Today, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its review of unit pricing in the groceries sector. The CMA has identified several problems with current unit pricing practices, which may affect shoppers’ abilities to make comparisons. This is a big cause for concern when prices are rising. The review mainly covers the unit pricing practices of eleven nationwide supermarkets. It also covers the unit pricing practices of seven nationwide variety store retailers that sell general merchandise alongside a relatively small selection of groceries.
The CMA found problems with missing or incorrectly calculated unit pricing information, incorrect units of measurement, different unit metrics being used for the same type of product, both within the same retailer and across different retailers in-store and online, the omission of unit prices for discounted products, certain pages on some retailers’ websites not providing a unit price alongside a selling price until individual items were selected. The examples of inconsistencies cited in the report are:
- dried spaghetti being, in the main, unit priced per kilogram but with a small number of brands or sizes priced per 100 grams within the same store,
- tea bags being priced per 100 grams for some products and others being unit priced per each tea bag,
- toilet roll being unit priced per 100 sheets or by roll,
- liquid laundry detergent being price per litre, per 100 millilitres, and per wash
Some inconsistencies arise from different interpretations of the legislation and others arise from human error. The unit pricing rules are governed by the Price Marking Order (PMO) and applies to stores larger than 280 square metres. In its investigation, the CMA found problematic ambiguities in the PMO. Its view is that the PMO contains provisions which permit unhelpful inconsistencies in retailers’ practices, others which are too open to interpretation and is not sufficiently prescriptive overall.
The report contains several recommendations to improve unit price information for shoppers, including:
- Only one unit measurement can be used per product type across all retailers and across all sales channels to enable consumers to make meaningful comparisons.
- If there is a basis to allow certain types of product to be unit priced by reference to a different quantity, the CMA recommends these are few in number, and drafted in order to capture all interchangeable products of that type.
- Review the definition of a unit price in the PMO and update other relevant weights and measures legislation to ensure that consumers are able effectively to compare unit pricing of the same type of product in-store, and to reduce the scope for retailers to unit price items of the same type by both item or by weight.
- Ensure consistent display of unit prices across each product type in-store and online.
- Improve and clarify the legibility and proximity requirements for unit pricing.
- There should be unit prices for product promotions to reflect the promotional price on all types of promotions where this is feasible.
It goes without saying that a single system of measurement is an essential requirement to ensure consistent pricing and that price comparisons can be made easily so shoppers can get the best value for money, especially in the cost-of-living crisis when the prices of essential products have been rising fast. The prices of some essential products sold in supermarkets have been rising a lot faster than the headline rate of inflation. Government plans to reintroduce imperial units and allow traders to choose the units of measurements they use for trade will undermine the good work that the CMA has been doing to improve unit pricing. This is bound to undermine shoppers’ ability to compare prices and save money. Let’s hope that the Government sees sense and drops their plans to bring back imperial units.
You can find the CMA unit pricing report at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unit-pricing.
Metric Views 
This is one of those pieces of legislation that so many businesses and governments like to label as unnecessary ‘red tape’ and, from time to time, vow to get rid of. However, close scrutiny by bodies such as the CMA clearly show the importance of such legislation for consumer protection.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The CMA says the multiple unit amounts (‘per kg’, ‘per 100 g’, ‘per 10g’ etc) required by law are not implemented correctly.
“This is especially concerning as it makes it difficult for shoppers to make comparisons. For example:
• dried spaghetti being, in the main, unit priced per kilogram but with a small number of brands or sizes priced per 100 grams within the same store,”
“Some retailers and enforcers suggested that the complexity could be addressed by removing all the exemptions in Schedule 1 so that all products are unit priced by standard measurements. This would lead to much greater consistency, although it would mean that some high value/low mass products would invariably appear very expensive if priced as standard by kilogram. Saffron was a frequently cited example. There were also mixed views on what the standard measurement should be, however it seems likely that as long as there is consistency in the unit used the metric itself ought not to be a problem – because the shopper will be able to assess whether they wish to make the purchase by looking at the selling price.”
I wanted to see how other countries handled this issue.
Irish law previously required weights to be ‘price per kg’ with some exceptions for ‘per 10 g’ and ‘per 100 g’, see list in schedule 1 of SI 422/2001 at https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/si/422/made/en/print
but that was revoked. The exceptions (‘per 10 g’,’per 100 g’) are gone, leaving only ‘per kg’ for weight, see SI 639/2002 https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2002/si/639/made/en/print which came into effect just over 20 years ago.
I checked online (for ham and saffron) and it looks like Irish supermarkets comply with the law (as I understand it).
I don’t know French law but Carrefour ham has ‘price per kg’ as were most herbs. I found a few instances of ‘price per unit’ including some saffron (safran in French).
LikeLike
“The CMA says the multiple unit amounts (‘per kg’, ‘per 100 g’, ‘per 10g’ etc) required by law are not implemented correctly.”
I really don’t see a problem in this. Meaning if one brand is unit priced per 100 g and another per kilogram, the two can instantly be compared to the other. One is 10 times the price of the other. What should not be allowed is unit pricing per a non-SI unit or unit pricing per bowl, or per wash, etc.
I’m not sure how toilet paper or paper towels should be unit priced as the rolls and sheet sizes can vary as well as the density. Should each roll state its standard mass on the wrapper and the mass unit price be compared? If tea bags have a fixed mass to them, then the price per gram should be the only unit price allowed and not the price per bag since bags between brands could contain a different amount.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whoever is responsible should stop supermarkets from listing own brand milk on their websites/in store in overly specific quantities like “2.272L”. Just round it down to 2 litres like the more expensive milk brands do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dan,
I believe whoever is personally responsible for choosing this amount is hiding behind an old law that doesn’t apply to this application. That law requires that pints be used for the dispensing of drought ale in pubs and milk delivered in returnable bottles to the doorstep. But in the 21-st century I think doorstep deliveries no longer exist.
Supermarkets and shops most likely don’t produce their own milk, but contract with a local producer who brand labels it for them. They take whatever size the producing company offers. Maybe these companies originated in the door to door market and kept selling in pints long after the door to door market vanished.
Since their filling machines are already fully metric and fill in either 5 mL or 10 mL increments depending on the precision of the machines their managers chose to buy, they can’t fill to 1 mL increments. The best they can do is either 5 mL or 10 mL increments depending on the quality of the machines purchased. 2.270, 2.275, 2.280 mL would be the possible increments close to the published amount.
I’m sure if they did make the change, there would be a public outcry about getting less and paying the same price. But, if inflation continues to rise, this is exactly what could happen.
LikeLike
With reference to DANIEL’S comment: (i) door-step milk delivery of milk continues in many areas.
(ii) considering the equivalent unit prices … the unit price for a 2 litre poly. container is significantly cheaper than for a 1 pint glass bottle which is returned after use.
LikeLiked by 1 person