Fair trade or trade fairy?

Cavendish Elithorn was on Sky news today. As the speaker of the office of fair trading, who is now coming out in regards to the practice that people see all over the world. We saw several issues in the news. There are mentions of ‘reference pricing’ where we see the ‘was’ and ‘now’ price, which in some cases is 50% less, or the after sale price where it is now 50% less, until the sale ends, where at that moment you will pay twice the price. The news casts speaks that at the higher price only 5% was ever made.

My issue is that even though it is great that this is done, yet is it a fair trade issue? Do not get me wrong, I think in one part it is, yet, can we act on this? This issue is especially questionable when we are hit through the internet with these same practices on a daily basis? Then there are for example the infomercials like Rapid Loss where we heard again and again to ‘respond within 15 minutes because this could be the last time this offer appeared‘, which of course is not the case as the same offer is given weeks later. The final example is the one that really gets my goat. We are talking about Ethical Nutrients when they claim on TV “You would need to eat 1.23 kg of snapper, or 1.1 kg of tuna, or take nine standard2 fish oil capsules every day or one teaspoon of Ethical Nutrients to get the required dose.” That pretty much implies that Arthritis correlates 100% to the population has NO ONE can afford that much fish. Even their web page title is ‘debatable’ It stated “How Much Omega-3 Fish Oil Do You Need For Arthritis?” (at http://www.ethicalnutrients.com.au/content/how-much-omega-3-fish-oil-do-you-need-arthritis) is this to get Arthritis, or to prevent it? These matters are not a case for fair trade?

We are getting in a field where many of these shops are going on a slippery marketing path to stay afloat, especially to survive against certain on-line presence that can change or reword visibility at a moment’s notice. Many of the smaller dealers might not like the fact that these mega houses, who can set prices of retail reference and actual price all by themselves, yet, consider the fact that this path had been walked by many of the A-brands for a very long time (several have been doing this for over 30 years). Consider the pricing in shops dealing in items from places like Lenovo, Sony, Samsung, Philips, Blaupunkt and that list goes on. So, when (or likely if) we see this case going forward we need to ask certain questions.

How will Cavendish Elithorn police the other areas too?

If not, he might not have a case. Not because of the reason quoted as “They are doing it, so why can’t we“, because if a small group is guilty of speeding, the rest is not allowed to speed either. The issue is that the small group that is speeding do not seem to be dealt with at all. There are often too many complications to these kind of cases, like the complications of dealing with internet cases to name but one, the fact that they are doing it short term and by the time the office of Fair Trade gets around to them they retract (or rephrase) the campaign and as such there would be no prosecutable case to begin with.

Do not think that the OFT (Office of Fair Trade) is a toothless tiger, or that they are fighting windmills. That part is clearly shown by the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22109188

A situation where kids are pressured into buying extras on web games that are now pushed through smartphones, Facebook and stand-alone games that are played on tablets. This is a dangerous situation where parents get confronted with hundreds (some even thousands) of dollars in unwanted bills. There is even a new danger developing. As some makers publish several games, the fact that they now link to one another, stating that you get a special reward in ‘game 1’ if you get to a certain level in ‘game 2’ and so on. I found a maker linking 5 games to each other in that way. How long until children suddenly purchase certain amounts in several games, or even in 5 games? Let me be clear here. This is not about a few who are addicted to gaming, but the bulk who do not realise the consequence of certain costs and pressing ‘OK’ in certain places. Part of this goes beyond just ‘fair trade’, not unlike your daily required need of 1Kg of tuna; this is about levels of ‘miscommunication’ where children and at times adults where pressing ‘OK’ would end up having severe financial consequences. This issue is even more unacceptable as these makers seem to point to iTunes as a policing authority (or enabling authority) for in-app spending, instead of standard disabling in game purchasing from the start and requiring specific acts to enable spending money for these special in-app forms of currency. However, that is likely to be regarded as ‘bad’ business.