Poll: Coles Per Unit Pricing for Weighted Items at Your Local

Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 14:30
Last edited 16/02/2026 - 16:49

Noticing at my local they have started maybe transitioning to all weighted products being uniformly per-unit priced as per kg now instead of per 100g.

Is that happening at yours?

Some tags have been updated to have per kg pricing as the per-unit price and some are still per 100g.

Hoping they will update all to be uniform so I don't have to do, albeit very simple, math when shopping.

I mean this for non-produce stuff like tinned tomatoes, tuna, minced meat etc. Example

Obviously fresh tomatoes, bananas, apples, grapes etc is all per kg and has always been.

Poll Options

  • 0
    per 100g
  • 8
    per kg
  • 37
    Mixture of both
Food & Grocery

Related Stores

Coles
Coles

Comments

Search through all the comments in this post.
  • freefall101 on 16/02/2026 - 14:46
    +12

    You just need to move the decimal point by one, it's simple.

    $2.20 per kg = $0.22 per 100g.

    I agree they should normalise it to one or the other, but it's hardly rocket surgery.

    • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 16:03
      -3

      Of course. But as I mention in other comment it can be used in less than honest ways to make products appear cheaper at a glance.

      • Muppet Detector on 16/02/2026 - 18:31
        +2

        make products appear cheaper at a glance.

        For a 900% discrepancy between similar products?

        These people should not be shopping alone.

        If that confuses them, a standard measurement unit wasn't ever going to work out better for them.

        • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 18:33
          -3

          People shouldn't be shopping when they're tired after a long day of work and quickly scanning per unit price? Get real.

          Not everyone is switched on like you… not everyone is like you in general… maybe think about that.

          • Muppet Detector on 16/02/2026 - 18:50

            @Meeb: No need to be rude because my opinion differs to yours.

            I am not inferring that I am anymore switched on than the next person. That example is just quite extreme. 900% is a huge discrepancy. If it doesn't come with a significant size difference, the weight difference should be apparent.

            Even a dehydrated penguin can tell that there is a massive difference between 40c and $4. Even if the size and weight seem to be the same (seriously?).

            My personal preference at an in store supermarket level is per 100g or per portion where relevant, but I do not believe that people will confuse 40c and $4.

            Sorry that I don't share the same level of outrage that you do, I don't believe they use the two different units to confuse or mislead people. More worrying if they swapped between metric and imperial systems.

            If anything needs to be under the microscope, it is the actual packaging that is probably more misleading for consumers.

            Size of packaging and information included on the outside of the packaging - those are non standardised areas that I believe need greater over sight than what we have.

            • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 18:54
              +1

              @Muppet Detector: Fair enough, my example was extreme but it was just to make a point. My point overall still stands.

              I'm sure you can agree that supermarkets are designed for quick decisions, not careful analysis. No one goes into the shops to do math, especially after a day of work. People try to get in and out as quickly as possible. Standardising unit pricing just removes all ambiguity so customers don’t have to mentally convert while scanning a shelf.

              If there’s no intent to mislead, then consistent units shouldn’t be controversial.

              And yes, I agree packaging tricks are a big issue too. Both can be true.

  • Shadowsfury on 16/02/2026 - 14:54
    +3

    Here I was expecting it was moving to per item pricing lol

    • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 16:01
      -1

      It can absolutely be used in a predatory fashion - we know Colesworth will take any opportunity to bump profits. For example, price competitor products per kg and price all own brand per 100g. Unsuspecting/distracted/less educated buyers may glance at the per unit price and see that the store brand is $0.40 per "unit" (100g) whilst the others are at $3.85 per "unit" (kg). They might grab the one that appears cheaper at $0.40 per "unit" without doing the math if they don’t pay attention to what the "unit" is.

      I'm all for reducing ambiguity and keeping Colesworth honest.

      • Muppet Detector on 16/02/2026 - 18:27
        +2

        Unsuspecting/distracted/less educated buyers may glance at the per unit price and see that the store brand is $0.40 per "unit" (100g) whilst the others are at $3.85 per "unit" (kg). They might grab the one that appears cheaper at $0.40 per "unit" without doing the math if they don’t pay attention to what the "unit" is.

        C'mon, most people will notice a price discrepancy of one product being ten times higher than another.

        That doesn't need very much math skill.

        It can absolutely be used in a predatory fashion

        I think that example is clutching at straws. A person who doesn't notice a 900% markup between similar products either needs their eyes checked or probably shouldn't be shopping alone.

        If the price difference doesn't give it away, most products would find it hard to disguise a 900% difference in size or weight.

        • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 18:31
          -3

          You’re assuming people are standing there doing side-by-side comparisons. Most aren’t.

          Most people shop quickly. They scan. They rely on visual anchors. Supermarkets know this and design price tickets around it.

          If two tickets both say “per unit” in similar font size, and one shows $0.40 while the other shows $3.85, the lower number draws attention first. The unit label (100g vs kg) is usually smaller and off to the side. The brain processes the big number before it processes the unit difference.

          It’s not about someone failing primary school maths. It’s about cognitive load and time pressure. That’s why unit pricing laws exist in the first place: to standardise comparisons so consumers don’t have to mentally convert every time.

          Also, the “900% markup” thing only works if someone realises the units are different. That’s the entire point. If the units were standardised, there would be no ambiguity to exploit.

          This is about removing avoidable friction and making pricing transparent.

          If standardising per kg closes even a small potential exploitable loophole for Colesworth, why not be in support of it?

  • tsunamisurfer on 16/02/2026 - 15:46
    +2

    I DGAF whether they have uniform per unit pricing.

    I know how to multiply by ten, I know how to divide by ten, even though it was taught to me in the 80's.

    • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 16:03
      -2

      I'm sure the whole world is only filled with youse. Everyone thinks the same, behaves the same etc. etc. and that we shouldn't even try to keep big corpos honest.

  • TheMills on 16/02/2026 - 16:07

    It seems they r trying to trick customer's mind by listing price per 100 grams for expensive stuffs to make them appear cheap.

    • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 16:19
      -1

      That's what I'm seeing but cannot say for sure - it could be just a staggered transition.

      • TheMills on 16/02/2026 - 17:39

        I have worked in the retail industry for 8 years optimising business processes and have observed that any tweak in business process is mostly to cut cost or to increase sales and in turn if customers are benefited, good luck to customers..

  • Wiadro on 16/02/2026 - 16:17
    -2

    i dont think ive ever seen per 100g

    • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 16:40

      Strange, here in VIC most things that are not produce are listed with a per unit price of 100g or 100ml. Like meats, mince, tinned tomatoes etc.

  • tenpercent on 16/02/2026 - 16:36

    I'm pretty sure it's always been per kg. Except for lettuce and cauliflower and a few other items.
    As long as they keep pricing on a per weight basis for all the fruit and veggies I purchase then I don't mind.

    • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 16:37

      Oh I'm not talking produce only- things like tinned tomatoes, tuna etc. They seem to be transitioning to per kg.

      Example

      • tenpercent on 16/02/2026 - 16:46

        Isn't that better though?
        You can see more decimal places of the per 100g price when expressed as per kg. E.g. $99.99/kg only shows as $0.99/100g. We gain resolution this way.

        I'm sure their intention is to distract dumb customers from prices going up though. But for Ozbargainers this is good.

        • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 16:48
          -1

          I agree it is better, it's just that it's not uniformly applied across the same product line. Some tinned tomatoes show per kg unit price, others per 100g. This can confuse shoppers who are distracted/not savvy.

          • tenpercent on 16/02/2026 - 16:48

            @Meeb: Well that's just annoying. Have you sent them a complaint?
            Make sure you cc the ACCC.

            • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 16:50

              @tenpercent: I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now. I assume it's just a staggered update of all tags, maybe they just didnt get around to it. The per kg unit price is pretty new from what I noticed.

  • Ryanek on 16/02/2026 - 17:21

    Isn't the point of these per weight prices, so that you can compare brands?

    • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 17:27

      Yep, so when they list one as per 100g and another as per kg they could trick some people…. but I am wondering if its just a slow rollout and over time they will all transition to per kg for consistency.

  • JimmyF on 16/02/2026 - 18:06
    +1

    Noticing at my local they have started maybe transitioning to all weighted products being uniformly per-unit priced as per kg now instead of per 100g.

    I honestly don't care which one, as long as they are all in the same unit.

    People struggled when it was mixed and matched.

    • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 18:16

      Agreed. They should just pick one and stick to one.

      • JimmyF on 16/02/2026 - 18:22
        +1

        Same, if its all in per kg, then so be it. If its all in per 100g, then I'll be ok with that too!

        • Muppet Detector on 16/02/2026 - 19:03
          +1

          A few times with this I've noticed prices were given per 120g or 130g etc.

          I thought that was nefarious trickery.

          Far more misleading or deceptive practises in what the manufacturers are allowed/required to display on their packaging IMO.

          • JimmyF on 16/02/2026 - 19:25

            @Muppet Detector: Yeah that's being a bit tricky, unless all other products in that class are presented the same way!

  • bargaino on 16/02/2026 - 18:43
    +3

    MasterFoods Pure Saffron | 0.25g $14.90 $596.00/ 10g

    Soon to be $59,600 / kg?

    • Meeb on 16/02/2026 - 18:46

      I guess, if they chose kg as their "per unit" unit then that would be the unit price LMAO. I have one of those 0.25g little boxes sitting in the pantry I think I got it when it was heavily discounted.

      Really puts the price in perspective doesn’t it ?!

  • simplystu on 16/02/2026 - 21:51

    Alot of health food tracking apps / daily food intake apps .. (calorie counting / etc) … assume items as per 100g.
    And as such show as this (you actually NEED TO convert per/KG down to per/100g to enter some items on these apps).

    Even for suggestions on food prep meal sites - shows things to buy in per/100g.

    Maybe per/100g price listing is a US thing ???

    • Muppet Detector on 16/02/2026 - 23:33

      Maybe per/100g price listing is a US thing ???

      I think US uses imperial (or customary units) measurements for food weights.

      In saying that, their food packaging labels are required to have both metric and customary (pounds and ounces), but fresh food, recipes and daily life happens in tsps, pounds and ounces.

      • simplystu on 17/02/2026 - 01:11

        Yeah true - didn't think of that.

        Unsure why so many health apps are per/100g then.

  • hasher22 on 16/02/2026 - 23:22

    I find it so (profanity) weird it's even in kilos….. Per 100g makes sense

    Are Coles bored AF or what?

    • Muppet Detector on 16/02/2026 - 23:36

      Fresh food is customarily sold by the kilo. Ever seen a fruit shop selling apples by the 100g or the butcher selling meat by the 100g?

      More likely sold by the kilo, undoubtedly because they're the units which they use to buy it.

      • hasher22 on 17/02/2026 - 10:25

        I was meaning more so shelf products such as canned tomatoes from OPs example

  • doctordv8 on 17/02/2026 - 11:12
    -1

    Their store, their choice.

    I understand it is per 10 per 100 or per kg depending on the overall product weight.

    Common sense and so simple to follow……

    Remember. Uou will get the same unit pricing method for same product.

    Do not compare coffee per 100 to whole water melon per kg for eg.

    Just learn the simple maths in the system and use it. It is perfect already or getting the best price groceries.

    • Meeb on 17/02/2026 - 11:16
      -1

      Their store, their choice.

      Love how confidently incorrect you are.

      LOL this isn't 'merica mate. We have ACCC and ACL which dictate how pricing is displayed.

      See: Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes – Unit Pricing) Regulations.

      Also no one says it has to be comparable across different products like coffee vs watermelon??? the heck gave you that idea?
      No, we just want consistency in pricing within a product category i.e. all tinned tomatoes should be either per 100g or 1kg not a mixture.

      honestly sounds like "i am very smart" comment material…

      • doctordv8 on 18/02/2026 - 07:52

        Their store, their choice as per The Law, implied.

        If you cannot inderstand basic math and unit or compatable pricing, let someone else do the shopping.

        It amazes me how common sense and simple basics are list on so may here in AU.

        Unles of course appolgies if basic math logic is an issue for them.

  • Muppet Detector on 18/02/2026 - 19:51

    One of my kids teaches High School Math and Physics. He says that a lot of his students don't know multiplication tables to nine, far less the very basic ones and too many of them need to use their fingers to add and subtract, particularly when working out remainders or working with mixed fractions. (That's single digit addition and subtraction - numbers 1 to 9).

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join