The value of point-of-sale transactions in Saudi Arabia fell 18.1% in the week from October 4 to 10, 2026, compared with the previous week.

But behind this national average were wide differences between cities.

Spending fell 14.4% in Riyadh, 15.2% in Jeddah, and 15.1% in Makkah, while declines exceeded 30% in other cities. Samtah and Al Lith saw falls of about 35.3%, and Arar about 32%.

At first glance, it might seem that consumption declined sharply and to varying degrees across cities.

But looking at four weeks instead of just two tells a different story.

What happened the week before?

The comparison period began on September 27, 2026, the date state employees received their September salaries, according to the Ministry of Finance calendar.

That week, the value of point-of-sale transactions across the Kingdom jumped to around 16.51 billion riyals, compared with about 13.37 billion riyals the week before.

It then returned to around 13.53 billion riyals in the week from October 4 to 10.

So the 18.1% decline did not bring spending to a low level compared with previous weeks; it brought it roughly back to its earlier range.

The 13.53 billion riyal figure was about 1.1% higher than the week before salary payments, and about 4.7% higher than the week of September 13–19.

This is where an important economic concept comes in: the base effect.

The percentage change depends heavily on the point of comparison. If the previous week was unusually high, the subsequent decline can look large even when activity has simply returned to its usual level.

The big cities illustrate the point

In Riyadh, point-of-sale spending fell from 5.62 billion riyals to 4.82 billion riyals, a decline of 14.4%.

But spending in the latest week was still about 2.8% higher than in the week before salary payments.

In Jeddah, the value fell from 2.13 billion to 1.80 billion riyals, but was then very close to levels seen in previous weeks.

The same was true in Makkah, where spending fell from about 635 million to 539 million riyals, but remained about 6% above its level in the week of September 13–19.

So a negative percentage does not necessarily mean a city is experiencing weak consumption; it may simply reflect a comparison with a high-spending week.

Even a 35% decline may not signal weakness

The contrast is even clearer in the cities that recorded the largest percentage declines.

In Samtah, the value fell 35.3%, from 40.4 million riyals to 26.1 million riyals.

But 26.1 million riyals was about 10% higher than the week before salary payments.

In Al Lith, spending also fell 35.3%, but remained about 4.2% higher than the week before salary payments.

Arar, meanwhile, saw a 32% weekly decline, yet its spending was still about 6.5% higher than in the week before salary payments.

And this may be the most important takeaway from the data:

A city can record a decline of more than 30% and, at the same time, have higher spending than it did two weeks earlier.

There is no contradiction.

The only issue is the choice of comparison point.

Why do the percentages differ between cities?

The table alone does not provide a definitive explanation for the differences between cities, so these percentages alone cannot show that one city is «stronger» or «weaker» than another.

The percentages may be affected by differences in market size, spending mix, occasions, and purchase timing. Relative movements may also appear larger in cities with lower values.

But identifying the precise reason requires breaking down spending by activity within each city, rather than looking only at the total.

That is exactly what makes comparisons between cities useful: they reveal the limits of the national average.

What can we learn?

When we read that spending fell 18% across the Kingdom, or 35% in a particular city, the next question should not immediately be:

Why have consumers weakened?

Instead, ask:

Compared with what?

Then look at more than one week, and examine spending levels before and after the spike.

A correctly calculated statistic can lead to the wrong conclusion if taken out of context.

In this week's data, the main story is not that some cities fell 14% and others 35%.

Rather, a large part of the decline came after a high-spending week that coincided with state employees receiving their salaries, and several cities remained at higher spending levels than in the weeks before that, despite their large negative percentages.

This reminds us of a simple rule for interpreting economic data:

Don't read the percentage change before you know the level it started from.