Kroger, Albertsons Grocery Merger Again Highlights How The U.S. Business Press Is A Bunch Of Mindless Parrots When It Comes To Consolidation
from the merge-ALL-the-things! dept
I spent decades as a telecom beat reporter watching the mainstream press cover the telecom industry. I had a front row seat to the endless promises big telecoms like AT&T and Comcast made before a merger, and the way the U.S. business press repeatedly parroted pre-merger claims entirely unskeptically, without pointing out the harms of consolidation, layoffs, or that pre-merger promises are broadly meaningless.
Big companies promoting terrible mergers that cause untold layoffs and consumer and market harms — while promising none of that will actually happen — is a proud, fifty-plus year American tradition. And it requires a symbiosis with lazy, (not-coincidentally also highly consolidated) major media empires.
Case in point: grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons are floating a $24.6 billion merger that regulators have been justifiably skeptical about. Experts who study grocery consolidation for a living all indicate that, just like most major mergers, the deal will likely harm consumers and workers alike. States and the FTC have sued Kroger, and Kroger countersued the FTC, claiming antitrust enforcement is “unconstitutional.”
Kroger (and tell me if you’ve heard this one before) is pinky swearing that increased consolidation in the already consolidated grocery space will increase jobs, boost competition, and lower prices for consumers. On that last point, the company this week told the press that if the merger is approved, they’ll dole out $1 billion in immediate savings to consumers.
The promise is baseless. As you see in tech and telecom, pre-merger promises are utterly valueless. U.S. regulatory enforcement of merger promises is completely feckless, and getting weaker in the wake of major Supreme Court rulings. Antitrust academics insist there’s nothing in the promise that’s worth anything. And yet Bloomberg, Reuters, and CNBC all parroted the claim mindlessly:



Not a single one of the news reports took the time to speak to a single antitrust academic or expert, who’d be quick to point out the promise isn’t real. There are people, surprisingly enough, who’ve spent their entire lives studying consolidation in grocery markets, but they’re rarely quoted by major business journalism outlets whose job, purportedly, is to convey the truth to the U.S. public.
One local Boise outlet, BoiseDev, actually crunched the numbers, and found that even if Kroger followed through on the promised price cuts (which again they wouldn’t, because that’s not how consolidation works), they’d amount to about four cents per store visit per consumer.
Several Senators and State AGs have expressed concerned that the one-two punch of consolidation (read: less competition), fused with new dynamic store-shelf display tag pricing tech, could make it easier than ever to screw consumers. Combine that with a Supreme Court regulatory assault on regulatory oversight of, well, everything, and the potential harms to Americans become rather clear.
I don’t mean to wander outside of our beat into grocery news, but the treatment of the merger by major outlets is a perfect demonstration of the U.S. press’ complete failure to fully, accurately report on corporate behavior and its real-world impact. Most U.S. business journalism isn’t journalism, so much as a weird fan fiction that tells investors, executives, and media owners precisely what they want to hear.
It’s a world where history doesn’t exist, academic antitrust expertise doesn’t exist, real-world consumer and labor harms are downplayed or ignored, and executive statements are almost always taken at face value, even if the executive has a long-history of lies. The coverage broadly reflects the anti-regulation, anti-consumer, anti-labor, shot-term profit seeking interests of center-right billionaire ownership. The same ownership, that, again, not coincidentally owns what’s left of mainstream U.S. journalism.
And it’s more broadly reflective of any serious interest in antitrust reform. When the GOP was looking to bully tech giants away from moderating racist political propaganda, the press also mindlessly bought their claim they were “suddenly very serious about antitrust reform,” despite the fact, with their other hand, they were stocking the courts with folks utterly dedicated to making such reform impossible.
Filed Under: competition, consolidation, ftc, grocery, journalism, media, mergers, monopoly, prices, promises, reform
Companies: albertsons, kroger
Last chance! Support our fundraiser today and 



Comments on “Kroger, Albertsons Grocery Merger Again Highlights How The U.S. Business Press Is A Bunch Of Mindless Parrots When It Comes To Consolidation”
Mainstream Media Never Gets It Right
This is hardly surprising about ANY topic. The mainstream media never gets the story right.
I followed the SCO-IBM lawsuit for years, and noticed the same thing – the press essentially regurgitating press releases from SCO with no critical thought.
For those who think the media does a good job, I always challenge them. Pick topic, any topic, in which you are interested. Read the primary documents – court filings, police reports, actual facts – and follow the media coverage for a month. Then tell me the media gets it right. No one has.
Re: Mainstream Media Never Gets It Right
In defense of journalists: Journalist have to be generalists to be able to write interesting articles about multiple topics. In general, they don’t have the time to seriously research their stories and that makes that inaccuracies slip in. And they are susceptible to copying (the lies in) press releases because that’s easy content. Damn the liars behind press releases.
Re: Re:
And yet, newspapers want to carry approbations like a ‘newspaper of record‘.
I’ve long said that any time you know the details of a ‘news’ story from personal contact with the specifics of the situation, you’ll see that the press reporting gets something provable and substantially wrong. It makes me very sceptical about any story in the press that I don’t have personal contact with.
Re: Re:
If the journalists haven’t figured out that press releases are often self-serving bullshit, this isn’t much of a “defense”. We’re not talking about them omitting or being wrong about a minor detail; no “serious research” or time commitment is required.
Re:
Man… You’re reminding me of how much I miss Groklaw.
Re: Re:
> Man… You’re reminding me of how much I miss Groklaw.
Me, too. It was a sad day when that one left my “Daily” bookmarks group.
Re:
“I followed the SCO-IBM lawsuit for years”
I wonder how many people paid the $699 for a linux license from sco.
One remark: the grocery business still is a more competitive business than telecom, network effects are small and the barrier of entry is pretty low. OTOH, these huge mergers suggest board rooms full of people lacking creativity.
Re:
Yes, it’s very competitive. Both Kroger and Albertson’s have sub-2% profit margins, despite what Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have claimed about grocery stores price-gouging. And we should keep the industry competitive by not allowing too much consolidation. The best consumer protection is choice.
Re: Re:
I don’t believe the 2% nonsense having seen first hand the internal costs paid by my company once upon a time when I was part of the retail side of many of the same items sold by grocery stores. And this retail side is a fraction of the size of Albertsons/Safeway. And I have seen first hand their retail prices grossly outpacing ours. Not to mention the extra hurdles and barriers they put up in order to get sales prices remotely approaching what they were pre pandemic. Basically nothing has come down in price since then. Since you know deflation is “bad” for consumers and so is inflation. So they always win and we always lose no matter what.
Re:
Just imagine if the grocery store business received a government subsidy to ensure those rural folks had access to groceries.
albertsons?
Albertsons has been on the verge of bankruptcy for several years now. Id think that a merger would be better for consumers and workers than them just shutting their stores completely. Is there a 3rd option Im missing?
Re:
That’s weird. That’s exactly what people said right before Safeway bought them.
Re: Re:
You’ve got it backwards. Albertsons was split into two different companies in the early 2000s. One was nearly bankrupt. The other was owned by Cerberus and has been extremely successful. So successful in fact that it absorbed the “bad” Albertsons and then wrote a fat check to buy Safeway. They’re doing very well, have debt below 10% of revenues which is extremely low for retail these days, and they make hundreds of millions per quarter in profit. Kroger wants to buy them because they are a thorn in their side and they are taking market share from them.
Re:
What they publicly disclose to investors seems to disagree. https://www.albertsonscompanies.com/investors/overview/default.aspx
If Kroger and Albertsons merge 2 of 3 grocery stores within 30 minutes will be the same company.
The qfc near me can’t even keep employees and a awhile back had to setup a table in the store to beg for people to join.
The other stores have had no trouble keeping full staff while the Kroger one can barely run a single register.
So no. I don’t think a merger that will see another store gut half it’s products to sell Krogers shit brands is good.
Kroger should have..
Kroger should have pointed out just how well ‘consolidation’ has worked in the airline industry for consumers. Or the cellular phone service sector. Every time companies merge, it ends up costing consumers and workers more, while corporate profits and executive payoffs go up. Capitalism works – if the ‘free market’ is enforced to protect it from the tendency to oligarchy and monopoly.
Re:
No time. They’re too busy rolling out algorithmic grocery pricing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Justifiably?
“Case in point: grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons are floating a $24.6 billion merger that regulators have been justifiably skeptical about.”
Uh… no. Antitrust law is completely unjust and also unconstitutional. No company should have to get permission to do deals like this. It’s not the state’s business. The only real monopoly is that enforced by the state itself; I guess it doesn’t like competition (shocker). See Rothbard, Man Economy and State, ch. 10 https://mises.org/online-book/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/10-monopoly-and-competition; Hoppe, TSC, ch. 9 http://hanshoppe.com/tsc; Armentano, Antitrust: The Case for Repeal https://mises.org/library/book/antitrust-case-repeal
Re:
I hope you watch friends and family die from corporate greed.
Re:
And here’s someone who wants people to starve and be unable to afford to eat.
How much stock do you own in Kroger, Albertsons and Unilever?
Re:
“Antitrust law is completely unjust and also unconstitutional”
Perhaps you could summarize your reasons for this belief and why the SCOTUS has not ruled in your favor.
Re: Re: Antitrust
Because antitrust law violates individual rights by subjecting people to fines or punishment even though they have not committed aggression. The only laws that are just are those that prohibit aggression. Laws that punish non-aggressive behavior are themselves aggression and unjust. Businessmen/firms who collude do not violate rights since no one has a right to buy products from them at any specific price. Thus no just law can prohibit price fixing, monopolization, etc. I already gave references in my previous comment. But see also Alan Greenspan’s chapter “Antitrust” in Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
SCOTUS is just an unprincipled organ of the criminal state, so it’s not surprising how they rule. The supreme court is not a real court, and its mandate is not to do justice. It’s to interpret edicts–commands, laws–issued by Congress. Its job has nothing to do with justice.
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, what are you smoking?
Re: Re: Re:
As I suspected, you’re a full on libertarian wackadoodle.
Re:
Maybe it wasn’t the state’s business. But then Kroger and Albertsons specifically requested from them (by 1902 and 1960 respectively), and received, the special privilege of limited liability. They chose to get involved with the state, knowing that certain responsibilities come along with that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: State's business?
“Maybe it wasn’t the state’s business.”
Correct. State positive laws like this are unjust. They violate individual rights by punishing non-aggressive behavior.
“But then Kroger and Albertsons specifically requested from them (by 1902 and 1960 respectively), and received, the special privilege of limited liability. They chose to get involved with the state, knowing that certain responsibilities come along with that.”
This does not follow, for several reasons. First, asking for, and receiving, a privilege, does not mean that this gives the state carte blanche to do what they want to these corporations.
Second, they didn’t “ask” for it. The state imposes this by threatening liability, where none should be imposed in the first place, unless the firm uses the corporate form. I have already explained all this in Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation. https://www.stephankinsella.com/2011/10/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/ Shareholders should not be liable in the first place for torts committed by employees of their company. Why should they be? So the state says: unless you incorporate we will subject you in our courts to unjust liability for acts of others; and when you are coerced into incorporating we will call it a privilege and now you can’t complain if we double-tax your shareholders (since we now call the corporation a separate legal person) and you can’t complain if we regulate you with antitrust law.
Re: Re: Re:
Of course not, but it does mean that stores take on extra responsibilities in return for those privileges, one of which responsibilities is not to engage in anti-trust.
TL;DR: “With great privilege comes great responsibility.”
Re: I'm with Stephan
Whenever the government opposes a sale or merger, I think of the owners of the business who legally acquired the assets and/or dedicated their labor to make the business valuable. Then, when they want to sell their legally acquired assets, the government tells them no. Doesn’t seem right.
Re: Re:
If people can’t afford to eat, they can’t work.
And if they can’t work, they also can’t do vital things, like DEFEND THE FUCKING COUNTRY.
People being able to eat benefits the country and the economy. Food security IS National Security.
And anyone who opposes that should be considered traitors to the nation.
Re: Re:
How about you can sell assets, but not a “company” – a stated-defined legal fiction. Have fun.
Re: Re:
“Then, when they want to sell their legally acquired assets, the government tells them no.”
I am no expert and neither am I a lawyer, but ……
My interpretation, fwiw – The government is saying that particular BUYER is not allowed to have a monopoly. That particular seller is free to sell their assets however they want, except for this one buyer.
Re:
With even just a little bit of observation it’s quite clear that you’re incorrect on both your legal assessments and economic assessments. Unchecked consolidation has never, ever worked. No matter what a mediocre, hypocritical, fiction writer says.
Merger would be devastating
I live in Colorado.
The result of the merger would be terrible.
Many stores would be shut down.
Thousands of people would lose their jobs.
I admit that Colorado is unique, but, hey, I live here.
Re:
If approved this merger would result in 3/6 grocery stores within a 1 mile radius from my work would all be owned by the same people. You think they would allow the least profitable to continue on?
The same Kroger that threatened to shut a store down during the pandemic due being told they had to pay the already lowest paid jobs out there “Hero Pay”? The same Kroger now trying to put out ads now flaunting how they spent 500 million improving employee pay and benefits the last year ( which is small when you consider how many people they employ) in order to try and shift opinion in their favor for their pointless merger?
But then sue the government, arguing their attempt at protecting the American people is “unconstitutional”???
Yeah /s
WHO, doesnt THINK we know how Capitalism works?
After living with it for Years and years.
Watching all the Cheap tricks, and the GOV. trying to protect us. Then the Congress killing all those protections, FOR SOME STRANGE reasons.
The only Viable reason is they are getting paid MORE by the Corps then By US/WE are paying them. Why not take back what we pay them, as they ARNT working for US/WE anymore.
Before 1969, at which time they Dropped the tax rates for the corps. The Corps had to Show they were creating jobs, and property, and paying bills and So forth, to get a CUT in the taxes. Since that time, the taxes KEEP going down, and the IRS has been Kneecapped. They dont have the power to even LOOK at the paperwork for most corps and evaluate them in less then 5 years(limit).
If we had $10 from every Person in the USA to give to the IRS to UPDATE/UPGRADE them… We might be able to get the corps and rich Audited.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
errotech
The Kroger-Albertsons merger underscores a troubling trend where the U.S. business press often lacks critical analysis on consolidation. This repetitive, uncritical reporting fails to address potential downsides of such mergers. For those interested in optimizing business operations and tech solutions, explore the innovative tools at Errotech Shop.
'Now that you have even less options of where to shop at...'
Ah yes, because if there’s one thing a newly merged company is going to jump at the chance to do it’s lower prices.
I’d ask ‘Who do they think they’re fooling?’ but the article already answered that for me: The free PR stooges that pretend to do ‘journalism’ while they merely repeat whatever a major company tells them to.
The Flaws of Media Coverage on Corporate Mergers
It’s concerning how the U.S. business press often amplifies corporate claims without critical analysis, particularly in major mergers like Kroger and Albertsons. History shows us that promises of increased competition and lower prices often don’t hold up post-merger, leading instead to job cuts and higher consumer costs. The media’s failure to consult antitrust experts and scrutinize these claims weakens public understanding and allows harmful corporate behavior to go unchecked. This lack of accountability reflects deeper issues within the press and its ownership, undermining trust in journalism.