I knew without even looking, that it was Scarfolk.
I’m curious to see if there’s a bag of sugar on the list. Some companies still use the same packaging, but reduced the amount. What looks like the old 5 lb bag is now only 4 lbs.
I think this post is one of the examples.
They’re really underselling it, you also get a piece of cardboard. 151 pieces!
cc @putty folks…I know the reasoning behind it…It is common knowledge.
to @Melz2 point…its a bit egregious and still disappointing and deceptive IMO. It’s always so much less than you want it to be.
Side by side the 4- and 5-pound bags are visibly different (though not by much) . . . but when the shelf is full of 4-pound bags, they sure look like the usual 5-pound ones.
What if I told you that all product packaging is designed to deceive you into exchanging your money for something you probably don’t really need?
I have a recipe that includes a 4 pound “5 pound bag” of sugar so you know to use a bag of sugar, but make sure it’s only 4 pounds.
Yeah, I’m a bit of a per-unit cost nut, so I’m always looking at the net weight or volume vs. cost primarily. Chips under fills don’t bug me, but I do get quite irritated at the under sizing of common products when they’re organic or premium. For instance, a 12 oz bag of organic pasta when they know everyone assumes it’s a pound like all other pastas.
#22 My 6yo Daughter Spent Her Pocket Money On This, Cried That “It’s Not Fair”
And a child shall lead them.
I recall a Mad Magazine satire of this kind of thing from the 1960’s or 70’s. They’ve been doing this for years, but I think it’s gotten terribly worse. A large bottle of 300 vitamin pills was 1/3 filled. I lacked the energy to actually count them, but they all fit in the much smaller bottle that fits in the medicine cabinet.
It’s Trump’s world, we just live here.
All of my most-used baking recipes are old, so it forces me to remember that I have to get an additional 1 lb box of sugar to make up the difference.
That’s definitely the best way at a grocery store. They even do the math for you, on both regular and sale price stuff. My favorite is when only the 12oz box of cereal is on sale for a lower per-oz cost than the 18 oz boz that is cheaper when neither is on sale.
What’s annoying is when one item uses a per-unit of weight and another count for two products that should have the same units.
The one that gets you here, is after you’ve grown accustomed to brand A being cheaper than brand B, then brand A changes it’s package to a smaller quantity in the same size. Since you probably don’t check everytime that stealth price increase slides through. Like the jar of peanut butter that shaves off half an oz by indenting the base.
Reminds me of pot and pan sets where lids are counted as a separate piece. And i get why they count those as some pots/pans don’t come with a lid but i still find counting the lid as kind of deceptive. Like you’re getting some kind of extra value… who gets a pot without a lid?
I know No Deal Brexit looks bad, but I didn’t know we were at the point of discussing whether we should be getting our jellied babies in 4 or 5 pound bags.
I remember first noticing this kind of thing when I was a kid and I spent my allowance money on candy.
I bought 3-Musketeer Bars.
At that time, they folded the ends of the packing back against the candy bar.
It was ALL BAR. Life was good.
Then, WITHOUT TELLING ME IN ADVANCE, they made the bar smaller and left the “ears” of the package stick out on either side. The effect was that the bar LOOKED like the same size, but it wasn’t.
I distinctly remember that one week they were the old package and then the next week there was this “new” package that wasn’t quite right. The price was the same as the old bar.
“Those Motherfuckers” I remember saying when I realized what was going on.
I still bought it.
Sorry, fumblefingered my response to PsiphiGrrrl.
I think it’s the opposite.
They wanted the chip bags filled
w air to fool customers…
And it just-so-happened
to protect the chips.
It was a WIN-WIN!