Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34
  1. #16
    FenceFurniture's Avatar
    FenceFurniture is offline The prize lies beneath - hidden in full view
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    1017m up in Katoomba, NSW
    Posts
    2,453

    Default

    So what would the explanation be for a 200mm long, tightly plastic wrapped packet inside a 250mm long cardboard box?
    Regards, FenceFurniture

    COLT DRILLS GROUP BUY
    Jan-Feb 2019 Click to send me an email

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Conder, ACT
    Age
    77
    Posts
    4,213

    Default

    Box pressing, printing and folding machines come in standard sizes.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Blue Mountains
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FenceFurniture View Post
    So what would the explanation be for a 200mm long, tightly plastic wrapped packet inside a 250mm long cardboard box?
    Not sure why they would have done that. My comments were more aimed at products that are packed using multi head weighers.

    ajw

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nowra, NSW, Australia
    Age
    66
    Posts
    0

    Default

    If the weight is right, personally I don't care how big the packaging is. To my mind, since they are sold by weight, there would only be a deception if the contents were under-weight.

    Regarding the air gap for cushioning, though, wouldn't it allow the contents to jump around more and break up?
    ... Steve

    -- Monkey see, monkey do --

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
    To my mind, since they are sold by weight, there would only be a deception if the contents were under-weight.

    Regarding the air gap for cushioning, though, wouldn't it allow the contents to jump around more and break up?
    re that latter point, like I said, this forum is the perfect place to raise the issue with practical gents used to thinking in three dimensional terms.

    I was wondering about that latter point too - how scientific is the air gap "cushioning" effect?

    As hermit suggests, the idea even sounds a bit counter-intuitive.

    On your former point though, when you look at the packet, yes it does honestly state 500gms of product, but the size of the box - more than a third bigger than it has to be - suggests to all but the intensely practical and three dimensionally thinking types on this forum that 500gms of product "must therefore be that volume size." Wow, they conclude - what tremendous value!

    But I got news for them - it ain't. And as I keep on saying, we are all paying for the surplus packaging in the price of the box of cereal. There is a marketing deception and it does come at a cost to us, correct weight of product or not.

    Standard machine box dimension sizes are conveniently made all too large. (with the exception of honest varieties like normal weet bix or vita brits boxes.

    Sometimes the minutia of life is fun to analyse mates!

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nowra, NSW, Australia
    Age
    66
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dodgy Dovetails View Post
    re that latter point, like I said, this forum is the perfect place to raise the issue with practical gents used to thinking in three dimensional terms.

    I was wondering about that latter point too - how scientific is the air gap "cushioning" effect?

    As hermit suggests, the idea even sounds a bit counter-intuitive.

    On your former point though, when you look at the packet, yes it does honestly state 500gms of product, but the size of the box - more than a third bigger than it has to be - suggests to all but the intensely practical and three dimensionally thinking types on this forum that 500gms of product "must therefore be that volume size." Wow, they conclude - what tremendous value!

    But I got news for them - it ain't. And as I keep on saying, we are all paying for the surplus packaging in the price of the box of cereal. There is a marketing deception and it does come at a cost to us, correct weight or not.

    Standard machine box dimension sizes are conveniently made all too large. (with the exception of honest varieties like normal weet bix or vita brits boxes.

    Sometimes the minutia of life is fun to analyse mates!
    I did notice that your packet of Weet Bix Bites had a lot more debris in the bottom than the standard, tightly-packed ones.

    (I eat the standard Weet Bix, so don't experience your problem.)
    ... Steve

    -- Monkey see, monkey do --

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Newcastle
    Age
    70
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Never mind the extra space and packaging what about the sugar they lace most cereals with to keep you coming back. Thats the real danger.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    ACT
    Age
    85
    Posts
    546

    Default

    Some more things to amuse you. The price of packaging materials in all its layers, ink and printing then putting the product in the packaging v/s the price of ingredients and manufacture. On the other hand, how many of us would like to take our own plate to the supermarket and get a scoop of cereal out of a barrel.

    Have fun
    Hugh

    Enough is enough, more than enough is too much.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cedarton
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Brought some 'Generic' fruit loops the other day ...no xtra air in the packaging ,but made me crook the following day ..never again ..MM
    Mapleman

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nowra, NSW, Australia
    Age
    66
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MAPLEMAN View Post
    Brought some 'Home Brand' fruit loops the other day ...no xtra air in the packaging ,but made me crook the following day ..never again ..MM
    Yep, I bought the generic Weet Bix a few weeks ago, to try. Never again. I'm sure I saw something in there that a rat had left behind.

    Edit: I'm not saying exactly which brand.
    ... Steve

    -- Monkey see, monkey do --

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    74
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    I think there may be a little of almost everything mentioned involved in this cereal product. Packaging filling by machines, settlement of the contents, but most of all marketing.

    Whilst we are incensed by a packet that is only two thirds full, we are also reluctant to buy something that looks smaller than the rival products. In terms of loose cereal products I suspect (but don't know) there is a standard size box for a given weight of product. It may not be an exact sizing but it will be close.

    As others have said it is the weight that is all important and this is a dimension that can be disputed.

    I recall a chocolate bar product that was advertised in the sixties, Frys chocolate cream.

    Frys choc cream.jpg

    It was re-vamped in a TV commercial with the headline:

    "Big Fry Comes Into Town."

    The new chocolate bar was bigger, but it weighed less and Frys were taken to court over it (I can't recall the outcome except I think the commercial was pulled.) I think George Lazenby (remember, Dianna Rigg's friend ) was the man with the box of chocolate on his shoulder marching into town.

    If a product is stated as being something it has to be just that. If it doesn't say the box is full they can make it whatever size they want . As a chocoloholic I always check the weight of the product. For example a Mars bar is 60g, but the derivative Mars bar products are often only 50g and they don't taste as good .

    Regards
    Paul
    Last edited by Bushmiller; 2nd September 2013 at 03:55 PM. Reason: Missed a bracket
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    belgrave
    Age
    61
    Posts
    0

    Default

    You guys are just avoiding talk of the election aren't you. :P At keast this is something we might be able to change. No matter what we get a dick head PM though.
    anne-maria.
    T
    ea Lady

    (White with none)
    Follow my little workshop/gallery on facebook. things of clay and wood.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    1,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tea lady View Post
    You guys are just avoiding talk of the election aren't you.
    Not really as I made up my mind on how to vote when the Carbon tax was introduced by a former PM. I wasn't able to rely on her promises but I can punish the party that did that to me. So it has nothing to do with elections.


    Peter.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shepparton *ugh*
    Age
    49
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tea lady View Post
    No matter what we get a dick head PM though.
    I've been calling it "The Gastro Election". What do you prefer? Vomit or diarrhea?

    Anyway...I suppose y'all have noticed over the years that while prices have remained reasonably similar, the amount in the packages has shrunk and in some cases the packaging has stayed the same size, but with less content...All hail the per 100g/ml/lt pricing...that has helped circumvent the dodgy packaging/marketing enormously.

    And as an another aside...back in the day (80's) Kit-Kats had the most efficient wrapping. The foil was formed in such a way that it perfectly covered the chocolately goodness and had negligible overlap - hence less waste and superior stacking ability...apparently. It was quite the exercise to devise a better wrapping technique that withstood the "balanced huge stack" test . That's about the only thing I remember from primary school
    Every time you make a typo, the errorists win.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RedShirtGuy View Post
    back in the day (80's) Kit-Kats had the most efficient wrapping. The foil was formed in such a way that it perfectly covered the chocolately goodness and had negligible overlap - hence less waste and superior stacking ability...apparently. It was quite the exercise to devise a better wrapping technique that withstood the "balanced huge stack" test . That's about the only thing I remember from primary school
    Yes, aluminum is not cheap, either in cost or energy needed to make it - someone called it electricity in solid form (or something like that) so it was in Kit Kat's (Nestles?) interests to make the aluminium wrapper as efficient, ie, as small, as possible. Unlike the cereal manufacturers!

    I always ran my thumbnail down the valleys of the Kit Kat, splitting the aluminium along a row to open it. Others were probably more finicky and carefully unwrapped it.

    I've learnt a lot of interesting detail from this thread!

Similar Threads

  1. Breakfast
    By Rodgera in forum JOKES
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th September 2012, 09:36 PM
  2. Breakfast Out
    By Rodgera in forum JOKES
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10th December 2009, 11:33 PM
  3. What's for breakfast
    By John Saxton in forum JOKES
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd December 2006, 08:42 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •