'It’s about the size of your package...' blog discussion

Former_MSE_Lawrence · 24 June 2008 at 10:53AM

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's 'It’s all about the size of your package...' Blog.

Click reply to discuss below.

edkay · 24 June 2008 at 4:59PM

Have you noticed how thick and heavy the paper used in the pick and mix bags is? A sneeky trick to get the weight up even more. I wonder how much and empty bag would cost?

CheeseCat · 24 June 2008 at 10:15PM

I have (rather tight fistedly) ripped off the top of the bag that i am not using before, to avoid paying for it. I can't remember how much difference it worked out to, but it did make it slightly cheaper.

AHAR · 25 June 2008 at 12:06AM

Staying just about on-topic, I noticed in Sainsbury's the other day that the best value HP sauce can be had by buying the smallest bottle - the square glass one. It's easy to compare because they have price per 100g figures on the price labels.
Normally you get more for your money when you buy larger pack sizes. Has anyone else noticed any such anomalies?

dmg24 · 25 June 2008 at 1:17AM

Anybody else think this thread was going to be about !!!!!!? :doh:

Bargainetta · 25 June 2008 at 2:36PM

You can understand exactly why manufacturers are not incentivised to reduce packaging because, if they did, they would loose a valuable marketing tool and, ultimately, tools and packages should not be abused unless you happen to be married and then you can do what you like,:rotfl: ha, ha.

Idiophreak · 25 June 2008 at 2:50PM

Can't quite put my finger on it, but not sure there's not a slight contradiction in Martin's post...I mean they're both, basically, the same thing...

In the first instance, the contents will look smaller because the package is larger...in the second instance, it's the same thing...

So are they really trying to make less seem more in the first case, or does it just look less *because* the packing's larger? Would you feel you'd had better value for money if they'd put the same amount in a smaller pot for the same money?

Food for thought, I guess.

shaz22 · 25 June 2008 at 8:31PM

A cinema manager once told me that that particular establishment would empty the out-of-date bags of sweets into the Pick 'n' Mix. The moviegoers were none the wiser and the cinema reduced waste and saved money!
That insight has always convinced me that I can last for three hours without needing any confectionary while watching a movie and undoubtedly saved me money too!

Problem · 26 June 2008 at 3:28PM

AHAR wrote: »

Staying just about on-topic, I noticed in Sainsbury's the other day that the best value HP sauce can be had by buying the smallest bottle - the square glass one. It's easy to compare because they have price per 100g figures on the price labels.
Normally you get more for your money when you buy larger pack sizes. Has anyone else noticed any such anomalies?

I noticed this in Asda with two packs of Oreo biscuits. The smaller packet actually cost a lot less than the larger packet by about 20p.

Paul_Herring · 27 June 2008 at 1:14PM

Martin wrote:

I’m a sucker for cinema sweetie pick ‘n’ mix...

What I can't understand is why people can't go for 2 hours without eating anything.

I find it highly distracting when trying to watch a film to have people around me noisily unwrapping snacks, sucking the last bit of moisture out of their 3 litre cup of coke, etc.

duncanc · 1 July 2008 at 10:26PM

I'm surprised Martin buys the cinema chain's pick-and-mix. Save money by buying some sweets at a newsagents and taking them in with you.
The cinemas seem to have a huge markup on their sweets and drinks.

'It’s about the size of your package...' blog discussion

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free