Everybody loves a bargain, so when you see a product on a grocer’s shelf that seems to promise more product for the same money, you are more likely to grab it.
These are called “bonus packs” where you might get an extra four ounces of shampoo, or 20 Brillo pads instead of the usual 16. Bonus packs are typically sold at the item’s regular price, so you are indeed getting something extra free.
This bottle of Tide promises “33% MORE.” But are you really getting one-third more free? A quick look suggests yes, but a more carefully reading says otherwise.
*MOUSE PRINT: The fine print under the “33% MORE” claim says “ounces than 150 oz.”
In other words, this is not a bonus bottle at all. The big yellow banner is merely giving you an arithmetic lesson saying that this 200 ounce bottle is larger than a 150 ounce bottle by a third.
Thanks P&G for the eye-catching math lesson, but some free product would have been nicer.
This puts them in the same category as politicians and used car salesmen.
This reminds me of years ago, when my job involved the little 12 packs of aspirin. One major brand stated “new and improved” on the label, Problem is, the label was the only thing improved! pa ys to read the mouseprint, doesn’t it?
This doesn’t really seem to qualify as a scam though. I can tell you that as a
housewife and CPO (chief procurement officer) of my home I would look at the label
and think, “Oh, they are making an even bigger jug of soap to have to carry” I wouldn’t automatically think that this bottle had 33% free.
P&G – Ain’t they that devil worshipping company? Nuff said.
And why do they do this? Because they can!
Now the real question is: how can me make them ‘not can’ this?
How can we make manufacturers treat us customers with respect again?
What did we do to loose that respect?
I for one think it is great that they are trying to teach basic math skills, such as percentages, to consumers! What’s next? Fractions?
I see this all the time. My cereal says “Twice as much as .” My batteries, last time I bought some, said “50% more batteries than the leading 8 pack.” It was a 12 pack.
I understand that these companies are greedy and monstrous, and will do anything for money. However, I fail to see where the money is here.
At least this is actually true, unlike the lightbulbs that put out 100 watts of light but use only
87 watts.
The one thing you didn’t mention was the price. If the price of this 200oz container is the same as the 150oz (or cheaper per oz) then I guess it’s a bargain.
However, I’ve seen things like this where you pay more for the larger (per ounce) even though it’s significantly cheaper for the company to produce (since the only recurring extra cost for them is a tiny bit more plastic.)
Just wait until they do what they did with candy bars…offer a bigger bar that slowly starts shrinking over the years (at the same price) then offer an all new larger bar (that’s the same as the previous one when it first came out.)
As I recall, these detergents used to be in 64 oz and 128 oz bottles. Now they’ve gotten larger (at maybe the same per-oz cost). Expect the ounce count to slowly start shrinking in the next few years–196oz, 190oz, 180oz…back to 150 then watch then offer an all new bigger bottle: 200oz.
Notice that nowhere on the bottle does it say that the extra 33% is free, either (at least not in the pictures provided).
In the context used here I’ve seen disclaimers like that numerous times, and every time they were comparing to the standard bottle size (ie, so that particular product would usually come in 150oz).
It’s only when the context is that used by the person two posts up “X better than the leading brand” or whatnot that it’s a crock … in my experience anyway.
Ill be buying ALL from now on.
Hmm, slow week at your site? It’s not even in mouseprint, I can read it plain as day. It also doesn’t indicate that any of the 33% more is free. While I wonder why the felt the need to tell us how much bigger this bottle is, there is nothing misleading about this.
Edgar replies: For those new to Mouse Print*, the subjects chosen to be featured are not necessarily illegal or misleading, they could be merely a surprise lurking in the fine print. As noted on the Background page of the site:
Personally, I think the “33% More” in large bold type is potentially misleading to purchasers who just see that, and don’t read the rest of the claim.
“P&G – Ain’t they that devil worshipping company? Nuff said.
Comment by Rev Snodgrass”
No, Rev Snodgrass, not “Nuff said.” What you said is very close to, if not in fact, **libel**.
It is fair and right to call P&G on their disingenuous packaging but it is very wrong to slander the company based on false premises. The kind of false allegations you have just repeated have in the past been linked to Amway sales people.
“April 17, 2007 Â
Procter & Gamble announced March 19 that a jury had awarded the company $19.25 million in damages after a trial in the Utah Federal District Court. The jury in Salt Lake City entered the judgment against distributors for the Amway Corporation for spreading the rumors about satanic affiliations.
This latest case began in 1995, when four distributors for Amway, a household products company that competes with Proctor & Gamble, circulated a message via a company voicemail system saying that Procter & Gamble’s CEO had donated some profits to the Church of Satan. Although the distributors soon retracted the rumor, the messages made their way to hundreds of Amway clients–and, eventually, to Procter & Gamble attorneys.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_8_124/ai_n19328392”
I can’t stop being amazed by those of you that seem to think that this ‘33% MORE’ is not misleading.
It IS misleading. And worse, it is intentionally misleading. And worst, it is intentionally true.
Which statement is more likely?
* a leading laundry detergent manufacturere has suddenly started a stealth operation educating the public on math, by adding this information on their package. [I say stealth, because they have not anounced their campaign]
* Tide is just trying to fool their customers in thinking that their package has increased in size, or worse, that their package has a certain part for free
I find it incredible that some here are trying to ignore the fact that Tide is showing contempt of their customers by trying to mislead them.
Edgar replies: Amen.
There are many products that advertise that it is larger on the package, but the lack of indicating that it is free should be your clue. I find it more decieving when companies downsize and charge the same price (happened with spaghetti sauces), or when they have alrger package but it actually costs you more per ounce than the smaller. But on this one, I don’t think Tide did anything worng, and I will continue to purchase their products (in the most cost effective packages of course).
Edgar replies: For those new to Mouse Print*, the subjects chosen to be featured are not necessarily illegal or misleading, they could be merely a surprise lurking in the fine print. As noted on the Background page of the site:
In the worst cases, the mouse print changes the meaning of, or contradicts the primary claims or promises being made. Sometimes, the catch is not even disclosed. In other cases, the fine print is merely an unexpected surprise for the reader. Fine print is not inherently illegal.
Personally, I think the “33% More†in large bold type is potentially misleading to purchasers who just see that, and don’t read the rest of the claim.
Tom Replies: I fail to see how this changes the meaning or promises anything other than you get 1/3 more than the 150 oz. It’s true, and yes it is potentially misleading to “those that see that and don’t read the rest of the claim” but that is not the fault of the manufacturer, that is the fault of the person who is so easily misled. While I enjoy your site, and feel you enlighten people to the many potential scams out there, I just think you are splitting hairs on this one. As I said before, it’s not in mouseprint our fast-speak, it’s readable, and palin as day even in your photo here.
I just bought a can of shaving cream with the 33% more promotion. I specifically chose that can because of the promotion. I just went back and reviewed the can and noticed it was just a math lesson. Should I have read the mouse print? Maybe, maybe not. I was in a hurry picked it for what was on the front of the can. The fact of the matter is I would have to read the “mouse print” to get the true story.
If you believe that the company just wants you to know that the bottle holds more then it’s easy to say they did nothing wrong. If, however, they added this little math lesson with the express intent that some percentage of people would wrongly assume it was a better bargain and purchase then they should be faulted.
Should the buyer read the fine print? Sure. But intentionally labeling it in a way likely to be misunderstood is misleading.
If they really just wanted us to know the thing is bigger, why not a “New 200oz Size” or why not make the font on the ‘than the 150 oz size” just as big and obvious as “30% MORE”?
This is a common and old marketing tactic. I remember going to buy my favorite salad dressing nearly 20 years ago and finding new bottles with a huge banner across the front reading “50% BIGGER*” with mouse print of “*than the 8 oz size.”
Thing was, the dressing had always been sold in both 12 and 8 oz size bottles. The main difference? The 12 oz bottles had suddenly become $0.25/ea more expensive and were now more per oz than both the 8 oz and the old 12 oz bottles. Was the manufacturer suddenly concerned that all these years people didn’t know that their 12 oz bottles were 50% bigger than their 8 oz bottles?
The same way that “33% MORE” on the Tide bottle is both correct and legal, the bright black on yellow banner on the salad dressing was both legal and technically accurate. Does anyone really doubt the *intent* was to trick those who didn’t pay enough attention (or had too low of an IQ) into paying more for the same product?
Regarding the comment about candy bar sizes; nothing new there. About 15 years ago I was talking to someone who used to be in management at a paper company. He was quite proud of how they passed costs on to customers. To the best of my recollection, the process was this:
They would come out with a “family pack” of tissue paper. Their additional cost was less than what they added to the price. (A win-win really… lower price/tissue for consumer, higher profits for company.) Next they would slowly reduce the size of the box and change the labeling. Eventually the number of tissues in a box would be back down to the old level and they’d introduce an “economy pack” which was 50% larger at nearly the same price/sheet. During the time he worked at the company (5 years I think) they had gone through this cycle 7 times.
For those that don’t think that the 33% more message is misleading/deceptive/a ploy, think about why they don’t put the same on the smaller pack:
Instead of making a product 33% more than 150oz, how about one 33% smaller and mark it as:
Tide 100oz, 33% less
(mouse print: than 150oz Tide)
Would this make you more or less willing to buy the product? Probably less likely because you would assume it is the same price and you get less. The opposite is also true (assuming 33% more at the same price.)
—
Please note that most readers here do not easily fall for this “scam” because we are alert buyers. I would say that most buyers (not many here) are more impulsive and the above ploy preys on that. (And as we learned from one reader, it’s easy to slip occasionally, even when you’re watching for it.)
Interesting new discovery:
Purex has a product advertised as “BONUS 20% MORE (20 FLUID OUNCES MORE THAN 100 FLUID OUNCES”
Well, this product was at Target and they decided to be smart and help sell this product so they stuck on their own sticker: “EXPECT MORE PAY LESS. 20% FREE”
I did not check to see if they even SOLD a 100oz version so I didn’t compare prices, but I suspect that they fell for this gimmick.
—
So if the stores that sell these products fall for the gimmick, how can the average uninformed consumer be expected to see through this deceptibve advertising?!
It doesn’t matter what hype they print on the product as long as you know how many ounces it contains or how many washes.If you are concerned about price then just figure out what you are paying per ounce/wash.If you can’t do it in your head bring a calculator.
Jon…although you’re right, this is about deceptive advertising. If we fail to trust anyone, we’ll be spending lots of time doing the work that others are paid to do. For example, do you trust that every product you purchase scans properly at the register? Do you actually monitor every item when you have more than 10 or so items?
At some point, we must trust that things are correct, and shouldn’t have to spend lots of time confirming that what the product says is true really is. In this case, the extra amount is pretty harmless except that it tricks many people into buying the larger size because they think they’re getting a better price. It’s the *TRICKERY* that we haev issues with, and just because one company is sincere, does not mean that another is, or even that the same company will be on another product….so we’d rather have some degree of regulation to protect us from deception that the average consumer does not have time (or desire or knowledge) to figure out.
I really don’t understand why certain people are identify primarily with the power of giant corporations and seem downright hostile at consumers who raise legitimate issues with these same corporations’ way of doing business. It’s some kind of Stockholm syndrome, I think.
As others have said…you would assume you are getting a bonus at first glance. That is the intention of the company…to deceive. Why in the world would someone care if one bottle was 33% more than other. Ridiculous! I actually sent an e-mail to P&G about this deceptive advertising.The only reply I got back was….”we’re sorry you are unhappy with the price of Tide????” Tide is the most expensive laundry detergent on the market….do they really have to try and cheat their customers? I am very disappointed in them.