‘Offensive, disrespectful, arrogant’: Why Woolies needs to get Banducci ‘out of the way’ now
Woolworths CEO Brad Banducci seemingly did not win over anyone at this week’s Senate inquiry after what has been a chaotic few months for the supermarket giant, and now there are calls for him to step away immediately.
Following the Australia Day controversy, and a disaster appearance on ABC’s Four Corners in February, it was hoped that Banducci could save some face at the inquiry looking into alleged price gouging this week. Instead, the Woolies head was skewered by the panel, particularly Greens Senator Nick McKim, and even threatened with jail time for failing to answer what the chain’s return on equity was multiple times.
Appearing on a new episode of the Mumbrellacast, crisis communications expert Sally Branson slammed Banducci’s showing.
‘Not across the numbers’ because he doesn’t consider return on equity is the dumbest criticism I’ve read of Banducci.
And taking the short view of the last four months is also what I’d call ‘not across the numbers’. Banducci took a Woolies bleeding from its failed Masters experiment and has righted the ship. Four months at the end of his term doesn’t a career make.
It’s hilarious that a bunch of hack media people think they’re either smarter or would have done a better job that a guy a multinational billion dollar company put in charge of the place.
Realise that you’re only a small little cog in the machine people.
If any foreign competitor was contemplating setting up in Australia to create extra competition they will not be keen now when a CEO can be threatened with jail by someone who knows nothing about anything.
Woolworths net profit margin is 2.64% so every time I spend $100 there they make $2.64. Seems like a lot of effort to build a store, source products, staff, trolleys etc. to make $2.64 from me.
Woolworths pays a dividend of only 3.31% and their share price has been static for 4 years. Coles is even lower at $2.45 per $100 spent.
Australia is in a bad way with the current batch of politicians because if we can’t convince entrepreneurs to run businesses there are no taxes. You would have to be bonkers to want to set up a business here with the industrial relations changes coming in July and the total disregard for the golden goose.
He’s there for that very reason, to be the villain, to take the hits and then exit. It’s a Senate Inquiry into anti-competitive behaviour, not a puff piece opportunity. Why would you send someone you eventually have to build a positive profile around (Bardwell) into a lion’s den of carefully and meticulous crafted questions, ultimately designed to paint the picture of a seriously damaging duopoly that exists in the grocery category?
And for not being across the numbers? He 100% is across them but clearly was trying to avoid the follow-up questions that would’ve followed has he admitted it. It took close to 30min for him to say “I don’t know”, if anything, that inquiry will be seriously looking into whether he lied in giving that statement.
There is a mindset similar to the former CEO of Optus.