Tesco data quality issue is not illegal!
Permalink 
2 comments, add yours
I don't know about you, but I personally have a trust issue with Tesco when it comes to the information they provide you to help you make your purchasing decision.
My big frustration is the so called 'information' they give you to help you work out which brand is the cheapest per 100g or 100 sheets.
They mix up the comparison information using Kg and g for the same range - I'm OK with this level of mental math's, but I know that others can not work out which item really is the cheapest when faced with this 'mis-information'.
Yesterday I was buying coffee and noticed this label:
The price for a 200g jar is £4.38, yet the price per 100g is £4.38?
At £4.38 per 100g the 200g jar should be £8.76 - Being an honest citizen and being concerned for Tesco's profits, I pointed the error out to a member of staff.
Over the next five minutes I was given explanations from four different members of staff that ranged from, 'That's the way the computer prints them' and 'These things are set by head office', through to the Managers view, 'It's not illegal'!
It may not be illegal, but that response did not help develop customer trust!
My free consultancy / 'quick and dirty' advise to Tesco's Price Integrity team is to put all the shelf edge label pricing information in to a database (if it's not already in one) and run a daily report which identifies items where the price does not equal the price per 100g X its weight!
A simple check, which whilst not a legal obligation, sounds like good practice to me :-)
Comments
Well spotted Andy.
May not be illegal but is certainly immoral.
I'm an "express" shopper, I seldom look at the dates, prices, weights, it's like an episode of supermarket sweep when I go around a supermarket so I would have definitely fallen foul of this.
I wonder how much this costs the average shopper?
Certainly not good PR anyway, particularly as we'll no doubt be featuring it in our blog roundup next month!
Posted by: Dylan Jones | July 9, 2009 10:05 AM
Hi Andy,
Yes, I agree they should be making those fundamental checks, using a product pricing/discounting database.
The critical information in the example that you've found is the sales price. Which appears to be correct. The "spin" would seem to be the level of saving, which again does appear to be correct, compared to the undiscounted price of a 200g jar. Personally, I don't hink it looks as though they've made it look like a 100+ pence saving per 100g, which I guess would be part of your issue. However, I do agree that could be misleading, it depends on customers' mental maths skills.
Regards, Richard
Posted by: Richard Hellings | July 14, 2009 11:26 AM