We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Misleading comparative prices
The_Miser
Posts: 98 Forumite
Don't compare prices per 100g labels because they may well be totally misleading and give wrong results.
Some goods (and in this case I was looking at capers) are packed in liquid. (Major Store) stock several brands including their own in different size bottles. On the shelf ticket they show the weight and, asterisked, what appears to be the dry weight. They also show a cost per 100g which in some cases is based on the dry weight. However, and their staff member confirmed this, in the case of their own brand the shelf label did NOT show the dry weight and the price was based on the full weight of capers, water and presumably bottle.
Therefore the price shown for the own brand product LOOKED lower per 100g but you had to look at the tiny print on the bottle to see the true contents weight (about half that on the shelf label) and recalculate the price per 100g.
Another huge store does not use asterisks; it uses several of letter abbreviations I have never heard of and which I cannot understand. It seemed clear that they were effectively doing a stunt like the first store. The staff member agreed that it was not understandable to him and that it would be taken up with the ticket person 8 hours later. If that person agreed the new pricing method would have to be agreed by their legal department and it could be some weeks before it was his department's turn to get new labels - IF HO agreed.
Some goods (and in this case I was looking at capers) are packed in liquid. (Major Store) stock several brands including their own in different size bottles. On the shelf ticket they show the weight and, asterisked, what appears to be the dry weight. They also show a cost per 100g which in some cases is based on the dry weight. However, and their staff member confirmed this, in the case of their own brand the shelf label did NOT show the dry weight and the price was based on the full weight of capers, water and presumably bottle.
Therefore the price shown for the own brand product LOOKED lower per 100g but you had to look at the tiny print on the bottle to see the true contents weight (about half that on the shelf label) and recalculate the price per 100g.
Another huge store does not use asterisks; it uses several of letter abbreviations I have never heard of and which I cannot understand. It seemed clear that they were effectively doing a stunt like the first store. The staff member agreed that it was not understandable to him and that it would be taken up with the ticket person 8 hours later. If that person agreed the new pricing method would have to be agreed by their legal department and it could be some weeks before it was his department's turn to get new labels - IF HO agreed.
0
Comments
-
The price will not include the bottle weight. The only reason this would included this if genuine mistake.
There is nothing wrong including a brine in per 100g weight as its edible. I am guessing on the tin/bottle they say a drianed weight of the product that still allows you to work out the weight you get and compare the price per 100g.
Its up to you wether you drain them or not.0 -
Stephen77
"My eyes are dim
I cannot see
I have not brought my specs with me"
(I'm a pensioner and the lights in store are bad)
I accept that the weights shown should not/will not include the bottle.
I have five products in front of me and the shelf labels clearly state (say) 87.6p per 100g, 11.2p per 10g, 80p per 100g, 126.3p per 100g and 114p per 100g.
Which is the best value assuming quality is the same?
In this case the answer is NOT 80p per 100g. because the contents weight is 485g (on which the price is based) but the drained weight is only 135g. However the drained weight is only shown on the bottle label in small print whereas the drained weights of all the others are shown on the shelf label. Therefore (and even I need a calculator for this) the price for comparison is 287p per 100g
All the other prices are calculated on drained weight.
You can stand there all day and use your calculator to work out true comparative prices - I am simply warning that this is a device used by one of the large supermarkets whilst another seems to use a whole host of weights - I couldn't make out the meanings of their abbreviations.0 -
I was looking at chicken breasts in Tesco yesterday and I found that the labelling on the packs of all of Tesco's chicken must have been designed to confuse. Between the "normal", finest and value ranges they did not use the same way of displaying nutritional information on the pack.
On one pack they gave fat, carbs, protein etc per "average chicken breast" - no mention of size at all!! In different packs the sizes varied from tiny to about 2 portion sized breasts. How is this helpful??
Another pack gave same info based on "per ave cooked chicken breast". Cooked and raw chicken breast will have different values per weight so not comparable at all. I was not able to look at the 3 ranges and compare nutrition per 100g/10g etc, and since the info based on ave chicken breasts had no weight associated with it I wasn't even presented with data I could use to work it out. I've just checked online too and their Market value chicken doesn't even give any nutritional details.
Obsessed about chicken? No but I was intrigued by how difficult it was to compare. What I did pick up though, is that the salt content of Market value chicken seems to be a bit higher than the other ranges. What this means, I'm not so sure but I left the shop without chicken yesterday!
It's only a game
~*~*~ We're only here to dream ~*~*~0 -
Don't compare prices per 100g labels because they may well be totally misleading and give wrong results.
They may also be right and give totally the right results.
Why should I not use them just because some are not right?
Isn't that just like saying don't ever listen to The Miser because he/she has been wrong a couple of times.0 -
Just think of it as a free brain training session with every supermarket shop. And if you can't do it in your head (I can't if I'm tired!) then buy a 69p Value calculator and keep it in your shopping bag.Val.0
-
I use the calculator on my phone if my brain is tired. I just assume that the supermarket wants to make as much money as they can as easily as they can and find the best value of the stuff I want, have occasionally been flummoxed so have left that particular item to the end, come back and worked it out in a snap. Very rarely look at the SELs as have always thought they were designed to confuse rather than inform!What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare0
-
MrsBartolozzi wrote: »What I did pick up though, is that the salt content of Market value chicken seems to be a bit higher than the other ranges. What this means, I'm not so sure but I left the shop without chicken yesterday!
It's higher because the value chicken is injected with a saline solution to make it appear plump.
There shouldn't be any salt in plain chicken.0 -
It's higher because the value chicken is injected with a saline solution to make it appear plump..
The Coop British unsmoked ... bacon is only 88% pork, the remainder being water, salt (3.8% - stated to be high)and nitrides.
Amazingly this is not too bad - I know of a case of a bacon shipment being diverted to Britain - it was 30%+ water!
Tesco: yes. The steak in front of me has calories, fat etc figures AFTER being FRIED and trimmed of fat.
a) do you FRY a steak or grill it? I avoid frying if I can though a occasional marinade might include olive oil
b) I don't remove the fat - it is the marbling which gives the taste.
Sainsbury's be good to yourself beef; After getting a magnifying glass one part says the calories, fat etc per 100g - fine. In another place (far smaller) it gives the same figures with the note that these are for the raw product, not cooked a la Tesco. The label says to see the reverse for cooking and storage instructions but the label cannot be removed nor otherwise seen!!!!!!!!
Far more sensible is the label on Farmfoods Cocktail sausages. At least this company shows figures for 100g and also for 4 sausages with therse figures shown as a percentage of the RDA and you don't need rteading aids0 -
The Coop British unsmoked ... bacon is only 88% pork, the remainder being water, salt (3.8% - stated to be high)and nitrides.
Bacon can be wet or dry cured. Looks like the above bacon uses a wet cure, hence the water on the label. It will have a high salt content as it's the salt which preserves it. But chicken should be just chicken.0 -
It's higher because the value chicken is injected with a saline solution to make it appear plump.
There shouldn't be any salt in plain chicken.
I thought as much myself but there was no mention of this on the packet and I'm sure that any "ingredients" need to be stated on the packet.
Or is this a myth?
It's only a game
~*~*~ We're only here to dream ~*~*~0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards