Why have Walkers Crisps got away with scamming everyone for years??

1567911

Comments

  • JethroUKJethroUK Posts: 6,106
    Forum Member
    When you ***prove*** this statement to be correct

    You can't give me ***one** single example - i rest my case and should it be there for all to find in the the bowels of google forever!
    Is there something wrong with your keyboard?...

    ditto - not ***one*** single tangible reason


    you're both out

    .
  • chattamanukchattamanuk Posts: 3,397
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JethroUK wrote: »
    Not everyone - but overwhelming majority are not aware that multi-packs are smaller than std packs - That's a fact!!

    without which Walkers would not be able to use this particular scam

    You could argue that the packets are stamped, and buyers should be more vigilant - but to argue they **are** aware shows your ignorance

    People buy crisps by "the bag", always have done, always will do - hence why Walkers prefer to perpetuate 'the bag' in multi-packs


    Still waiting for you to prove the highlighted section.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 405
    Forum Member
    Walkers have apparently sold multibags containing individual packs weighing only 25g to enough customers that they have allegedly generated large amounts of profit.

    Using the OP's logic that 'defines' the multibag as containing smaller than standard packs.

    So everything is ok - we don't have to worry about cost per gram, a 'bag' has been defined, we can all be happy ;) :rolleyes:
  • JethroUKJethroUK Posts: 6,106
    Forum Member
    in court, a contract has to be 'transparently' clear - irrespective of any 'small print' - there has to be evidence of a 'meeting of the minds' to ensure both parties are 'transparently' clear about what is being sold - the onus is on the seller to make sure the buyer *knows* what they are buying

    the reasons for this *should* be obvious (although i fear it wont be to some) - it's because it is inherently *wrong* to mis-sell

    hence Tesco were forced to withdraw lot of their breakfast cereal, just because they used the same colour scheme as famous brand, and as such the customer 'might' buy Tesco cereal 'beleiving' they had bought a familiar brand

    this is all despite the fact it says "TESCO" right on front of box

    If customer took Walkers to court over selling smaller bags of crisps then they thought they were buying - walkers would have to prove to judges satisfaction that the customer clearly understood what they buying

    Walkers would not have a snowball in hell - the 'bags' are too similar to be 'distinct' - in fact they prolly even same size just filled differently

    of course this wont happen - because nobody takes 'a bag' of crisps into court - but that wont make it any less wrong
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 365
    Forum Member
    This really is the most ludicrous thread I have ever had the misfortune of reading. And I've read some tripe!

    Crisps are crisps. They cost what they cost. It's time to move on. Try concerning yourself with more important matters.....Like the fact that Wham Bars are smaller than they used to be.

    Now thats something to get worked up about! :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,916
    Forum Member
    JethroUK wrote: »
    of course this wont happen - because nobody takes 'a bag' of crisps into court - but that wont make it any less wrong

    Let's see you take Walkers to court then.

    Come on, put your money where your mouth is !
  • liquidJPliquidJP Posts: 1,999
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm loving it
    Crisp-Gate!! - The saga continues
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 405
    Forum Member
    JethroUK wrote: »

    If customer took Walkers to court over selling smaller bags of crisps then they thought they were buying - walkers would have to prove to judges satisfaction that the customer clearly understood what they buying

    Walkers would not have a snowball in hell - the 'bags' are too similar to be 'distinct' - in fact they prolly even same size just filled differently

    Guess what, this is why the weight of the bags is printed on the pack.

    e.g 6x25g on a multipack & 34.5g on a single pack

    Is 'probably' the same size the best you can do? - don't you know? - can you really not tell the difference between a multipack & a single pack? (Clue - the multipack is the one with more than one bag in ....)
  • jojo01jojo01 Posts: 12,370
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'd stop replying to this thread peeps (yes, I see the irony :p) - OP won't listen to reason, and this shouty thread is getting in the way of all the usual food loveliness. :)
  • JethroUKJethroUK Posts: 6,106
    Forum Member
    home_alone wrote: »
    Guess what, this is why the weight of the bags is printed on the pack... ....)

    Irrelevant - read em and weep:
    JethroUK wrote: »
    ...Tesco were forced to withdraw lot of their breakfast cereal, just because they used the same colour scheme as famous brand, and as such the customer 'might' buy Tesco cereal 'beleiving' they had bought a familiar brand

    this is all despite the fact it says "TESCO" right on front of box

    like i say - you're done already

    .
  • JethroUKJethroUK Posts: 6,106
    Forum Member
    jojo01 wrote: »
    .. OP won't listen to reason...

    you mean the OP wont listen to under-educated garbage spouters

    although i can't imagine why :rolleyes:

    .
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 405
    Forum Member
    JethroUK wrote: »
    Irrelevant - read em and weep:



    like i say - you're done already

    .

    Please explain why printing the weight on the packs doesn't make the customer aware of what they are buying.

    Please explain how it is possible for someone to be not aware that a big bag containing many smaller bags is different from buying a single bag.

    Please explain how a big bag containing many smaller bags is 'too similar to be distinct' from a single bag.

    - the irrelevance is you introducing the concept of similar designs for similar products - multipacks are not similar to single packs.

    Do try to stick to the point of the thread - especially as it was you that started it ....
  • werdna67werdna67 Posts: 496
    Forum Member
    mirabelle wrote: »
    hasn;t everything got smaller but for the same price or more money. There really are more important things to worry about. And if its such a problem for you why not just write to Walkers and see what they say... and I;m out of this thread phew

    I used to always say that Wagon Wheels had got smaller than when I was young. My dad said that when I used to eat them my hands were smaller & they were the same size.:o
  • werdna67werdna67 Posts: 496
    Forum Member
    Forget this scam, the worst thing about Walkers is that they have the wrong coloured bags for Cheese & Onion and Salt & Vinegar crisps. They're the wrong way around.:confused:
  • JethroUKJethroUK Posts: 6,106
    Forum Member
    home_alone wrote: »
    Please explain why printing the weight on the packs doesn't make the customer aware of what they are buying.

    Same reason printing "TESCO" in ***huge**** writing doesn't make them aware they're buying TESCO cereals

    if you dont 'get it' - i cant help it

    but we'll just have to accept that *you* dont understand

    .
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 405
    Forum Member
    JethroUK wrote: »
    Same reason printing "TESCO" in ***huge**** writing doesn't make them aware they're buying TESCO cereals

    if you dont 'get it' - i cant help it

    but we'll just have to accept that *you* dont understand

    .

    You raised the question of the customer taking Walkers to court in respect of the customer understanding what they were buying.

    The weight declaration on the packs is governed by legislation - and would be dealt with by the court on that basis. (finding in favour of Walkers complying with legislation)

    Your assertion regarding similar designs being misleading is irrelevant, because multipacks are not similar to individual packs.

    If you want to discuss similar designs, then start another thread - multipacks are not similar to individual packs, so this isn't germane to the discussion.
  • CornucopiaCornucopia Posts: 19,440
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Rossall wrote: »
    No, you see those are standard bags, so at 29p each, they are more expensive than multi-pack bags, which are about 19p each.

    I think that the OP wants a multi-pack at the same price they are now, but with standard bags in it. Something that simply isn't going to happen.

    BTW - How did the cereal issue get raised - was it the brand leader complaining, by any chance?
  • CornucopiaCornucopia Posts: 19,440
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    werdna67 wrote: »
    Forget this scam, the worst thing about Walkers is that they have the wrong coloured bags for Cheese & Onion and Salt & Vinegar crisps. They're the wrong way around.:confused:
    I *still* find that annoying. Years of going by Smiths & Golden Wonder colours, I guess.
  • chattamanukchattamanuk Posts: 3,397
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There is really no point in continuing this thread. The OP is a WUM.

    They have not provided any evidence to back up their original accusations. They have made outrageous statements saying the Walkers are giving backhanders to 'Weights and Measures' to ensure that they are not investigated. They also say that Walkers earn an extra £75million profit on multipacks alone (not any other products) and tell us that the majority of people who buy multipacks are not aware that they are smaller bags (this seems even more ridiculous, being that the majority of people on this thread have said that they know exactly what they are buying and eating).

    They have not even contacted Walkers to ask them to respond to the accusations. They have not contacted Trading Standards to complain about this either.

    They continue with their short sighted campaign and either ignore requests for evidence to back up their story or simply misquote other posters whilst telling people that they because their view is not the same as the OP then they must be in the wrong.

    Bearing in mind that the OP did not even know the weight of a bag of Walkers crisps, yet they tell you that Walkers have 'defined' what the weight of a bag of crisps is.

    In addition, their 'interesting' way of highlighting a word by adding **'s instead of using the bold or italic facility and by writing FACT, even when they have not been able to prove their statement shows poor form.

    Their inability to accept another persons argument only highlights why we should not listen to any further nonsense from them.
  • whoever,heywhoever,hey Posts: 30,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JethroUK wrote: »
    Same reason printing "TESCO" in ***huge**** writing doesn't make them aware they're buying TESCO cereals

    if you dont 'get it' - i cant help it

    but we'll just have to accept that *you* dont understand

    .

    If you dont get it you must be thick. Thats all i can think off tbh.
  • JethroUKJethroUK Posts: 6,106
    Forum Member
    home_alone wrote: »
    .. multipacks are not similar to individual packs.

    no - they're ****identical***

    unlike TESCO cereal where only similarity was colour scheme

    ergo if TESCO cereal were outlawed as 'misleading' customer - Walkers 'short-fill' bag are ***definitely*** misleading

    the onus would be on manufacturer to prove they're not misleading the customer

    if you dont get it, i cant help it

    you need to take on board what's already been discussed

    you're out anyway

    .
  • JethroUKJethroUK Posts: 6,106
    Forum Member
    Cornucopia wrote: »
    ..I think that the OP wants a multi-pack at the same price they are now...

    if that's what you *think*, then you dont understand the thread

    so i wont be discussing this with you

    .
  • JethroUKJethroUK Posts: 6,106
    Forum Member
    .. why we should not listen to any further nonsense from them.

    You're already out anyway

    .
  • JethroUKJethroUK Posts: 6,106
    Forum Member
    If you dont get it you must be thick.

    throwing insults is against DS posting policy - hence i dont
    ..Thats all i can think off tbh.


    why doesn't that suprise me :rolleyes:

    tbh all poster are struggling to string something coherent together - but just feel like they should post *something*, any garbage will do, and then they wonder why i poop on it

    .
Sign In or Register to comment.