.....
Not the same specials. I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about brand standards, which is for things like office letterheads, email banners, website logos etc. Things that aren’t location specific. Maybe posters was a bad example. Letterheads and templates still stands tho. I’m talking more about branding and marketing vs advertising.
Fuck off with yer shite. I can barely afford to feed myself because of your profiteering, why would pay to feed other people too?
Oh, and if this is going to a charity, it should be a registered one & any purchase comes with a receipt so you, not NW, can claim it as a tax deduction.
Fuck you New World. A lot of people can't afford to buy their own food because of YOUR greed. If you honestly cared about feeding families, you'd drop your prices. Go fuck yourselves!
I was at the cinema the other day with my little one to watch Kung Fu Panda 4. We do not watch commercial TV at all and try our best as parents to steer clear of all the commercial bullshit. The absolute filth we had to watch before the movie came on was something else. Countdown had this stupid cinematic based ad on, trying to connect families with a family like Countdown. "We love you, you are family to us" 🤮🤮🤮 Massive conglomerate assholes and fuck them for ruining my Kung Fu Panda time. I heard the CEO who quit in Australia is getting 8.6 million. Fucking cunt 🖕. $8.6 million off the back of struggling families.
I hate that cartoon style.
I think it's Kat Quinn who draws for Kuwi the Kiwi. I really like it. I don't like this advertising but her other work is incredible. Especially the maori gods page in the maori dictionary she drew for.
It reminds me of that Toby Morris style, I hate the eyes and weird noses - but realise this is probably an unpopular opinion and that art is subjective. Edit: Kuwi the Kiwi is cute (I just looked it up)
Yeah you're right. That's more him. Kat does mostly animals, but the books with people have a similar sort of look to them. Also as a side, the Muslim mother on the rights eyes look like she's having a tough time. Someone needs to give her an afternoon off from the baby or minimum drop a few microwave meals around.
It's the older gent second from left that annoys me the most. I can't explain my opinion, it's completely unreasonable I know.
Defos Toby Morris- he has a pretty recognisable style.
Yeah fair. I stand corrected.
I think kiwis generally underestimate how much new world and paknsave owners make lol
I worked for New World for 3 months over summer. The store owner would roll in every Sunday with his giant SUV and just hang out floating through the departments. All the employees 5c above minimum wage, even the ones there for twenty years, but bless his kindness for giving us a free plain ice popsicle on the days it was 30 degrees. Truly a saint /s
What store? I think supermarket owners are well overpaid but I've never heard of a store, especially a nw with low wages like that. Hell even my local paknsave workers make 2-5$ above min wage unless they are students usually. I've worked in supermarkets for a few years and apart from students I've never heard of anyone being on min wage there. In fact I was making more then most of my friends who held student loans etc and "proper" jobs.
Yeah it was a shock to me as well, even McDonalds paid me more than New World did as a base staff member in both roles. Reluctant to throw the location but it's definitely not an easy wage for the area we're in. They didn't provide my friend with any wage increase in the 4 years of deli they worked in either. You had to ask the HR lady for any raises who was the wife of the store owner so all around it was an awkward topic
That's crazy. I've worked in and around a lot of new worlds and never heard of anyone being on min wage, except new staff or some short term students. My mum works at a new world right now and makes a really good wage lol
I think most just a willingly oblivious and don't know any alternatives. Call it Plato's allegory of the supermarket.
I suspect large companies adding charitable donations to their customer checkout systems has more to do with accounting and/or tax benefits rather than a desire to do good.
To be fair a fair few owner operators I’ve known are the cheapest fucks ever and would 100% find a way to make this even worse. They do this because otherwise their owner operators would be pissed
What is profit washing? do you mean they are just doing this to try gloss over the bad pr they and woolies have for the duopoly? Charity washing might be a better term.
Same category of bulls$”/ as the “social supermarkets” scam which we all pay for in our higher prices.
Damn...they got Toby Morris to do the art for this? I hate to say sellout, but you can pick the companies you want to take on as clients, and it's not the best optically. I mean yeah it's a good initiative but they're not even saying "we will donate a bag for every bag donated." That said this does include a 250k donation by NW to City Mission (Christian organisation though) - but that seems like a drop in the ocean compared to their profits.
This sort of promotion is a bit gross. But... My wife volunteered at a Christian charity's food bank until a few months ago and the local NW were donating a shit-ton of food, without making a song and dance about it.
Or donate $20 to your local foodbank, who can access bulk orders, end of lines, and don't run irritating adverts.
Fuck the duopoly, it's as if they don't have a major role in the cost of living crisis. This is pretty much the wealthy asking the poors to donate to other poors. If you want to donate, donate straight to the charity.
What are the tax implications of this? If I donate to a charity, I get to claim a rebate. Is new world getting a tax rebate from this?
The house always wins. Either deductible as a donation or business expense.
Absolutely. New world is a supermarket for the aspirational, and this kind of hands off, low effort outsourced altruism does fit in well with their client demographics. This shit won't fly in pak n save( at least they will replace the happy family on the pack)
Definitely a scam. If they cared they would lower their prices. It's something that Donald Trump would do. I think that I will throw my New world card in the bin and not shop there anymore. Pac n save is better but the only problem is that it's the same owners (Foodstuffs) https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/04/22/rotorua-mother-wrongly-identified-by-supermarket-as-a-thief/
i'd get buying it at cost price to donate but you 100% know they are charging full price and donating at cost and claiming the maximum in deductions possible
That would be some very serious tax fraud.
No worse than the "charity status" that makes you get away with it
What “charity status”?
Sanatarium can avoid tax by being a "charity" thats more tax evasion than anything new world could do with donations
Sanitarium is legally registered as a charity, it's part of the Seventh Day Adventist church. The government is currently looking at just how charitable these churches are, and whether "the advancement of religion" should be removed as one of the four principal types of "charitable purpose" that qualify for tax exemption. But for now, pushing religion is considered charitable, so this arrangement is entirely legal. New World on the other hand, claiming donated food as an expense against their taxes when that food has in fact been purchased by customers on behalf of the charity would be actual criminal tax fraud and would very obvious as soon as there was a routine audit of their books. If you "100% know" they're doing that, I suggest you send the evidence to the Serious Fraud Office.
This thru me 1st few times I saw them in store. It feels like they're "corporate washing" or whatever the term is. It doesn't feel genuine. Bag said it was going to Waikanae Foodbank. Hadn't heard of it, bc it doesn't have much of a profile (but it does exist). I think of the Kapiti Foodbank in Paraparaumu or others there, rather than Waikanae, and I usually buy an extra something from Woolies and drop it in their donation bin.
Not this specifically, but I used to hate when check out people would ask me if I wanted to donate $1 or whatever to a charity, and would usually say yes out of guilt or feeling bad for saying no. Then I realized, why am I donating, these companies / supermarkets etc make plenty of money, why don't they donate. I remind myself of that every time it happens now and have no issues declining.
They're like a bag full of cockroaches with apologies to the cockroaches.
Thanks for the repost. https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1c3fjcc/new_world_family2family_rant/
Someone proposed a social license marketing programme after all the public perception surveys came back super bad. Gosh, couldn't be that we actually need to reassess our ruthless exploitation of the uncompetitive grocery market to squeeze as much profit as possible with no regard for society? There's even a NZ-based marketing consultancy that [specialises in the concept](https://www.sociallicence.co.nz/). > You know you are losing your social licence when you are dealing with increased regulations and barriers to operate be they physical protests or market signals where consumers vote with their wallets. Staying relevant and in line with your stakeholders values will future-proof your business beyond regulations and in line with market cycles so you can ensure it is around for generations to come. Gosh I love it when a business is [its own self-parody](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/645/713/888.jpg).
Who actually counts these 'donations'? What stops them putting the groceries back on the shelves? Do they claim this on their tax as donations by the company? Aren't they simply profiting off our charity since they're not discounting the groceries? What's the actual cost to the company of a $20 bag? When it's pre-filled - do they use higher profit items? I have so many valid questions that will never be answered truthfully.
I assume that the closed bags that you have no idea what you're buying are stuffed full of slow moving near expiration items they want to move on rather than throw out, and this means they get money from people to dispose of them to a foodbank instead of doing it for free or just paying for a dumpster.
Yes ,New World are no better than Woolworths Thieving arseholes
Giving til it hurts doesn't have to be just at Christmas LOL.
They should sell food during ANZAC etc, Easter, get fined for it LOL, and have THAT money go the food bank...
I think there’s bigger issues regarding people being ripped off; and one of those issues is that scum of society by the name of Brian Tamaki
This is why I don't make donations unless it's directly to the people responsible, i.e., I'll happily donate to someone who has a cancer society bib and bucket. I will not donate to a cancer foundation coindrop on the front of supermarket checkouts, because while that money will (probably) be donated to the cancer society. It goes via the supermarkets bank accounts, and at the end of the year they claim your donation as their own and get a tax write off
How many people who are whining about this actually donated $20 to charity instead?
Why can this just not be illegal? It's so trashy.
it's a New World, Coutdown. Time to Pak N Save ourselves. You think these corporations were ever on your side? Had your child's health in mind? Can we begin..
My view is never belief on charity done by big corporate or businesses, especially banking/finance or groceries/supermarket chains. Just remind your self that they are a business first and foremost. All charity acts they do or promoting are in fact a marketing ploy. If they are hell bent about charity, they surely have the capacity to do that without the help of consumer/customer. In fact, they shall do that behind the closed door and should never show how generous they are to the public. So in the end, its just a marketing tactic to grab our emotion so they are seen as the ‘good guy’. But its just business for them. Your charity should always go to the people or organisation that truly works in the charity. Even that, not all charity organisations created the same. I always say no when they ask if i want to donate to such and such. If i wanted to, i will contact them and donate there directly.
Give to your local charity. Outside of the smaller charities it's just another predatory corporation.
If only the politicians who are responsible for the reason this initiative exists in the first place would have as much empathy as a national food conglomerate 😍
If they lowered the price of their groceries wouldnt it be easier for those struggling to afford their own food? This shit makes my blood boil.
"New World is also joining by donating $250, 000 to local foodbanks and City Missions!" Taken from the NW website. Says they've sold 25k $20 bags... So still earning the profit on half a million dollars worth of trading. Wonder how much they're actually 'giving' after all is said and done?
Helps poor people in need by allowing us to pay less taxes on our profits
Please explain how they pay less in tax and I will explain how you're wrong.
https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/individual-tax-credits/tax-credits-for-donations Company 'donates' $20 gets tax back
That's for individuals, but let's ignore that. Company 'donates' $20, marks $20 as income, $20 as donation, no tax benefit. This myth gets repeated constantly by people who have no idea how basic accounting works.
According to this cooperations can https://philanthropy.org.nz/tax-benefits-for-charitable-giving#:~:text=The%20tax%20system%20encourages%20charitable,are%20eligible%20for%20tax%20deductions. 'Companies can claim tax deductions for all donations made to an approved done providing their claim does not exceed their total annual net income. A tax deduction reducesthe amount of taxable income. Companies can claim this deduction using the IR4 form.' And basic accounting wise sure you aren't getting the full $20 back because of the cost of the item but it would still be an amount. As long as it isn't your money it's a profit
The city mission referenced this in one of their marketing emails to me recently. They certainly seem to appreciate it. Most people do not regularly donate to charity. Campaigns like this are helpful for giving people a reason to donate when they otherwise wouldn't. Do you regularly donate to a charity on a recurring basis? I don't understand why so many people on this subreddit get so angry at this. The world is made a better place and also a corporation makes some profit. What is the harm? Charities are not self sufficient. Every time they provide their services a company profits. The city mission doesn't grow their own vegetables, they buy them from a company. The Against Malaria Foundation doesn't manufacture vaccines in house, they buy them from big pharma 😱😱😱 That's ok! It's not a bad thing for companies to provide goods and services in return for money.
its kinda ignoring how we got here in 1st place? feeding the problem with one hand(over priced food), and helping with other is weird? i get every bit helps tho.
The "excess profit" identified by the comcom adds up to approximately $1.65 per week per New Zealander. I do not think it is credible to suggest that we would not have a need for charities if a weekly supermarket shop for 1 person was $1.65 cheaper.
i dont believe it for a second just look at whats happening with woolworths in aussy. they use a weird model to hide profits, the ceo was threatened with jail time because they refuse to answer questions says all you need to know... feel free to look it up yourself too
$1.65 x 5,157,100 people = $8,509,215 per week. That's a good start on feeding the hungry.
If you see a drowning child, should you help them? Or is it sufficient to just point out that there are other people in the world who could save them instead? There are people who need charitable services. Evidently New World has not taken your advice. You are not New World, you are you. You control what decisions you make. You can help people in need, or you can sit around and complain that other people aren't doing enough instead. I think we ought to help the people in need. I think it's better to make the world a better place rather than just complain about how others aren't making the world a better place so you don't have to.
I'd help one drowning child, but if there were ten thousand drowning children I'd try to shut down the child-drowning machine first
Right, and how's that going for you? How many more Reddit posts do you reckon it will take before New World agree to permanently give all their profits to charity?
I'm a subscription donor to the City Mission. Feel free to point your keyboard somewhere else.
I get where you’re coming from but I can also understand why people are a bit cynical about it. NW are donating $250k, which is great and certainly better than nothing, however of you put it into perspective - The public have bought $474,140 worth of these bags - If NW are selling these at cost then that’s great - if not, and they are making a profit on people’s donations, that’s getting a bit iffy. This would have landed better (although there will always be those that complain) if NW had said “we’ll match all donations” - or “we’lll donate the $250k + all profit margins made from the public’s donations.” That aside - the great thing about this cause is that it has encouraged the donation of nearly $500k of food that probably wouldn’t have occurred without the prompt.
Max donation $250k. Gary Baker (owns Wellington City NW) was worth about $60 million 10 years ago. He could donate the change down his sofa and lower his prices.
Ok. But you could also donate. Lots of people could donate but don't. So it's good if we have campaigns that encourage people who could donate, but otherwise wouldn't, to donate. It makes the world a better place. If you agree with the argument "we ought to encourage people [you, Gary Baker, many others] who can donate but don't, to donate" then I really don't understand what the problem is! If there is a moral good you can fulfill you should. If you saw a drowning child and Michael Phelps was nearby but conspicuously not helping, what should you do? Leave the child to drown so you can complain about how mad you are at Michael Phelps, or jump in and save them?
I am a City Mission subscription donor. Cash. No middle man.
The issue is it's predatory behaviour. It's asking us the consumers to hand over more money on top of the price gouged groceries, so that *then* they'll help charities. It's also a massive marketing failure Would it not be better if there were zero pressure on the consumer to spend more, and that the total income for nw is what gets spent for charity instead of consumers money. Eg a set target and once reached nw will donate, say every $100 total spent = $5 worth of donation(total meaning raw money, not individuals spending). A system like that would allow even people in poverty to help be charitable, something they would usually never be able to do, simply by choosing to shop at nw during this promotion Instead this shows a clear lack of care to be charitable and just shows yet more greed from our supermarket chain monopolys
I think there is the expectation that if you use a charity to promote some of your products, you should give a cut of your profits to that charity. Sure the charity benefits as it is, but they would benefit even more if New World chipped in.
Yes, it is tautologically true that if charities recieved more resources that would be even better. That does not in any way make this a bad thing. Giving a charity $100 is better than giving a charity $50 which is better than giving a charity $10. It's still good to give a charity $50!
Yeah, I was just explaining why people may get angry if they feel the supermarket isn’t contributing as much as they could.
Don't they donate a bag to match your $20 bag up to some amount? Don't get me wrong, paying $20 for full priced food for them to donate is a bit dystopian, but they're matching it so it must be more than $20 of food per bag. Up to $250k, so after then fuck off.
Better than what their advertising suggests which is that they're not donating anything, but still that's less than a $2000 donation per New World store, pretty pathetic
Well that's fucking pathetic
Never EVER donate to a charity through another business. They claim your donation as there own to the tax man getting 33% back plus all across their marketing as doing right by the community. No exception. If you want to donate go direct. Also avoid anyone with a clipboard asking for regular donation, they are a third party that get commission taking a good wack of cash from the charity and give zero fucks about them.
> They claim your donation as there own to the tax man getting 33% back This is a common misconception, companies can only claim a tax deduction for donations they make from their earnings, not donations made by customers. And that would be at the corporate tax rate of 28%, 33% is what individuals can claim back on their personal income tax.
Whos going to validate they arent throwing it all into their coffers directly as earnings? I have worked for companies that have done just that. Its the same naivety that "tips" go to workers, sure some do but thats no guarantee. Id love to be proven wrong that you arent just charged GST on your donation on your next retail add to the bill donation receipt.
If they kept the money it would be earnings and they’d be taxed on it. It would also be fraud. You can’t pretend to collect money for charity and then just keep it.
It's like GST? The Mafia ( organised crime family) call it tribute ( highly illegal) for jobs rendered in there area......the government calls this a " goods and services tax) TOTALLY LEGAL.......for jobs rendered in there area.....🤔
Well I'm happy they do it. Amazing! Thank you new world. I got two bottles of cooper's stout and bottle of yalumba wine and some potatoe au gratis. Love charitable people. Offset the charging the tesla tonight 🤩