Woolworths
Alan Matheson has written an article on online opinion worth reading in the light of the publicity surrounding Woolworths contribution to farmers in Australia suffering from drought.
“On January 23, 2006, the profits of all Woolworth’s supermarkets will be handed over to the Country Women’s Association (CWA), to assist farmers affected by the drought, and for research into sustainable farming practices. As a result the CWA can expect about $3 million to land in their bank account by the end of the week.
Unless we all act now, according to the current Woolworth’s CEO, “the unique rural heritage of Australia will be under threat”. Woolworth’s, he said, recognises “the financial hardships faced by rural families and the longer term viability of the industry in a changing and unpredictable climate”.
Yet another sympathetic, supportive and generous gesture from the friendly folks at Woolworths!
AdvertisementFor sheer front and audacity it’s a publicity stunt like no other: and how the CWA and Christian activists around the land fell for it is mind boggling.”
Read the whole article here
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
So woolworths thinks its giving some money to help out farmer having some drought issues. All the while suspecting that the industry has no long term viability? Sounds like a waste of money to me.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Great piece by Alan Matheson.
Gareth - the whole issue of “viability” is a complicated one. In my opinion anyway. I grew up in a rural area, I have worked with and studied rural areas, and what gets lost in the discussions about “viability” occurring in our cities is the fact that this is an entire way of life - there are cultures, people - GOOD people - involved. It’s very easy for people to talk about “viability” if they’ve never shared a cup of tea with a farmer who’s been in hospital for post traumatic stress disorder after losing a bloodline of sheep that have been in the family for 6 (human) generations. It’s very easy to talk about viability when you’ve never sat with a woman who’s husband committed suicide because he couldn’t deal with the sense of failure arising from the slow decline of the farm enterprise, let alone his inability to put sufficient food on the table for his kids.
There’s plenty of livelihood systems in the developing world that aren’t “viable”, but nobody raises that as an excuse for not finding more economicall, environmentall, socially and culturally suitable ways to ensure their survival or at least evolution.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:58 am
See this is one more peice of evidence that it pays to research before jumping into things - prior to reading that article I was one of those people who were hoodwinked by Woolworths ploy - I was going to send out emails to all my friends telling thenm to get there buttoxen down to Woolworths and spend up big. Glad I never got round to it! I would have felt like a prize idiot.
January 25th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
All valid points Bec. It doesn’t change that spending money under a false premise is wasteful.
If product X is not going to be profitably produced on farm X, keeping the money flowing so he can continue to grow X is a waste. Giving him money so that he can start to produce Y is money very well spent.
I’m not saying that giving money to farmers to continue to try producing X is wrong, it just seams that Woolworths thinks it is and is doing it anyway
January 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Gareth,
your comment immediately raises a couple of questions for me:
- where does “empowerment” and “choice” fit into this? If a farmer wants to farm product X even though it’s unproductive, should he/she be entitled to? Consider what you would do if, while working in a developing community, that community consistentlly said that what they wanted most was a TV. They want a TV, even though they don’t even have electricity. How would you respond? (This is not unheard of, by the way!)
- where does a systemic analysis fit into this? I mean, why is a farmer planting an unprofitable crop? Where else might it be grown if not on that property? Would you and I buy it (a) knowing of how and where it was produced? and (b) even if we did know, would we still buy it?
January 25th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Automatically assuming that farmers are in trouble because they are planting “inviable” crops disturbs me. One thing I do know - a nation is not viable if it does not have farmers. How else would we eat? Do you really support the environmental and financial cost of importing our foodstuff?
I believe it is much better for the environment if we eat produce which is produced as close as possible to where we live. This saves on the use of fuel for transport, and produce generally would be fresher.
I don’t know about you - but fresh food is an important part of my diet, one I don’t want to go without.
January 25th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I agree Janet - and in fact I ahve gone so far as to say that for me and my family local and fresh is important enough that I won;t drive more than 10 minutes to get to a McDonalds.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
*amused giggle*
January 26th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Do you have an issue with eating foods grown in other states? Tasmanians enjoy bannanas and Queenslanders enjoy apples, is it wrong for them to do this? What about out of season?
From a Freedom pov, its obvious that no farmer should be told what to grow. But we do have to look seriously at the cost to production if we devote resources (both finacial and environmental) to production that isn’t going to work.
There should be no law against a farmer buying a vineyard and tearing it down to start growing cranberries, but he shouldn’t be surprised to find his application for enough water to harvest them denied.
It doesn’t take long to figure out that rational use of resources isn’t the highest concern of most people though, go down to your local grocer and count the out of season produce on sale.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I agree with Gareth on the equitable allocation of resources subject. Unfortuantely here in Australia for some reason we like to grow crops that aren’t suitable for much of our climates - we grow rice and cotton which are water munching machines in areas where water needs to be taken from natural resources and pumped out - why not go to the wet ares of our coutry (te north in the wet season) to grow thes crops - harvest the water during the wet to throw out all over the place during the dry? Why not?
January 30th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Here’s something interesting that I read from a different viewpoint:
In an age of rampant viral marketing even Woolworths can create a buzz by picking the right cause – but could the success of this stunt be the worst PR ever?
In late December, Woolworths CEO Michael Luscombe announced the Woolworths National Drought Action Day. On 23 January Woolworths will donate all profits from Australian Woolworths and Safeway supermarkets to the Country Women’s Association and research into sustainable farming practices. The Woolies boss says he expects to raise over $3 million.
Struggling farmers, big bad drought, women’s association, sustainable farming, $3 million in relief – how could the PR go wrong?
No doubt the Woolies PR team is patting themselves on the back right now. And, on the face of it, so they should.
For one, the stunt positions Woolworths as a good Samaritan graciously foregoing profits to help those in need.
Even better still, the “one-day super giveaway” puts the responsibility for the plight of the “struggling farmers” firmly on the shoulders of an uncontrollable force of nature – The Drought.
Farmers aren’t struggling because of rock bottom wholesale prices engineered by the big two supermarkets or because of Woolworths’ expensive auditing requirements, which take our farmer friends hours to fill in each week. Nope. It’s because the rains ain’t here.
But it’s not the irony of the cause chosen which worries me. I’m more worried about the fact this PR stunt will get seriously out of hand.
Already the viral effects are clear. Blogs are rapidly filling with posts advising anyone and everyone to head to Woolies on 23 January to support the worthy drought relief cause.
Emails are spreading like wildfire from inbox to inbox telling recipients if they have just a shred of Australian pride they should be shopping at Woolies come 23 January.
So what? I hear you muse. Isn’t that the sort of publicity money can’t buy? What’s the problem?
Think about it. Every man, woman and their dogs will head to Woolies on 23 January. Those of you who have made that last minute dash to buy a juicy Turkey on Christmas Eve will know where I’m going with this.
It’s going to be mayhem. Trolley crashes, missing toddlers, fainting pensioners, spills in aisle three and seven with no hope of mop-up because the staff are too busy manning cash registers and managing crowds, and those cues that extend right through fruit & veg and wrap around into dairy.
As any good marketer will confirm - you can tell consumers how good your brand is until you’re blue in the face, but it’s the “customer experience” that counts.
Goodwill counts for squat when you’ve given people the memory of a supermarket trip from hell.
Story by: Mark Chenery
January 31st, 2007 at 6:33 am
I was surprised to hear an advertisement on radio station Triple M in Sydney at about 4pm on January 24th (the day after the Woolworths National Drought Action Day). With no mention of the date itself the voice over was encouraging people to shop at Woolies TODAY and support the farmers. An innnocent mistake? I did wonder.