Talk:Safeway (Australia)

Proposed Merge

Propose merge into main Woolworths article -> just adding info about the separate brand in Victoria. Discarding a lot of the OR and unverified info. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. I believe there was too much haste in creating its own page in the first place. I think the origins of the brand and its transition to Woolworths are noteworthy, but can be adequately covered in the Woolworths Supermarkets article. Going forward the only Safeway-specific topic of interest is in its potential re-branding to Woolworths, although most of that is speculation and subjective. There has also been too much of a flavour almost suggesting that Safeway has a distinct presence in Victoria - any suggestion that it varies at all from its Woolworths cousins in the rest of Australia is flawed I believe. However, I do think most discussion on Safeway should be in the Woolworths Supermarkets article rather than the Woolworths Limited article. Murtoa 05:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

'I don't agree, I think it's important to have a separate article. Ansett (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Disapprove. Safeway is different retailer on its own, therefore the article should be kept seperate.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Safeway is not a different retailer - these days it is simply Woolworths' supermarket trading name in Victoria. For example, www.safeway.com.au doesn't even exist when I try to find it. Murtoa (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree Makes sense, this article doesn't have anything that can't be mentioned in the Woolworths article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcarriso (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree – The noteworthy content of this article would go nicely in a section within Woolworths (supermarkets); the speculative, unverified content (requesting verification since August 2007) should be cited or removed. Today, Safeway is Woolworths but simply under a different brand (selling Woolworths' generic line, such as "Woolworths Select").  SEO⁷⁵ 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Disapprove Safeway is truly separate, with completely different historical foundings. People in Victoria DO NOT refer to their supermarket as "Woolworths", but rather Safeway, and by merging the articles you are isolating a significant porion of the Australian community who expect Wikipedia to provide information relevant to them. Woolworths is not relevant to Victoria. Safeway is. Wikipedia does not merge other such articles just due to the fact that such stores are part of the same parent company. The only basis for mergin the articles would be if Safeway was OFFICIALLY renamed Woolworths, and that is certainly not the case. Wikipedia must reflect the current truth, not some purported possibility. Niveam (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, maintaining a separate entry could perpetuate a flawed view that Safeway is somehow independent of Woolworths. Try locating www.safeway.com.au - it doesn't seem to exist. Searching for "Safeway" in Google Australia simply returns the Woolworths website as the top of the list. Safeway-specific background such as its historical foundation can be perfectly referenced and maintained in a merged article. The inherent inefficiency and potential for confusion going forward in maintaining separate entries is that any change or development in the Woolworths supermarkets entry needs to be duplicated for the Safeway entry. eg. the introduction of the Everyday Rewards program. If the articles were merged, Victorians wouldn't be "isolated" if they went looking for "Safeway" - they would simply find all the content in the merged article. Who knows, some might realise as a result that it's not independent of Woolies! Murtoa (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversely Woolworths is commited to keeping Safeway separate from Woolworths. Go to www.everydayrewards.com.au www.woolworthspetrol.com.au or www.homeshop.com.au --all these sites maintain the Safeway logo on them in EQUAL prominence with the Woolworths logo. Safeway is not independent of WOolworths limited, but it is independent of Woolworths supermarkets- there is even a completely different Enterprise Bargaining Agreement for Safeway (see www.sda.org.au/awards.php3). Hence, if you argue for Safeway to be merged with Woolworths, why not also merge Sick Smith Electronics, BWS, or Dan Murphy's? Niveam (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• If Safeway was "independent of Woolworths supermarkets" then why, when you click the Safeway logo on the Woolworths Limited brands page[1] does it go directly to the Woolworths Supermarkets website!? Dick Smith has its own website[2]. Dan Murphy’s has its own website[3]. Big W has its own website[4]. Safeway doesn't[5]. Why does every Everyday Rewards card have "Woolworths" on the card, but not "Safeway", even those cards picked up and used at Safeway in Victoria? Safeway is simply a trading name for Woolworths Supermarkets in Victoria, administered out of Sydney. The EBA argument is a misnomer - each state appears to have its own agreement[6]. But - back to the point. I strongly advocate merging the pages, only so that changes and developments by Woolworths Supermarkets don't need to be duplicated on a Safeway page, indirectly implying that it is an initiative by an independent entity called Safeway. Because there will be no developments in future for Safeway that are not hand-in-hand with, or independent of Woolworths Supermarkets. Whether Woolworths will or won't eventually get rid of the Safeway trading name in Victoria is irrelevant. But for those going to Wikipedia, the experience for someone searching for "Safeway" should be a disambiguation page (in case they were looking for Safeway US), then a link taking them directly to a merged page under Woolworths Supermarkets. This page would contain all the interesting history and specific bits about Safeway’s proud past. But it would also reflect that these days, Safeway is merely a trading name of Woolworths Supermarkets. Murtoa (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Should not be merged'- for the above reasons of User:Niveam. I disagree with User:Murtoa-whose arguemtn in favour of mergin seems purely to be based on the websites-when in reality the website is not at all a core part of the business, who needs a website to go to the supermarket?? "Hopeshop", where you can shop online, has both the Safeway logo and Woolworths logo. A seperate page would reduce Wikipedia's value as an information tool, not enhance it. The arguemnt about Everyday Rewards is hopeless, in fact, when it was trialled it was only in certain Woolworths supermarkets- hence is in the Woolworths article, NOT Safeway. It can easily be included in both articles. You could use the same arguemnt for Wish Giftcards, which can be used as Dan Murphy's, BWS, Dick Smith Electronics, Woolworths and Safeay- why not combine all those inot one article, seeing as they are under the Woolworths umbrella. This proposed merge would set a dangerous precedent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.132.1.1 (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My argument is not based on websites; they are simply an example of how the Safeway brand is integrated into Woolworths supermarkets these days. However, I'm not suggesting a merge on the basis that the Safeway brand is about to disappear, but to reflect that going forward any initiative from a Safeway perspective will in fact be identical to Woolworths supermarkets, since Woolworths initiates it, since Woolworths owns and controls the Safeway brand. The Everyday Rewards card has been rolled out nationally so if anyone was enquiring what loyalty cards Safeway has, for example, then that content should appear once, rather than being duplicated across two articles. The other Woolworths brands (Dan Murphy's etc) have their own management under the Woolworths Limited umbrella - Safeway doesn't. Murtoa (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your argument is based on Websites, which are not a strong feature of supermarkets- the feature of supermarkets are the supermarkets themselves!
• Your suggestion about "any initiative" in the future being the same for Woolworths as Safeway is very weak- this is a supermarket we are talking about, not a science research laboratory or an investment bank! The operations of a supermarket are very regular and quite expected. What new initiatives are you proposing will occur that dramatically affect both Safeway and Woolworths and would be so critical to the articles' relevance?
• Everyday Rewards was actually implemented first in ONLY certain Woolworths supermarkets, NOT Safeway at all, and the separation of the articles reflects this information-if the articles were merged this would likely be neglected.
• As generally happens with merged articles, the more relevant piece of info wins out-and in an article titled "Woolworths", WOolworths would be the focus, and info on Safeway would be removed, info which is valuable to WIkipedia.
• Someone wishing to view an article on Safeway would first have to type in Safeway in Wikipedia's search box, Then click Safeway (Australia) and THEN be redirected to an article titled something completely different. This makes Wikipedia less simple to navigate and gives a user access to information that is largely irrelevant. Niveam (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

New initiatives - do you think supermarkets stand still? When they introduced "The Fresh Food People" was that the action of a "science research laboratory"?? eg . rolling out a new POS system, new advertising campaign, new tag-line, new loyalty program, etc - would be the same for Woolies as Safeway, but have to be written in both articles; Everyday Rewards not just about the launch, as it develops etc; Merged articles don't lose content, and the Safeway content would be protected by any reasonable editor; Redirection occurs everywhere in Wikipedia; the disambiguation from other variants on Safeway happens regardless Murtoa (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Safeway should have a separate article as historically it was a separate chain of supermarkets (until 1985) and has remained a separate brand until now. Furthermore there should also be separate articles for Roelf Vos and Purity that were also owned by Woolworths and were known as "The Fresh Food People" until their demise in 2000. By all means, there should be a link from the Woolworths article, but Safeway as a company is too big to prevent it having its own article. (BTW, Safeway is a different legal entity. It's called Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd but is owned by Woolworths Limited). Adam-dimech (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But there is only so much that can go in this Safeway article. It's just easier and more logical to give Safeway a section under the main Woolworths article. Having it separate is ... just ridiculous! And... since when was Safeway too big? Safeway is almost exactly the same as Woolies except for some historical details! --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 03:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Disapprove Safeway maybe run the same as Woolworths but historically it was another company which then became a brand when Woolworths brought Safeway. Bidgee (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Safeway is Woolworths

Key quote in this Age article:

"...Woolworths, which trades in Victoria as Safeway."

And here:

"...Woolworths (known as Safeway in Victoria)..."

Safeway is just Woolworths under a different trading name in the state of Victoria. Not a separate company, not a separate business.  SEO⁷⁵ 06:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of these are NATIONAL issues, and hence Woolworths is used predominantly but Safeway is mentioned to reflect that most Australians identify with WOolworths, but a very large number identify with Safeway. IN the media, with national issues like this, often only one national source (Herals Sun-News Corp, The Age-Fairfax) is used to cut costs. For Wikipedia, there is no need to cut costs, and topics do not have to be reduced to "soundbytes"- this is one reason why Wikipedia is so useful to so many people and a reason why we should maintain Wikipedia's vast database on information. Niveam (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't disprove that Safeway is Woolworths. Safeway is just a different trading name in Victoria, one state out of eight in the country. You walk into a Safeway store in Victoria and the only difference between it and a Woolworths store in all other states is nil except for the store's trading name. As Murtoa has tried to explain, you'll find all the makings and underpinnings of a Woolworths supermarket. Even the catalogue is the same, and on page 2 is: "Woolworths Supermarkets: 1 Woolworths Way, Bella Vista, NSW 2153"; on page 5 are 'Woolworths Select' products. The history behind the Safeway trading name is significant, and since this is the only difference between the two, this information should be added to the Woolworths article to fully and properly educate Wikipedia's readers.  SEO⁷⁵ 23:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be kept separate as most people in Victoria don't know that Safeway is owned by Woolworths, which is why it has taken 23 years for Woolworths to commence changing the brand name over in Victoria. If Victorians knew that Woolworths/Safeway is the same company, the name would have been changed over many years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowmelb (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Precedent

Grace Bros. and Myer set a good precedent for keeping articles like this separate, the GB/Myer story seems a similar one to Safeway/Woolworths, ie. both had differing histories then one took over the other. Endarrt (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rebrand

This morning (20 Aug 2008) 3AW presenter Neil Mitchell opened his program stating there would be an announcement this week on Safeway rebranding to Woolworths. Alas Mr Mitchell was rather confused in relation to certain facts about Woolworths Victorian supermarket division. Safeway have sold very little if any Safeway branded homebrands for sometime now yet he told listeners that they were in the process of removing all the Safeway branded products for Woolworths branded products. He also failed to mention that in the 1980's Woolworths rebranded their Victorian supermarkets to Safeway and implied Woolworths only ever traded as a variety store in Victoria. Wrong and it is very simple to tell the difference between a former Aust Safeway store and former Woolies Supermarket with both having a distinct exterior. Mitchell failed to do his homework however the day is drawing closer for the Woolworths name to once again grace Supermarkets (the outside that is) in Victoria? An often forgotten fact that Woolworths prior to Supermarkets becoming the core purchased numerous small chains back in the days of Woolworths Food Fair including Crofts and Nancarrows with Nancarrows being part of Woolworths to well into the 1980's. Quite often if a Victorian Woolworths was trading poorly it was rebranded to Nancarrows. Nancarrows were to be rebranded Australian Food Stores however they were offloaded to Davids Holdings. When Nancarrows were sold to Davids so to were a handful of Woolies and Safeway (some trading as Food for less) supermarkets. There are many of these store still trading today, now as IGA's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.32.95 (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, wonder if Neil Mitchell is user Niveam..? :)  SEO⁷⁵ 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The rumour became fact today. Murtoa (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it will undoubtedly be Woolworths soon!  SEO⁷⁵ 22:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Rebranding lessens need to merge articles

Discussion above will show that I have been one of the main proponents to merge this article to Woolworths. This was mainly predicated on the fact that any ongoing commentary on Safeway was likely to exactly mirror Woolworths, since they essentially were the same operation. However, now that the re-branding has been announced I think it takes the heat out of this argument. This article therefore can become more a receptacle for the (interesting) history of Safeway in Australia, with appropriate links to Woolworths articles. Murtoa (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, now you mention it along with Endarrt's precedent example above, as long as there is enough decent content to make the subject notable enough (or else we could face another merge debate). I found this Age article a very interesting read (I always thought Safeway Chelsea looked and felt 'rich in heritage'!), and contains excellent bits of information to make such an historical article worthy and similarly of interest. So... Does anyone know of a version of the old Safeway 'red S' brand? This one looks quite familiar from memory (with "SAFEWAY" in bold all-caps Helvetica IIRC). Let me know and I'll create and upload a quality version for the article.  SEO⁷⁵ 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)