Announcing a price cut seems way more likely to draw in comparison shoppers to see what cuts were made, and if they compare to people's current regular supermarkets.
Having seen some of the price cuts online it doesn't seem like a whole lot, but if the staples like eggs and veggies/fruit are actually coming down ($3 peaches, $5 eggplants from what I remember) and I can get a week's worth of not-pasta food for under $150 I'd probably switch over.
Seems quite evironmentally unfriendly to subside out of season food solely to appease picky customers.
Eating local in-season food should be promoted by market mechanisms.
If a supermarket had an "in season" section I would shop there almost exclusively, if it meant I was going to to get a good deal and better produce. Even with farmers markets you're not guaranteed to get in season local produce.
Given that the market is at work, that is obviously not the result. Transport costs do not apparently override convenience, simpler logistics, and economies of scale.
People rave about cheap meat, eggs, and diary products. But anyone that has actually been involved in producing it, knows that the price you see today is not sustainable unless you only optimize for quantity, and the expense of everything else.
Say Coca-Cola buys McDonald's Corporation and it makes a splash in the business community and restaurant blogs. Then the new joint company announces that all soft drinks are $0.10 from now on.
Traffic spikes 25%. Which of those two events was the cause?
A better analogy might be if Coca-Cola found a way to magically drop the calorie total of McDonald's food without altering the taste.