Subject:
|
Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 1999 22:35:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
813 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <386A45E1.237C@mindspring.com>...
> Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> > Interesting. It seems the consumer doesn't seem to want no packaged
> > items, little, etc. Maybe it was a backlash. I don't know. But it seems
> > that more packages are bigger nowadays, regardless the apparent threat
> > of the "packaging police."
>
> I think that it's not so much a case of the consumer wanting more
> packaging, than that the companies perceive that larger packages sell
> better because the stupid consumer thinks he's getting a better deal.
Remember what you said, stupid consumers...
> As far as government regulation of packaging goes, I think that so long
> as landfills are publicly financed, the government has an interest in
> reducing waste. Of course this should be handled by charging a fee per
> bag of trash (with lower, zero, or negative fees for properly cleaned
> and sorted recycleables, assuming there is a market for said
> recycleables). If the trash fees really represented the true cost of
> waste disposal (which I suspect would shock us if we paid per bag of
> trash), consumers would quickly demand a level of packaging which would
> minimize waste (whether it be no packaging at all, or recycleable
> packaging).
I don't think (stupid) "consumers would quickly demand a level of
packaging which would minimize waste" simply because they must pay for waste
disposal "by the bag". This is America, we (as consumers, in general) are
quite used to "throwing money away." I think smart consumers would make
this demand, and some companies may yield to it, but unless it became a
politically hyped issue, there would be very little change from your
suggestion. Not that your suggestion for private landfills and waste
collection is a bad idea; I definitely support that. I just think you have
over-estimated the "stupid consumers."
It saddens me that I feel that way, but looking around, I think its
accurate. I think you probably would agree with me too, if you give it
thought. The reason it is so difficult to make any part of our system more
efficient, by implementing "Libertarian" type ideas (besides political
opposition, of course) is that many people would be forced to do something
they hate, think for themsleves, about things they would rather neglect.
They could be called the "stupid consumers" or possibly the "human
opposition" (actually a greater force than the obvious political
opposition - any politcal opposition just uses that natural "human
opposition" for it's cause). I think there is a pressing danger in
neglecting too many "little things" and allowing someone (big brother, as we
call "someone", or its agencies) to do that thinking for us. It certainly
seems to piss off those who think for themselves.
> In general, TLC seems to use an appropriate level of packaging, though
> some boxes could be smaller. One place where their packaging is
> ridiculous is the service packs. Why do we need a bag within a bag?
I think this double bagging is OK, and certainly not new. Just in case
one bag breaks, product isn't lost. I would think the retail stores that
sell these over sized boxes would complain at the amount of shelf space the
boxes consume. Which is another reason TLC is using the bigger boxes - so
that they can still fill an aisle of TRU with Lego, for nearly the same cost
to TRU, and delivering half the actual number of Lego pieces (not sets, but
bricks) to that aisle. I think the point was that the 2000 sets have a lot
more air in them than in the past, meaning the air to pieces ratio has
climbed significantly (from, say, 1:3 (parts air:parts Lego) to 1:1 from the
examples I have seen so far in the 2000 Castle and SW lines).
I think Lego's use of the bigger boxes has plenty of good reasoning
behind it, to take up more shelf space and to make the product more
appealing, but it could hurt them in the long run, if buyers begin to see
the packaging as deceiving - I think most buyers already thought Lego was
pretty pricey. After they get a 2000 set, and find that you get even less
for your money, that could cause more resentment to TLC.
> Music CDs are certainly an example of consumer acceptance of reduced
> packaging (though every once in a while I get a CD with two layers of
> shrink wrap). When the long boxes disappeared, they did so almost over
> night, and most (music) stores don't use those re-useable frames. I've
> also noticed that most double CDs come in the thin double jewel boxes.
>
> Of course there are a few products which I almost wish came in more
> packaging. Have you ever tripped over a basketball in the toy section of
> a super store? If they were in a box instead of unpackaged and left in
> those huge baskets, kids wouldn't throw them all over the place.
No, I haven't tripped over a basketball, but I bet I have left one on the
floor in toy aisle at one time or another!
> I also see some value in legislation which kicks us in the pants to
> clean up our act. I wonder where minorities would be today without all
> the civil rights legislation?
Yeah, you are right. libertopia would work great if everyone thought for
themselves and did what was in their own best interest, but since wearen't
in libertopia, we do need such legislation. Its just too bad we getting
more and more off the course, as more junk legislation is passed.
> Of course if we had a true Liberatopia, most of these problems wouldn't
> exist, because all the costs and benefits would be properly balanced,
> instead of most of the costs being hidden.
It makes me imagine, if there was a heaven, and there were angels, would
they live in a libertopia or a perfect form of communism (either is
unachievable for people, but one wonders).
> Frank Filz
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
"Censorship is yet another tool in the dumbing-down of America
by a power structure that relies on a populace too lazy or ignorant
to think independently." -Vanessa McGrady
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
| (...) I think that it's not so much a case of the consumer wanting more packaging, than that the companies perceive that larger packages sell better because the stupid consumer thinks he's getting a better deal. As far as government regulation of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
