MSE News: 'Value' supermarket brands as good as standard – study

geordie_joe

pennymakespounds wrote: »

Newbie ... NEBO...... "Totally misleading article "

How wrong you are !!

With 30 years experience sourcing own brand products in the supermarket business .... i can tell you every word of that report is accurate ...

Every word may be accurate, but it's the way those words are put together that makes it misleading.

Take the title "'Value' supermarket brands as good as standard". Makes you think that 'value' supermarket brands are as good as standard.

However, the article then goes on to say "there were no nutritional differences compared to basic brands in almost half those products sampled.". "Almost half" is actually less than half. So less than half of the value brands were as good as standard for nutrition.

Then it goes on to say "In fact, 50% of tasters preferred the value products from the sample". So half the people didn't think they tasted as good.

So, from that we conclude that less than half of them are as good for you as standard stuff, and only half the people prefer them.

A bit of a difference to "'Value' supermarket brands as good as standard" don't you think.

I think a more accurate title would be "Half of all 'Value' supermarket brands as good as standard, and the other half are not"

As for encouraging people to try them, well your job depends on people buying them, doesn't it.

I don't actually see anything wrong with Martin encouraging people to try them, but he really should also point out that half of them will not be as good for you, and you probably won't like half of the things you try, so you should be prepared to waste money in the search for cheaper alternatives.

LittleVoice

geordie_joe wrote: »

(a) However, the article then goes on to say "there were no nutritional differences compared to basic brands in almost half those products sampled.". "Almost half" is actually less than half. So less than half of the value brands were as good as standard for nutrition.

(b) Then it goes on to say "In fact, 50% of tasters preferred the value products from the sample". So half the people didn't think they tasted as good.

So, from that we conclude that less than half of them are as good for you as standard stuff, and only half the people prefer them.

I don't think your logic is quite right.

(a) Though "almost half" may have no nutritional difference, those where there is a difference doesn't mean that the Value items are less good than the standard. It may be that they are better. For instance some value food items have less salt than the standard product. That is actually better for you.

(b) 50% of tasters preferring the value products could mean that the other 50% thought there was no difference. So it doesn't have to be a case that they didn't think the value product taste as good as the standard product, it's just that they saw no reason to prefer the value one. (However I would expect that there were people that preferred the taste of the standard product - especially if they are accustomed to having more salt in their food and the value product has less.)

geordie_joe

LittleVoice wrote: »

I don't think your logic is quite right.

My logic is exactly right. You have to remember that the article is trying to make you think that value stuff is as good as standard...........So

LittleVoice wrote: »

(a) Though "almost half" may have no nutritional difference, those where there is a difference doesn't mean that the Value items are less good than the standard. It may be that they are better. For instance some value food items have less salt than the standard product. That is actually better for you.

If the other 50% of value stuff had been better they would have said so, in huge bold letters. They want us to think value stuff is good, so would point out any "good" things that came from the survey.

LittleVoice wrote: »

(b) 50% of tasters preferring the value products could mean that the other 50% thought there was no difference.

If that were the case they would have said so, as it would be proof that value stuff is just as good i.e. 50% of people prefer it and 50% of people can't tell the difference = it's as good, if not better.

The fact that they did not mention it means that what the other 50% thought did not fit in with what the article was trying to make us believe.

LittleVoice wrote: »

So it doesn't have to be a case that they didn't think the value product taste as good as the standard product, it's just that they saw no reason to prefer the value one.

The article is trying to make us believe value stuff is just as good as standard, by putting in the good things about value stuff and leaving out the bad.

When you read articles like this, you have to think about what they have not included, and why they have not included it.

DCFC79

Id only buy the value version if they would be any good eg peanuts, fruit, potatoes, snacks and not stuff like toothpaste, cereal, bread, yogurts etc

Nebo247

Actually the true way to save money is to buy the big brands when they are on promotion and avoid them when they are selling at full price. That way the supermarket is barely making a profit and that money stays in your pocket. Depends on the type of product - but sainsbury/tesco/morrisons/waitrose own label commodity items are often same recipe, same supplier.
Regarding the article - however you read it - its misleading. That doesnt mean I'm saying Suffolk trading Standards are telling fibs, they certainly are not, but other people use the data selectively.

ash28

I tend to buy what ever I like the best or the cheapest if there is no big taste difference.

I buy Sainsburys "basics" tinned tuna, muffins, fresh fruit and veg where they are available, chesse cake, some biscuits, Sainsburys own brand "Gold Coffee", "basics" flour, own brand bread flour, own brand or big brand fruit juice, we have a child living with us and fruit juice has to provide one of five a day, the really cheap one's generally don't. Basics tortilla chips - I prefer them to any other. Tinned tomatoes and kidney beans are "basics". Fresh salmon - basics.

It's trial and error, Asda and Tesco's value brands I don't buy - my daughter bought a tin of Asda Value Tuna and it went straight in the bin - it was brown and looked like minced fish - Sainsburys basics tuna however is firm tuna.

I buy my toilet roll and soap powder (liquid) from Costco

I am willing to try anything once, I'm not a label snob.

I thought the message of this site was value for money - not necessarily the cheapest, which isn't always the best vfm.

jumpycheese1

I shop (and work) for Sainsburys and I do buy basic label stuff. I don't buy Basics meat or bread - apart from tuna which another OP mentioned. Favs are Basic chopped tomatoes, kidney beans, baby leaf salad and tonic water.

I eat salad at lunchtime using the salad leaves and colleagues always comment how lovely my salad is. Now many colleagues buy the basics baby salad leaves.

FATBALLZ

Value stuff is in the main, crap. I used to eat it when I was a student regardless of what tests they have done, I hve consumed the products and they are mostly !!!!!!. I could never go back to eating it, unless forced to financially.

Can we assume Martin Lewis now only buys value products since they are the same as the others?

Ambersuccubus

Some "basics" recipes are nutritionally better because they do not have so many additives - this will affect taste preferences, but for things like biscuits, crackers, fruit-based desserts etc, when my husband and I were eating vegan, the basic recipes were less likely to have both animal products or artificial nasties.
Lots of basic "old-style" recipes - not necessarily low in fat etc, nor with the over-processed "mouth-feel" so many people actually seem to prefer these days (!), but better in terms of food value...

richardw

Story is only valid for 'identical' items, not 'virtually identical', you've got to compare like with like.