When do terms and conditions matter?

Pams has recently started an advertising and branding campaign claiming that it is “the most popular grocery brand in the land”. Their substantiation? “New Zealanders buy more Pams groceries than groceries from any other single brand. Based on Homescan data NielsonIQ, 2023. T&Cs apply.”

That’s directly from their website, and it’s a weasel claim. The “T&Cs apply” are proof of that.

Considering that Pams is the (often) cheapest white-label brand of choice for New World, Pak’nSave, and Four Square, their claim seems legitimate—or does it?

Pams is part of New Zealand’s grocery cartel, so it’s obvious that they’ll sell more since they have more shelf space, lower prices, and the widest range of products. This doesn’t make them the most popular brand.

The claim Pams puts out there is the same as the New Zealand Transport Agency claiming that the SH1 motorway is New Zealand’s most popular road because it sees the most traffic.

Bunnings and Mitre10 have their own nebulous claim, which also comes with T&Cs: if you find a lower-priced item at a competitor, they’ll beat that price by 15%.

But since they’re another cartel, they can control their stock, which means you’ll never find the exact same big-ticket products like a Masport lawnmower at Bunnings or find a Bosch lawnmower at Mitre 10.

Even if you drill down to products like turpentine or nails, the brands are never the same at the two stores, so how much worth is there in a perceived 15% discount?

It was David Ogilvy who stated that “the consumer is not a moron.” But every day, more and more advertisers and big businesses push us into that category. That’s not where I want anyone to be.

Shouldn’t we all be loath to be taken advantage of in this way? I know I am.

PS. I called Pams to find out what the T&Cs are, and they didn’t know themselves.