A.G.’s ‘white paper’ full of holes

by Larry Meyer
MRA Chairman and CEO

With little more than two months remaining as Michigan attorney general, Jennifer Granholm issued a so-called “white paper” critical of item pricing reform.

Rather than a scholarly effort, however, it was mostly a political document intended to preserve the expensive and burdensome status quo.

Your Association was quick to point out publicly that the document contained fundamental errors about pending legislation intended to reduce costs, contain prices and increase stores’ pricing accuracy through reform of the outdated item pricing law.

We also jumped on what we found even more disturbing—the undercurrent bashing one of Michigan’s most economically valuable industries. As Linda Gobler, president of the Michigan Grocers Association, said in our joint news release: “Essentially, the attorney general paints retailers as cheaters preying on consumers. That’s both wrong and irresponsible. It’s an insult to the tens of thousands of honest, hard-working retailers in this state.”

MRA is backing passage this fall of House Bill 5544, which would enable a retailer to get out from under the inefficient, costly and time-wasting burdens of individual price marking if, and only if, the store met certain criteria. These criteria (which, contrary to Granholm’s white-paper description, does not specify a form of technology called an Electronic Shelf Labeling System) include:

• Achieving an audited and certified level of 98 percent pricing accuracy.

• Using clear signage on store shelves to mark prices.

• Placing remote scanners in the store so that a consumer could verify the price and receive a printout that could be checked against the register receipt at checkout or at home.

• Paying the consumer double the current penalty whenever a mistake did occur.

In fact, the legislation meets criteria that the attorney general earlier said was necessary for her to support reform of this outdated law. Apparently that’s no longer the case.

Reform of the antiquated item pricing law is a win-win situation for retailers and their customers all across the state. It’s also a potential plus for urban communities, especially Detroit, attempting to attract new retail development. Here’s why:

The costs of assembling and developing an urban site are higher than plowing up a suburban “green field” location. Other costs, including security, also can be higher for an urban retail center. Add the extra layer of cost associated with item pricing and you have the straw that can break the camel’s back.

Item pricing reform has made good sense for a good many years. It makes even more sense today. Its time has come. Let’s get on with it.