Consumer watchdog misses metric opportunity
BBC Radio 4 has missed a golden opportunity to to do some real consumer education and help shoppers to obtain value for money by understanding and using “unit pricing” - i.e. prices per kg, litre, metre etc [article contributed by Robin Paice, Chair of UKMA].
On Thursday, 14 December, BBC Radio 4’s flagship “You and Yours” programme dealt with a recent report by the National Consumer Council (NCC) on public perceptions of Weights and Measures law, including an interview with its Deputy Chief Executive, Philip Cullum, who was joint author of the report.
The report, “Measuring up”, suggests that fixed sizes for packets and cartons are unnecessary, and consumers would not miss them if they were abolished. For example, jam and honey have to be packaged in the UK in multiples of 57 g (equivalent to 2 imperial ounces), so the more logical 400 g or 500 g sizes are banned from shops (unless they are imported!). The researchers found that most packers and consumers would be happy to see these restrictions abolished (as, incidentally, proposed by the European Commission).
However, what the BBC programme failed to say was that, if fixed sizes (or “prescribed quantitities” (PQs) as they are known in the jargon) are abolished, then it is essential that consumers have another method of comparing value for money. For example, if you haven’t got a pocket calculator with you, how would you compare, say, a 454 g jar of honey at £1.78 with a 600 g jar at £2.30? The answer, of course, is “unit pricing” - that is, the obligation to show the price per kg or litre (or 100 g or 100 ml as appropriate) on the shelf label.
Unit pricing not understood and little used
Unfortunately, as the researchers showed, fully two thirds of consumers participating in the discussion groups either did not understand or did not use the unit prices in small print at the bottom of price labels. Moreover, only larger supermarkets and superstores (over 280 m² floorspace) are required to provide this information. The result is that most consumers will have no way of deciding which jar of honey is better value for money (leaving aside questions of quality).
If PQs are to be abolished (which they probably will because the EU will ultimately make the decision), then it will be the responsibility of the Government and consumer organisations to publicise and explain unit pricing so that consumers are better equipped to deal with all the ruses employed by manufacturers, packers and retailers to conceal the true cost of what they are selling. The Government should also reconsider whether the 280 m² floorspace limit is far too high (It may be onerous for a small corner shop - less than 100 m² - to have to unit price every item, but there is no reason why medium sized high street shops belonging to national chains should be exempt).
No mention of the metric/imperial muddle
Of equal concern is the fact that the NCC report carefully avoided raising what is perhaps an even greater problem - the continuing failure of the authorities to enforce the unit pricing of “loose goods” (i.e goods sold to order from bulk and not pre-packed - such as vegetables, meat and fish). Thus, six years after it became compulsory to show the price per kg or litre, many small businesses and market traders still display prices exclusively in obsolete imperial measures such as “lbs”, “st” or “fl oz”, and many local authorities appear to turn a blind eye. This obviously makes it difficult to compare prices and hence value for money as between the street market and the supermarket.
The BBC’s mission statement is “to inform, educate and entertain”. The “You and Yours” programme makers may have thought it entertaining to ridicule the soft target of the current PQ rules, but they failed in their responsibility to inform or educate the consumer.
December 17th, 2006 at 22:45
I am inclined to agree that it is woefully inadequate to ignore the issue as to whether PQs actually enable price comparison.
Both the NCC and the BBC ‘You and Yours’ programme did not explore whether the actual regime of package sizes may have contributed to the alleged apathy.
Clearly we need to offer the consumer logical sizes with a reasonable differentiation (e.g. 200g 400g etc) before we can test if they matter or not. As it is they are trying to adjudicate on the basis of a muddled system that never stood any chance of being helpful in the first place!
December 19th, 2006 at 10:11
I’m pleased to see an article about our report, which aims to take a consumer perspective on an issue which has for too long been left to regulators and enforcement officials.
We wouldn’t claim that our research is the last word on this topic, though it does I think throw some fresh light on consumer experiences and attitudes towards weights and measures regulation. Perhaps I could briefly comment on two points in this article:
First, the consumers we spoke to showed little or no appetite for the approach suggested here regarding unit pricing. In particular they rejected outright the suggestion (which we put to them very clearly) that it should be extended to smaller stores. Relatively few approached decisions about purchases in the (literally) calculating way that seems to underpin the proposals in in this article - a key finding from our research is that regulation should be built around how people actually behave.
Second, with regard to the comments in the penultimate paragraph, it is true to say that the focus of the project was not on metric/imperial issues, although this could easily have emerged in the discussion groups. People did in fact talk about experiences with market traders, but far from expressing much anxiety they came across as unexpectedly comfortable with their ability to make informed decisions. Clear information underpins the effective operations of markets and consumer choice, but in this particular instance I am unconvinced that many people would support demands for the kind of regulation set out in the article.
Inevitably the report covers much more ground, and provides much more detail, than can be covered in an article of this length - I would encourage people to read the full report, which can be accessed using the link in the article. I would be delighted to get any further comments or feedback.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:36
Of course it’s a mess- just see this website for barkeepers who might want to buy new glasses! http://www.barmans.co.uk/products/product.asp?ID=2368&title=Glass+Jugs%2FPitcher+Arc .. And all I wanted was a 200 ml Luminarc wine glass with nice flowers on it. Anyone know where they can be got in UK? Or shall I jsut replenish my stock in Germany as usual on the way back from Christmas hols in an entirely metric country (apart from TV screens, of course)
December 19th, 2006 at 10:36
I am glad round-numbered sizes will be able to replace odd imperial legacy sizes where this hasn’t happened already. One problem with unit pricing is that this is very inconsistent - my local Tesco has different brand products side by side, one with price per kg and the next priced per 100 g. This needs to be consistent to help consumers.
December 19th, 2006 at 13:30
After having read the report (and also having watched my wife shopping), I get the feeling that consumers expect “them” to ensure that unfair practices are not being carried out. Maybe the Government regulators have been too invisible with the result that consumers are not aware of what they do.
One simple device to make consumers more aware of what is being done on their behalf would be to follow the French practice where all weighing devices that are used in the marketplace have a certificate affixed to them showing when the local authority last verified them. Had a parallel study been done in France, one could have seen whether this and other differences between British and French practice would have caused any differences between the views British and French consumers.
December 21st, 2006 at 09:06
If there is one thing that sticks out (at least for me) in the NCC report is the number of apparent anomolies in the views expressed by consumers. They “trust” large supermarkets, but see them as “high risk” in terms of inspection priorities; conversely, they “expect to get ripped off by some market traders”, but see them as low risk!
They don’t “want protection and regulation per se”, but they “assume someone else is looking after their interests”. How, pray, is that to be done without regulation? They expected inspection levels to something in the region of 10 times what is currently achieved, but didn’t want to pay for it!
As for the prescribed quantities/unit pricing debate, the reasons advanced by consumers for not needing either are a classic example of what happens when people aren’t being taught to use such tools. An examination of the “decision tree” in Fig. 4 (Chapter 5) suggests that in the absence of an appreciation of the value of quantifiable “value for money” comparisons, consumers have already developed their own form of making price comparisons based around such rather unquantifiable criteria as type of shop, type of brand, and “size” of packet, with “value for money” bringing up the rear.
I wonder if, had we had widespread “unit pricing”, adequately publicised, whether that “decision tree” might have been stood on its head? People would have looked first at the unit price, and then decided whether they wanted to pay more for a smaller pack, for a national brand, or for the convenience of shopping in a local independent store?
December 21st, 2006 at 15:18
I should like to respond to the comments from Philip Cullum (NCC) .
It is disappointing that an organisation which exists to protect consumers seems to have accepted uncritically the CBI/DTI agenda of deregulation. Of course, nobody wants unnecessary regulations, but they were put there in the first place for a good reason - to enable consumers.to compare prices on a “like for like” basis and assess value for money. If PQs are abolished, then we need something else to enable us to make these comparisons.
The NCC report seems to be arguing that consumers don’t take much notice of “unit prices” (either because they don’t understand them or because they are too small to read), and therefore they are not important and there is no need to extend or popularise their use. There seems to be an underlying view that consumers are not particularly interested in value for money or comparing prices (The big supermarkets don’t seem to take the same view - otherwise why would they advertise their bargain prices and special offers - see http://www.tesco.com/price_check_search/ and click on “price check” and select a product).
I am reminded of the story of the two shoe salesmen visiting an unnamed developing country in the days before the internet. One telegraphed back “The people here do not wear shoes. Am returning home ASAP.” The other telegraphed “The people here do not wear shoes. Please send one million pairs of shoes.” Surely, if people do not understand unit pricing, or can’t read it because it is illegible, that is a strong argument for helping and educating people to understand it and requiring it to be easily legible? It is not an argument for belittling it.
Philip Cullum may be right that the participants in the discussion groups “far from expressing much anxiety … came across as unexpectedly comfortable with their ability to make informed decisions” (about value for money in the street market). However, this may simply show that many shoppers are unaware that they are paying more than they need to for similar products - especially if they can’t compare metric prices in the supermarket with imperial prices in the street market. The report was, quite specifically, about consumer perceptions - not reality. A more reliable and credible survey would compare a proper sample of shoppers’ perceptions with observation of their actual behaviour.
It is simply not plausible that most shoppers are indifferent to whether they are getting value for money. I just don’t believe it.
I suspect that there is also a social class aspect to this. I would submit the hypothesis that the people least likely to understand or use unit pricing are probably the most vulnerable in society - the least educated, the poorest, those who have to rely on small shops on disadvantaged Council estates, the elderly, those with poor eyesight. They deserve better of the institutions (DTI, NCC) which exist to help them. If the NCC survey leads to a strengthening of the DTI/CBI case for deregulating consumer protection, then they will have done a disservice to the very people whom they exist to serve.
December 21st, 2006 at 15:38
I am sorry if you feel we missed an opportunity to discuss the issue of unit pricing. We would have liked to explore this but this was not possible in the time we had. At the beginning of last week the Cabinet Office announced an initiative to reduce red tape throughout government departments. This item was one of several we featured during that week examining how this initiative might work. We also looked at proposals to simplify driving licenses and planning permission for satellite dishes.
The focus of our item was to look at current legislation and ask how useful consumers found it and whether there was a case for simplifying it.
As you know the DTI is planning to consult on this area. We would like to keep a watch on this and when there are further developments we would be interested in having a fuller discussion on unit pricing and all the other issues such as weights and measures tolerances, prescribed quantities, etc.
January 2nd, 2007 at 18:49
Having just read the report, I agree that an opportunity has been missed. While there is nothing wrong with surveying consumer views and using them to influence future policy, I hope that consumer-driven policy does not mean basing policy only on consumer perceptions rather than consumer needs.
Some of the topics like inspection rates, measurement tolerances and prescribed quantities - let alone weights and measurement legislation - will be arcane for most members of the public. For example I would find it difficult to know what appropriate rates of inspection are without having an idea of the number of retailers using short measures and the degree of inaccuracy. Inspection rates should be based on consumer need rather than perception.
I agree with the report that legislation on weights and measures should be simplified. Having looked at some statutory instruments on W&M which refer to layers of other legislation, I can imagine it is hard for smaller retailers to grasp it all. A redrafting and simplification would be most welcome providing it was not reducing consumer protection.
However, I am concerned with the views about both prescribed quantities and unit pricing. You need at least one for packaged and loose goods to be priced transparently. The example cited in the report of Walkers crisps packets going from 28 g through 27 g to 25 g while keeping the same price illustrates this perfectly. Unless you have unit pricing this change is invisible. Unfortunately, most people I know are not aware of unit price labels and how to use them. It is therefore not surprising that the survey showed a lack of interest in unit pricing; however if the public were conversant with unit pricing they would benefit. It is a shame that when unit pricing was introduced, the government failed to educate the public on how to use it.
Of course, prescribed quantities in the UK are a mess not least because of government attempts to sit on the fence with regard to imperial and metric. Some products, like sugar, butter, flour and cooking oil, have sensible metric prescribed quantities; others, like honey and jam, have ounce-based sizes specified in grams; while still others, like milk and coffee, are based on a mix of metric and imperial. The latter are particularly bad for the consumer as some of the prescribed quantities e.g. 2 litres and 2.272 litres (what a silly quantity - oh, it is converted from 4 pints!) can muddle the consumer who does not use unit pricing.
Last but not least units of measurement do matter. The report said that consumers were not bothered if weights or volumes were used. While it may not matter if say yogurt is sold by weight or volume only one measure should be used in the interest of simplicity and transparency.
Our great British measurement unit muddle remains a taboo subject for both consumer groups and politicians.
January 5th, 2007 at 13:57
The way units have been muddled over the last 20+ years is probably to blame. The consumer has had little choice but to trust the retailer or stall holder; it’s little wonder that the public at large has become complacent or confused over simple things such as cost-comarison when it’s been largely impossible in recent years!
That said, I’ve seen people trying to compare the cost of a gallon of petrol and pints of milk/beer between here and the USA - the same sort of people who think we should keep old units usually instantly forget (or don’t even think!) that those units differ!
But in any case it’s the retailer who benefits because it’s him who winds up looking like the injured party while still raking in the extra profit because people can’t tell the difference in price.