Anti-Israeli protestors turfed from Pak’NSave

Anti-Israeli protestors who are wanting a boycott of Israeli products at supermarkets have been turfed from Pak’NSave in Hamilton.

What is worse though is Fairfax promoting their cause, and even adding a link to their Facebook page in the story.


It seems Fairfax is a political brand though, pushing a pro-Palestinian agenda and an anti-Israeli one.

Police were called to escort a group of about 12 human rights protesters out of the Pak’N Save supermarket in Mill St, Hamilton, today.

The multicultural organisation called Palestine Human Rights Campaign Waikato had entered the store and were distributing leaflets calling on customers not to buy goods made in Israel.

Protest organiser Ahmed Khaled said the protest was aimed at raising awareness of ongoing violence and the persecution of people in the Gaza Strip.

“We don’t want to single out Pak’N Save.”

The lengthy conflict has escalated this year. Between July 8 and August 27, more than 2100 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, and 66 Israeli soldiers and seven civilians in Israel. The United Nations says most of the Palestinians were civilians.

Pak’N Save store manager Stefan Hance had previously asked the group to restrict their activities to the roadside kerb outside the supermarket ? however it was not long before they walked in and quickly dispersed throughout the store, quietly handing out flyers and talking to shoppers about why they were there.

Two of the group wheeled in shopping trolleys and before long homed in on a display stand with Beigel and Biegel Pretzels, one of the Israeli-made products on sale. After packing the pretzel packets into the trolley, Ruba Niza, another member of the group, sprinkled rose petals over them ? a move she said signified the peaceful nature of their visit.

The protesters spent about 20 minutes inside the store before the police arrived, and once told to leave they complied.

Read more »

IMPORTANT: Update on Pak ‘n Save


Whaleoil has been under a well organised and sustained attack. ?We’ve had a Denial of Service attack, which shut the blog down for a number of days. ?We have had some of our emails and Facebook chats hacked. ?We’ve been under a commercial attack where advertisers have been approached with a very one-sided story, and based on that, withdrawn their advertising from Whaleoil.

Yesterday, I ran an update on this situation, reporting that of all the advertisers that has made public statement about blocking their advertisements from Whaleoil, only Foodstuff (fronting for Pak ‘n Save) was refusing to talk to any of the communication you sent them. ?And – no ads.

As a result, I felt it was fair enough to call the block a deliberate stance.

Mere hours later, as if by magic, Pak ‘n Save ads started to appear on the web site. ? Read more »

The left’s economic sabotage of Whaleoil – progess report


As you may recall, the left, through their attack blogs, have been systematically targeting advertisers on Whaleoil.

Among those that knee-jerked some reactions based on a very one-sided complaint (and without consulting with us), were Powershop and Flight Centre.

I’m happy to report that both of those companies have recommenced their advertising. ? This isn’t a sign they support us. ?Instead, it’s a sign that they will advertise wherever their customers are. ?And with a quarter of a million of you, their customers are Whaleoil readers too.

Keep in mind that Whaleoil?never called for a customer boycott on these companies. ?In fact, we only revealed Powershop as one of the companies involved until?after?they reversed their decision to block advertising.

So, any of you who took your business away from Powershop and/or Flight Centre, please take these developments into account when you do your business in future.

(and let’s face it, $159 per person one way to Sydney or Brizzy is a good start when you easily pay double to get to Queenstown)

Read more »

Pak ‘n Save… an update, of sorts

You may recall that there is a consistent and persistent movement by some of the left blogs to approach advertisers and get them to block their adverts from appearing on this web site.

Pak ‘n Save through Foodstuffs, responded positively to that pressure and emailed to say they didn’t want anything to do with Whaleoil and had blocked the ads. ?The Daily Blog proudly displayed this as a ‘win’ on their site.

At the time, I didn’t ask you to act, although many of you did. ?Many of you wrote emails and letters of complaint to Pak ?’n Save and to Foodstuffs.

Nobody, to date, has reported a response from Pak ‘n Save to their communications.

This is odd.

Yesterday, I received the following:


Read more »

Did Draft FCB make the wrong call?


Yesterday, the Daily Blog published an email from Foodstuffs saying that, as they had raised?received a complaint about Foodstuff’s Pak ‘n Save advertising ?running on Whaleoil, they had taken the opportunity to explicitly turn that off.

Although I fully respect Pak ‘n Save’s rights to advertise anywhere they like, I do not appreciate companies that cave in to activists with an axe to grind.

So I wrote about it. ? Read more »

Attempts to undermine Whaleoil financial vialbility continue [UPDATED]


Hacked from Martyn’s Daily Love and Truth blog: ? Read more »

Countdown’s mafioso tactics play into Foodstuffs hands


Over the pst few weeks we have been exposing the bully-boy mafia-style stand-over tactics of Countdown over their suppliers and in Australia their Aussie owners have taken a stance blocking New Zealand producers.

The situation is escalating out of hand with both governments now getting significant push back on the issue. ? Read more »

Not racist enough

Good job, the?grievance industry? lost a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority that this advert was racist.

Pak’nSave will be ecstatic with all the free advertising.

The Advertising Standards Authority has chucked out a claim of racism, saying the mispronunciation of Maori words in a supermarket ad was not racist enough to cause ”widespread offence”.

The ASA received a number of complaints relating to a Pak’nSave advertisement aired on television in May promoting Kiwi Kai Week.? Read more »

An email from a reader – Foodstuffs taxing suppliers

via the tipline, a reader emails me:

You’ll see in the news today that Foodstuffs Wellington who?own Pak’n Save and New World in Wellington are slamming NZ suppliers?with a 3% rebate.

Well that’s just the start! I hear ?from someone?working there that they’ve just opened a product buying centre in?China too. Does that mean we’re going to see even more Chinese?products on our supermarket shelves?

I thought a NZ owned supermarket group would support local suppliers -?obviously not!!

I’m going to shop at Aussie owned Countdown.

It certainly sounds like Foodstuffs is employing bullyboy tactics against suppliers…and when you have a duopoly I guess they can.

Grocery suppliers say supermarket giant Foodstuffs has partly backed down on its decision to hit suppliers with a 3 per cent promotions charge on products sold in its supermarkets.

However the retailer claims there’s been no backdown.

Foodstuffs Wellington – which has the Pak’n Save, New World and Four Square brands throughout the lower North Island – sent letters to all its suppliers in recent weeks informing them it would start charging the ”promotions rebate” from October 1 this year.

The Food & Grocery Council [FGC] said Foodstuffs Wellington has agreed to delay implementation of the rebate for homebrand products, which are Foodstuffs’ own brands such as Pams and Budget.

Suppliers have never had any say in promotional activity for such brands, and in fact are often faced with a situation where a product they supply for use in a Pams or Budget product is actively competing with their own branded product on supermarket shelves, FGC chief executive Katherine Rich said.

Suppliers should not be expected to foot the bill for promoting such products, Rich said.

I would?have?thought the 3% “promotions charge” was in fact a secret commission to Foodstuffs in order to prefer suppliers who coughed it…I say that because what are the implications for a supplier if they don’t pay it vs a supplier that does pay.

Imagine say a supplier of a readily?available?commodity?like say honey…or a ubiquitous product like salt or something with multiple suppliers didn’t pay the “promotions charge”…and another supplier out there did, and as a result Foodstuffs changed the core component of their Budget and Pams house brands to the supplier that paid the “promotions charge” forsaking the previous supplier then a case could easily be made that it was in fact a secret commission in order to secure the business. A quick read of the Secret Commissions Act 1910 would seem to support this.

Perhaps this is something the Commerce Commission might like to have a look at?