I wrote recently about how producers of food and other consumer products subtly deceive us with shrinking packages; and, in another posting ("Lie to, Deceive, Manipulate Them--They're Only the Great Unwashed Masses," January 12, 2010) about how TV "pitches" can contain a variety of deceptions.
I want to add a few things I've noticed recently. First, a little contradiction in claims: I receive mailings from a car dealer from whom I bought a car. They offer a "100+ club" that offers a discount and other benefits, saying "All Toyotas with 100,000 miles are eligible." It sounds like a good deal. I have a friend with a Toyota with an awful lot of miles on it, and I was going to show him this flyer.
Then I noticed the fine print which says "2001 or older Toyotas models only." Excuse me, but doesn't that contradict the statement about "all Toyotas"? What is one to think of that? Are they being sneaky? Well, whoever said that car dealers are honest and forthright? Even the best of them are not above some not-so-kosher tactics when they sell you a car and probably when they service it, too. I could talk about experiences of my own as both a car buyer and a service customer.
How about this: Say you are an airline, and you want to figure out a way to improve your record for flights arriving on time. Well, here is a good idea for you. Say a flight from A to B takes one hour. Well, you simply announce a scheduled arrival time of, say, 70 (or 73 or 76) minutes. Then you can arrive 10 (or 13 or 16) minutes late and still be "on time." Presto, now you're on time 98 percent of the time instead of 68 percent! I believe that some airlines are doing this because they now arrive "early" quite often. Do you think it's because of unexpected tail winds?
Do you ever pay attention to TV pitches for acne medications, weight-loss pills, or exercise devices? The ones with "before" and "after" photos? Notice that the photos are seldom really comparable. They use all sorts of subtle tricks to make the "after" image more attractive. First, the person in the "after" shot is invariably smiling. Also, the hair style (for women) is different and more flattering. The lighting is different. The pose is different. All of these little tricks are used to subtly make the "after" image more attractive, and they operate on the viewer to subliminally make her feel she will be more attractive if she buys the product.
Various tricks and deceptions, subtle and not-so-subtle, have been used for as long as there's been advertising. How much money has been extracted from the less-than-wary customer over the years since we've had mountebanks pitching snake oil? Even if you feel that government should step in and act against the more egregious perpetrators of deception upon customers, the villains will probably always keep one step ahead.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Showing posts with label consumerism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumerism. Show all posts
Friday, February 11, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Companies Cheating Us with Smaller Packages
It's been going on for a long time. Once upon a time, the smaller size box of tissues was 200 tissues. Then at one point it was 140. Now it's 120 or 110.
Yogurt containers at one time were all 8 ounces. Then one major brand switched to 6 ounces and then all the others followed suit. I recently noticed my "Greek-style" yogurt container was 5.3 ounces—which is 12% less than even 6 ounces.
The big container of ice cream, which we were used to calling a "half-gallon," is now 1.5 quarts—one-quarter less. (Apologies to my non–U.S. readers for the U.S. units of measure. The point, of course, is the comparison of the amounts.)
Paper for many years was bought and sold by the "ream," which is 500 sheets. I recently bought a big package of paper—and only when I got it home did I notice that it's 400 sheets, not 500.
And of course these smaller sizes are not being sold at proportionately lower prices. No, it's less product for the same price—the manufacturer's way of raising the price--hopefully, and frequently, without our noticing.
Worse, some containers are deliberately made to deceive. I complained to a certain food store chain that their house-brand hummus came in a container with a convex bottom, so that the container held less than it looked like. They wrote back claiming that the container shape was for the sake of the physical strength of the container. I'm skeptical.
Recently I bought a small frozen pizza that came in a box. When I opened the box, the diameter of the pizza inside was 2" less than the size of the box! Can there be any doubt that this is deliberate deception?
This is a bit off-topic--not concerning smaller container sizes--but there is a mattress widely advertised on TV, where you can adjust the firmness with a remote control whereby you dial in a setting from 0 to 100.
However, the increments of adjustment are by 5's--0, 5, 10, etc. In other words, there are actually 20 steps of adjustment. Why don't they make the control go 0, 1, 2--up to 20? Because (as they rightly believe), we feel there is a greater range of adjustment if it goes up to 100 than if it goes up to 20.
So all these guys are making money--because they are smarter than we are! I'd like to wake up one day and find that everybody had gotten smarter overnight, and these petty ruses and deceptions wouldn't work anymore.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Yogurt containers at one time were all 8 ounces. Then one major brand switched to 6 ounces and then all the others followed suit. I recently noticed my "Greek-style" yogurt container was 5.3 ounces—which is 12% less than even 6 ounces.
The big container of ice cream, which we were used to calling a "half-gallon," is now 1.5 quarts—one-quarter less. (Apologies to my non–U.S. readers for the U.S. units of measure. The point, of course, is the comparison of the amounts.)
Paper for many years was bought and sold by the "ream," which is 500 sheets. I recently bought a big package of paper—and only when I got it home did I notice that it's 400 sheets, not 500.
And of course these smaller sizes are not being sold at proportionately lower prices. No, it's less product for the same price—the manufacturer's way of raising the price--hopefully, and frequently, without our noticing.
Worse, some containers are deliberately made to deceive. I complained to a certain food store chain that their house-brand hummus came in a container with a convex bottom, so that the container held less than it looked like. They wrote back claiming that the container shape was for the sake of the physical strength of the container. I'm skeptical.
Recently I bought a small frozen pizza that came in a box. When I opened the box, the diameter of the pizza inside was 2" less than the size of the box! Can there be any doubt that this is deliberate deception?
This is a bit off-topic--not concerning smaller container sizes--but there is a mattress widely advertised on TV, where you can adjust the firmness with a remote control whereby you dial in a setting from 0 to 100.
However, the increments of adjustment are by 5's--0, 5, 10, etc. In other words, there are actually 20 steps of adjustment. Why don't they make the control go 0, 1, 2--up to 20? Because (as they rightly believe), we feel there is a greater range of adjustment if it goes up to 100 than if it goes up to 20.
So all these guys are making money--because they are smarter than we are! I'd like to wake up one day and find that everybody had gotten smarter overnight, and these petty ruses and deceptions wouldn't work anymore.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Lie to, Deceive, Manipulate Them--They're Only the Great Unwashed Masses
Woe be to he (or she) who is not good at mental math these days. When items in the supermarket are priced at, for example, "6/$3.00" (and so much in the store seems to have that kind of price, these days), do all shoppers know how much they are paying per item? This example is fairly easy; but how about "3/$5.00"? I have no problem with the mental math, but many people would; and even to me it's annoying when stores do that. I don't know whether they do it to make you think you need to buy 3, or 6, or 10 of the item, or just to obscure the per-item cost.
Do people realize that if a merchant's offer says "Buy one, get the second one for 50% off," the buyer is really getting 25% off the total cost? (Do the math: Say the item is $1.00. Then you're paying $1.50 instead of $2.00 for two, a savings of only one-fourth or 25%.) Or if it's "Buy three tires, get the fourth free," that also is 25% off the total. (As an example, let's say tires are $50 each. When you pay $150 for three instead of $200, you've saved $50 or one-fourth--25%.)
When a pitchman on TV is selling something for, say, $19.95, and then says he'll give you a second one free, that means the item is really $10 each—but you are being forced to buy two of them. By the way, so many small items, these days—like pairs of shoelaces and little night-light bulbs--force you to buy several of them because they are packaged together in those abominable plastic bubbles. I had to buy two eye droppers and can't foresee using the second one.
Back to those TV pitches: they might throw in a lot of "extra" and "free" stuff ("but wait, there's more!") and say it's "a $40 value." Such claims are meaningless. How can you verify what the "value" of the package is? Also, note that "shipping and handling" charges are often downplayed. They can be very high and, in fact, the vendor may make most of his profit from "shipping and handling." Also, they might say "Five easy payments of $29.99." Of course this makes it sound cheap but, unless you do that math (again), you may not realize you're paying $150.
Have you noticed that, in advertising, prices so often are preceded by "just" or "only"? A little bit of psychology to make you think it's a bargain or a good value. Be on your guard for this little bit of manipulation.
Here is a link to an article on the tricks that restaurants use in their menus to steer customers toward more expensive choices: http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/01/15/secret-restaurant-menu-tricks-dissecting-california-pizza-kitch/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl3|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2010%2F01%2F15%2Fsecret-restaurant-menu-tricks-dissecting-california-pizza-kitch%2F
Everybody wants us to buy his cola, candy, or candidate. So they make us think theirs is better, and/or that the other choice is worse. So what if they stretch the truth a little bit sometimes?
We are manipulated and deceived countless times per day--by marketers, advertisers, politicians (who notoriously have been known to deceive and out-and-out lie in their campaigns), the government, and our bosses. It's the attitude of those who govern us—in the workplace and elsewhere—that we don't need or don't deserve the truth, that the masses are fair game for every kind of deception, manipulation, and withholding of information.
I expect to blog more about these matters.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Do people realize that if a merchant's offer says "Buy one, get the second one for 50% off," the buyer is really getting 25% off the total cost? (Do the math: Say the item is $1.00. Then you're paying $1.50 instead of $2.00 for two, a savings of only one-fourth or 25%.) Or if it's "Buy three tires, get the fourth free," that also is 25% off the total. (As an example, let's say tires are $50 each. When you pay $150 for three instead of $200, you've saved $50 or one-fourth--25%.)
When a pitchman on TV is selling something for, say, $19.95, and then says he'll give you a second one free, that means the item is really $10 each—but you are being forced to buy two of them. By the way, so many small items, these days—like pairs of shoelaces and little night-light bulbs--force you to buy several of them because they are packaged together in those abominable plastic bubbles. I had to buy two eye droppers and can't foresee using the second one.
Back to those TV pitches: they might throw in a lot of "extra" and "free" stuff ("but wait, there's more!") and say it's "a $40 value." Such claims are meaningless. How can you verify what the "value" of the package is? Also, note that "shipping and handling" charges are often downplayed. They can be very high and, in fact, the vendor may make most of his profit from "shipping and handling." Also, they might say "Five easy payments of $29.99." Of course this makes it sound cheap but, unless you do that math (again), you may not realize you're paying $150.
Have you noticed that, in advertising, prices so often are preceded by "just" or "only"? A little bit of psychology to make you think it's a bargain or a good value. Be on your guard for this little bit of manipulation.
Here is a link to an article on the tricks that restaurants use in their menus to steer customers toward more expensive choices: http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/01/15/secret-restaurant-menu-tricks-dissecting-california-pizza-kitch/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl3|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2010%2F01%2F15%2Fsecret-restaurant-menu-tricks-dissecting-california-pizza-kitch%2F
Everybody wants us to buy his cola, candy, or candidate. So they make us think theirs is better, and/or that the other choice is worse. So what if they stretch the truth a little bit sometimes?
We are manipulated and deceived countless times per day--by marketers, advertisers, politicians (who notoriously have been known to deceive and out-and-out lie in their campaigns), the government, and our bosses. It's the attitude of those who govern us—in the workplace and elsewhere—that we don't need or don't deserve the truth, that the masses are fair game for every kind of deception, manipulation, and withholding of information.
I expect to blog more about these matters.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Television makes us fat
You've probably heard over and over—it's even discussed elsewhere on this blog—that Americans are increasingly becoming overweight and even obese. There's been a lot of discussion among experts as to what the causes are.
I want to suggest that television is at least one possible cause. No, I don't mean the inactivity of sitting and watching TV; I mean the advertising of food on television.
Just to make a very rough and random sample, in three or four days of my own televiewing, I saw commercials for some half-dozen fast-food chains (one of them at least four times), one for yogurt, two for sausages (one of those at least twice), ice cream, a pancake house, raw chicken, baked beans—and paper plates, piled high with food to show that they can hold it. This is not an exhaustive list. The Fourth of July is approaching so the sausages and paper plates are to be expected, I guess.
My theory is that watching food commercials—seeing the sponsors' food items shown, often in close-up, in their best make-up (and that's not totally facetious: food is doctored for still photography, as in magazines, and I'm sure something similar is done for TV) so as to look as appetizing as possible—doesn't this make us hungry? Some social scientist needs to do a study to show just how often seeing a TV commercial for food makes the viewer get up during a commercial break and go to the refrigerator. Meanwhile, I've got this bit of advice: the next time a food commercial comes on, showing that double cheeseburger, quickly change the channel, look away--anything but watch it and start to salivate.
And then there are the cooking shows on TV and other food programs. I know that those make me hungry, maybe more so that the food commercials. I'm pretty much immune to most of the food commercials because I almost never eat fast food and I eat almost no red meat. So because of how I have conditioned myself, that close-up shot of a big, juicy burger isn't going to do it for me. But I'm in the minority.
Update, June 28, 2012
Yesterday the TV news reported on a study done by the University of Southern California that shows that TV ads for fatty foods make the viewer crave fatty foods. I feel this shows that I was right in what I said in 2009.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
I want to suggest that television is at least one possible cause. No, I don't mean the inactivity of sitting and watching TV; I mean the advertising of food on television.
Just to make a very rough and random sample, in three or four days of my own televiewing, I saw commercials for some half-dozen fast-food chains (one of them at least four times), one for yogurt, two for sausages (one of those at least twice), ice cream, a pancake house, raw chicken, baked beans—and paper plates, piled high with food to show that they can hold it. This is not an exhaustive list. The Fourth of July is approaching so the sausages and paper plates are to be expected, I guess.
My theory is that watching food commercials—seeing the sponsors' food items shown, often in close-up, in their best make-up (and that's not totally facetious: food is doctored for still photography, as in magazines, and I'm sure something similar is done for TV) so as to look as appetizing as possible—doesn't this make us hungry? Some social scientist needs to do a study to show just how often seeing a TV commercial for food makes the viewer get up during a commercial break and go to the refrigerator. Meanwhile, I've got this bit of advice: the next time a food commercial comes on, showing that double cheeseburger, quickly change the channel, look away--anything but watch it and start to salivate.
And then there are the cooking shows on TV and other food programs. I know that those make me hungry, maybe more so that the food commercials. I'm pretty much immune to most of the food commercials because I almost never eat fast food and I eat almost no red meat. So because of how I have conditioned myself, that close-up shot of a big, juicy burger isn't going to do it for me. But I'm in the minority.
Update, June 28, 2012
Yesterday the TV news reported on a study done by the University of Southern California that shows that TV ads for fatty foods make the viewer crave fatty foods. I feel this shows that I was right in what I said in 2009.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
