Walkers rant - bags less than half full! Also, the new flavours...

shellsuit

If a packet of crisps had 9g of crisps in it but the packet said it was meant to contain 20g, then you'd have cause to complain.

That's what the title of your thread says, and seeing as though you have never had a bag which was less than half full of what it is meant to contain, why don't you just stop being daft.

shadowknightz

Googlewhacker wrote: »

No because as other people have pointed out the bag could be a metre wide by a metre high but have the same number of crisps in it

That would be silly, though. Why are bizarre comparisons of metre-long bags being introduced when it's clear I'm referring to the current size of Walkers bags, and my comment about the amount of crisps being supplied should be in positive keeping with the size of the current bag? Your posts are quite difficult to read.

Googlewhacker

shadowknightz wrote: »

That would be silly, though. Why are bizarre comparisons of metre-long bags being introduced when it's clear I'm referring to the current size of Walkers bags, and my comment about the amount of crisps being supplied should be in positive keeping with the size of the current bag? Your posts are quite difficult to read.

They seem ok to other people. At the end of the day you could get bags to be full up with crisps but instead of paying 40p a bag you could triple that price....would you be happy with that?

shadowknightz

shellsuit wrote: »

If a packet of crisps had 9g of crisps in it but the packet said it was meant to contain 20g, then you'd have cause to complain.

That's what the title of your thread says

Nope; the title mentions Walkers bags being less than half full. This is in reference to the fact I saw a bag of Walkers crisps where the amount of crisps in the bag was, indeed, less than half full. Let's not start trying to slip misrepresentations in, this thread could become quite muddled.

shadowknightz

Googlewhacker wrote: »

They seem ok to other people. At the end of the day you could get crisps to be full up with crisps but instead of paying 40p a bag you could triple that price....would you be happy with that?

I'd disagree with this statement, on the grounds that we only have the opinion of people who a) visit this site and b) have posted in this thread. I'm sure there are a great deal of people in the UK who take issue with the idea of opening a Walkers bag and finding the contents only fill the bag up about half-way, but who don't have an account.

At the end of the day, all I want is for Walkers and other crisp companies to start filling the bags up to an acceptable level in positive proportion with the size of the bag. Is this really so much to ask?

Googlewhacker

shadowknightz wrote: »

I'd disagree with this statement, on the grounds that we only have the opinion of people who visit this site. I'm sure there are a great deal of people in the UK who take issue with the idea of opening a Walkers bag and finding the contents only fill the bag up about half-way, but who don't have an account.

At the end of the day, all I want is for Walkers and other crisp companies to start filling the bags up to an acceptable level in positive proportion with the size of the bag. Is this so much to ask?

I was talking about my posts being ok to other people. I did notice you didn't answer my question of having a full packet of crisps but paying three times the price.....care to make a comment on that?

Googlewhacker

Three choices for you Shadow

1) Keep the crisp to bag ratio the same
2) Decrease the bag size to make the contents in the bag about 75%
3) Increase the number of crisps by about 3 times and thus increase the price by 3 times


Which would you prefer?

cybergibbons

shadowknightz wrote: »

In regards to the emboldened part, unless I'm misunderstanding you are you honestly saying it isn't important to you how much of the bag the crisps take up, even when we're often talking of less than half full? In my opinion the amount of crisps you receive should be in good proportion with the size of the packaging (i.e, the bag should be about 75% full); you don't agree with this?

Yes, I am honestly saying I can remember how full the last bag of crisps was, and if I was satisfied eating it, and if I needed to buy a bigger or smaller bag of crisps (by weight) the next time.

shadowknightz

1) Keep the crisp to bag ratio the same
2) Decrease the bag size to make the contents in the bag about 75%
3) Increase the number of crisps by about 3 times and thus increase the price by 3 times


Which would you prefer?

Well, out of those three choices, I'd have to accept decreasing the bag size to make the contents about 75%. This is on the basis that my main grievance is with the size of the expected contents being disproportionate with the size of the bag (again, taking the average consumer into account) - if the bag was made smaller, the amount would seem more in keeping. I would have accepted paying a bit more for the crisps if the amount was raised, but no way would I accepted paying 3 times more!

What would your ideal response to the question be? It's an interesting one.

custardy

shadowknightz wrote: »

Well, out of those three choices, I'd have to accept decreasing the bag size to make the contents about 75%. This is on the basis that my main grievance is with the size of the bag being disproportionate with the expected contents. If the bag was made smaller, the amount would seem more in keeping. I would have accepted paying a bit more for the crisps if the amount was raised, but no way would I accepted paying 3 times more!

What would your ideal response to the question be? It's an interesting one.

however is the space not a packaging method to provide a crush proof air cushion?
personally i dont see the issue
you pay for the contents