Wondering if anyone has the same feeling that price matching policies are actually anti-competitive. Having policies like this allow retailers to say things like "lowest prices guaranteed" or "if you find a better price, we'll match it" without making the effort to be the cheapest. The only exception I can think of is Officeworks which actually beats the price by 5%, which I think is actually good for competition.
For most other retailers, consumers end up doing the retailers' work for them and these business effectively engage in indirect price discrimination, which would otherwise be illegal. The impression that it gives to the general public is that the retailer is competitive because they offer the option of matching any advertised price, and only a minority of consumers actually benefit from price matching (assuming the number of sales made through shelf price is more than the number of sales done through price matching, which seems like a reasonable assumption).
These retailers end up getting business from price sensitive consumers, who would otherwise not have bought through them, without having to compete on price in the broader market.
I feel like the net effect over time is that consumers end up paying more due to decreased price competition as all retailers adopt the same policy rather than reducing prices to get more business.
So let me know, do you think it's anti-competitive?
As long as nobody forces me to buy from grub hardly normal….