Major brands in general, and the big supermarkets specifically, have become very good at making us believe that we’re getting great deals when this is not always the case. Morrisons have (by default or by design - not sure) ended up in this “affordable” category, but it’s not necessarily possible to make conclusive blanket comparisons (side note - I often find my best veggie bargains from the local street trader on London Rd - give him a try sometime).

I did a price comparison on http://mysupermarket.co.uk for a fairly plain basket of 12 food items, and there isn’t much difference in online prices: Morrisons came in at £16.83 vs Sainsbury’s at £17.05 (I went for standard/basics no-name options as far as possible, and also made minor adjustments for weight or quantity where necessary to ensure a like-for-like comparison.)

A second basket containing a range of 8 cheap alcoholic beverages comes in at £58.90 at Morrisons vs £62.50 at Sainsbury’s, with Morrisons undercutting Sainsbury’s on each individual item.

You can view the numbers here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing

This is by no means a scientific study and you have to be very careful when doing these comparisons as I’ve already said - but this actually underscores the point: There will be a gazzilion different combinations here each giving a different answer (see for example this basket, which uses slightly less basic items, and tells a different story: http://www.goodhousekeeping.co.uk/money/...comparison). Who's cheaper depends on what you typically buy, and there are other factors at play, including whether the “local” Metro version of the store actually has a different pricing model to the online retailer & big stores which the above analyses both rely on. I also didn’t factor Sainsbury’s “brand match” into the above analysis which will make a difference when it comes to branded alcohol items.

The problem is that none of this matters in the world of convenience, brand recognition, smart marketing, 2-for-1 deals and clever in-store product placements. Here we will have an instantly recognisable brand on a prominent site playing all of those cards and drawing in the footfall, but not genuinely offering anything new, or anything consistently & definitively cheaper for the convenience shopper, at a time when those of us who value a vibrant high street would rather see more diversity, along with no more stores retailing alcohol at convenient hours - because we feel we have enough of those already and we’d rather see our local versions prosper.

This is a fair point. Shouldn’t we just let the market sort this out? Well yes - of course that’s an option, but there are many examples in capitalism where we intervene to uphold principles: competition policy, fair trade, sin taxes & fuel duties to name but a few. You may of course have your own opinion as to the suitability of each of these measures, but the point is that we don’t just always leave things up to supply and demand, so it isn’t really that strange that a group of locals are interested in bringing other factors into this economic decision. Now, Michael again makes a fair point that big chains and local businesses can indeed co-exist, and I agree with that statement in general. I guess where we differ is in our analysis of where this specific sector will stand in Forest Hill - I feel that another supermarket chain will tip the balance the wrong way.