Marketers innovate at consumer expense
SHREWD marketers were always roped in to bring in packaging innovation when repositioning a particular brand and so the middle of the 20th century saw the dawn of foil and laminate packaging.
But it now seems local manufacturers are procuring cheaper packaging standards.
Thousands of metric tons of food imports from Thailand, India, Portugal, Spain and Italy in all packaged forms (tin, glass and plastic) arrive annually.
A comparative study needs to be conducted on the quality of packaging used. I tried to open a can of beans.
The can virtually squashed together and I was unable to get the lid off, cutting my finger in the process.
This is a direct result of a cheaper quality metal being used. Packing costs are an integral part of the landed cost of the finished product but these savings are not passed on.
It calls for further analysis whether the preserved contents can be affected.
Another notable packaging downgrade can be found in two-litre cold drink plastic bottles. At one time one could grasp a bottle firmly with one hand and pour into a glass. Try that now and you will spill all over or the bottle slips from your hand.
This is a direct result of reducing the microns (strength) of the plastic.
The imminent sugar tax and inferior PET packaging can leave a bitter taste.
Consumers are being compromised for quality packaging to increase manufacturer’s profits. Some time back, we saw another supplier innovation – the more for less syndrome – whereby content weights (grams) were reduced but filled in the same packaging format.
We have to pray the same strength reducing trick is not experimented with egg trays because we will have a lot of broken eggs.
Come on consumer journalists, investigate and highlight the monopolistic principles at play here which have dominated retailing.