This is incorrect. “200% more” would mean x+2x=3x, or 150 oz. In case you don’t want to put it in mathemetical notation, think about it. If the ad was “Now with 100% more ChumBites”, you wouldn’t say it’s the original amount would you? No. It’s x+1x. Just like “50% more” doesn’t mean you actually have a 25 oz container of ChumBites, which is what would happen if we used the same type of math you’re using here.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:15, topic:659678”]
This one used to piss me off, but now it kind of amuses me.
SAVE UP TO 60% OR MORE.
Lexically parsed, this means “It might be full price. It might be free. Or it might be anything in between. But 60% is what you’re going to remember!”
[/QUOTE]
I envy you - I don’t think this one’s ever going to stop pissing me off. Seriously, someone just made me read six words to convey absolutely no information. I think this should be part of the basic elementary school curriculum. You know, some word problems like this:
If Bobby sells flurms for $1.00, and is now offering them at ‘up to 25% off or more’, how much might they cost?
A. $1.00
B. 93¢
B. 75¢
C. 32¢
D. They’re now free.
E. Any of the above, because that is a stupid and meaningless thing to say.
I was told yesterday that our new software will run a particular step “50 times faster”. Does that mean the step will take only 2% of previous the time? That would be very impressive. Unfortunately, I think they mean 50 percent.
That’s the only way that it would make sense to me.
The point is, although it may be incorrect, the advertisers tend to use it interchangeably with the other construction, just to make it sound like you’re getting even more than you actually are.
I really doubt anyone thinks that hard about it. But can you show me an example where “200% more” means “twice as much” in advertiser speak?
Put it this way, if I had a product that was contained 200% more product, I would opt for the phrasing “three times as much” or “triple” rather than “200%.” I don’t think to most people “200% more” sounds more impressive than “twice as much,” and it’s just plain wrong. I really don’t see any ambiguity there. I can’t see how a company can advertise a product having “200% more” of something when it really has twice as much of something without running afoul of some sort of advertising law.
I usually see packaging as x amount more. Like a standard box of oatmeal will say 10 extra ozs. Or they’ll express it as a percent to indicate the package is actually bigger than it used to be.
That’s a really shittily written article, but I agree that “200% more” is being abused in that case, when “200% of” would work just as well.
Furthermore, the website doesn’t list the caffeine content. On this Washington Time article it says:
So I don’t know who is using what numbers.
Isn’t 50 times faster the same as 50 times more, meaning it’s now 51 times the speed?
Right, which is why I say the conflation is used to its advantage in marketing, depending on context and what sounds more attractive.
So there’s your algebraic formula with some coefficient/variable/summand. So, indeed, x+2x=3x.
There’s also multiplication simple x*y=z (50 oz x 2 = 100 oz).
It’s because both of these can still, semantically or actually, sound/be true, why not use the one that sounds like a better bargain?
Huh, between 2 times more and 2 times as much, I thought they’d choose the one that required them to give less (2 times as much).
Yeah, I’m confused as well. 200% should be 150 oz and “twice as many” should be 100 oz. If the choice was between “200% more” or “three times as much,” I’d think the “three times as much” would sound better from a marketing perspective. But that’s not given as an option here.
My thinking is this:
It’s never clear whether the original summand is or isn’t in their calculations.
Both the statements sound as if it would (i.e. total 150 oz). But due to any dubious conflation of terms, using semantics in marketing, it can be argued they meant 200% more or, two times more, as: 50oz * 2.0 = 100 oz, instead of 50oz + (2*50oz) = 150 oz.
And checking the label can be difficult, unless you already knew what the original volume was they’re referring to. Though, I’m not saying this is the case for all products.
Another source of confusion could be, “Now Twice the Size!”.
But hold on, are we talking 200% in area or dimensions?
A 10" x 10" square of papertowe would measure 20" x 20" if doubled along both dimensions, increasing the area of the towel to 400% (1010 = 100 sq/in; 2020 = 400 sq/in). You could fit four original sized towels in the new size!
…Or do they mean the area of each paper towel square is increased by 200%?
I wouldn’t be surprised they meant the area, so you can’t blame them if the towels ended up really measuring ~14.14" x 14.14" in dimension. An increased area of 200%. But when people think “Twice the size”, thinking in area isn’t common; nor is the fact area goes up by the square in proportion to the dimensions (e.g. 2x = 400%; 3x = 900%; 4x = 1600%, etc).
Can’t blame them for leaving this subtle, but important, information out.
I choose B 
These are both objectively wrong.
There is no situation where 200% more means twice as much. It always means three times as much. It’s not ambiguous. It’s not confusing. It’s lying.
If you start with 50oz of Chumbites, then:
50% more = 75oz
100% more = 100oz
200% more = 150oz
2 times as much = 100oz
3 times as much = 150oz
4 times as much = 200oz
Misusing these, as in the coffee example, is not “exploiting an ambiguity” because there’s no ambiguity in the first place. It’s false advertising.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:37, topic:659678”]
…Misusing these, as in the coffee example, is not “exploiting an ambiguity” because there’s no ambiguity in the first place. It’s false advertising.
[/QUOTE]
Bingo. But there’s ambiguity in the head of the average consumer. You think your average house mom is thinking like an engineer with crying kids in the shopping cart?
Good luck arguing that in court over your cans of ChumBites!
though.
Saying again… there’s a reason why it’s confusing, you may be right and/or confident in this “objective” reasoning, but always do the math on the quantity in tiny print at the bottom of the label vs. the claim in big, bold, bright, compelling print at the top.
If only a “jury of your peers” meant a jury of people who actually understood high school math and the basic fundamentals of our legal system…
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:39, topic:659678”]
If only a “jury of your peers” meant a jury of people who actually understood high school math and the basic fundamentals of our legal system…
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand. Are you saying companies don’t try to get away with shit like this? Happens all the time. I’m using blatant examples, but they’ve been doing this since forever, and in more subtle ways.
Exibit A: Act Mouthwash. Twice the Size! (18oz. vs. 33.8 oz :dubious:… but then… the bigger bottle has half the active ingredient)
Would you have caught this during a quick run to RiteAid for some odds and ends before you paid at the counter?
Or even using the product at home?