Labeling Idiocy

[Nowhere Man]

I bought a 6-pack of C-cell batteries today. Cheap at the price, the store brand was a couple of bucks cheaper that a 4-pack of Energizers. I just noticed the following note on the label:

2 MORE
BATTERIES!
than other leading
brands 4 packs

Masters of the obvious, I tell you.

Fred

[hhEb09'1]

Is this a test? Can I use a calculator?

[novaderrik]

they do that on cereal boxes, too..
on top of, say, a 20oz box of something they will put a banner that says something to the effect of "25% more than the normal 16oz box". the price is almost always a bit higher than the 16oz box, so it's not like you are getting much of anything free. but they know that consumers are conditioned to the banner at the top of the box meaning that they are getting a deal that they are more likely to buy it over another brand without a "25% more" banner across the top.

[NickW]

That is why I shop at price per ounce/pound/whatever......

[Swift]

Sorry Nowhere Man, but you got ripped off. That package has four less batteries than a ten pack and (this will really surprise you) six less batteries than a twelve pack! :eek:

[Tobin Dax]

Sorry Nowhere Man, but you got ripped off. That package has four less batteries than a ten pack and (this will really surprise you) six less batteries than a twelve pack! :eek:
But it has four more batteries that two pack. That's a deal! :clap:

[Studioguy]

And it has an infinite increase of batteries over zero. You can't even quantify that with a price!

[Fazor]

Now if only the pack had a note that said "Warning! Do not attempt to use all six batteries in devices that require less than four batteries! Attempting to do so could cause damage to the device!" it could go in the Fun and Games thread.

[Buttercup]

That's strange. :( It seems the standard approach would be "An extra 2 - FREE!" Or something similar.

[Swift]

That's strange. :( It seems the standard approach would be "An extra 2 - FREE!" Or something similar.
Six batteries for the price of four plus 50%.

[Trebuchet]

The inside back cover of Consumer Reports has a collection of stuff like this every month, under the heading "Selling It". This month they have one for a sleep aid, with a blurb "Non-Drowsy Formula!"

[Delvo]

Where I work, a "12+4" pack really is the same price as a 12-pack and less than a 16-pack. It even has the 12-pack's ID number (SKU, bar code). The stickers on the pegs they hang on are the same except for one of them having "12+4" where the other has "12".

Sometimes the two get mixed on the same peg together as if completely interchangible, but that could just be due to the fact that whoever stocks the batteries tends to put things in the wrong places anyway.

[chrissy]

I bought 8 batteries for the price of 4 the other day, so they tell me. ;) Don't want to name names of the brand but the copper coloured top is a dead give away. :D They were quite cheap for a change.

I don't like going for the shops own brands because they don't last as long and half the time they are dead. :(

[DonM435]

Wouldn't some physicists/chemists/electricians argue that a pack of chemical cells constitutes a single battery? What does that do to the pricing claim?

[peteshimmon]

I hope you cynical lot realise that all that
labeling information is completely free!
And look out for special indicators in front
of the £ and $ signs. The "only" tells you
it is an insignificant price. The "just" tells
the same for more discerning people. If you
see "from" walk away slowly.

[Gillianren]

Heh. I got spam in my junk folder the other day that was actually labeled "spam."

[Weird Dave]

For a very long time I had trouble parsing phrases like, "25% Extra Free!" I had not idea how "Extra Free!" was better than just free.

Use commas, people!

[AndreasJ]

I've resolved to be happy about idiotic marketing. I mean, if they had any discernable competence, they might succeed in getting me to buy something I didn't really want.

[Ronald Brak]

"Trade two get one free." But it isn't free, you have to trade two for it! You killed my father, prepare to die! No wait, that's not it... Ah, I have it! I don't think that word means what you think it does.

[Paul Beardsley]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was about labelling different kinds of idiocy. For example, "Natural Idiot" or "Quite bright generally but idiotic in a fairly narrow range of topics" or "Idiotic but harmless" versus "Dangerously idiotic" or...

You get the idea.

[nauthiz]

I've resolved to be happy about idiotic marketing. I mean, if they had any discernable competence, they might succeed in getting me to buy something I didn't really want.

I think this is really an example of smart marketing. It's probably a lot harder to trick people who read the fine print and think even a little bit analytically, so worrying about what they think would just be a waste of energy.

[Swift]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was about labelling different kinds of idiocy. For example, "Natural Idiot" or "Quite bright generally but idiotic in a fairly narrow range of topics" or "Idiotic but harmless" versus "Dangerously idiotic" or...

You get the idea.
Maybe like this (http://www.coolfunnyshirts.com/ImageBank/ThumbCautionIdiotsAheadW.png)? :D

[Demigrog]

I was at the grocery store last night and noticed that the store brand soda was on sale...

"20 for $10"


I thought that was just silly unless you actually have to buy 20 to get that price (you don't). The kicker was the small print under the price:

"Limit 6 per customer"

:lol:

Not that I'm complaining, as $0.50 per two liter is a great price these days.

[Gillianren]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was about labelling different kinds of idiocy. For example, "Natural Idiot" or "Quite bright generally but idiotic in a fairly narrow range of topics" or "Idiotic but harmless" versus "Dangerously idiotic" or...

You get the idea.

I still think that every time I see it.

[trinitree88]

Wasn't that stuff thought up by the other Marx brothers?......................................... ..........Bidiot & Jimbecile?

[samkent]

The best/worst label I have seen was on an auto fan belt.

Warning stop engine before replacing belt.

[eric_marsh]

I think you are all looking at it wrong. The guys who wrote the labels are not the idiots, the idiots are the consuming public. The guys who write the labels are smart. By making it appear that there is a difference between their products and those of the competition when there is none, they are sucking people into buying their product instead of the other guy's products.

As for the label indicating that one should shut an engine off before trying to replace a fan belt? QED - it's just proof that they are selling to marching morons.

[Fazor]

These mints I have say "30% fewer calories than sugared mints. Calories per 2.3 gram serving reduced from 9 to 6." (Yes, all on one continuous line, i.e. not two separate parts of the label).

Okay, I'm not that picky; 30% is an acceptable approximation of 1/3. But, since the real percent is %33.3~, wouldn't it look better if they said "33% fewer calories." ? I mean, they're kinda cheating themselves.

[AndreasJ]

I think you are all looking at it wrong. The guys who wrote the labels are not the idiots, the idiots are the consuming public. The guys who write the labels are smart. By making it appear that there is a difference between their products and those of the competition when there is none, they are sucking people into buying their product instead of the other guy's products.
If I write an idiotic label to impress idiots that doesn't make me an idiot, but my label is nevertheless idiotic.

[SeanF]

These mints I have say "30% fewer calories than sugared mints. Calories per 2.3 gram serving reduced from 9 to 6." (Yes, all on one continuous line, i.e. not two separate parts of the label).

Okay, I'm not that picky; 30% is an acceptable approximation of 1/3. But, since the real percent is %33.3~, wouldn't it look better if they said "33% fewer calories." ? I mean, they're kinda cheating themselves.
Maybe the 9 and 6 are themselves approximations, and the actual difference is closer to 30%. :D

[tdvance]

I've resolved to be happy about idiotic marketing. I mean, if they had any discernable competence, they might succeed in getting me to buy something I didn't really want.

but you have to drink pepsi since it's for a new generation...or coke because it is "always" :)

[Fazor]

Maybe the 9 and 6 are themselves approximations, and the actual difference is closer to 30%. :D

I kinda assume they're all approximations (how often does real-world math work out to nice, neat numbers?). But if you can get away with giving yourself an extra 3% selling point, why not?

[eric_marsh]

If I write an idiotic label to impress idiots that doesn't make me an idiot, but my label is nevertheless idiotic.

But if the label is deliberately made to appear idiotic as a clever psychological ploy it may well not be idiotic after all.

[Ara Pacis]

I kinda assume they're all approximations (how often does real-world math work out to nice, neat numbers?). But if you can get away with giving yourself an extra 3% selling point, why not?

Have you ever looked at a tombstone? Most people automatically try to do the arithmatic in their head to figure out how old someone was and compare themselves to that. That is probably true in the case of advertising numbers. People often do calculations as a matter of course. 33% is more specific than 30%, thus it seems more specific and significant. You remember Significant Figures (Sig-Figs) from science classes, right? If you use 33% people will do one of two things; they will either try to do the math in their head and get a headache because of the specificity of the unrounded numbers (which turns them off of the product), or; they will actually do the math in their head and get suspicious because of the unnecessary specificity when they could round to 30%.

As for the the title of "Labelling Idiocy", I recall a comedy bit that always ends with "...here's your sign."

[Gillianren]

Then there's the ever-popular "one-third," which sounds more impressive for some reason.

[Tog_]

I collect things like this, when I can. I once bought a pair of cheap toy handcuffs from a dollar store because of the package text:
"Safe and fun. Just like the real thing!"

I've got a ticket to a business seminar that I found on the floor that reads:
"Success Workshop. 7 PM. August 31th."

I saved an instruction sheet for a display rack. The rack was fully assembled and the instruction sheet had a picture of the rack and said the box contained the rack, and the instruction sheet.

An invoice I got one time for Valentine's Day balloons read:
"1 Doz. Happy VD"

For a while Purina One Dog food came in three varieties. Beef, Lamb and Rice, and Puppy Formula. The first two make me think those are the ingredients, which makes that last one kinda creepy.

We had 150 watt light bulbs "with anti-glare coating to reduce eye strain".

[Ara Pacis]

I dunno about you, but the last one makes a modicum of sense to me.

[Tog_]

It was the fact that they were 150 watt bulbs that struck me as funny. If eye strain were a concern, there were lower wattages.

[Swift]

For a while Purina One Dog food came in three varieties. Beef, Lamb and Rice, and Puppy Formula. The first two make me think those are the ingredients, which makes that last one kinda creepy.

Whatever you do, do not buy Girl Scout Cookies! :sick:

[SeanF]

I kinda assume they're all approximations (how often does real-world math work out to nice, neat numbers?). But if you can get away with giving yourself an extra 3% selling point, why not?
What makes you think they could "get away with it"? I would think you'd be tempting a false advertising claim by advertising a reduction from 8.8 to 6.2 as 33%, even if you can round the first two numbers to 9 and 6.

That being said, the label as written is confusing, if nothing else. :)

[Fazor]

What makes you think they could "get away with it"? I would think you'd be tempting a false advertising claim by advertising a reduction from 8.8 to 6.2 as 33%, even if you can round the first two numbers to 9 and 6.

That being said, the label as written is confusing, if nothing else. :)

I don't think, even with your numbers, false advertising would be a threat. I don't know how those laws read (geonuc?) but it lists the sugar content in the nutritional info, and just says that it's lower than "sugared mints", so it's not making claims against any one specific product.

But I don't think it's particularly stupid labeling. Just something caught my eye. If anything, the extra bit of information was unnecessary.

. . . hold your horses. I just noticed this.

If you recall, the line read as thus:
"30% fewer calories than sugared mints. Calories per 2.3 gram serving reduced from 9 to 6."

. . . but in the Nutrition Facts label, it says "Serving Size: 2.3 grams. Calories per serving: 5"

... there's a lot of estimation going on, it appears. :)

[HenrikOlsen]

I collect things like this, when I can. I once bought a pair of cheap toy handcuffs from a dollar store because of the package text:
"Safe and fun. Just like the real thing!"
I'm reminded of a pair of dice, for adult play (one told what to do, the other what body part to do it to), labeled "Not for children under 6", naturally because of the small parts choking hazard, but it gives rather nasty associations:mad:

[Trebuchet]

For a while Purina One Dog food came in three varieties. Beef, Lamb and Rice, and Puppy Formula. The first two make me think those are the ingredients, which makes that last one kinda creepy.


On a current TV commercial for a vocational school:
"I love animals, so I might become a veterinarian. Or a chef..."

[Tog_]

On a current TV commercial for a vocational school:
"I love animals, so I might become a veterinarian. Or a chef..."

I think I've seen that one. That dice thing funny but in a really creepy not really all that funny sort of way. Sort of surface funny.

There was a billboard around here advertising an "Exotic animal petting zoo and BBQ". It worked, we went. We won't ever go again though.

[Fazor]

There was a billboard around here advertising an "Exotic animal petting zoo and BBQ". It worked, we went. We won't ever go again though.

Koala burgers not really your thing?

[Tog_]

Koala burgers not really your thing?
Ever tried "all natural whole grain" pie crust?

The salad was great but there were oats in the pie crust (which was sort of green, but on purpose) and the meat was claimed as beef, but not very good.

Their "Exotic" animals were wildebeast, African antelope, and the world's most pregnant zebra. We asked when it was due and the woman that sold us the tickets looked genuinely surprised that it was still pregnant. Poor thing was about three zebras wide. Looked like it was having a conjoined Clydesdales. It did add the term "zebra-pregnant" to our vocabulary though. It's a term we now use for any woman that appears to be around 23 months along.

Also the place was in the middle of nowhere and run by a cult. Good times.:shifty:

[Fazor]

Also the place was in the middle of nowhere and run by a cult. Good times.:shifty:

...so, no koala burgers? I would have demanded my money back.

;) It's always unfortunate when things that sound like they'll be fun and/or interesting turn out to be a bust.

[Gillianren]

Also the place was in the middle of nowhere and run by a cult. Good times.:shifty:

So if the Ramtha people had a petting zoo. Check.

[DonM435]

...
I've got a ticket to a business seminar that I found on the floor that reads:
"Success Workshop. 7 PM. August 31th."
...


That's like "Psychic Convention postponed due to unforseen circumstances."

[DonM435]

There was a sign I saw once in Cocoa Beach FL . . .

OPTIMIST CLUB
PARKING LOT

PARK AT YOUR OWN RISK

[SeanF]

These mints I have say "30% fewer calories than sugared mints. Calories per 2.3 gram serving reduced from 9 to 6." (Yes, all on one continuous line, i.e. not two separate parts of the label).

Okay, I'm not that picky; 30% is an acceptable approximation of 1/3. But, since the real percent is %33.3~, wouldn't it look better if they said "33% fewer calories." ? I mean, they're kinda cheating themselves.
Fazor, I thought of you last night when I noticed the box of Band-Aids had big letters on it reading "30% More!"

Alas, they had increased the quantity in the box from 20 to 26, which is exactly 30% more. :)

[DonM435]

When I moved to Florida, some 20-odd years ago, I at once became aware of their numerous Special Interest car license plates. You could pay an additional fee, and instead of generic green-and-orange, you could get plates that showed some affiliation or supported some cause (part of the addional fee was donated).

It's standard to have three letters followed by three numbers. I noted that the plates emblazoned "SUPPORT EDUCATION" invariably began with "ABD." I found this odd. those of you in the business of higher education must know that "ABD" qualified as almost a dirty word. It stands for "All But Dissertation," and is used as a facetious degree (e.g., B.A., M.S., A.B.D.) for students who complete all of the doctoral requirements, but never complete the dissertation. (Like yours truly, for instance.)

Putting ABD on the "education" plates is rather like putting "DUI" on the Mothers Against Drunk Driving plates.

(What probably happened is that the early "education" plates began "ABC 001," given to some distinguished teacher or eraly benefactor, then ABC 002, ABC 003 and so on. After ABC 999, they just kicked up the third letter without thinking very much about it, and we were now in the golden age of the ABDs.)

[mugaliens]

I have embarked on a "min-living cost spree." Put simply, I'm trying to spend as little money as possible. So far, I've managed to cut my monthly outflow in about half!

Next to go is my Internet conne

[NEOWatcher]

Now here's a story that needs a whole lot more explaining.

Garbarge Cans Removed From Parks (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/19834666/detail.html)
Ohio Parks Eliminate Trash Pickups

Here's probably the most naive quote that I've heard yet.

Carr says park visitors must learn to change their habits.

That's what you call "wishful thinking".

Let's see, we pay thier salary so that they can be (in thier words (http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/10748/Default.aspx))
dedicated to developing and implementing policies that will have far-reaching impact on the environment and our natural resources.
Well; that kind of policy will certainly have a far-reaching impact on the environment.

To top it off, these are the same people who give grants to others for (http://ohiodnr.com/Default.aspx?TabId=20984) litter cleanup projects.

[Fazor]

Um . . . wow. I particularly love this tidbit:
Regional manager Tim Carr says Caesar Creek and other southwest Ohio parks will save an estimated $5,000 per year in trash-hauling costs that they can use for vehicle fuel and other basics.
$5k each? Or total for all southwest Ohio parks? If the later, that hardly seems like enough savings to warrant the likely increase in litter and pet "droppings" left behind.

Unless the plan is to increase revenue by removing trash-cans, then increasing efforts to find and ticket those who litter.

[NEOWatcher]

$5k each? Or total for all southwest Ohio parks?
Yep, I had that question too. But even if it were half of all the Ohio parks (not just the SW ones) it's still less than the amount they gave away last year to people who should take care of thier own litter control.

Unless the plan is to increase revenue by removing trash-cans, then increasing efforts to find and ticket those who litter.
That would be my guess, but this has been in affect for about a month, and there's no mention of any kind of enforcement.

[Perikles]

I like the labels on packets of nuts which state: 'warning - this product contains nuts'

[Perikles]

I also like the label on a packet of table salt which I have here which says: "60% less Sodium". I never was much good at chemistry, and this is baffling.

ETA: I've just noticed the words added at the bottom of the packet: "ideal for diets low in sodium"

[HenrikOlsen]

Could be it's 60% potassium chloride. Or sand.

[mugaliens]

Then there's the ever-popular "one-third," which sounds more impressive for some reason.

I suspect "one-third" is used so often as 34.1% of the standard distribution's area is contained to each side of the mean. Thus, there's a 68.2% probability that events adhering to a standard distribution will fall within the first sigma (one standard deviation from the mean). For 2 sigmas, it's 95.4%, for 3 it's 99.7%, and for 6 sigmas it's 99.9999998027%.

[closetgeek]

I've resolved to be happy about idiotic marketing. I mean, if they had any discernable competence, they might succeed in getting me to buy something I didn't really want.

This may disappoint Gillianren but for me, all they have to do is color it pink. I am sorry I give women a bad name but I am drawn to pink like a moth to a flame.

[Tobin Dax]

This may disappoint Gillianren but for me, all they have to do is color it pink. I am sorry I give women a bad name but I am drawn to pink like a moth to a flame.
Well, there's a reason that I have a blue car.* (Okay, it was that or white, but I was thrilled that a blue one was on the lot.) For some people and some products, the color is an important choice. Limiting color based on a stereotype is a bad marketing decision, though.

*Orange was tempting, but I decided against that model and the shade was a bit ugly.

[NEOWatcher]

Well, there's a reason that I have a blue car.*(Okay, it was that or white, but I was thrilled that a blue one was on the lot.)
And I wanted the blue, but chose the taupe because it was the same color as the film of dust on the new cars that day from the nearby construction.
Anyway...
For some people and some products, the color is an important choice. Limiting color based on a stereotype is a bad marketing decision, though.
I agree, because even though it may be an important choice, or a deciding factor, it's probably rarely the major factor.
*Orange was tempting, but I decided against that model and the shade was a bit ugly.
I had 2 orange cars in my life.