How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
In the wheat is evil thread, I recently shared my frustrations concerning the labeling of packages of laundry soap. Specifically, the fact that they all seem to be emblazoned with claims such as "25% MORE LOADS than 72 loads." I even posted some pictures, and yet I'm convinced that some people didn't quite appreciate the point that I was driving towards. One comment in particular stuck out:
Joe - Did you compare "serving size" on that laundry detergent? That is, some of the more concentrated formulas require much less to be used per load of laundry. Comparing concentrated vs non-concentrated would skew the numbers quite a bit.
Dafuq? I very specifically pointed out an example of a soap which was claiming to handle more "loads" than a soap which handled fewer "loads." How much more rudimentary can you get?
Yes, I know that 90 is more than 72. I don't need the marketing department to tell me that- we covered it in the first grade.
In general, it is the unspoken intention of every communication between intelligent creatures that the sum total of all knowledge be increased. For instance, if I were to say to you "my girlfriend has a *stunning* ***," I have become no poorer in knowledge for this, and you have gained a richer appreciation for the magnitude of my GF's *** or, perhaps even more importantly, for the quality of my own judgement concerning the spectacularity of asses in general.
I posit, in fact, that the opposite is true insofar as the specific matter of laundry soap advertising is concerned.
The fact that such absurdly obvious statements are being made is, in fact, having the effect of decreasing the sum total of all. knowledge. On reading such an asinine statement, I am forced to devote considerable mental faculties to analyzing it. (Did I mis-interpret this? Am I missing some piece of context which is intuitively obvious to others? Is the person making this statement a complete moron, or do they assume that everyone else is?) And it is this thought which consumes my mind, to the exclusion of other, more profitable lines of reasoning.
In other words, laundry soap packaging has an extremely high opportunity cost.
I simply cannot understand this phenomenon. I mean, we don't see car adverts which claim "30% BETTER MPG than a car with 30% poorer MPG," do we? Of course not. Automakers, for all of their failings, seem to recognize the fact that the majority of their customers are at least fundamentally literate and capable of processing basic mathematical concepts at a level at least equivalent to that of a slightly retarded 10 year old child.
We use terms such as "dumbfounded" and "speechless" rather too freely sometimes, and yet I can think of no more apt description of the state of my thoughts having seen such advertising. Were I deliberately to engage in a conspiracy to decrease the intellectual capacity of an entire nation, I doubt seriously whether I could achieve such a work of greatness as that achieved by the entire laundry-soap-advertising cabal already.
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Some guy who I won't identify by name, but you can easily figure out if you click the link above
Joe - Did you compare "serving size" on that laundry detergent? That is, some of the more concentrated formulas require much less to be used per load of laundry. Comparing concentrated vs non-concentrated would skew the numbers quite a bit.
Yes, I know that 90 is more than 72. I don't need the marketing department to tell me that- we covered it in the first grade.
In general, it is the unspoken intention of every communication between intelligent creatures that the sum total of all knowledge be increased. For instance, if I were to say to you "my girlfriend has a *stunning* ***," I have become no poorer in knowledge for this, and you have gained a richer appreciation for the magnitude of my GF's *** or, perhaps even more importantly, for the quality of my own judgement concerning the spectacularity of asses in general.
I posit, in fact, that the opposite is true insofar as the specific matter of laundry soap advertising is concerned.
The fact that such absurdly obvious statements are being made is, in fact, having the effect of decreasing the sum total of all. knowledge. On reading such an asinine statement, I am forced to devote considerable mental faculties to analyzing it. (Did I mis-interpret this? Am I missing some piece of context which is intuitively obvious to others? Is the person making this statement a complete moron, or do they assume that everyone else is?) And it is this thought which consumes my mind, to the exclusion of other, more profitable lines of reasoning.
In other words, laundry soap packaging has an extremely high opportunity cost.
I simply cannot understand this phenomenon. I mean, we don't see car adverts which claim "30% BETTER MPG than a car with 30% poorer MPG," do we? Of course not. Automakers, for all of their failings, seem to recognize the fact that the majority of their customers are at least fundamentally literate and capable of processing basic mathematical concepts at a level at least equivalent to that of a slightly retarded 10 year old child.
We use terms such as "dumbfounded" and "speechless" rather too freely sometimes, and yet I can think of no more apt description of the state of my thoughts having seen such advertising. Were I deliberately to engage in a conspiracy to decrease the intellectual capacity of an entire nation, I doubt seriously whether I could achieve such a work of greatness as that achieved by the entire laundry-soap-advertising cabal already.
Further, I decided to spend more than 3 seconds and look at this in some detail. Which - as rightly pointed out - is an opportunity cost.
Cost should often analyze costs on a per unit basis. Whether it's serving size or loads of laundry.
So, I found that "Tide 2x Ultra With Febreze Freshness Liquid Laundry Detergent, Spring & Renewal, 150 oz" is $15.97 and should serve 90 loads.
"Tide Original Liquid Laundry Detergent, 100 fl oz" is $11.97 and should serve 64 loads.
The Ultra is $0.18 per load. The Original is $0.19 per load.
I am obviously missing the major problem. Maybe pictures would help illuminate the concern.
Reply
0
0
You brought logic into the equation and missed the point.
$0.18 v $0.19 is roughly a 5% cost savings. This would be something to advertise. Instead, the amount of loads is being discussed,"25% more" in this case.
If I understand his argument, he is pointing out that a more concentrated detergent of equal volume, or a larger volume of the same concentration, will wash more because it is essentially a larger quantity. It does not matter if it is a smaller serving size due to strength or just a larger volume container. It should not be a selling point; but the cost savings you pointed out should be.
Are you mopping what I'm spilling?
$0.18 v $0.19 is roughly a 5% cost savings. This would be something to advertise. Instead, the amount of loads is being discussed,"25% more" in this case.
If I understand his argument, he is pointing out that a more concentrated detergent of equal volume, or a larger volume of the same concentration, will wash more because it is essentially a larger quantity. It does not matter if it is a smaller serving size due to strength or just a larger volume container. It should not be a selling point; but the cost savings you pointed out should be.
Are you mopping what I'm spilling?
Reply
0
0
should I remove the air bag from my '92? Seems like it would be more deadly due to age, but I have no idea how airbags age. Yes, I'd rather ask this forum than do my own research.
Reply
0
0
I think the reason for advertising the number of loads goes something like this:
Shopper: "Hey! That bottle of Ultra is smaller than the regular bottle but it costs more. What the eff?!"
Joe: "Cretin, note that it requires less liquid to wash the same number of clothes and calculate the cost per dose."
Marketer: "Look! This smaller bottle washes more loads (than the bigger bottle)."
I got hit in the face by 1992 era airbag. It was like a burlap sack filled with gunpowder. I don't know how much it helped, but I do know it looked like I fell on my face on the sidewalk.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
I have had a headache almost every day for the last two weeks. Mostly from the time I wake up, till about 6-8 hours into my day. By then I either get over it, or get used to it. Just a dull, nagging headache. Definitely brain cancer, definitely.
Reply
0
0
My BP is usually good, but I have been pretty extra stressed these last couple of months. Could be.
In the meantime, I'll dose it with a little coffee/caffeine. Seems to make it fade away for a while.
In the meantime, I'll dose it with a little coffee/caffeine. Seems to make it fade away for a while.
Last edited by NA6C-Guy; Jan 30, 2014 at 11:55 PM.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Is there any chance you've just nursed yourself into some good ol' caffeine withdrawal headaches? Some time ago, my wife had done precisely that. Seemed like the more she drank coffee, the more she NEEDED to drink it, or else the dull headaches would start up; a vicious cycle. Just a thought.
Reply
0
0
It sounds similar to how I used to be not too long ago. 1-2 cups of coffee a day at work, cause it's there and it takes the edge off hunger and the headaches. Excedrin was my best friend. I would have 4 decent headaches a week, at least one migrane every 2 weeks. This was for the past few years, tried medication for the headaches and that **** only made it worse.
And your doctor may suck at taking BP, like mine. I'm pretty sure I've had high BP for quite a while (since my headaches started getting worse and more often over the past 5 years or so maybe), wasn't until I started getting dizzy/light headed more and more often and stopped by a CVS to check my BP. Then another CVS, a riteaid, my mom's meter at home. I ended up getting real dizzy with a decent headache at a breakfast with the in-laws and went to the ER. BP was 194/129. And my EKG rhythm was "concerning".
Too may words. I cut out all caffeine (actually had my first cup of coffee in 3 months yesterday, about to get another now...damn) and salt, which we already do anyway. I'm on 2 pills for BP and it averages around 115/70, EKG is normal. No more headaches since the ER. It's seriously awesome.
And your doctor may suck at taking BP, like mine. I'm pretty sure I've had high BP for quite a while (since my headaches started getting worse and more often over the past 5 years or so maybe), wasn't until I started getting dizzy/light headed more and more often and stopped by a CVS to check my BP. Then another CVS, a riteaid, my mom's meter at home. I ended up getting real dizzy with a decent headache at a breakfast with the in-laws and went to the ER. BP was 194/129. And my EKG rhythm was "concerning".
Too may words. I cut out all caffeine (actually had my first cup of coffee in 3 months yesterday, about to get another now...damn) and salt, which we already do anyway. I'm on 2 pills for BP and it averages around 115/70, EKG is normal. No more headaches since the ER. It's seriously awesome.
Reply
0
0
