AA Smartfuel card discounts for Booze purcases seem wrong to you?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › AA Smartfuel card discounts for Booze purcases seem wrong to you?

PhantomNVD

1958 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 459

Topic # 143902 30-Apr-2014 22:24

And I quote:

"Hi Neil,

Save 20 cents per litre on fuel at The Bottle-O Pukekohe*

Visit The Bottle-O Pukekohe this Thursday, Friday (open from 1pm), Saturday or Sunday, spend $50 or more in a single transaction and swipe your AA Smartfuel card to save 20 cents per litre on fuel.*

Never drink and drive.

AA Smartfuel – Swipe more...save more.

*Offer is valid from 24 to 27 April 2014, only at The Bottle-O Pukekohe. Excludes Tobacco."

I'm somewhat bemused by a targeted (my area) link promoting a bottlestore (specific product range) for fuel discounts?

Now I agree "Never drink and drive." Is a good cover statement, and adults can and should drink 'sensibly' but alcohol (and speed) are the worlds greatest driving risks, surely this is just a bad image for the AA??

E3xtc

516 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 68

Reply # 1034470 1-May-2014 08:04

3 people support this post

Only in the same way the Burger King incentives encourage obesity and the Repco incentives encourage poor taste vehicle modifications.

old3eyes

7529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 704

Subscriber

Reply # 1034486 1-May-2014 08:36

One person supports this post

Fine as far as I'm concerned..

Regards,

Old3eyes

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 842
Inactive user

Reply # 1034489 1-May-2014 08:43

I have no problem with it.

I got one for 30 cents off at Repco this weekend, didnt say anything about dont sniff thinners and drive though, now thats something we should all be up in arms about!

Fred99

4599 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2082

Reply # 1034591 1-May-2014 10:10

I see what you're saying - and IIRC alcohol advertisers have to be extremely careful elsewhere to meet standards with product association with some activities, sport, young people, and driving etc.
In one particular instance (tobacco products) these must not be sold with incentives such as discount vouchers, and aren't included in the total/ don't qualify for fuel discount vouchers, but that's not the case with alcohol.
It doesn't bother me that it isn't - as you could end up not allowing incentives for (probably more than) half the garbage so-called "food" sold in supermarkets.
I'm less happy with the concept of fuel discount vouchers in the first place. IMO the fuel companies use this by striking deals with partners to offer large (ie 20c or more) discounts when the dollar is stronger and/or the oil price drops - instead of dropping the headline price. This obfuscates the "real" price, and as such works counter to the intent of the Commerce Act to increase competition.

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2600
Inactive user

Reply # 1034598 1-May-2014 10:19

No issue at all

Kyanar

2915 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 414

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1034638 1-May-2014 10:51

Fred99: I see what you're saying - and IIRC alcohol advertisers have to be extremely careful elsewhere to meet standards with product association with some activities, sport, young people, and driving etc.
In one particular instance (tobacco products) these must not be sold with incentives such as discount vouchers, and aren't included in the total/ don't qualify for fuel discount vouchers, but that's not the case with alcohol.
It doesn't bother me that it isn't - as you could end up not allowing incentives for (probably more than) half the garbage so-called "food" sold in supermarkets.
I'm less happy with the concept of fuel discount vouchers in the first place. IMO the fuel companies use this by striking deals with partners to offer large (ie 20c or more) discounts when the dollar is stronger and/or the oil price drops - instead of dropping the headline price. This obfuscates the "real" price, and as such works counter to the intent of the Commerce Act to increase competition.

Plus, fuel discount vouchers actually harm small business too - in some cases, they drop the price you pay for the fuel to less than the franchisee had to pay the supplier to get the fuel in the first place, resulting in your purchase actually making them a loss (which they can't avoid because the franchise agreement requires they accept the voucher). Bonus points for paying with the Visa/Mastercard/Amex for even more loss. It's why they're so pushy about getting you to buy 2 V bottles for $6, or a bottle of milk and loaf of bread for $5.50.

Fred99

4599 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2082

Reply # 1034771 1-May-2014 13:00

Kyanar:
Fred99: I see what you're saying - and IIRC alcohol advertisers have to be extremely careful elsewhere to meet standards with product association with some activities, sport, young people, and driving etc.
In one particular instance (tobacco products) these must not be sold with incentives such as discount vouchers, and aren't included in the total/ don't qualify for fuel discount vouchers, but that's not the case with alcohol.
It doesn't bother me that it isn't - as you could end up not allowing incentives for (probably more than) half the garbage so-called "food" sold in supermarkets.
I'm less happy with the concept of fuel discount vouchers in the first place. IMO the fuel companies use this by striking deals with partners to offer large (ie 20c or more) discounts when the dollar is stronger and/or the oil price drops - instead of dropping the headline price. This obfuscates the "real" price, and as such works counter to the intent of the Commerce Act to increase competition.

Plus, fuel discount vouchers actually harm small business too - in some cases, they drop the price you pay for the fuel to less than the franchisee had to pay the supplier to get the fuel in the first place, resulting in your purchase actually making them a loss (which they can't avoid because the franchise agreement requires they accept the voucher). Bonus points for paying with the Visa/Mastercard/Amex for even more loss. It's why they're so pushy about getting you to buy 2 V bottles for $6, or a bottle of milk and loaf of bread for $5.50.

There's an old concept in business transactions/negotiations that the ideal outcome is "win-win" - when both parties benefit. Add a third party (the consumer) to the other two (fuel company and loyalty partner) and "win-win-win" was never going to happen. It's win-win for them - but not for the consumer - that was never part of the plan.
The oil companies have been making it tough for small owner operators for many years, and in many different ways. In a way they're a fourth "partner" in these schemes - and I expect they are getting screwed as you say.
These fuel/grocery schemes originated in Aussie. I believe that the ACCC -prompted by the media and/or politicians - had some serious concerns, but allowed them to continue. I suppose the Commerce Commission here took a lead from the Aussies. They had the same media scrutiny on (lack of) competition between fuel companies as we've had here. Now while they (oil companies) might or might not be "price gouging" or operating an informal cartel, adding price obfuscation by use of these loyalty plans would make it very hard for anybody to see what's really going on. It (obfuscation of price to avoid direct price comparison and to make scrutiny difficult) isn't confined to the fuel business. Telecom providers and electricity supply companies had this (price obfuscation) worked out to their advantage long before the oil companies started playing their version of the game.

jonathan18

2560 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 592

Reply # 1034779 1-May-2014 13:12

Fred99: These fuel/grocery schemes originated in Aussie. I believe that the ACCC -prompted by the media and/or politicians - had some serious concerns, but allowed them to continue.

... but limited the size of the discount, as noted in this article:

"The New Zealand Commerce Commission says it is not considering following the example of its Australian counterpart which has extracted undertakings from the Coles and Woolworths supermarket chains to limit their fuel discounts to A4c a litre from next year."

reven

3093 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

Trusted

Reply # 1034783 1-May-2014 13:15

i drink, i drive, i dont do both at the same time.

no problem with it at all.

xpd

Runnin' and Gunnin'
8149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1043

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1034790 1-May-2014 13:23

But your'e allowed to drink and drive...just not over the limit.

XPD / @DemiseNZ / Gavin

Corsair Carbide SPEC-02 / Corsair VS550 / G.SKILL Ripjaws X 8GB / Zotac 760GTX AMP! / ASUS H81M-E / Intel Pentium K Anniversay G3258

Internet provided by : Voyager - VDSL 68/13 - Musical Support by : Like A Storm - Visual Entertainment by : Plex and Steam and Overwatch

Fred99

4599 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2082

Reply # 1034797 1-May-2014 13:29

jonathan18:
Fred99: These fuel/grocery schemes originated in Aussie. I believe that the ACCC -prompted by the media and/or politicians - had some serious concerns, but allowed them to continue.

... but limited the size of the discount, as noted in this article:

"The New Zealand Commerce Commission says it is not considering following the example of its Australian counterpart which has extracted undertakings from the Coles and Woolworths supermarket chains to limit their fuel discounts to A4c a litre from next year."

Good news (for the Aussie consumer) - the ACCC has nailed them.
Aussie competition watchdog has always had more balls than CommComm here.
Same with APRA (my cousin was an economist for APRA who stayed with me when over here to meet with NZ government to negotiate harmonising APRA and NZ prudential oversight - about a decade ago).
NZ told the Aussies where to go - "we'll do it our way" instead. I got a lecture from my unhappy cuzzie - who laid out a very accurate prediction of exactly what did turn out to happen to the NZ finance company sector post GFC - something which cost NZ billions.