Innocent Smoothies have lost their innocence - weights and measures trickery ...

DCFC79

Darksun wrote: »

Also, Innocent are majority owned by Coca Cola, so you should probably rethink your views of the company

id like to see the OP take on coca cola and lose,

sarahg1969

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Also, as someone who buys innocent smoothies, I prefer the new size because often I can't get through a 1L carton in the time it's safely kept once open and often ended up pouring some away.

But if you're paying about the same, it doesn't matter much, does it? It would be better for you if you could buy a 750ml carton that was cheaper, but if it's the same price, there's no real benefit. The only people it affects are the ones who DO manage to use a whole litre.

I personally would rather they put up the prices (not just Innocent), rather than giving me less for the same price.

browneyedbazzi

sarahg1969 wrote: »

But if you're paying about the same, it doesn't matter much, does it? It would be better for you if you could buy a 750ml carton that was cheaper, but if it's the same price, there's no real benefit. The only people it affects are the ones who DO manage to use a whole litre.

I personally would rather they put up the prices (not just Innocent), rather than giving me less for the same price.

It would be good if the smaller size was reflected in a lower price, but if the options are keep the same size (of which I'd throw some away) and increase the price or have a smaller size for the same price, I'd prefer the latter because it's better value for me.

Also, as a bit of a greenie I feel really guilty about wasting food so I'd prefer to just buy the amount that I will use

balmk

This is all to do with the cost of inflation and rising prices - many manufacturers have done the same as it's a case of:

a) keep the pack size the same and increase the cost

b) reduce the pack size and keep the cost the same

The fact that Sainsburys are running an offer on the smoothies is neither here nor there.

2sides2everystory

browneyedbazzi wrote:

I'm sorry but you're incorrect and you can contend all you like but there is NO CHANCE of successful prosecution for a CPR offence in this circumstance. If the new carton has the new measure included on the packaging as required and the information on the shelf edge label is correct then you were not deceived. An awful lot of products are sold in different sizes with the same or similar packaging and it is assumed that the average consumer can read the size/weight/volume information off the packaging.

btw...I'm an authorised officer under the CPRs so this isn't just a lay person's view.

Also, as someone who buys innocent smoothies, I prefer the new size because often I can't get through a 1L carton in the time it's safely kept once open and often ended up pouring some away.

Now I am intrigued. So you work for a local authority as a local CPR enforcement officer? Great. Thats all we need - another public servant cosied up to the corporates they are supposed to be policing?

Callie22

Darksun wrote: »

Also, Innocent are majority owned by Coca Cola, so you should probably rethink your views of the company

Exactly, I'm not really a fan anymore. I never bought many of their smoothies as they've always been expensive, but I liked the ethos of the company and liked initiatives like the 'Big Knit'. However over the past couple of years the company seems to have changed a lot and what once was quirky now just seems a bit cynical.

ThumbRemote

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Now I am intrigued. So you work for a local authority as a local CPR enforcement officer? Great. Thats all we need - another public servant cosied up to the corporates they are supposed to be policing?

Why does being employed by a local authority mean they are "cosied up to the corporates"?

Or is it just because they pointed out you were wrong?

k3lvc

2sides2everystory wrote: »

The law is broader than that about deceiving customers, Darksun. It is relatively new law and I for one would like to see it tested.

I believe I have witnessed an unfair practice which is prohibited under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

I believe it may contravene CPRs under paragraph 3 of PART 2. It is unfair as it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product. Whether it is also a matter which contravenes the requirements of professional diligence is open to interpretation perhaps.

I believe that the substitution of an exactly similar looking carton which contains 25% less than the product has habitually contained requires a special notice to customers that the size has been reduced beyond simply altering the new carton size in the usual small print. I contend that the subsitution of the smaller size in this improper way constitutes a misleading action which is also prohibited under paragraph 5 of PART 2 of CPRs.


I apologise if there is already a thread about this. I'll take a look in the morning.

Seriously you've got to be kidding - apart from the 'official' view you've received there are so many other factors at work here.

The 'cost' of reducing from 1l to 750ml doesn't all suddenly drop into profit for anyone. Without knowing the product costing it's likely that a 25% reduction in size will produce a 5-10% reduction in cost - somewhere around the level of commodity inflation at the moment.

You're also deluding yourself if you're trying to compare Denmark with UK for pricing - exchange rates aren't exactly stable at the moment.

Look forward to an update on you taking Coca Cola to court :rotfl:

2sides2everystory

Why should I instantly accept the view of someone with a username of browneyedblazi as "official"?? They haven't responded to my law-based contention using any law-based argument and have merely waved their job title around like it was the law.

And on what basis am I now deluding myself by simply mentioning that Danish prices are generally higher and that the 750ml cartons appeared there (as the only carton Innocent launched upon them) a year before we were hit with them here?

So you look forward to me taking Coca Cola to court? Why do you expect people like me to have to take people to court to get laws properly implemented? Maybe you treat reports of law breaking and rule-bending as a laugh and the way you get your kicks on a Saturday morning? The other day you were trying to suggest that concealed whole minute billing by phone companies was fair and above board too.

This is a pro-consumerist website - why are you here?

redped

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Now I am intrigued. So you work for a local authority as a local CPR enforcement officer? Great. Thats all we need - another public servant cosied up to the corporates they are supposed to be policing?

Brilliant - best laugh I've had all day. You don't agree with someone's opinion, so all of a sudden they're in league with large corporations. Next you'll be saying it's all part of a global conspiracy

Based on all the replies you've had, do you think, just maybe, that you might be wrong?