As the Aussie dollar has surged in recent months it’s clear that those buying online from overseas websites are enjoying amazing savings as compared to buying locally from bricks and mortar retailers.

Today this small city, tomorrow the universe! Pic: Supplied by Westfield

In fact, online retailing is growing at a rapid pace and will continue to do so as long as the Aussie dollar remains strong. But it isn’t just the strong Aussie dollar that’s driving the rush to overseas online retailers.

The harsh reality is that a key reason Australian bricks and mortar retailers are finding it harder and harder to compete with online retailers is that retail rents in Australia continue to rise. Australian retail rents are some of the highest in the world and that’s bad news for local retailers operating out of a major shopping centre.

Sadly, major shopping centres such as those operated by Westfield have been increasing their market power over the years to the point that they can push up retail rents at will. How has that happened? Well, it’s a combination of factors, including the failure of the ACCC to prevent the players such as Westfield from increasing their market share and power.

Take the Pitt Street shopping precinct in Sydney. Over the years the ACCC stood by and failed to stop Westfield from slowly buying out the competitors around Pitt Street Mall. As usual, the ACCC conducted what it described as a “vigorous” investigation, but failed to stop Westfield from taking a stranglehold over prime CBD retail space.

The ACCC gave plenty of excuses for doing nothing to stop Westfield from extending their dominance of the shopping centre market, but the vigour apparently exerted by the ACCC when investigating the matter did not translate into vigorous enforcement of our competition laws.

Now we have a shopping centre market dominated by the likes of Westfield and they generally show no mercy in driving up retail rents, especially for the speciality retailers. Naturally, the so-called major tenants such as Coles and Woolworth get super rent deals where they could pay as little as 10 per cent of the rents paid by some of the speciality retailers.

With Pitt Street Mall the retail rents were recently found to be second only to New York. Even in your regional Westfield Shopping Centre retail rents are such that many speciality retailers are finding it tough to survive.

Is it any wonder that speciality retailers in major shopping centres around the country are struggling? With the increased cost of living and the relentless increases in retail rents there is no doubt that bricks and mortar retailers in Australia are doing it tough.

As retail prices at Australian bricks and mortar retailers get pushed up by bloated retail rents it’s inevitable that local prices will be so much higher than overseas retail prices. Add the surging Aussie dollar in the mix and it’s inevitable that consumers will turn to shopping online with overseas websites.

For consumers shopping online the savings from overseas websites are immediate and substantial. Any Australian consumer with, for example, a credit card gets the immediate benefit of a strong Aussie dollar without having to wait for suppliers to cut local prices to reflect the stronger Aussie dollar.

Yes, suppliers play games with Australian consumers and don’t always fully pass on the savings from a strong Aussie dollar as quickly as they should. It happens in petrol and it happens in retailing. In retailing suppliers will no doubt seek to justify retaining some of the benefits of a strong Aussie dollar to counter the ever increasing retail rents imposed by the shopping centres landlords.

As increasing retail rents help push up retail prices the harsh reality is that Australian bricks and mortar retailers will be priced out of the retail market. Quite simply, online retailers (especially those from overseas) don’t have to pay the escalating rents imposed by shopping centre landlords on their captive speciality retailers.

Overseas online retailers are likely to operate from warehouses or distribution centres where rent is minimal thereby giving them an immediate and significant cost advantage over Australian bricks and mortar retailers.

You would need to think twice before buying a book from a Dymocks bookstore paying high retail rents when you could buy the book from, for example, Amazon at up to 50 per cent less than the local price. Not only that but Amazon UK has recently been offering free postage and handling to Australia. It’s no surprise that the owners of Borders and Angus & Robertson bookstores put the business into administration recently.

Why would you buy designer sunglasses or jewellery from a retailer in a major shopping centre when you could buy the same sunglasses or jewellery at up to 50% discount from Amazon?

It’s noteworthy that escalating retail rents were undermining speciality retailers long before the surging Aussie dollar started to deliver a killer blow. It’s no surprise that the Kleins jewellery franchise went bust in 2008 because of the escalating retail rents it was facing from shopping centres landlords.

It’s not only Kleins jewellery franchisees that lost everything when their franchisor failed, but we will see more franchisors fail and with them all those retail franchisees struggling to stay afloat because the shopping centre landlords keep pushing up retail rents.

What’s the moral of the story?

The ACCC and the Federal Government need to move quickly and effectively to stop the growing concentration of markets in Australia. Increased market concentration is a market failure that leads to higher retail prices to the detriment of Australian consumers.

With our supermarkets and shopping centres already so highly concentrated, it’s no wonder that we consistently have some of the highest levels of food inflation and retail rents in the developed world. Less talk and more effective action from the ACCC and the Federal Government would go a long way to delivering lower prices for consumers.

82 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      06:24am | 25/05/11

      There are many amongst us who claim that the reason Australian businesses move offshore is wage claims by unions.  However if wages must fall, so must prices.  It’s unrealistic to expect the situation to continue,  where importers pay third world prices for goods, then charge Australian prices at our end of the chain?  The reality is that the freemarket economy doesn’t offer Australian manufacturing businesses a ‘level playing field’, and this is exacerbated by retail price maintenance for the benefit of the few. Many people recognised that the free market economy would bring pain to Australia, as well as bigger markets for our produce. Now it’s time for the retail outlets to feel their share of it?

    • Jim says:

      07:47am | 25/05/11

      If you think the unions are blameless in the demise of Australian manufacturing and business then you are deluded acotrel.

      You have the chicken and the egg the wrong way around in your argument - prices increased due to increased costs. Importers could then laugh all the way to the bank as they were able to lift their profits with no questions asked. The ‘Buy Australia’ campaign again had importers licking their lips as Aussies were shamed into buying Australian goods at inflated prices.

      We export food and buy it back after it’s processed, and it’s STILL cheaper than buying fresh fruit and veg. We have farmers here ploughing their pumpkins back into the ground while we the consumer buy pumpkin soup made in the US. We dig up minerals, export them and buy them back as washing machines….why is it cheaper to do that??

    • RyaN says:

      10:21am | 25/05/11

      @acotrel: and if you thought Australian manufacturing copped a walloping before, just wait until the carbon tax comes in.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:24am | 25/05/11

      In the world free market its time that Australian workers were paid world average wages - Get real! Australian Unions fight for just wages - wages that allow Australian workers to maintain their standard of living. Do you really expect that Australian workers to receive third world wages while the employers continue to extract 7 figure sums for CEOs
      Many of the prices in Australian retail are due to idiotically huge rents applied to retail premises.
      Australia needs a costs-wages-remunerations revolution to get the system back into trim.

    • Jim says:

      11:15am | 25/05/11

      @Dieter - idealistic dribble mate.

      Everything’s relative - we earn more but pay more…a Chinese worker might only get $12 a day but he sure as hell ain’t paying $10 for a bottle of milk and a loaf of bread.

      As for your cry of ‘CEO wages’ - a catchphrase used often by bludging union gimps - the average CEO takes on 1000 times the personal risk as the average worker, puts in 3 times the hours, and adds more value to a company in a day than most people can in a year…of course they’re worth more. Fool.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:49am | 25/05/11

      @ Dieter: “Australian Unions fight for just wages - wages that allow Australian workers to maintain their standard of living.”

      I respect you, Dieter, but there’s a conceptual fallacy there.

      A wage that allows a worker to maintain their standard of living is not “just”.  “Maintaining your standard of living” can easily mean massively living on credit, expensive caviar, and so on.  You can have a high standard of living without living within your means.  Why should an employer subsidise your own financial irresponsibility in that instance?

      A “just” wage is one which clearly reflects effort for production.  No more; no less.  One example of a just wage is one based on piece rates; you get paid for what you do.  And before you sling back the Nike sweatshop issue—in most cases the sweatshops actually pay piece rates and wages far higher than anything else available. 

      If a wage is too low, you quit and find something else—it’s as simple as that.  That is what keeps wages higher.  That is the free market.  Someone who, for example, pays their cleaners too little and forces them to do shoddy jobs to cut costs is not going to stay in business for long because no one will work for them for long and nobody will hire them.  Despite all the shouting otherwise, an employee bears no investment risk in a business.  If the business folds, the employee just loses their job.  Nothing more.  Anyone who says otherwise still believes you can have a job for life.  The consequences that flow from the job loss are of the employee’s making, and usually a lot easier to recover from than the collapse of a business.

      A union wage is demonstrably not just because it is generally above market value.  A wage is just if it accurately reflects effort.  Most award or union wages do not accurately correlate to effort by the person, because for the most part they are paid by the hour rather than by things produced or clear measures of performance.

      If a union wage is below market value, or even if a union wage *was* market value, there would be no reason for a union to exist.  That, indeed, is part of the reason union membership is declining: because when a union screams and shouts and threatens strikes unless wages are increased beyond CPI (i.e. beyond inflation) you don’t have to be a member to take the benefits.  Unionistas like to complain about that; too bad.  The Fair Work Act enshrines it and Labor—the unions party—ain’t changing it anytime soon.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      11:58am | 25/05/11

      Jim,
      While I will protect your right to free speech I don’t endorse your personal abuse.
      Please be a little more sensitive- Don’t f*cken call me a fool you ...
      It’s not about how much a person adds to wealth, it’s about how much a person needs to live an active comfortable secure life.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:25pm | 25/05/11

      Also @ Dieter: “Australia needs a costs-wages-remunerations revolution to get the system back into trim.”

      It’s going to.  Although the irony will be that the US will be the one imposing it when they finally default on their debt or print enough money to pay it and thereby set hyperinflation, if not depression, into motion.  Then you’ll see exactly what happens to costs, wages, and remuneration in a semi-socialist economy as we have.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      03:42pm | 25/05/11

      Dieter Moeckel “It’s not about how much a person adds to wealth, it’s about how much a person needs to live an active comfortable secure life. “

      I need a yacht and a private jet, 24 hr buttlers, a house by the sea, one in the mountains and I quite fancy something on a private island to protect my privacy, all for my active comfortable secure life. who are you to tell me otherwise?

      Try and explain how you need the comforts of a union wage to someone living on a dollar a day in Africa, it comes across the same as the above.

    • jf says:

      04:05pm | 25/05/11

      Dieter Moeckel says: 11:58am | 25/05/11

      “It’s not about how much a person adds to wealth, it’s about how much a person needs to live an active comfortable secure life.”

      Simplistic drivel Dieter. First, you don’t respond to Jim’s very reasonable response to your trite comparison of a CEO’s wage versus an employee’s. Secondly, Jim never implied, suggested or stated or that a person shouldn’t be able to earn enough to live an active comfortable life. He merely pointed out that flaw in your rather foolish comparison between the wage of a CEO and a worker. Not that you’re a fool of course; just that your rhetoric was foolish.

      Remuneration is made up of three elements: compensation for time spent, compensation for level of skill brought to the table and personal risk taken.

      Thus, a highly skilled plumber working for the government should earn more than a first year apprentice plumber working for the government - assuming they both work their full 37.5 hours. A skilled plumber working for a small business would expect to earn more than the government employee (all else being equal) because their job security is not as great. A skilled plumber who works for himself (or herself) should have the potential to earn more again (all things being equal) as they risk not earning an income at all, have no holiday or sick pay and take on all professional risk should they be sued for professional negligence because of a job gone wrong.

      A plumber who puts their own personal capital at risk to establish a business and employs other plumbers should have the potential to earn more again.

    • Reggie says:

      05:17pm | 25/05/11

      Sony B Goode; ” Try and explain how you need the comforts of a union wage to someone living on a dollar a day in Africa, it comes across the same as the above.”

      That’s easy, so that as customers we can afford to pay the prices you demand so that you can pay for your island and all the other crap you demand as the minimum standard of living you will accept. What’s it got to do with Africa? You only distort the market if you want to use a third world country as your reference. I expect better from you SBG smile

    • acotrel says:

      06:28am | 25/05/11

      ‘Sadly, major shopping centres such as those operated by Westfield have been increasing their market power over the years to the point that they can push up retail rents at will. How has that happened? Well, it’s a combination of factors, including the failure of the ACCC to prevent the players such as Westfield from increasing their market share and power.’

      Can you please explain why the ‘free market economy’ always requires government intervention before it can operate fairly and safely? It appears we’re headed for the return of the ‘command economy’ at a rate of knots!

    • Bitten says:

      09:23am | 25/05/11

      Without getting way boring:  Free market theory relies on competition between firms. Westfield’s market dominance effectively results in an oligopoly.borderline monopoly in retail rental markets - which free market theory acknowledges as ‘inefficient’ and counter to free market. Competition needs to be maintained for the free market economy to operate efficiently.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:22am | 25/05/11

      Theoretical nonsense. Listening to this type of tripe is why governments constantly botch up everything they touch.

      Free markets don’t need any theory. Free markets operate regardless of what you think they do or don’t need. Unless you can measure the efficiency of market you cannot make any claims about how to improve it.

    • Bitten says:

      10:54am | 25/05/11

      Well, that’s another way of putting it!

    • Reggie says:

      05:44pm | 25/05/11

      This is getting serious Sony old fella. ” Free markets don’t need any theory.”

      What free markets? There are none around here. It must be at least 40 years since I first heard of Woolworths paying a good price to a farmer for his whole crop until he was hooked. Then arrives the third year where W’worth offer 50% of their past purchase price for the crop. It’s there standing in the field, what’s the farmer to do but take the 50%. That’s manipulation of the free-market.

      Free marketeers seek to offer the minimum amount of product /// at the lowest acceptable quality ///  for the highest price.

      That’s why governments have to be forever wary if they want a product of highest quality such as aircraft and military products. Basically free marketeers are con men seeking to plot the downfall of the customer because they KNOW that customers are mostly uncoordinated.

      WTF do you think advertising is about?  Informing the customer?

    • persephone says:

      06:39am | 25/05/11

      Why do the government need to do anything?

      What you’re describing is market forces in action, and the market should correct itself.

      If rents are too high to be sustainable, then - as renters drop out of the market - rents will fall.

      If the current business model used by retailers is too expensive, and they’re losing custom because of high prices, then they will either come up with another, more competitive, business model or fail.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:09am | 25/05/11

      Because while the “market” corrects, Pers, people will lose everything, and it wouldn’t be a real stretch to detail actual lives being lost because of the “market corrections”.

      The GFC should have finally proven once and for all that the “free market” does not regulate itself.

      All Westfield is going to do now is exactly what Games Workshop, with their wargaming miniatures, are already doing - banning parallel imports as part of the terms of trade of selling those products.  They will do this by, instead of buying “real estate”, they will simply buy “exclusive trade” licences.

      Example: My friends and I were happily importing GW material from England at half the price paid in local shops.  As of May 31, GW have banned retailers from shipping their products overseas, because GW have built their brand to ban the use of any other company’s miniatures.

      There are plenty of good alternatives, but of course one of GW’s tournament rules is that all miniatures must be theirs.  Fan boys, in their stupidity, enforce that rule because they’re elitist turds.

      The same thing will happen with all the major brands.  And who’s got the money to buy (and enforce) exclusive licensing?  Westfields and those like them.

    • Adam says:

      08:55am | 25/05/11

      Pers, I think this may be a first, but I actually agree with you. The less government intervention in the market the better.

    • Muttley says:

      09:13am | 25/05/11

      the government needs to act to prevent monopoly situations where one or two providers have the majority of the market share. This allows the greedy parties to inflate costs above what is affordable. How much profit is enough? Well most would answer that whatever you can squeeze out of the market and that is why we need government intervention.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:17am | 25/05/11

      We don’t have a free market in this country. Never have. We have a command economy with significant government intervention in every aspect and at every level.

      The changes in the market conditions however will mean things will need to change to suit the new conditions. Smaller retailers can move online instead of paying high rents. This may reduce rents and undermine the power of Westfield.

      Short term pain for long term gain. That’s the way the market works.

    • Bitten says:

      09:29am | 25/05/11

      Pretty much, yeah.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:36am | 25/05/11

      Per4s, isn’t that the Liberal Party philosophy?

      How can you keep convincing people you are a Labor Party Apparatchik if you start spouting Liberal Party policy???

      Fair Dinkum!

    • Sony B Goode says:

      09:57am | 25/05/11

      China is groaning and creaking perilously trying to “correct” its markets, central planning errors are cropping up everywhere from insufficient electricity to high speed trains becoming dangerous on substandard construction.

      Mahhrat says “people will lose everything”

      What are you suggesting? That the government steps in and guarantee a profit? Sounds nice how do I get some of this free lunch?

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:27am | 25/05/11

      Muttley “the government needs to act to prevent monopoly situations where one or two providers “

      Two providers is not a monopoly. Aside from privatised monopolies which market has only a single player????

      Excess profits attract other players. Not one of your contentions has any value.

      The governments roll is to ensure fair trade and that markets are not rigged.

      Markets naturally consolidate as they mature to maximise efficiency. It’s normal. Back to your cubicle, nothing to see here.

    • Markus says:

      10:44am | 25/05/11

      Property is not a free market, as government has the final say on the release of any land.
      Government also has the final say on how many people are allowed into the country through immigration. As it stands, they are allowing in more immigrants than they are releasing land.

      A market cannot correct itself when it is intentionally stacked against such a correction occurring.
      Where exactly will these renters drop out of the market to? Their cars? Back alleys?

    • seniorcynic says:

      11:03am | 25/05/11

      I don’t know about rents falling when tenants leave. In the 1990’s in the regional city where I live a number of businesses closed and the shops remained empty for 5 years. It may be that there were no tenants at whatever the rent was or may be it was tax effective for the landlord to offset the shop expenses against other income. I think the latter was the case as a pharmacist owned some of the shops.

    • Jim says:

      11:20am | 25/05/11

      I agree with persephone (ok…you can lift that jaw now pers)

      Any time a government sticks their grubby hands into business there is someone ready to capitalise on that - reduce business tax for eg, then rents go up accordingly.

      The rents are supply and demand - whilever businesses are willing to pay high rents then the Westfields will continue to charge. When shops start closing they will reconsider their positions. Simple.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:11pm | 25/05/11

      @ Mahhrat:

      “All Westfield is going to do now is exactly what Games Workshop, with their wargaming miniatures, are already doing - banning parallel imports as part of the terms of trade of selling those products.  They will do this by, instead of buying “real estate”, they will simply buy “exclusive trade” licences.

      Example: My friends and I were happily importing GW material from England at half the price paid in local shops.  As of May 31, GW have banned retailers from shipping their products overseas, because GW have built their brand to ban the use of any other company’s miniatures.”

      Prefer D&D myself, but I respect the wargamers, mate.

      To your point: exclusive trade licences are essentially a form of protectionism if not prohibition.  Neither protectionism or prohibition have worked in the long term.  They only make the importing and the “black market” more cost-effective to both—which you can see in the book and software markets by the proliferation of fake US mail addresses which pick up the domestic import and then forward it on overseas.

    • Damian Parkhill says:

      01:37pm | 25/05/11

      @Mahhrat - As a 40k player myself I feel your pain, but its not just GW that are reaming people.

      Punch in “Steams Biggest rip-offs” into your Google toolbar to see how much some people in other countries think we are!

    • Fiona says:

      10:24pm | 25/05/11

      @mahhrat, agreed re the free market, but clearly not everyone else has been convinced….

    • Lisa H. says:

      07:16pm | 26/05/11

      Well, Mahrat’s premise, that the GFC resulted from free markets, is a flawed premise.
      We don’t operate in ‘free’ market environments, but in heavily regulated ones.
      The impact of US government decisions upon lending in the US is an issue which has been discussed and brushed under the carpet again and again.
      I’m not an apologist for ‘greedy bankers’ and outrageous criminals/drug users/stock salesman eg Jordan Belfort, but to blame the GFC on ‘free markets’ is kinda bizarre.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      07:56am | 25/05/11

      There is no such thing as a “safe” market. Markets come and go. Businesses have to adjust constantly; maybe unions have to deal with this reality too?

    • Scranbag says:

      08:25am | 25/05/11

      Something not right here.

      Borders and A&R folded because in buying them up originally, their private equity partners had borrowed too extensively. Then dumbed down the offering of the stores to suit unsustainable turnover/revenue targets- result, insufficient revenue to meet debt.

      Meanwhile I buy from Aussie bookshops at the counter or online as and when I please. Never Borders or A&R schlock.

      And I read Zumbos posts with an increasingly critical eye.

      Borders and A&R did not fold because of overseas online buying. They folded thanks to poor finance management.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:40am | 25/05/11

      Its not just online sales that killed Borders and A&R. For years now at my local giant non Westfield Shopping centre I have been coming down the escalator from the car park and directly into the A&R store at the bottom, seeing what I wanted, then buying it $10-$15 cheaper at QBD or Big W in the same centre.

      I’ve never bought a book from OS…but I have lately, since i got my Galaxy Tab, been downloading ebooks by the dozen. I’d happily grab them off an Aussie online store.

    • PTom says:

      11:20am | 25/05/11

      All books store have a few problems.
      1) no parallel importing of books.
      2) retail rent
      3) ebooks - longer term
      4) online stores - longer term

      Point 1 is not free market they where force to buy from Australian publishing house only which is so-called done to protect Australian writers.

    • Anubis says:

      02:10pm | 25/05/11

      PTom - As far as no parallel imports - that is exactly what the book stores asked for, and the Government legislated to give it to them

    • PTom says:

      02:46pm | 25/05/11

      It was not the book stores that asked for that it was the publishing houses. Some crap about protecting Aussies writers from disappearing.
      Yet Canada has introduced parallel importing and a growth in writers occured.

    • Andrew says:

      08:29am | 25/05/11

      Only 50% cheaper for a book? I’ve bought many for better than that, probably topping out around 4x cheaper. It’s rough for book sellers here, but until they’re allowed to sell cheaper books by the government, nothing will change.

    • Debbie says:

      08:31am | 25/05/11

      In all this debate not many have mentioned the part the middle men play in retail pricing. There are far too many cosy distributor deals that hark from a distant age where huge margins are being added before the retailers even get the stock. There is also the issue that large companies have with “global zone” pricing differentials.

    • PTom says:

      11:30am | 25/05/11

      This is what parallel import of goods was meant to shake up. Instead we companies whinging about dumping.

      Like brewers sell beer in Australia at higher prices because it is claimed to be foreign when in fact it was made here under license here.

    • KH says:

      12:36pm | 25/05/11

      Thanks for mentioning this one - it is one I came across recently when I purchased an item from a store in NYC.  The cost of the item was just $699, plus postage of $150.  In the shop in Australia, the same item had a retail price of $2,699.  Unbelievable.  Rent for premises (which were in a suburb out of the main city centre) would not even begin to justify this kind of markup - nearly 4 times the price of the same item in the US, and I checked a variety of stores - online and bricks and mortar - the price was the pretty much the same everywhere.  I asked the retailer here - he told me it was the distributor who charged them nearly $2,450 for the item, so they were only adding a small amount.  So where did the nearly $2,000 markup come from?  I had it sent from the US for $150.  Add a GST its only $70 - so they can hardly argue its postage or taxes.  Its crap - obviously someone somewhere is making a lot of money importing stuff, and the retailers are getting shafted as much as we are, for some items.

    • Markus says:

      12:55pm | 25/05/11

      KH is spot on. I looked into this as well when Gerry Harvey first started whinging about online shoppers being un-Australian.

      Somewhere between the manufacturers overseas, and the retailers selling locally, there appears to be layer after layer of distributors and wholesalers, that retailers are being forced to purchase items exclusively through, at a price that in no way reflects what the distributor purchased it for.
      Any attempts to bypass said distributors results in a retailer being blacklisted from any access to a particular product (so much for a free market).

      I’m still waiting for any sort of journalistic insight into this rort.

    • Jim says:

      01:12pm | 25/05/11

      Same KH - I recently wanted to buy a small air monitor for work. They sell here for $1050, but in the US they were $120. I contacted the US distributor who said there were contract terms that prevented them from selling me the item and posting - the only way around was for them to post it to someone I knew over there, who could then send it to me.

      Ended up having to go through Blackwoods and they added another 30%

    • Big Dixon says:

      01:15pm | 25/05/11

      I agree. I have written to Bill Shorten and advised him that any inquiry about the retail sector in Australia should involve investigating possible collusion between distribution channels, rental managers and certain retailers which are keeping prices extremely high in Australia, not some inquiry about the tax free threshold. The Australian Retail Association, NRA, Westfield and Fair Imports Alliance want an inquiry about scrapping the tax free threshold so they can protect their massive margins at all levels of the distribution chain. They don’t want you to get products from overseas for a decent price.

    • Jaffa says:

      08:50am | 25/05/11

      What a crock. the reason Australian retailers are struggling, is because they are crap.

      People will spend money for a days shopping if they get good service. Unfortunately retailers only want to pay 15yos with no experience to stand in a corner talking about their boyfriend and doing anything but work.

      i am tired of hearing people open their business doors and thinking, thats it. show me the money. there is more to operating a successful business.

      lastly, people will shop where the shops are. if there are no shops in westfield people wont go there. if you really think rents are the problem then revolt.

    • jf says:

      04:10pm | 25/05/11

      To right Jaffa. I’ll definitely pay up for service. I love buying from a bookshop near me because the owner knows my name and recommends interesting books.

      I’m about to go and buy a heap of outdoor gear this weekend from a shop near me even though I know I’ll be paying double what I could online because I know that I’ll get good technical advice.

    • Michael says:

      08:57am | 25/05/11

      spot on Persephone.

    • Steve says:

      09:38am | 25/05/11

      Rents are only half the problem facing Australian retailers.

      Retail staff costs are higher in Australia than the US, and the labour market rigidities re-introduced by the ALP will not help our retailers adapt to the new situation. 

      Also, dealing with US companies’ customer service teams is a real pleasure.  They’re always been helpful and knowledgeable.

      Which is unlike most of the Australian stores I have dealt with - including the owners themselves.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:32am | 25/05/11

      indeed, a US company paid for an international return, no questions asked, whilst a local company insisted I had to cover the return postage for what was their problem.

      Which one will I be buying from again?

    • Tails says:

      10:10am | 25/05/11

      I encourage everyone to take a day off and walk around the centre of town. Just walk through all the shops and look through everything that’s on offer. I’d say about 10% of stores offer something unique, useful or interesting. The rest is just bloated, unnecessary crap. I guarantee after a few hours of scrutiny you’ll start to feel sick. That’s what’s wrong with retail in Australia. It’s all just same samey rubbish and cheap knock offs imported by people looking to make a quick buck. They’re not trying to build something great. They’re not looking to be liked. They’re just there to try and make money. You can tell by the staff who look like a piece of their soul is being eroded with every tick of the clock. Sure, making money is the whole point, but it that’s your only objective you’ll surely fail.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:40am | 25/05/11

      Jaffa,
      In my twilight years I have given up price for service.
      It appears to me that government have no real control in any market - lobbying vested interests and the adversarial system of our politics makes real reform impossible.
      for example: The ideal Liberal policy makes the bourgeoisie wealthy so that the wealth trickles down to the plebeians; ideal Labor policy makes the plebeians wealthy and the wealth trickles up to the bourgeoisie.
      In both the wealth circulates and everybody gets to be well off because ideally both the bourgeoisie and plebeians will make the sacrifices to maintain the best compromise on wealth distribution.
      But in an adversarial state neither will depend on the other and a mishmash of policy and regulation destroys both ideals.
      The same applies to rents costs and prices - the market doesn’t work but compromise to maximise return while maximising fair wealth distribution might just work.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      04:21pm | 25/05/11

      There is no such thing as “fair” wealth redistribution. Wealth follows a Pareto distribution. Google it. Same goes for links into blogs, city sizes, etc etc

      Does the unequal distribution of blog links equate to something unfair? No it shows that a slight difference in the perceived value of a blog attracts disproportionately more links then one of lesser value. The network amplifies the results. It shows more value is getting to more people.

      Same for free markets. Free choice and innovation drive inequality. You can’t have freedom and egalitarian outcomes. Choose which you wan’t.

    • MF says:

      10:43am | 25/05/11

      It’s not just overseas online retailers that are the competition. I just ordered some gear online from Brisbane. It’s a bricks and mortar store that also sells everything online. Cost $120 delivered. The cost for the exact same gear bought locally in Perth? $299.

      Perth retailers need to pull their head out their asses. It isn’t overseas online shopping that’s the issue. It’s them.

    • fox says:

      10:58am | 25/05/11

      The ACCC has failed in every regard and is probably the major cause of ridiculous prices for pretty much everything (except computers) in Australia.

      No competition = price collusion = high prices.

    • stephen says:

      05:58pm | 25/05/11

      Quite. They should immediately be investigated by ASIC.
      That’ll fix them.

      But was there a collusion with Westfield ?
      The head of ACCC is an ex-Merchant Banker who still has his hand in lots of pies. Why wasn’t a Public servant appointed to the job ?
      Plenty of good ones left.

    • Joel B1 says:

      11:07am | 25/05/11

      Coles supermarkets offer online shopping with rather cheap delivery too.

      I’ve had a quick look at it and can’t see how they make any money of it directly.

      My neighbour can’t drive and gets her food delivered to her kitchen.

      Not bad for a evil consumer gouging company.

      PS and no, I am in no way associated with Coles apart from shopping there. I did own shares a few years ago.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:03pm | 25/05/11

      They make the money because you don’t go and drive to their competitors who don’t have a website and have to survive from actual people in the door.  Denial of customers to the opposition hurts just as much as having cheaper prices.

    • hermano says:

      11:43am | 25/05/11

      I just don’t like shops.  I’d rather spend a few hours online, reading reviews and price matching than walk into a shop and buy whatever overpriced item the local guy is trying to sell.  If the local guy is cheaper or it’s something where seeing/holding the item is essential, I’ll shop around and buy local.

      Also, retailers: don’t try and upsell.  I hate that.  If I haven’t thought about it beforehand, I’m not buying it.

    • stephen says:

      06:13pm | 25/05/11

      ‘Upselling’ doesn’t mean that the seller dislikes you ; only that they make an offer of, say, another of what you’ve got for a lesser price.
      They get a sale, and you get the same for a discount.
      And if you don’t want it, say so.
      There’s no heirarchy in sales you know. Each ‘side’ tries to get the most benefit from their predicament. Try think of buying something as a game : a contest, not of wills, but manners.
      Can be good fun.

    • mike j says:

      11:54am | 25/05/11

      Keep fighting the good fight, Frank.

    • Harquebus says:

      12:07pm | 25/05/11

      What happens to consumer societies when, there is nothing left to consume?

    • Steve says:

      12:10pm | 25/05/11

      Local coucils get in for their share too. Why should a retail shop pay 3 - 5 times the council rates that the same value residence would pay. This is despite using less council services. retail businesses subsidise your house rates.

      A similar situation occurs with water rates, phone rental, vehicle registration etc.

      In the GFC Rudd wanted to introduce his “Rudd Bank” to artificially prop up property developers. This should have been a time when retail renters could have seen a big correction in values and perhaps got out of the rent trap if not in a shopping centre. Or at least seen some downward pressure on rents. Fortunately the sentate rejected it but by then the opportunity had passed as finance markets opened up due to the Govt banking guarantees.

      There is the view that a wages job is so precious and has to be preserved at all cost but a small trader’s self employed “job” where frequently even his/her house is on the line is disposable and not worth saving.

      I’ll bet that a far proportion of the shop haters on this post have never been self employed and parents were never self employed.Certainly intergenerational public servants would not have a clue. This is not to be seen as an excuse for poor service is isn’t. Also some products lend themselves to the net and that is the future. Please don’t use isolated examples of service and price differentials to cloud impressions of retail as a whole.

    • X says:

      12:22pm | 25/05/11

      The fact is it costs more to do business in Australia than it does in other parts of the world.  Many overseas retailers entered our market to then discover that they couldn’t make enough money so they sold to a local company.  These brands have now disappeared or will soon disappear.
      Yes the market is changing but what do you suggest those who have worked in the industry for 25+ years do?  They have mortgages and families to support.  What about those who have run successful retail businesses and have watched them fall apart in the past 3 years.  They have fought hard and have nothing left?  What about the large casual workforce who relies on this industry for work.  Mum’s,  young kids and Uni students, what do they do when the jobs are gone.  The answer is not as simple as many of you make out and I’m sure if this was your industry you would hate the critisism of those who are on the outside and not well informed to be telling you what you should do.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:05pm | 25/05/11

      Arguing that change is painful is not a sufficient or sustainable argument against the change.

      I’m pretty sure there were a lot of sackings in the tallow industry when people starting switching over to electric lightbulbs, but you’d have been an idiot to suggest that alone was a reason not to do so.

    • AnthonyG says:

      12:30pm | 25/05/11

      Frank if you want to write sensible stuff about fact again. I suggest you find another forum. The Punch has no place for it.

    • nossy says:

      12:57pm | 25/05/11

      @AnthonyG - hey Anthony are you still bypassing your electricity meter fella ? Say isnt that illegal ?

    • AnthonyG says:

      03:34pm | 25/05/11

      Nossy wossy wo wo why don’t you go harass one of your ex wives or your latest temporary flame. One day you might snap out of it and realise why no one hangs around you very long.
      The bypassing the meter was a joke but obviously alzheimer’s has well and truly set in and you may have to be reminded constantly.

    • AnthonyG says:

      03:44pm | 25/05/11

      Nossy. its only illegal if you get caught. By the way, you use that word “fella” a hell of alot. Can I send you up a flagon ol mate as a token of my appreciation.

    • Big Dixon says:

      01:26pm | 25/05/11

      Kevin Rudd has a lot to answer for as far as the closure of Dymocks goes. The booksellers in Australia wanted to be able to import books from overseas that they could then sell to consumers for much less than the books they were forced to source locally. Kevin Rudd said no and the rest is history.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:14pm | 25/05/11

      Oh, for Christ’s sake…

      Rudd didn’t invent the prohibition on parallel importing.  It’s been around since at least the 1990s from both Liberal and Labor governments.  It amounted to protectionism for the local publishing industry, and neither party gave two hoots about it because they were hoodwinked into thinking they were protecting Hosstralian Culcha, daahling by forcing local sellers to buy from local sources.

      It constantly amazes me that the book publishing industry managed to do what the entire trade union movement could not despite roughly fifty years of trying, which is set up a protectionist policy enshrined in legislation for an entire industry.  However, ultimately, protectionism fails—spectacularly, in the global market.

      Dymocks’ failure has a lot more to do with Amazon and being a bunch of colossal pricks than it does Kevin Rudd.

    • RedDragon says:

      01:53pm | 25/05/11

      I’m with Jaffa and some of the others who have opined on the crapness of Australian retailers. Having just returned from a twelve month sabbatical in USA/Canada where I undertook some formal research of the property market and retail in particular it is striking how poor the offering is in Australian stores. For years I have been buying tailor made suits because there never seems to be anything on the racks in Sydney or Melbourne stores to fit me properly. Went away with one suitcase barely loaded and returned with four large overweight cases. Prices were much lower than in Australia and that included NYC shops. Brands that attract a huge premium here are sold routinely in the likes of Sears. And mostly I was able to buy in ‘my’ size without th need for alteration.

      Wages can vary wildly in the US (from low to reasonable) but in the People’s Republic of Canada it is comparable to Australia (annual leave aside) and yet they can beat us on any level: stock, variety, sizes, etc. service is about the same except where staff receive bonuses. That said, nothing aside from financial destruction of the workforce will convince some of the writers here that wages are not the problem. Rents and price maintenance through middlemen or other mechanisms are the main culprits. Take that from a Liberal voter who likes to make money.

      These are generalisations but based on real observations.

    • Steve says:

      04:29pm | 25/05/11

      There is nothing new on retail service levels between USA and Australia. Whether it is a shop or restraunt the service in the USA is probably the best in the world. I reckon Australia is about average. However remeber that the average USA retail staff member is only earning about$10 per hour including tips and commission. The shop owner doesn’t have to pay any where near what they do here in Australia.  The USA retail worker has to be friendly and actually sell stuff to make a living wage. How many Aussie workers are prepared to put their hands up for that. Hell even work choices was unacceptable to Australian workers. Usually there is no holiday pay or superannuation.

      Service has not driven people to the net because it has been that way for decades. It is all about pricing.

    • Dept of Success Modification says:

      04:49pm | 25/05/11

      The government is pleased to announce new universal welfare measures.

      Effective immediately everyone is entitled to a “safety net’”, old, young, unemployed, disabled, disadvantaged, victims of unfair competition, highly leveraged speculative bankers, over exposed global insurers, poorly strategized car makers, dodgy sovereign financiers, corrupt and sexually hyperactive officials.

      It’s all good in the new paradigm of universal welfare for one and all!

      No mistake, failing, weakness or lack of trying goes unrewarded. All your successes are topped up immediately with interest and repayment free financing!

      Contact your local government office of success modification today; Our printing presses are waiting for your call!

    • Lorraine says:

      05:19pm | 25/05/11

      The value of our dollar goes up and up but the pirice of the imported pet food I buy for my rather spoiled cat has no tdecreased by a single cent. Indeed, although the product is now bought by the supplier for a much cheaper price, the cost to me has gone up by almopst $10 per pack.
      Same can be said of many other products O purchase. No wonder I shop on line.
      Even if there was GST added it would still not account for the overpricing that has long been practised in Australia.
      $100 puchase for dressmakers patterns here in Australia, delivered to me ,postage paid for $35.
      Do stores pay no rental in USA?
      Where would you buy?

    • Steven Shaw says:

      07:00pm | 25/05/11

      The wheels are coming off the Australian economy. It’s easy to blame Westfield for high rents (I’m sure they are partly to blame, after all, who wouldn’t charge what they could if they owned the shopping centre). As others have pointed out, it’s not the only problem - their are others such as higher wages than overseas and distributors that keep prices high. It’s important to try to identify the _root_ cause of a problem though if one wants to fix something. The earliest cause I can confidently identify is the credit boom. Credit has driven up property prices (commercial/retail + residential), this money sloshes around and drives up wages (then govt ups the minimum wage and unions seek higher wages). Eventually the credit party comes to an end. It’s difficult to imagine how it will unwind and how rents, wages, prices etc can come back to something approaching normal. It certainly cannot happen without a great deal of pain AFAICT. Having ACCC go after Westfield doesn’t help much (how’d you like the ACCC coming along and saying that you couldn’t set the prices in your own store). Diagnosing root causes of our economic woes is key. Don’t get distracted trying to plug holes which are just symptoms of the disease. What is the disease. IMHO it’s the credit/lending/banking/monetary system. If there’s a name for this disease, I’d love to know what it is!

    • bikinis on top says:

      07:46pm | 25/05/11

      Stores are now coming close to their invisible end of the world .
      The financial year ends on June 30 and their leases finish then.

    • Steve says:

      01:23pm | 26/05/11

      That is not right at all. Most leases are 5 years and finish 5 years after they started. There are 365 days of the year that a lease could start and finish, one of them is 30/6.

      After the intitial 5 years you would normally have an option to extend for a further 1 or 2   5 year periods.

    • Goldenfaber says:

      07:51pm | 25/05/11

      I blame our women (we can do two things at once you can’t) and our media for the deplorable state of our retail world. Nobody encourages people more to go to over priced food outlets where they put nothing on your plate and you leave hungry than our media (in Europe i never leave hungry and their beers and even their cans of coke are larger and cheaper). Likewise i know they are selling $1000 dresses in trendy streets of Adelaide that were made for two dollars in China. Likewise do our media ever go on Trafalger tours etc and let people know what a rip off such things are? Likewise i had mates who were buying most of their clothes online in the nineties and women are only just starting to do this when they have always been the keepers of the price/value. Likewise nobody throws money around in a bar like women do these days when nobody used to be more careful about money than them and look for value. Same with the madhouse gambling i see. The same with the rental market where women pay extraordinary amounts for some pissy little flat. Need i go on?

    • Jack Thomas says:

      10:29am | 26/05/11

      I am amazed that there is no mention of the fact that ACCC head and Labor mate Graham Samuel owns $50m+ in shares of the DFO group in a “blind trust”?

      With the recent upheaval in the DFO group, no journo had the brains to read beyond Samuel’s comments that since 2003 when he started at the ACCC, he had received only “headline information” for the preparation of personal tax returns and the like.

      $50m investment and he receives the odd update? What’s the head of the ACCC doing having $50m anyway?

      One of the three trustees of his “blind trust” is Labor mate and former ACTU boss Bill Kelty. Another trustee is Guy Jalland, a Packer family confidant who is an executive with James Packer’s private company Consolidated Press Holdings, as well as a director of Foxtel.

      No conflicts or mates there either? You think he doesn’t speak to the Trustees for an update on how his money’s going, or that they are appointed Trustees for any other reason (ie. favours elsewhere, say in other Packer dealings?).

      The only thing Graham Samuel has done while alseep at the wheel at the ACCC is wake up long enough for Visy to hand themselves in at the police station. Even then, despite unconscionable behaviour from both Amcor and Visy, only Visy were nailed. Plenty of the same people still working at those organisations today too…

      Funnily enough, the ACCC has never investigated Westfield for its abuse of market power, despite there being *alleged* but very clear links between Westfield and protest groups set up against opposing shopping centre developers.

      Every time a new centre appears to threaten a Westfield, there’s a strangely media savvy and cashed up group of ‘locals’ protesting, why is that?

      Speak to a Westfield tenant and they will tell you about the abuse of power they receive too.

      Now we have the dairy industry being destroyed by Woolworths, while the ACCC watches on, others call it market forces (while anyone with half a brain sees it as abuse of power and bad for the nation).

      If you’re looking for help from an ALP Government you’ll be waiting a long time, I can’t name one Minister who has actually worked anywhere BUT a taxpayer funded job. The entire culture is one of ignorance in that basic thing of working in a commercial enterprise. 

      We’ll all be waiting a long time for the ACCC too, Graham Samuel has to work out his exit payout and the counting is taking a long time…

      Hate to do the work of a journo, but they really are appalling in this country.

    • Jack Thomas says:

      10:34am | 26/05/11

      What you missed about Westfield’s/Woolies/Coles’ abuse of power is the fact that they select the tentants around them in a centre.

      Coles and Woolies both will tell the centre owner or developer which retailer they will have near them (and which ones they won’t).

      Ever wondered why you always see a Bakers’ Delight outside the supermarket, etc.?

      Speak to anyone in retail development and they will confirm. 

      Not exactly free market forces is it?

    • Nike mercurial soccer cleats says:

      10:44am | 02/08/11

      Glad to see all the speakers, really wonderful content. Do not know if you like Nike mercurial soccer cleats

      it?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter