Kiwi Grocery | The first price item is only two pence cheaper: – We simply can’t believe what the chains say

– There can be a lot of money to save! This is what the advertisement for First Price says.

The vote has rarely been worse than this week. The Kiwis then sold a packet of Prior Chicken Fillet at 121.45 ounces a kilo. Then you can choose the “cheap version” the first price and save 2 øre a kilo.

Look at the picture of the two boxes of chicken below.

“The first price is supposed to be a cheap product, and then the 2øre was a very small difference,” says Kiwi customer Christian Brunlund (24).

Many customers talk to Nettavisen to respond to prices..

– They built First Price as a cheap brand, and people expect it to be obviously cheaper. So it’s a bad idea to sell First Price chicken for $2 or less, says Asle Kinnirod (44).

Don’t trust chains

“Krona saves earned kroner,” says Ron Nikolaysen, who runs Gjerrigknarken.com. But he doesn’t say the same about two cents.

We consumers can’t trust that chains price their goods as well as we assume, and that private labels are always the cheapest. That is why it is absolutely necessary to check the price per kilogram and liter and compare the goods before choosing, says Nikolaissen.

All chains have their own cheap brands. First Price is Norgesgruppen’s discount brand and can be found in the stores it operates, including Kiwi, Meny, Spar and Joker. Nikolaysen believes that customers are taught over time to think that cheap brands are good buys.

– We simply can’t believe what the strings say, and so we have to check as much as possible. If we as shoppers check carefully, there is less chance of feeling cheated.

Modest amount discount

The package of chicken from First Price was 1.4 kilos versus Prior 1.1 kilos. But the quantity discount for the large First Price package purchase was modest, to say the least.

– 2 øre are provided per kilo when you choose a package with 300g of chicken fillet in it, that’s too bad. If you buy larger packages, you should definitely be rewarded with more than a few cents, says Nikolaissen.

Not attached to the fist

Anders Nordstad, blogger and former general secretary of the Norwegian Farmers and Smallholders Association, was the first to learn of the nearly identical price. He believes the example shows that their own branding, called EMV, is not beneficial to customers.

The chains claim that EMV should provide better selection and lower prices. This example shows that it is not attached to the fist.

In the past, Nettavisen has reported ground beef where 80 percent of the selection is EMV and only 20 percent is brand.

Read also

Bondetopp warns: – Poor selection and more power for Kiwi, Coop and Rema

EMV leverages brands, and chains use every trick in the book with shelf positioning and mutual support to get as much profit as possible.

Nordstad believes the losers will be the customers.

More and more EMV in stores means that chains are getting more and more power, and that we consumers have less choice and lower prices.

– usually a larger difference

Kiwi claims the price difference is small because the chain is currently running a campaign where chicken strips have been significantly reduced before.

“Typically, the difference in price per kilogram is more than NOK 16 between our previous chicken strips and our cheaper alternative price chicken strips,” says Christine Arvin, Communications Director at Kiwi.

The price of Brewer’s chicken had been so reduced that the chain also lowered the chicken at the first price to keep it from becoming more expensive than Brewer’s.

Read also

The price war is over: raise food prices by up to 500%

– We do this because First Price should be our cheapest option, even if there is a nominal difference in the price per kilogram at the moment, says Arvin.

Norgesgruppen, which owns First Price, believes that its own brands guarantee better competition and greater selection.

Without their own brands, suppliers will be able to monopolize certain product categories, says Kine Søyland, Norgesgruppen’s head of communications.

She believes that it would be wrong to draw conclusions based on individual cases.

— so it’s misleading to use individual examples as “evidence” that their trademarks don’t work, says Søyland.