The great Walkers swindle

JethroUK

Hintza wrote: »

Is it just me who is totally confused at the logic here?

As suggested before stop buying the product if you aren't happy!!

Suppose whenever you see wrong being done - just making sure you're not personal affected seems to be the solution for some - not me

It's shame they have to perform mock muggings in the middle of busy shopping centre in broad daylight to see how the public would react - not surprisingly the majority of the public cop the same attitude you have just suggested - walked away a left the poor kid to get it good

Hintza wrote: »

By Zandoni's logic mini Mars bars for kids would be outlawed

Mini-bars are sold as such "Mini" and quite obviously smaller

Walkers disguise this very well by using same size package - they just dont fill it

LouLou

I don't eat crisps often...and when I do it's usually from multipacks, very very rarely bought for myself, usually I take one from my niece's supply for school (don't worry, I make sure she has plenty ).

I had no idea that multipacks were a different size to individual packets (can barely remember the last time I bought one). Multipack packets are always clearly labelled "not for resale individually".

Told my sister about this thread (she is a real crisp lover) and her response was, "D'oh..EVERYONE knows multipacks are smaller! Are you mad?!".

Being a chocoholic, I think I'd know when my favourite bars were smaller in a multipack. Calling it a swindle, a con and a scandal is a little bit of a storm in a teacup.

Is the product good enough value for money for what you paid? (Seeing as I'm on a forum called "Moneysavingexpert.com"). I think so..no need to complain, then!

peachyprice

JethroUK wrote: »

I'm sure you're right about 'weights & measures law'

but I *know* the difference between right & wrong and Walkers selling under filled "bags" of crisps (they maybe labelling weight but are careful not to sell this under measurement) is wrong

must be some law around that prevents this deceitful behaviour - prolly the same law that made Tesco change all their cereal packaging because they made it too similar to brand leaders - and if the law can protect a buyer from buying a box of cereal that cleary labelled "TESCO" from 'confusing' this with a brand leader then it will protect consumers from being deliberative short measured

I think the law will catch up with Walkers swindle soon in the end (and it could be the embarrassment of time that is stalling it) and the perfect punishment will be for them to be forced to pack regular "bags" in multi-packs without being able to advertise this fact anymore than they currently advertise short-measure bags (indication of weight - 'somewhere')

It will, take Joe Public about another 20 years to realise they're are getting they're crisps back and consequently cost Walkers the £millions they have swindled of Joe already

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.

peachyprice

Zandoni wrote: »

Shops and manufacturers probably have their own teams of people devising ways of fooling shoppers with their deals which are just inside the law.

I doubt this will ever change as there are far too many people who just accept it.

If it was up to me I wouldn't allow manufacturers to change the size or quality of a product without making it obvious. There are many cleaning products on the market that start out good to get people to buy them and once that get a bit of a reputation they weaken the ingredients. It does make me angry but I doubt anything will ever be done.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Walkers have ALWAYS sold multi-pack crisps in 25g bags, they haven't changed the size and it's clearly shown on the outer wrapper that they contain 6 x 25g.

peachyprice

Oops, OP you didn't get much support back in 2010, and you're still banging on about it?

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1211975&page=2

You really, really, really, need to get a life.

JethroUK

LouLou wrote: »

...I had no idea that multipacks were a different size to individual packets ...

Walkers rely on that very fact to scam buyers - and despite them practising this con for the last 20 years NOBODY on this planet knew they were being scammed until they just 'happened to notice' - by which time Walkers had already managed to "short-changed" them 20-30 times

the size of the bags and weigh are similar enough such that you would not know - but just enough to fool you into thinking they were same size bags you had previously bought individually

the profit to Walkers for short-packing multi-lacks must be £Billions over the years

It's funny - that all the people leaping to defend Walkers scam have ****still*** not offered one single reason for Walkers to pack short-weight bags (about 15% short weight) instead of regular bags

the answer to that is simple - it's ONLY to swindle the unsuspecting supermarket shopper

Watch this space! - Queue pathetic excuses for digging themselves into a hole they cant get out of

"Ohhhhh it's coz i prefer my kids to have fewer crisps"

"Ohhhhh - I prefer smaller bags because it will stop me being as fat as a horse"

Yeah right - great marketing reasons for short-filling bag :D:rotfl:

JethroUK

LouLou wrote: »

... Calling it a swindle, a con and a scandal is a little bit of a storm in a teacup...

To an individual - couple pence - couple grams means nowt - and that is often as far as individuals look - and I've actually been advised to look no further by people that want to look no further

Extend this short-measuring scam to £multi-billion industry and it netts £Billions

LemonSocks

I'm a bit confused about the problem. I'm looking at a 6 pack right now and it says 6 x 25g - so the weight is pretty clear. Also it costs less per 100g than it does for a single packet. So you do get more for your money and it does state the weight.

NOBODY on the planet knew they were being scammed because quite frankly, they weren't. If it costs less per 100g then it IS more cost efficient and therefore better value for money.

unholyangel

LemonSocks wrote: »

I'm a bit confused about the problem. I'm looking at a 6 pack right now and it says 6 x 25g - so the weight is pretty clear. Also it costs less per 100g than it does for a single packet. So you do get more for your money and it does state the weight.

NOBODY on the planet knew they were being scammed because quite frankly, they weren't. If it costs less per 100g then it IS more cost efficient and therefore better value for money.

Yes but the OP is suffering from inane logic in which a "bag" is a unit of measurement and therefore all bags must contain the same amount.

In other words....his head is somewhere the sun doesn't shine.

LouLou

JethroUK wrote: »

To an individual - couple pence - couple grams means nowt - and that is often as far as individuals look - and I've actually been advised to look no further by people that want to look no further

Extend this short-measuring scam to £multi-billion industry and it netts £Billions

As I said, I don't think I'm your typical crisp eater. I haven't bought an individual packet of crisps for years and only take the odd multipack. So I don't even have anything to compare the multipack to!

My dear sis guffawed at me when I mentioned this and insisted that multipacks being smaller is common knowledge (except to this rare crisp-eater).

You didn't respond to my common sense statement, as this is MSE..do you think multipacks are value for money? Bit puzzled why this is so important to you, but suppose we all have our buttons that get pressed.