The debate grew after the finalization of opinions on the draft change for the retail sector prepared by the Ministry of Commerce. Of course, this is perfectly normal and understandable.
After all, everyone will want to maintain their position. But when they were all gathered in a single text, a strange structure emerged where apples and pears were mixed. So I think it would be healthy for the ministry to receive an evaluation from truly specialized and unbiased people without making legal changes.
For example, I don’t think the distance restriction works very well. Because there will be no effective difference between 200 meters and 300 meters. Again, in line with the acquired rights, since there is no interference with the existing ones, unfair competition will be created that will bring not only the market and the trader, but also the market and the market. Also, when you exclude content from malls, it means that you have made a stillbirth request.
The question of weight is important. Abuses in this area must be avoided. I think it is not a rule, it should result in a commercial penalty. Because there is a scam.
It is also not correct to limit the market for branded products. Because it is an area where everyone benefits from qualified producers to SMEs for consumption. The problem here is not the production of private labels, but the fact that the markets keep companies in a difficult position in terms of maturity and price pressure.
Again, if we don’t discuss the prices that the chains put on the shelf by buying them straight from the field and matching on the shelf for no profit, we’ll be back to show business. In short, it is not possible to overcome the problem with such uneven corrections. The sector needs realistic and fair legal regulation. Also, it is not possible to achieve the goal of protecting merchants while existing ones are in the middle.
So instead of prohibitive measures, we must adopt approaches that break the cycle. For example, the first retail chains to enter Istanbul trading with the late Turkish President Suat modeling YALKIN France is still a valid proposition.
I do not think it has ever been seriously discussed from time constraints to tax differences and conditions that include incentives. For example, the tax differences between chains and merchants were discussed. The focus was on collecting this difference in a fund and on introducing systems that traders provided at almost no cost to improve themselves.
But at the point we have reached, it seems that we are starting to look for formulas that will go without seeing the problem to reduce the reaction. I believe that merchants are very important both economically and sociologically and must be kept alive.
No one should shout ‘we are creating jobs’. I see the same things being said on the grounds for objection. Let us not dispute the fact that almost 3 million jobs were lost to merchants and the average person they work with, with the blind closing in response to the 500,000 jobs created.
There is a ban on some products that all focused on monopoly products. However, I believe that this is an issue that needs to be thoroughly examined. Because discount markets, which the real sector defines as three letters, enter the market regardless of the sector.
You will say free market, but I am talking about facts, not rules on paper. If you look at the mine in Soma, they inspected it on paper. You won’t have a headache if you swear. To speak of a free market, there must be effective and fair control, as well as effective competition.
For example, stationery shopkeepers, whose school season went through a disaster and office consumption declined with working from home, are in a very difficult situation. They expressed this problem by making a press release recently. For example, they are also forgotten in product restrictions.
All Stationery Association (TÜKİD) says: “According to the new regulation that the Ministry of Commerce is working on, tobacco products, furniture, mobile phones, electronics and household appliances cannot be sold in chain markets. Sale of stationery products in market chains, whose business is food, With the high investments they have made, they cause unfair competition with our stationery retailers who want to sell office supplies; We believe that selling these products in chain markets is not appropriate for business ethics.
It is obvious that the current concept of a market chain negatively affects the business volumes of those who do business in other sectors, especially stationers. Our stationery retailers, trading stationery and trying to survive in this way, are crushed by the disproportionate power of chain markets. Our economy can only be strong when all of our companies survive. “
To dig a little deeper, I asked TÜKİD General Secretary İrem Özkal. His answer was the following: “In the draft bill prepared for the markets, the stationery group is not specified in the groups of products that cannot be sold. During this period, we come together to remember the problems of stationery shopkeepers, get them to breathe a little and make our voices heard in this change.
Because, because schools in our country have been closed for 1 year and our paper mills cannot operate on weekends when there are restrictions on leaving home, our retail paper mills have become unable to manage and continue the fight. Even the decision to stop sales of stationery for a certain period of time in the markets will be a lifesaver for our merchants who were not even able to make seasonal sales. This change that we want to see is fundamental for all of our large and small businesses and our economy. As the All Stationery Association, our expectation and effort is to ban the sale of stationery products in chain markets in the new bill prepared by the Ministry of Commerce. “
I think it is a very justified request. We can even discuss this with other product lines and merchants. However, one must look at the reverse of the coin. This problem cannot be overcome with protective measures alone.
Within the modern business approach, it is necessary to establish structures where artisans can also buy in bulk, offer sustainable offers that reduce the unit cost for those who produce stationery and where the supply / demand balance is formed on unit prices.
That is why it is important that we pass this period with prohibitions. But for a permanent solution, we need to discuss the restructuring, showing a development according to the rules of the economy, although it remains as merchants, and the structures that must be promoted by loans and support in this regard.
Otherwise, we will discuss this problem, which has become a snake story of the last 20 years, again after a short time. Of course, having lost dozens of exchanges. The situation is very urgent. Because the data shows us that 273 merchants close each day. The economy does not live where there are no traders. The way to keep traders alive is not through daily measures, but through approaches that will actually solve the problem.
The publication Çetin Ünsalan Written: ‘The retail debate is growing’ appeared first in ParaAnaliz.