Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The Great Flapjack Scandal at Sainsburys
The local Sainsbury is so full of BOGOFs (buy one get one free) and other, often specious, "OFFERS" that one could be forgiven for thinking you could come out of the store with more money than you went in with.
So much of their merchandising – AKA confusion marketing – seems aimed at disguising higher prices and frustrating price comparisons.
The best example of this I've seen is their flapjacks, near the far corner of the store. These used to be priced at £1 for six slices, in a plastic tray.
The company has managed to hold the price at £1 but, there's a big but: the contents are dramatically reduced. Where once there were six slices, now there are only three.
In effect, the price is nearly doubled.
In order to help disguise the extent of the value reduction, the three, slightly larger slices are now separated in a redesigned tray that features two ridges that space out the slices more widely. Less contents, more packaging, same price. Does this amount to deceit?
More generally, weights & measures (that aid price comparisons) on most products are as hard to find as ever, often in tiny print and/or are deeply hidden.
Tags for Forum Posts: Sainsburys, comparison, confusion, flapjacks, marketing, price
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rachella on
-
I agree with Hugh. Sites such as Harringay Online could not make newspapers redundant if they stuck to reporting newsworthy issues, doing the research and providing the information and insight that is not available to the "man on the street".
Also -- and this is the big question that started this whole discussion in my mind -- we, as readers rely on news sources to provide trustworthy information, because they have the resources and responsibility to fact-check stories with credible sources.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
OK, using the wonders of cached web pages, here's the deleted article:
Blog on Harringay OnLine about "deceit" in Sainsbury's causes a stir
1:10pm Wednesday 26th September 2012
A Stroud Green man’s blog posting about “deceitful” merchandising in Sainsbury’s is causing a stir online.
Since Clive Carter posted The Great Flapjack Scandal at Sainsbury’s blog on September 19 it has received nearly 15,000 hits.
In the post, which appears on Harringay OnLine, the unemployed man vents his frustrations about the “confusing marketing” in the Harringay Sainsbury’s which is in Williamson Road.
As an example, he highlights the case of the packets of flapjacks which used to cost £1 for six and are now £1 for three.
Mr Carter wrote: “The company has managed to hold the price at £1 but, there's a big but: the contents are dramatically reduced. Where once there were six slices, now there are only three.
“In effect, the price is nearly doubled.
“In order to help disguise the extent of the value reduction, the three, slightly larger slices are now separated in a redesigned tray that features two ridges that space out the slices more widely.
“Less contents, more packaging, same price. Does this amount to deceit?”
Not only has the post been viewed 14,967 times to date, it has also inspired a lot of people to comment.
For example, Pete has written: “All supermarkets are 'guilty' of manipulating us to buy more in one way or another.”
Mr Carter said: “This has always been a sore point with me.
“It is an illustration of the trickery the supermarkets get up to.
“I have long thought that the merchandising in Sainsbury’s is a bit fraudulent and deceitful.”
He added: “This post has been widely viewed by people because it is of interest during a recession, especially when food prices have gone up so much in the last 12 months.
“I think it will continue to get a lot of interest. I’m sure it will get past the 15,000 views mark today.”
The Haringey Independent is awaiting a comment from Sainsbury’s.
I'm still not clear on why they pulled it. Was it because they didn't want to upset Sainsbury's or because it was felt to be too much advertising for us?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Interesting, Hugh. Cache me if you can ;-)
I do hope the reason the Haringey Independent pulled the story was because they felt it was not newsworthy, as claimed, rather than for fear of upsetting Sainsburys.
I think the local print media has often feared the wrath of the council and big businesses who place ads with them.
If the reason that the Haringey Independent pulled it, was to avoid losing advertising revenue, it puts a question mark alongside the second part of their name.
It would also speak to the overweening power that the giant supermarket chains enjoy. It also points to the value and independence of this forum for the exchange of views and information.
-
Permalink Reply by aidan on
-
I suspect they didn't want to end up the latest target of those who enjoy ridiculing absurdly trivial local news stories.. see e.g. http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Whitstable-mum-custard-shortage/story-1... with its 200+ comments after it went viral.
-
-
And actually 'deceit' is a strong allegation to be levelling -- the kind you can get away with on HoL but that someone might entirely reasonably ask their lawyers to take a view on if they were approached with such an allegation by a newspaper.
-
-
hob, I was going to make the same point.
I do not suggest that this company has broken the law – I am unable to say or imply this company has broken the law – because sadly, they have not. This itself is a pity, and if aidan read the thread carefully, he would see that this is part of the case I make.
What Sainsburys and others do in this area IMO, ought to be a breach of trading standards legislation. These rules are weak.
Also, the notion that Sainsbury's might wish to risk bringing further attention to their questionable marketing tactics, in order to establish the extent of deceit in their pricing practices, is itself dubious. Is it very slightly deceitful or full-bodied deceit?
You be the judge!
-
-
i'm not making a judgement on what you wrote, i was just saying it could have been an extra issue for the paper to consider. it's interesting that they didn't yet have a comment from Sainsbury's. Sainsbury's response may well have been that you can't reasonably run an accusation of deceit against us without proving that we have endeavoured to be dishonest.
turning it into a question wouldn't make much difference in defamation terms. the defence would be that this is 'fair comment', but dishonesty, which is what someone could well construe from the term 'deceit' (though perhaps you meant it more in the sense of being wily or cunning) tends to be considered a serious allegation.
-
Permalink Reply by hob on
-
This is not turning something into a question....it is a question and very innocent. Thankfully the law isn't that bad yet.
-
-
-
you're simply wrong I'm afraid. the law clearly allows for innuendo to constitute defamation.
-
-
-
How come John Terry was not convicted in a court of law ? His defence was that he said what he said as a question.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
