The great Walkers swindle

peachyprice

I think Zandoni and JethroUK must be the same person, I can't believe anyone but the OP would be so consistently pig-headed enough to be completely blind to the obvious flaw in their theory no matter how many times it's pointed out to them.

A very paranoid person indeed.

DCFC79

I believe customers are able to use common sense/initiative to check the weight of the single bags of crisps compared with the multipacks. Customers have the option to buy a multipack or so many single bags.

tomwakefield

Zandoni wrote: »

Strange I thought we was talking about Walkers crisps.

If Walkers crisps don't have any form of labelling to say they are a big bag, in my opinion they should.

I was talking about crisps in general. But there you go - you can have a campaign against PepsiCo as well.

JethroUK

George_Michael wrote: »

It is not deception for the sake of it, they are putting less in the packets for one reason alone, to deceive.

What a totally absurd idea.

Yadda Yadda....

I notice you dont bother to try and explain away why Walkers might want to under-pack bag used in multi-packs

maybe because there is no other possible explanation

JethroUK

DCFC79 wrote: »

I believe customers are able to use common sense/initiative to check the weight of the single bags of crisps compared with the multipacks. ...

People shopping in a busy supermarket environment are buying 99.99999999999999999999% of items "at face value"

Walkers could reduce the weight again - tomorrow - and they would sell millions before anyone noticed - including you!!!!!

common sense? - You are living in a dream if you believe otherwise

ffacoffipawb

peachyprice wrote: »

I know you've got me on ignore, because I don't agree with you, but everyone else can read this, so I will continue:

Have you not noticed that the actual "bags" containing the smaller portion of multi-pack crisps is smaller that a single bag? They're not making them even look like they are the same size. :rotfl::rotfl:

Rather throws your 'swindle' theory right out the window, doesn't it.

Jethro is so dim, he must be a Labour voter.

George_Michael

JethroUK wrote: »

I notice you dont bother to try and explain away why Walkers might want to under-pack bag used in multi-packs

maybe because there is no other possible explanation

There is a perfectly good explanation.
The reason that I didn't bother to explain why the bags in multi-packs are of a lower weight than "standard" bags is because according to post that I was commenting on, there was no reason for this apart from Walkers trying to deceive the public.

The only reason is to deceive and what a fine job they are doing of it.

Why would I attempt to explain something to someone who has clearly stated that the weight of the contents of the bags is not a factor?

shaun_from_Africa

I notice you dont bother to try and explain away why Walkers might want to under-pack bag used in multi-packs

If the outer bag states that it contains 6/8/12 bags of crisps each weighing 25 grams, then where does the underpacking come into it?

Zandoni

peachyprice wrote: »

I think Zandoni and JethroUK must be the same person, I can't believe anyone but the OP would be so consistently pig-headed enough to be completely blind to the obvious flaw in their theory no matter how many times it's pointed out to them.

A very paranoid person indeed.

Not the case I'm afraid we are two people with the common sense to know when we are being conned.

I find it very hard to understand why so many people can't grasp the simple fact that a multipack is one or more single units sold together for a lesser price.

At least this thread demonstrates how the British public allow themselves to fall for all the marketing tricks.

tomwakefield

Zandoni wrote: »

At least this thread demonstrates how the British public allow themselves to fall for all the marketing tricks.

"Allow themselves to fall for marketing tricks" or "able to read the packaging"?