Business

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Where’s the Beef Pork?

It has been years since Clara Peller famously questioned one of Wendy’s fast food competitors in a TV commercial about the skimpy size of their hamburgers.  She shouted “Where’s the beef?” Well, we may have to call Ms. Peller back into action (from the hereafter), but this time the issue is pork.

We don’t usually think of fresh pork, such as pork chops, being sold under a brand name, but in some supermarkets you can actually find some packages with a Swift Premium label.

Swift

While it might seem advantageous to be able to buy a brand name of pork, the fine print suggests otherwise.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“with up to 10% of a solution of water, salt, and sodium phosphate”

Why has the company added up to 10% water to the pork chops besides the fact that selling a package that is 90% pork and 10% water is probably more profitable than selling one that is 100% pork?

The company replied:

“The hogs we use are bred and fed to be much leaner today, and are trimmed so there is very little external fat. We add a little extra moisture to our pork, so that consumers can be assured of the juicy tender and flavorful product.

The supermarket selling it replied:

“The product is enhanced with a solution of water, salt/spices.  This ensures a uniform flavor and moisture level, while providing a consistent eating experience for the consumer.   The practice of selling enhanced product is in accordance with USDA guidelines, and the font of the print is governed by USDA as well.” 

I don’t want to pay $2.99 a pound for water.  For one, if I want water with my pork, I’ll grab a glass and get it from the tap.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

ShopSmart: Hiding the Real Price of Magazine Subscriptions

For years, airlines, car rental agencies, and cell carriers have advertised eye-catching but incomplete prices. In a very calculated way, they leave out of the big print price certain fees, taxes, and other charges to make the advertised price seem lower than the price the consumer will actually pay.

This practice has now made its way into the publishing industry for some magazine subscriptions.

Here is a subscription card for ShopSmart;) magazine:

ShopSmart

Nowhere is the total price disclosed. Rather, you are made to do the math yourself — 6 issues times $3 an issue is $18. Right?

*MOUSE PRINT:

*PLUS $4.95 S/H

Shipping and handling is extra? For a magazine subscription?

Worse, what kind of sleazy publisher would pull this kind of stunt? The last one you would ever expect — Consumers Union — the publisher of Consumer Reports. Ironically, they are known for pointing out lapses like this on their Selling It page each month.

When questioned why the total price was not stated, and why they resorted to using a fine print disclosure to indicate that the advertised price was not the actual price customers would pay, a spokesperson emailed:

“Unlike many other publications, ShopSmart takes no ads and we need to depend upon revenue from newsstand sales and subscribers for this publication. Part of the reason that Consumers Union charges shipping and handling for ShopSmart is that it is a newer title with a relatively small circulation; it’s not afforded the economies of scale that benefit larger publications.

Our marketing team believes that the S+H notices listed elsewhere on the advertisement were both reasonable and appropriate.

As you know, we are a mission-driven, non-profit organization. Revenue from this product helps support our ongoing product testing and research.

Our hope is that potential subscribers will see the value of ShopSmart and that we will be able to reach, and inform, a new audience of savvy shoppers.”

Wow… sounds like the type of denial that an ordinary publisher might sling. Please don’t get me wrong. Consumers Union is a fine organization that has earned the public’s respect for decades for the invaluable services they provide. And ShopSmart;) is actually quite a good magazine with features of great value to many, particularly those interested in consumerism. What I do object to is this type of advertising tactic. They are the last organization in the world I would ever expect to engage in such a ploy.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

“Mouse Print” Could Strip Disney of Mickey

Old Mickey, LA TimesFor a change of pace this week, we look at “mouse print”, literally — the copyright notice used by the Walt Disney company to protect its most famous cartoon character, Mickey Mouse. It seems the company may have failed to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s in the early days, and that could thrust Mickey, or at least an early version of him, into the public domain.

As reported in the LA Times, here is how the story begins:

Disney’s Rights to Young Mickey Mouse May be Wrong

Film credits from the 1920s reveal imprecision in copyright claims that some experts say could invalidate Disney’s long-held copyright.

By Joseph Menn, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 22, 2008
He is the world’s most famous personality, better known in this country than anyone living or dead, real or fictional. Market researchers say his 97% recognition rate in the U.S. edges out even Santa Claus.

He is the one — and, for now, only — Mickey Mouse.

As Mickey turns 80 this fall, the most beloved rodent in show business is widely regarded as a national treasure. But he is owned lock, stock and trademark ears by the corporate heirs of his genius creator, Walt Disney.

Brand experts reckon his value to today’s Walt Disney Co. empire at more than $3 billion. Acts of Congress have extended Mickey’s copyright so long that they provoked a Supreme Court challenge, making Mickey the ultimate symbol of intellectual property.

All signs pointed to a Hollywood ending with Disney and Mickey Mouse living happily ever after — at least until a grumpy former employee looked closely at fine print long forgotten in company archives.

Please visit the LA Times to read the full story, lest Mouse Print* be guilty of copyright infringement.