The great Walkers swindle

Zandoni

wealdroam wrote: »

They do, don't they?

You're right there.

tomwakefield

Zandoni wrote: »

I fully agree, I just wish they gave them a name to show they are smaller.

What makes you think anyone would read the names if they don't look at the weights?

Zandoni

tomwakefield wrote: »

What makes you think anyone would read the names if they don't look at the weights?

The problem is most people would not have a clue how much a packet of crisps weigh. A lot of people would do the maths if a single pack was next to the multipack, but most supermarkets keep the single packs in a different part of the store, usually by the sandwiches.

Hintza

Zandoni wrote: »

but most supermarkets keep the single packs in a different part of the store, usually by the sandwiches.

Is there no clue in this? They are aimed at two different segments of the market.

If folk are too thick to work it out themselves that is not really my concern (and in this instance the customer isn't even getting a worse deal).

And you still don't have to buy them. If I ever feel a company is taking the mick then I stop buying their product.

But of course you are an advocate for the nanny state. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

A fool and his money are easily parted.

Zandoni

I've always wondered how supermarkets and manufacturers get away with all their little scams that fool shoppers into parting with their cash. After this thread it's all become clear, hardly anyone cares, most of the people that have contributed just say tough, the thick people deserve it.

The problem is it's normal people that are shopping with their kids or in a rush, that get duped. Doesn't matter though does it, serves them right.

peachyprice

Zandoni wrote: »

The problem is most people would not have a clue how much a packet of crisps weigh. A lot of people would do the maths if a single pack was next to the multipack, but most supermarkets keep the single packs in a different part of the store, usually by the sandwiches.

There you go with that completely unsunstatiated 'most people' quote again.

Please, show us the facts that show 'most people' are unaware rather than your own perception, because so far the majority of opinion seems to be to the contrary.

Hintza

Zandoni wrote: »

The problem is it's normal people that are shopping with their kids or in a rush, that get duped. Doesn't matter though does it, serves them right.

Better than in our hunter gatherer days where the would have become lunch for something else if they weren't paying attention. Which at least had the benefit of improving the gene pool.

shaun_from_Africa

Hintza wrote: »

Better than in our hunter gatherer days where the would have become lunch for something else if they weren't paying attention. Which at least had the benefit of improving the gene pool.

After seeing the average audience for programs such as "Jeremy Kyle" and "Trisha", I'm not so sure that the gene pool benefited in the long term.

squeaky

Good morning all

I'm not convinced that this is a Consumer Rights issue - more of a "buyer beware" thing as in "You may not be getting the bargain that you think you are getting".

I'll move it across to Food Shopping and Groceries.

Forum_Team wrote:

Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: I’ve asked Board Guides to move threads if they’ll receive a better response elsewhere (please see this rule) so this post/thread has been moved to another board, where it should get more replies. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL='forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com']forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL]

Edwardia

I think putting crisps in smaller bags and charging less for them is a good idea (for health). However the crisps should in my view cost the same per 100g regardless of packaging otherwise yes the consumer is getting ripped off.