Breakfast cereal deception

[FenceFurniture]

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

[DavidG]

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

[ajw]

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

[Hermit]

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?

[Dodgy Dovetails]

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!

[Hermit]

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.)

[Toymaker Len]

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.

[A Duke]

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

[MAPLEMAN]

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

[Hermit]

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.

[Bushmiller]

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

[tea lady]

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.

[Sturdee]

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.

[RedShirtGuy]

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

[Dodgy Dovetails]

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!