Yet another middle class family in a money saving show

Leviathan2009

I watched with some amusement as the Tonight show rolled out Martin and he proceeded to lecture us all about buying cheaper supermarket brands.

What I found amusing though was that as per usual, ITV gets in middle class families to buy the cheaper brands as oppossed to the luxury brands (which they could apparently afford going by what they said on the show). They were quite happy to buy the quaint cheap products.

If ITV really wanted to show how the recession affected people - how about finding a low income family in a poor area, who have a real tight budget. As for many of them buying the cheapest products is not a quaint experiment but a way of life.

If Martin wants a real challenge, how about helping low income families who have tightened the belt so much they barely have a waist now.

Jennifer_Jane

Why does 'class' has to come into this.

Anyway, the purpose of the programme was to show people who normally shop only for the branded items how much could be saved (without reducing food values). So, as you say, there would have been no point in finding a family who couldn't afford the luxury brands as then there would not have been a comparison.

I enjoyed the programme and thought the family were fine. It didn't register what class they were, I didn't think of the cheap products as 'quaint', and I found the whole thing entertaining.

I usually buy products on promotion or on sell-by date in case you think that I may be anything except very ordinary.

Jen
x

Leviathan2009

Perhaps next time he does a money saving show he could get a hard pressed family / individual - might be more of a challenge for him.

norfolkshops

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Why does 'class' has to come into this.

Anyway, the purpose of the programme was to show people who normally shop only for the branded items how much could be saved (without reducing food values). So, as you say, there would have been no point in finding a family who couldn't afford the luxury brands as then there would not have been a comparison.

I enjoyed the programme and thought the family were fine. It didn't register what class they were, I didn't think of the cheap products as 'quaint', and I found the whole thing entertaining.

I usually buy products on promotion or on sell-by date in case you think that I may be anything except very ordinary.

Jen
x

so what did this programe show those who have and those who havent

Itsgottabedone

As Jen says, it's really not a "class" thing - I know plenty of middle class people who buy cheaper brands. At present I'm weaning myself off the "it costs more therefore must be better" train of thought, and enjoyed the show.

Admittedly the programme had nothing to offer those who are already buying the cheapest brands, but for anyone buying supermarket own products, named brands or premium brands surely it was a bit of an eye-opener?

I would have been interested to know more about the face creams that were featured!

KimYeovil

Well, the middle classes are, of course, a lot more likely to be frugal and sensible than the well-off lower classes who are likely to be vulgar and buy tat with labels displayed on the outside rather than inside the collar.

But it is tiresome the wealth and waste of so many people. The programme that would reduce me to tears was the McKeith show - all her victims had so much money to spend on food but chose to buy rubbish. Just imagine the banquets they could have if they would buy real food!

It's horrible the way the comfortably-off squander their wealth. They earned it and are free to spend how they like but why?

And the Leviathan is right about these programmes and campaigns. Sainsbury's feed four for a fiver is idiotic. How do you feed one for £1.25? That would be a worthwhile boast. But the problem with your suggestion, Leviathan, is that most of the 'low' income families in 'poor' areas are not remotely poor.

KimYeovil

...and, of course, the main problem with down-branding is that this has a savage consequence on the genuine poor. Just look at the disappearing and price-rises on (used-to-be-)budget brands. Once too many people start to downgrade the supermarkets and manufacturers just up the prices or withdraw the items.

Pink.

KimYeovil wrote: »

And the Leviathan is right about these programmes and campaigns. Sainsbury's feed four for a fiver is idiotic. How do you feed one for £1.25? That would be a worthwhile boast. .

Quite easily with a little thought and effort. Why not pop over to the Old Style board to read how many people are managing this kind of figure every day.

Pink

MrsTinks

Do you think ITV or any channel would have shown it if it didn't have a "shock" value at the end of showing how much money that family could save? Would they get as many viewers by showing how people already on a tight budget could save even more? And more viewers mean higher prices for the advertising in the breaks...
It was more than likely a matter of weighing up things and ensuring the word at least gets out there that a lot of lower brands are just as good/better than premium brands against showing making a program about how really low income families cope...

Eric_Pisch

Leviathan2009 wrote: »

I watched with some amusement as the Tonight show rolled out Martin and he proceeded to lecture us all about buying cheaper supermarket brands.

What I found amusing though was that as per usual, ITV gets in middle class families to buy the cheaper brands as oppossed to the luxury brands (which they could apparently afford going by what they said on the show). They were quite happy to buy the quaint cheap products.

If ITV really wanted to show how the recession affected people - how about finding a low income family in a poor area, who have a real tight budget. As for many of them buying the cheapest products is not a quaint experiment but a way of life.

If Martin wants a real challenge, how about helping low income families who have tightened the belt so much they barely have a waist now.

Now I appreciate things are always hard for low income family's and i know this government does very little to help them (and the new taxes on chocolate, cheap alcohol, butter etc that are rumoured will hit them the hardest) but huge numbers of middle class family's are being hit incredibly hard, most people i know and myself included.

The reason is the huge amounts of cheap money we where offered, credit cards loans etc etc where given away like smarties and we stuffed ourselves on it. I had a 30k limit on my Barclaycard and it was maxed !! (What a !!!! I was) Apply for a 25k consolidation loan and you got it on the phone in 5 mins, but a couple of days later you get a fistfull of pre approved loans come through the door so why not take them up as well. Crippled by debt does not cover the half of it, come the credit crunch and we have been cold turkey weaned of credit, its very hard to get now and exspensive when you can. I luckily realised this situation could not go on and started the road to recovery in 2006.

I think thou what Martin is trying to show here is that millions of people have not been thinking about what they spend (or borrow), just grabbing all the expensive stuff they see, all those shiny packages they subconsciously recognise from the adverts. Guilty as charged on this one, our shopping bill used to be £280 a week on avg its now £130 (and i am sure if we wanted we could half it again)....

Low income family's thou don't really have this choice, budgeting has always been important for them and I cant really see them paying £4 for a packet of luxury sausages.

VfM4meplse

Leviathan2009 wrote: »

If Martin wants a real challenge, how about helping low income families who have tightened the belt so much they barely have a waist now.

The point is that we all need to spend within our means, for those on a low income that is a way of life but somewhat a revelation to the middle classes. Hence I would argue that targeting this group has a larger impact overall.

Most of us have learnt to budget the hard way.