Posts

Comments

Get Posts by E-mail

Truth In Advertising

This is my favorite brand of pita chip — no contest. I lose myself for hours staring at the bag. It’s like, “Wait. What? You’re telling me eight is 33% more than six? Bigger bags have more chips?!

Stacy, honey, if you’re gonna play this game, you need to play to win:

2011 May 01: Pwolf submits another entry.

20 Responses to “Truth In Advertising”

  1. on 26 Apr 2011 at 10:08 pmJazo

    Math things that made my day #2. #1 being a star wars themed integral worksheet being corrected for star wars errors.

  2. on 27 Apr 2011 at 12:03 amTyler Breisacher

    Right up there with http://consumerist.com/2011/04/campbells-soup-sued-over-sodium-claims.html (Campbell’s “Regular” And “25% Less Sodium” Tomato Soup Both Contain 480mg Of Sodium)

  3. on 27 Apr 2011 at 5:32 amRichard Dyer

    I find “92% fat free” more bizarre. As if 8% fat means it’s a healthy option.

  4. on 27 Apr 2011 at 9:09 amAaron B.

    Has anyone compared them (Stacy’s to the competitor)? Are they the same price?

  5. on 27 Apr 2011 at 3:44 pmNatalie Sprigg

    Good point Aaron, exactly what I was wondering. Maybe a good investigation for kids! There seem to be all sorts of consumer math questions in the “truth in advertising” sector! My students are working on a Geometry project to maximize volume and minimize surface area for a soda can. It could be a lot of fun to have them meet after the other groups present and ask, “What ad (involving math) could you come up with that would be both ACCURATE and HONEST while still making your product look better?”

  6. on 28 Apr 2011 at 4:21 amChristopher Danielson

    So the other chips must have 25% fewer calories, right?

  7. on 28 Apr 2011 at 8:52 amBrian

    Thanks, Dan. I used this today as an intro to percent change.

  8. on 28 Apr 2011 at 9:27 amMichael

    @ Jazo:
    You cannot just throw out there that you have a Star Wars themed integral worksheet. I need to see that!

  9. on 29 Apr 2011 at 7:57 amPwolf

    So I have a bag of 9 oz pita chips at the house that reads “55% more for the price of 6 oz.”

  10. on 29 Apr 2011 at 8:12 amDan Meyer

    @Pwolf, scan that thing!

  11. on 02 May 2011 at 5:25 amRandy

    On a slightly different note. It amazes me when I go to the grocery, like this morning to get sugar, that the idea of Larger no longer means Cheaper by the pound/ounce. For the same brand the 4 lb bag was $2.22 and the 10 lb bag was $5.45. And to tell you the truth the homemade pancake syrup with the 4 pound bag tasted just fine.

  12. on 02 May 2011 at 9:28 amR. Wright

    Randy: The 10-pound bag in your example is cheaper per pound, isn’t it? But I know what you’re talking about — I’ve been troubled for the past few years by the fact that many products are the same price, or even more, per ounce in larger sizes than in smaller ones. How on Earth can this make any sense at all? I chalk it up to a growing public innumeracy.

  13. on 03 May 2011 at 6:27 amEd

    Pwolf, Much as I hate to admit it, they’re truthful in that case…

  14. on 03 May 2011 at 7:26 amPwolf

    I was actually submitting that one because I was genuinely confused by the wording. 9 ounces at the price of 6?

  15. on 03 May 2011 at 9:15 amMidwest Bob

    Maybe I am missing something. Math is correct, advertising is poor??? I worked it as a percent of change, hence the fine print.

  16. on 03 May 2011 at 9:38 amDan Meyer
    Midwest Bob: Maybe I am missing something. Math is correct, advertising is poor???

    Right. They’re only implying something that Pwolf’s bag makes explicit.

  17. on 03 May 2011 at 9:50 amMidwest Bob

    Thanks! I’m not the brightest bulb in the box, but wanted to be sure I wasn’t missing something. I’m the guy in the room that over thinks things.

  18. on 03 May 2011 at 10:14 amPWolf

    The copier is on the fritz, but the back of the bag boasts that Athenos has 50% less fat than their leading competitors.*

    *Who sell potato chips.

  19. on 03 May 2011 at 1:39 pmRandy

    R Wright, well that just shows bad typing skills on my part. The price was $5.85 for the 10 pound bag. Oh well, at least you understood what I was trying to point out, regardless of my keyboard input.

  20. on 10 May 2011 at 12:47 pmNumbat

    @RWright. Often it’s a volume of sales thing. It’s almost a natural thing here that a 1.25L coke is half the price of a 2L coke.