In a fascinating story that has sparked debate among Australian shoppers, a clever shopper named Giorgio Savini has revealed a surprising hack for saving money at Coles self-serve checkouts. While some people have praised his ingenuity, others argue that his actions border on theft. Savini discovered a potential "loophole" in the system, claiming that the scales at Coles’ self-scanner checkouts are not designed to accurately weigh very small quantities of fresh produce. For example, he found that a single 10-gram chili, which should cost around 30 cents, was only charged at 3 cents because the scale couldn’t measure its weight properly. Savini insists that his method is not theft but rather a smart way to save money, provided shoppers are willing to weigh small items one at a time.
The idea came to light during an episode of The Kick It Forward podcast, where Savini explained how he took advantage of this apparent flaw in the system. He pointed out that the scales at Coles’ self-checkouts are not sensitive enough to weigh items as light as a single gram accurately. This means that when he placed a chili weighing just 1 gram on the scale, the machine incorrectly calculated its weight as 10 grams, leading to a significantly lower charge. Savini argues that this is not intentional theft but rather a clever use of the system’s limitations. However, he also admitted that the hack requires patience, as weighing individual items one by one can be time-consuming. For instance, if someone wanted to buy multiple chilies, they would need to weigh each one separately to take advantage of the loophole.
While Savini’s co-host on the podcast criticized the hack, suggesting that the time spent weighing individual items would make grocery shopping overly cumbersome and time-consuming, many listeners applauded Savini’s creativity. Some viewers even shared their own experiences with similar tactics, such as buying garlic cloves that were sometimes charged at $0.00 due to the scales’ inability to measure such small quantities. Others warned Savini to keep the hack quiet, suggesting that if Coles or other supermarkets like Woolworths became aware of it, they would likely update their systems to fix the issue. This underscores the delicate balance between taking advantage of a flawed system and the potential consequences of widespread exploitation.
Not everyone is supportive of Savini’s method, however. Some viewers dismissed his hack as a waste of time, pointing out that the savings are negligible—often just a few cents. Others took a stronger stance, arguing that intentionally underpaying for items, even if it’s due to a technical flaw, constitutes theft. Legal experts Alison and Jillian Barrett also weighed in, telling news.com.au that Savini’s actions could indeed be considered theft. They argued that intentionally paying less than the full price of an item, even if it’s due to a system error, is dishonest and unfairly impacts others by driving up prices for everyone else. They noted that such behavior is part of a broader problem where dishonest practices at checkouts cost retailers billions of dollars annually.
The debate raises an interesting question: where does frugality end and dishonesty begin? Savini and his supporters argue that they are simply exploiting a flaw in the system, not maliciously stealing. They see it as a way to save money in a time when grocery prices are rising rapidly. On the other hand, critics argue that intentionally taking advantage of such errors is unfair to both the retailer and other customers, who ultimately bear the cost of these losses through higher prices. This ethical dilemma highlights the complexity of modern shopping practices and the fine line between being thrifty and crossing into theft.
In conclusion, Savini’s hack has divided opinions, with some hailing him as a genius for finding a way to save money, while others condemn his actions as dishonest. Whether or not his method is deemed theft, it has sparked an important conversation about the ethics of shopping hacks and the consequences of exploiting system flaws. As retailers continue to rely on self-serve checkouts, stories like Savini’s remind us of the need for greater transparency and fairness in how prices are calculated and how systems are designed. Ultimately, the debate over Savini’s actions challenges all of us to think about our own shopping habits and the balance between saving money and doing the right thing.
