Usually when one buys larger quantities of a commodity, the unit price goes down. But this seems not to be the case with canned tuna, at least in my experience.
Last time I looked, four 6-ounce cans of the least expensive store-brand chunk light tuna (packed in water) were $2.89 and one 12-ounce can was $1.99. In other words, 12 cents per ounce for the small cans and 16.6 cents per ounce for a large can.
My first thought was that maybe the larger cans contained more meat and less water, so that the unit cost per actual meat (as opposed to the meat/water combo) would have been lower. But some careful measurement didn’t bear that hypothesis out. (Detailed data upon request.)
So what’s the deal? When it comes to tuna, why can’t I save money by buying in bulk?
I know you’re asking about cans, but the price-per-ounce of the Starkist tuna in packets is definitely less when you buy a “Family pack” than a regular small pack.
I wonder if it’s just a pricing scheme unique to the store?
It’s possible that the store knows that smaller cans of tuna are more likely to be bought than larger cans, for whatever reason, and so the store treats them as a loss leader to lure customers.
Simple answer: If people buy them at that price, they will sell them at that price. If its been that way for years, people have been buying them at that price for years. What is their incentive to price it lower?
Your research, while praisewothy, was unnecessary. The weights listed on the cans are net weights, which exclude the water the tuna is packed in. A six ounce can of tuna contains six ounces of tuna.
Your faith in labeling laws and common sense, while praiseworthy, is misplaced. The term “net” means everything but the container.
My research showed that in a six-ounce can of tuna in water there was an average of 3.6 ounces of meat and 2.4 ounces of water. Twelve-ounce cans contained about 7.4 ounces of meat and 5.3 ounces of water. Check for yourself.
Doesn’t this fly in the face of conventional theories of capitalism? Shouldn’t some merchants be capturing all the business of rational buyers by pricing the large cans more competitively?
Are you sure? My understanding is that gross means everything but the container, and net is everything you eat. Of course this might be different in something like tuna where you have to squeeze the water out.
At my store we have buckets of cheese you can buy. Each bucket contains three pounds of cheese and the rest of the volume is filled with water. The bucket says Net Wt 3 lbs. I don’t know off hand, but it may also have a gross wt on it as well. But this is a product, where the water is not meant to be consumed.
Look at it this way. A family that needs the bigger can will buy the bigger can. A family that uses the smaller can probably won’t buy the bigger can, use part of it, and leave the rest sitting in the refrigerator.
The demand for bigger cans is relatively inelastic, while the demand for smaller cans is more competitive. Therefore, the manufacturers charge a premium for larger cans.
It’s not just the tuna. Everyone assumes that the larger packs of everything are cheaper per unit weight, but that’s not necessarily true. Check out more big packs and you’ll often find that they are not cheaper per ounce than the smaller ones.
A family that needs a bigger can can buy the appropriate number of smaller cans. And this would make sense, as families probably spend more on food than most single people.
It sounds to me as if stores are playing on the inattention of people who believe larger containers are cheaper than the same amount of product packed into smaller containers.
I would prefer to use the larger cans, as they’re more convenient and create less waste (although I recycle the cans in either case). But I won’t pay more per unit.
So 4x6oz (24oz) was cheaper than 1x12oz (12oz). Which means the larger quantity was cheaper than the smaller quantity… Are the 6oz cans that cheap when not packaged together?
Why waste $ on chunk style? I pay 59 to 79 cents for a 6-oz can in several store chains in my area. Same calories, same nutrition. Last time I checked, the 12-oz. cans cost more than twice the price of the 6-oz. cans.
Ummm…you may have a point. It’s been a while and my notes don’t make it clear if that was the price for one of those packs of four wrapped together. I’ll check next time I go to the store. But I started this whole thing because the regular price for two 6-oz cans was less than one 12-oz.
As opposed to what? Are you thinking of white vs. light? This was light, the less expensive sort.