{"id":4979,"date":"2017-01-16T08:00:08","date_gmt":"2017-01-16T08:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/?p=4979"},"modified":"2017-01-29T16:37:43","modified_gmt":"2017-01-29T16:37:43","slug":"sweet-nothings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/?p=4979","title":{"rendered":"Sweet nothings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Toblerone\/Thomas Baron\/flickr<\/p><\/div>\n

I suppose it all started with the Toblerone news; at the end of last year people were in uproar to learn that our favourite airport purchase was being tampered with. Specifically, the gaps between the famous chocolate peaks were being widened and thus the total amount of sticky confectionery per bar was being reduced. Apparently the 400g bars now weigh 370g and the 170g bars now weigh 150g. The packaging has not been changed, so the full horror is only revealed once you have opened up the inviting flap at the end of the box.<\/p>\n

Now I probably only eat Toblerone once every few years, but I have seen pictures of the revised model, and concur that it does look wrong. One of the joys of biting into a Toblerone was having your teeth gnaw at one of the choccy triangles while taking a surreptitious lick of the next one down the line.\u00a0 Now there is no chance of that happening. With the enlarged gap there is no hope of even the longest tongue finding its way down to the next triangle.<\/p>\n

Sweetness aside, the debate has, not surprisingly, provoked a furious backlash. Horrified of Heathrow Airport made his views clearly known, followed by Gutted of Gatwick, Sickened of Stansted and Livid of Luton.\u00a0 But there is, as ever, another side to the argument.\u00a0 Some consumers have applauded Mondelez International, the makers of Toblerone, for publicly announcing the change.\u00a0 They could have called it \u2018new, improved Toblerone\u2019<\/em>. How many times have you bought the latest version of a product you know, love and trust only to find it isn\u2019t quite the same as what it was last time?\u00a0 A classic example of this is when the amount of product has been reduced, the packaging resized to fit a smaller item, but.. the price is just the same.<\/p>\n

This doesn\u2019t just happen with foodstuffs of course \u2013 quantities in individual packets of cosmetics and toiletries are frequently altered, and usually without the accompanying frankness employed by Mondelez.\u00a0 Apparently there is a correlation between the amount of product reduction and price, and it is snappily called the \u2018JND\u2019. Or \u2018Just Noticeable Difference\u2019 to you.\u00a0 It is typically held at within 10% of the previous product size. In real terms this means that companies can reduce the content of say, a packet of crisps, by 10% without formally alerting the consumer, on the assumption that they probably won\u2019t notice.\u00a0 Then, later down the line of the product\u2019s lifespan, the manufacturer can reinstate the original quantity of product whilst trumpeting it as \u201810% extra free\u2019. Clever, eh?<\/p>\n

Another aspect of this is the attraction of the in-store promotion – buying something which has apparently had its price significantly reduced.\u00a0 How many of us can resist this one? The Government\u2019s current pricing practice guidelines state that before a price is reduced in a sale, the product must have been sold at a higher price for 28 consecutive days in that store within six previous months.\u00a0 However, unlike my late mother-in-law, who kept a daily household diary including expenditure for some 70 years, I do not record reams of tightly itemised domestic figures, with the result that if I\u2019m being conned I\u2019m unlikely to notice it. I\u2019ll just happily pay what it says on the packet and hope the guidelines are indeed being enforced by the store to which today\u2019s loyalty belongs.<\/p>\n

Faced with these levels of trickery, I feel positively glowing about Mondelez\u2019s honesty.\u00a0 Let them eat Toblerone.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

no hope of even the longest tongue finding its way down to the next triangle.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":4982,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3,55],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4979"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4979"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4979\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4985,"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4979\/revisions\/4985"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4982"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/damesnet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}