Deceptive product packaging

[LCHIEN]

I order stuff from CVS, part of over the counter allowance of my Medicare advantage plan.
Got the same thing this month as I got a while back, but they changed the packaging. The box is now more than twice as large volume wise as it was before with the same small bottle of vitamins and the same count.
Is that deceptive packaging or what? Trying to make you think you are getting more?

Pictures of old and new packages in attachments, click to view.

From the dimensions I calculate the new box is 2.44 x as large in volume as the old box with the same number of tablets in the same bottle.

[dbhost]

I've seen a lot of that lately...

[leehljp]

I can't justify it based on the product itself, but in cost cutting 1/10 of 1 cent mounts up to thousands of dollars in some cases. To standardize on one size for numerous bottle sizes inside can bring savings. It has been a long while since I had a marketing class but I have read of similar situations and the money saved. To me it would seem to cost more money for the larger box, but the standardized box versus two or three sizes might be the issue, AND with shortages, that could be it too.

[LCHIEN]

The new larger box is more complex, look at the 1st pic, they had to put internal bracing and partitions in it to restrain it in all three axis prevent it from crashing around ominously when shaken (vs just the pills rattling), thus giving away the empty nature of the box.

[Jim Frye]

I can see standardized sized packaging saving money in the long run. I just wonder if it would lead to mistakes in Rx filling in the pharmacy. Humans not correctly reading the contents. Reminds me of an episode I had at a local Kroger's pharmacy. I was getting a 3 month refill of Simvastatin and they presented me with three bottles of Symbacorte. On the other hand, the new snowblower I received was packaged so tightly, the box was virtually the same size as the folded up machine.

[atgcpaul]

A lot of my job deals with automated sample management of pre-pharmaceutical type compounds. In fact I just returned from my lab last week where we just finished the install of 2 new systems. We have a 3rd going in early next year. Our samples are much smaller than your vitamin box but it's the same idea. You need to standardize to stay efficient. If someone wants to transfer something to my group that will need to be stored, we do the upfront work to transfer that sample into a standard vessel or ship the supplier our vessels for them to fill into. In the long run it saves us time and labor. Standardizing also affords you the possibility of automation.

Looking at your old and new boxes, the new box has eliminated that extra paper tab used for hanging. Now with a standard rectangular box, you can easily have them stored on long flat shelves sharing space with other boxes. Eliminating that tab also makes it easier for a suction device to pick and place that box from more of the box's faces.

It may or may not cost more to manufacture that larger box, but its standard shape (although larger) will be more efficient if multiplied out to more of their inventory.

[capncarl]

Deceptive packaging. It gives the image of being more volume for your money. It’s probably on the same shelf with the name brand that it is competing against for a few cents less. It probably states that it is the same as the name brand… and likely is made by the name brand.
For most of the competition on the shelves there is a big battle of shelf space. A slightly larger package catches the customers eye quicker. This is another reason for so many slightly different flavors of exactly the same thing…. Shelf space. They want to gobble up the shelf space before their competition gets it!

[capncarl]

In my 38 yrs. working in food mfg. / pkg. I can say from lots of experience that package size makes a lot of difference. Small boxes can be a real PIA. All of these items are packaged robotically. Bump the size up just a tad and a lot of the problems go away.

[LCHIEN]

I'm sure the pill bottles are of a standard size and shape. the boxes the smaller but standard size for other products would save money over a larger size box for all their products.

[LCHIEN]

Maybe this is why... the list of ingredients on the back... the bigger package is needed to display it all in a readable size.

[capncarl]

Other things come into play with retail merchandise. How easy is the small box to conceal in a pocket book or pants pocket? Slightly larger may be awkward to shoplift. The box with the tall back tab does not double stack well and tends to fall over on the shelf. Lots of reasons to change. How many times have you picked up something and saw it was in a different logo or color package? Sometimes a package color is done simply to help the salesman notice his older merchandise on the shelf and rotate it out.

Standardization? Nobody wants that! Just think how much sense it would make to standardize the automotive industry. They only do it within a line of autos, not company wide. You could probably list 50 engines currently be manufactured, and within 5 years most will be out of production and replaced with some other model. Same with brakes, transmission etc. If the consumer didn’t have to pay for all the R&D you might be able to afford a new car.

[Jim Frye]

When I installed a central vacuum system in our house a couple of years ago, I was surprised to learn that a few years earlier the industry had standardized on system fittings dimensions and specifications and you could mix manufacturers power heads, hoses, wall inlets, etc. Not sure if it made things cheaper, but being able to chose the best of breed made it nicer to build a system to my liking. The two systems I installed in our previous two homes were limited to the manufacturer of the head unit.