The great Walkers swindle

JethroUK

Labmanager wrote: »

More nonsense I suggest. Where do you get that figure from? Or did you just make it up?

The very next poster seems to agree & explains it much better than I did - give it a read:

mo786uk wrote: »

MSE probably has a disproprotionate amount of savvy shoppers.

Its fair to say the vast majority of people do not track prices or value with any determination or precision. The retailers all know this and as someone who champions the consumer its a dman shame.

If consumers really were a lot more savvy people like the supermarkets wouldn't be able to price in the way they do (i.e always moving prices up and down with them eventually going up).

Most peopel thesedays are too busy to be going around keeping track of the price/size of every product they buy.

JethroUK

dacouch wrote: »

The simple answer is that Gary Linekar is paid in crisps, they have reduced the multi pack sizes to give them enough crisps to feed Gary

As plausible an explanation as I expect to hear

because there is ONLY one explanation for Walkers under-packing bags used in multi-pack

arcon5

maybe because it costs them more to bag up 6 bags of crisps plus the packaging to hold these bags than it does to bag up a single bag of crisps?

If the details of the packets are clearly marked then I don't see the problem. Ignorance by the consumer isn't really an excuse.

Zandoni

arcon5 wrote: »

maybe because it costs them more to bag up 6 bags of crisps plus the packaging to hold these bags than it does to bag up a single bag of crisps?

If the details of the packets are clearly marked then I don't see the problem. Ignorance by the consumer isn't really an excuse.

Most supermarkets don't display single crisp packets in the same row as multipacks so it's not easy to compare.

I think it's such a shame that the average shopper is happy to live with all these tricks, it makes it so easy for supermarkets and manufacturers to hoodwink their customers.

shaun_from_Africa

JethroUK wrote: »

I'll take it that your obtuse response is your substitute for a suitable explaination

Good idea

Any attempt to explain this under-packing away would make anyone look foolish

An obtuse response?
I though that I was actually asking a question, hence the reason for the "?" at the end.
Now I will ask it again to give you a reasonable chance to answer. (not that I really exoect you to answer such a simple and straightforward question)

How can it be underpacked if the weight is stated on the outer bag and the contents of each internal bag contain the required weight?

If it stated 25g and the bags contained 20g then it would be a case of underpacking.
If it stated 25g, and each bag contained at least 25 g then there is no underpacking.

JethroUK

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

..If it stated 25g, and each bag contained at least 25 g then there is no underpacking.

We are discussing Walkers packing 'smaller' bags in multi-packs than 'regular' bags they put on the shelf

Whether they are 'stamped' with correct (short) weight is not what is being discussed

It is WHY????????????????

I haven't got time to play semantics

and they is no other explanation than The Great Walkers Swindle

laughable excuses range from "I prefer my kids to have smaller bags" to "I prefer smaller bags so I dont end up as fat as a horse"

so spare me any more of those crass excuses to try and explain away the biggest swindle in retail history

Zandoni

Simple question to anyone who wants to answer it.

If a company sells crisps in 34.5g bags and they want to start selling multipacks why would they bother to change the individual pack size to 25g?

peachyprice

A simple question for any zealots who want to answer it:

Why would a company set out to purposely deceive the public for financial loss?

shaun_from_Africa

Simple question to anyone who wants to answer it.

Maybe because some people don't want a 34.5g bag, or maybe they are aimed at people who want to put a smaller bag in a lunchbox.

Originally Posted by JethroUK
I haven't got time to play semantics

No time?
In the time it took you to type your reply, you could easily have answered the question.
It looks like my earlier comment was spot on.

Now I will ask it again to give you a reasonable chance to answer. (not that I really exoect you to answer such a simple and straightforward question)

How can it be underpacked if the weight is stated on the outer bag and the contents of each internal bag contain the required weight?

It was you Jethro that kept using the term "underpacked" and "short-packed", yet you won't state how a bag filled to the correct and stated weight is either underpacked or shortpacked.

Originally Posted by JethroUK
so spare me any more of those crass excuses to try and explain away the biggest swindle in retail history

Talk about being a drama queen!
What about certain online retailers who set up shop with the sole intention of stealing hundreds or thousands of pounds from consumers, or scammers selling thousands or millions of pounds worth of counterfeit goods? (often life saving drugs are copied)
Do you honestly think that a food producer putting smaller packets of crisps in a multipack (and mark the weight on the outerpack) comes close to these sorts of ripoffs?

shaun_from_Africa

peachyprice wrote: »

A simple question for any zealots who want to answer it:

Why would a company set out to purposely deceive the public for financial loss?

Because it gives them a good feeling to know that they have managed to one over on Joe public, despite the fact that by doing so they are not making as much money as selling standard sized bags.:rotfl:

You never know, Cadbury may soon start selling packets of Hobnobs that are 10% smaller then the regular sized ones and they will probably sell these at 20% less than the normal price.