Comments on: Shedding Light on Misleading Product Packaging http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-06/239 Not a photo blog, but sometimes I play one on TV Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:00:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha by: Sam http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-06/239#comment-2380 Thu, 07 Sep 2006 02:08:47 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-06/239#comment-2380 Marcina, that made me laugh. Consumer Reports (in the US) publishes listings of deceptive advertisings on its back page each issue. October's issue has a good "Cinnamon Burst" ad that's somewhat relevant here. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/selling/selling-it-october-2006/1006_selling-it_ov_1.htm?resultPageIndex=1&resultIndex=4&searchTerm=selling%20it Marcina, that made me laugh.

Consumer Reports (in the US) publishes listings of deceptive advertisings on its back page each issue. October’s issue has a good “Cinnamon Burst” ad that’s somewhat relevant here.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/selling/selling-it-october-2006/1006_selling-it_ov_1.htm?resultPageIndex=1&resultIndex=4&searchTerm=selling%20it

]]> by: Jeffrey Friedl http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-06/239#comment-2379 Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:28:58 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-06/239#comment-2379 Shawn, I doubt it's the "same amount of light as a 50W bulb", which is why I said “<b>there's nothing here about “the same light output as a traditional 50-watt bulb” or anything like that.</b>” They do make those kind of claims about the CFLs, so the clear lack of them on this bulb's packaging seems telling. Shawn, I doubt it’s the “same amount of light as a 50W bulb”, which is why I said “there’s nothing here about “the same light output as a traditional 50-watt bulb” or anything like that.” They do make those kind of claims about the CFLs, so the clear lack of them on this bulb’s packaging seems telling.

]]> by: Shaun Walbridge http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-06/239#comment-2378 Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:24:25 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-06/239#comment-2378 I certainly agree with the problematic nature of deceptive advertising, I think in the case of the lightbulb, they may of made the less egregious mistake of simply confusing packaging. The amount of light generated by a lightbulb isn't measured in Watts (W), but in Lumens (lm)-- a measurement of the power of a lightsource. Because most incandescent bulbs are all inefficient at near the same rate, usually manufactures just slap on the wattage on the side. But a compact fluorescent light of 13 watts can produce the same amount of light as a 60 watt incandescent. I'm guessing what the packaging meant is, this bulb produces the same amount of light as a 50W bulb while only consuming 45W of power. Of course, this doesn't hold a candle (pun intended) to CFLs and other efficient technologies, but it is still an improvement. The real thing that matters when buying bulbs is the luminous efficiency, or the amount of light it makes per watt of power used. I certainly agree with the problematic nature of deceptive advertising, I think in the case of the lightbulb, they may of made the less egregious mistake of simply confusing packaging.

The amount of light generated by a lightbulb isn’t measured in Watts (W), but in Lumens (lm)– a measurement of the power of a lightsource. Because most incandescent bulbs are all inefficient at near the same rate, usually manufactures just slap on the wattage on the side. But a compact fluorescent light of 13 watts can produce the same amount of light as a 60 watt incandescent.

I’m guessing what the packaging meant is, this bulb produces the same amount of light as a 50W bulb while only consuming 45W of power. Of course, this doesn’t hold a candle (pun intended) to CFLs and other efficient technologies, but it is still an improvement. The real thing that matters when buying bulbs is the luminous efficiency, or the amount of light it makes per watt of power used.

]]> by: Marcina http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-06/239#comment-2377 Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:17:56 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-06/239#comment-2377 This seems somewhat related to the nutrition information and bizarre “serving size” on many foods. While they are improving in some cases, I will never forget my appalled shock when the tasty but medium sized muffin I was eating had not the reasonable 280 calories I thought it had, but reading the small print found the serving size to be “one forth of muffin”. One forth!!!!!!!!!!! This thing had over 1100 calories!!!!!!! (note- I never bought another again. Sigh.) But my favorite “serving size” was not offensive in a hidden calorie sort of way – it was just the most bizarre. Vlasic dill pickle spears have a 5 calorie serving size of “3/4 spear” ¾ spear? That’s just weird. I mean, even rounding up, one full spear would have 7 calories - a negligible difference, and be much more reasonable as a “serving”. This seems somewhat related to the nutrition information and bizarre “serving size” on many foods. While they are improving in some cases, I will never forget my appalled shock when the tasty but medium sized muffin I was eating had not the reasonable 280 calories I thought it had, but reading the small print found the serving size to be “one forth of muffin”. One forth!!!!!!!!!!! This thing had over 1100 calories!!!!!!! (note- I never bought another again. Sigh.)
But my favorite “serving size” was not offensive in a hidden calorie sort of way – it was just the most bizarre. Vlasic dill pickle spears have a 5 calorie serving size of “3/4 spear” ¾ spear? That’s just weird. I mean, even rounding up, one full spear would have 7 calories - a negligible difference, and be much more reasonable as a “serving”.

]]>