kathimerini.gr
Greece Cracks Down on Supermarket False Discounts
Greece's Ministry of Development is enforcing a code of conduct to prevent false discounts in supermarkets, starting March 17th, with fines up to €3 million for violations exceeding the 30-day lowest price rule; consumer reporting is also encouraged.
- What immediate impact will the new code of conduct have on supermarket pricing practices in Greece?
- The Greek Ministry of Development is implementing a code of conduct to curb false discounts in supermarkets, mirroring existing regulations in other retail sectors. Penalties for violations range from €5,000 to €1.5 million, increasing to €3 million for repeat offenses. Companies fined over €50,000 will be named publicly.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of this regulation on consumer behavior and market competition in Greece?
- The impact of this regulation will likely be felt most strongly by supermarkets that have relied on deceptive discounting strategies. The 30-day rule will make it more challenging to maintain the practice of 'stickers' offering additional discounts, a tactic common in Greece but less so in other European countries. Consumer reporting through a dedicated platform will supplement official inspections, enhancing enforcement.
- How does the '30-day rule' aim to address the issue of false discounts, and what specific examples of deceptive practices does it target?
- This new code of conduct introduces a '30-day rule', requiring advertised discounts to be based on the lowest price within the preceding 30 days. This measure aims to prevent retailers from using inflated or outdated prices to create misleading discounts. The rule specifically targets practices like using suggested retail prices as a basis for discounts, a tactic previously employed by technology retailers resulting in significant fines.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing clearly positions the government as acting to protect consumers from deceptive marketing practices by supermarkets. The headline and introduction emphasize the government's actions and the potential penalties. This framing could inadvertently influence readers to view supermarkets negatively without providing a balanced perspective on their potential motivations or challenges.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral. Terms like "plasmatikes ekptoseis" (fictitious discounts) are descriptive and not overtly loaded. However, the repeated use of terms like "plasmatikes" (fictitious) could subtly shape the reader's perception of supermarkets' practices. The phrasing "phouskwsei tin arxiki timi" (inflate the initial price) is slightly emotive, but it accurately reflects the alleged practice.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the government's actions and the penalties for violating the code of conduct. It doesn't delve into the perspectives of supermarket chains, consumer advocacy groups, or other stakeholders. While this is understandable given space constraints, the lack of diverse viewpoints could limit a full understanding of the issue's complexities and potential unintended consequences.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing: either supermarkets comply with the new code, or they face heavy fines. It doesn't fully explore the potential for alternative solutions or the possibility of unintended consequences of strict enforcement. The complexities of pricing strategies and the challenges faced by businesses are not fully addressed.
Sustainable Development Goals
The new code of ethics aims to curb misleading discounts in supermarkets, promoting fair pricing and preventing deceptive marketing practices. By setting a 30-day reference price for discounts, it combats the practice of artificially inflating original prices to create the illusion of larger discounts. This directly contributes to responsible consumption and production by ensuring transparency and preventing consumer manipulation. The penalties for violations further incentivize ethical business practices.