Evaluating the evidence behind value-seeking consumer claims

“Customers are looking for value” is too broad to explain a buying decision. First pin down what the claim means: a change in purchases, stated priorities, prices, product life, trips or reliability.

Match the evidence to the claim. Ask whether it measures what people bought, what they said they wanted, the prices available or problems reported after purchase.

For a named Australian measure, start with the ABS publication Retail Trade, Australia methodology, April 2025. It estimates turnover for employing retail businesses that predominantly sell to households, with results for Australia and states and territories. Turnover measures sales value, not why customers bought something.

The ABS survey is monthly: about 700 large businesses are included and a random sample of about 2,700 smaller businesses is selected. Large businesses contribute approximately 69% of the total estimate, supporting a highly reliable Australian total turnover estimate; that does not establish an individual shopper’s choices or motives.

The ABS Guide to the Consumer Price Index: 17th Series describes the CPI as a quarterly general measure of price changes for consumer goods and services purchased by Australian households. It can provide price context, but does not show what shoppers bought or why.

The ACCC’s Supermarkets inquiry 2024–25 final report, released on 21 March 2025, drew on consumer survey responses, information from retailers and suppliers, public and private hearings and submissions, and roundtable feedback. It also presents a commissioned report on decision-making and the behavioural impacts of supermarket pricing, promotional programs and loyalty program practices.

Apply the test to “Customers are looking for value”: the inquiry’s consumer survey can speak to respondents’ stated views, while its other evidence streams address different aspects of the supermarket inquiry. The listed evidence streams alone do not establish that shoppers’ behaviour changed or that value was the reason.

Next check the period, geography, category and sample behind each result. Ask whether stock availability, a promotion, pack sizes or shopper mix could explain the pattern; these are alternative explanations to account for, not evidence of motive.

Give most weight to evidence that directly measures the claim, matches its category and period, and states its sample and method. Treat a survey as evidence of respondents’ reported views, and sales turnover as evidence of sales value; qualify conclusions when those measures do not establish the claim being made.

Do not substitute an unsupported threshold for missing detail. Report the measure, period, geography and sample that are available; if a key detail is not reported, narrow the conclusion rather than implying greater certainty.

For public displayed-price claims, check the ACCC’s Price displays guidance: the ACCC can investigate breaches of price-display rules. For grocery unit-price claims, the ACCC enforces the mandatory Unit Pricing Code; its Unit prices for groceries guidance explains its role.

State the conclusion at the level measured: “In this category and period, [measure] changed.” Add a claim about why shoppers acted only when evidence directly supports that reason, and recheck the pattern before changing an assortment or making a public claim.

Key Australian Data Sources for Evaluating Value Claims

Timeline of Key Evidence for Value-Seeking Consumer Claims in Australia