That’s not how it is presented. It isn’t a number of shrimp with an asterix by it. The weight of the bag is on the same spot it is for any other product, at the bottom right. The size of the shrimp (ex: 21-25) is usually listed in a different spot. The product’s packaging is telling you what size they are in the only way they possibly can.
It isn’t uncommon for someone to go to the seafood counter and order “Two pounds of 21-25s”. They wouldn’t say “I want 80 shrimp”. I don’t know anyone who buys shrimp by anything other than weight.
If you buy shrimp fresh, the sizing stuff is straightforward- you look up the size, and then buy by the lb. There can’t be any real confusion there- you buy 1/3 lb of U12 shrimp, and you’re getting about 3-4 shrimp. You buy 1/2 lb of 41-50 shrimp, and you’re getting roughly 25 shrimp.
Nothing really changes when it’s pre-packaged, except that credulous consumers are thinking that it’s a full pound of shrimp, when it’s actually 3/4 lb, because they didn’t read the damn package. There’s a element of caveat emptor here; the sizing method wasn’t devised to bamboozle and hoodwink people, and if people aren’t reading what their package sizes are, then that’s their fault.
And… like I was saying earlier, I think a lot of the weasel word stuff isn’t so much sketchy marketing as much as it’s zealous lawyering coming out. Marketers would love nothing more than to be able to point at some way that their product is objectively superior to the competition, but the lawyers, being afraid of lawsuits and litigation, make them write a lot of it in a way that deflects and avoids that kind of thing, and yet tries to sell the product in a similar way. Hence the weasel words and meaningless claims.
Several years ago I was looking for a new central air unit for my home. One that quickly drew my attention had the little energy efficiency label on the front proudly proclaiming 100. Now while I don’t know what goes into creating that rating, I do generally know that bigger is better.
Looking more closely at the label revealed the catch. That model was indeed accurately rated at 100.
On a scale of 100 to 100. :rolleyes:
Having not seen the package in question I’ll let this my last post on the subject. I will mention that we are talking about packaging - not buying at a counter. I’ve drawn many a Alo plants for labels that contained not a drop of the stuff.
I used to work with major ad agencies doing illustration and product packaging layout. One client sold shampoo and like products to national supermarket chains. On the lower end products it was common to have a picture of an Aloe Vera plant on a green bottle when the product was completely devoid of any Aloe Vera.
I don’t use mascara myself but I’ve been seeing ads for decades, all of them claiming that they ‘lengthen and volumize’ by 20, 40, even 80% more! Every year there seems to be a new advance in mascara technology that makes lashes longer and thicker than ever before. At this point I would think you could buy a product that instantly creates ten foot lashes with a wave of the new, improved applicator. Yet, woman still seem to have the same old lashes I saw 40 years ago. I’m beginning to suspect that the ads aren’t as scientifically rigorous as they appear.
The ones that irritate me to no end, are batteries and the like. Lasts up to 36 hours. Well gee thanks, glad these will last UP TO 36 hours, how about the bare minimum? 2 hours. We talking TV remote, low ampres, or my Grandmas ‘silver’ bullet?
I think we’re just being spoiled by computers and their quick information.
The toilet paper does have the square ft: usually in a long, run on line of numbers and letters on the
bottom, white on a pastel background. It’s time consuming to have to pick up each package and find and focus on the facts.
Information is so quick and easy theses days, it’s annoying to have to find waldo at the supermarket. What we’d like is an ap where as you turn the corner to the toilet paper aisle, a list drops: price per square foot, or price per ounce, on a list cheapest to most expensive. Or price per ounce, or customer quality satisfaction, whatever. Just organize it in some sort of decending or ascending list so the selection process is quick and accurate. Cut the manipulative bullshit.
It’s not THAT hard. It’s the same thing as taking a minute to read the nutritional information on a package of food. It’s something you have to do as an informed shopper. You shouldn’t have to, but you do.
Here’s the package I purchased. The “41-50” has a touch of bright yellow, the “shrimp per pound” appears duller. White SIFL, your post sums up exactly what I meant. Labrador Deceiver and Bump, thanks for explaining the sizing, which I knew only vaguely. All griping aside now, the shrimp were delicious.
Ah, gotcha. “What? We just liked the look of an aloe vera plant - we certainly never intended people to think there was aloe vera in this product!” {bats eyelashes innocently}
Heh.
When I’m Empress of the Universe, I will indeed Cut the Manipulative Bullshit. I might even have a Ministry for that.
Now you’ve got me wondering what the Straight Dope on that is - BRB. Hmm, it appears that other than minor differences, what makes the most difference is indeed the brush. Interesting.
