5 ms·

The title of the article seems... misleading. It implies the French government is forcing companies to manufacture products in a particular way, when what they

by rodgerd 12y ago

The title of the article seems... misleading. It implies the French government is forcing companies to manufacture products in a particular way, when what they are doing is forcing manufacturers to disclose to customer they planned lifespan of a product. Which, by the way, seems like an excellent proposition. As a (potential) customer I can factor in lifespan with features and price for things I buy and make a better-informed decision about which best meets my needs. Anything that gives customers more accurate information should lead to better-functioning markets.

bobbles 12y ago
Would be great if they standardised on 'price per year of use' like they do now in australia where food always has to have the $/100g or $/100ml in addition to the unit price. (Many supermarkets were basically rorting people by charging more for the 'bulk' items but labelling them as best value)
- eru 12y ago
  In Britain they also have some unit-price law. But Tesco blatantly abuses it: eg one kind of apple is priced by piece, the next goes per 100g (or per 1kg, but converting between 100g and 1kg is simpler).
  - johnchristopher 12y ago
    For what it's worth we have a unit-price law in France and Belgium as well. I can't be certain but I am pretty sure we had that before the Euro currency was introduced and it was mandatory after that.
  - joshvm 12y ago
    I believe that's because you have situations where you're buying multiple items that have variable weights, but a fixed total price. For instance, a bag of apples will not be exactly 200g, it might be 205g or 195g. However, you know it will have 4 apples in it so you're paying per apple. If you buy apples loosely then you can pick the weight and pay accordingly. You can see the same for the fixed price chickens vs the organic/free-range that are priced by weight. Although Tesco will no doubt try to game the system, it is in their interest to show you understandable unit prices because they want to flog their stuff cheaper than the brands.
    - eru 12y ago
      Oh, I don't mind if they would price all their apples either by unit or by kg. It's just the mix and match that's designed to confuse you. > Although Tesco will no doubt try to game the system, it is in their interest to show you understandable unit prices because they want to flog their stuff cheaper than the brands. I'm not sure Tesco makes more money on the cheaper stuff. People who care about price and quality go to Lidl and Aldi anyway (if available in the vicinity).
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    In Shanghai there's a brand of milk, Ubest, that comes in 500 mL, 950 mL, and 1350 mL containers. The best price per mL is always the 950 mL size. This always bugs me -- what's the point of buying larger sizes if it's not cheaper?
    - eru 12y ago
      Could be more convenient in the fridge? Though I guess it's just a ploy by the retailer. Perhaps they are trying to hit certain magic price points. (Like 0.99 of local currency.)
      - thaumasiotes 12y ago
        They're definitely not going for special price points; pricing for the two larger sizes is quite odd. I think I generally pay 16.8 yuan for a 950 mL carton.
    - imjustsaying 12y ago
      People may have become accustomed to assume that the larger product is a better deal, so perhaps this is a way to achieve the higher profit margin of the two options through understanding consumer behavior. Note that this most likely not Ubest's pricing decision, but the convenience store or grocer retailer that sells the product to the end consumer.
      - thaumasiotes 12y ago
        I tend to suspect that Ubest's pricing decisions play into it, because it's easy to observe the price of Ubest milk varying between convenience stores, wal-mart, supermarkets in poorer areas, supermarkets in richer areas, etc, but the fact that the largest size is more expensive per unit weight than the second-largest size never changes.
swatow 12y ago
> Anything that gives customers more accurate information should lead to better-functioning markets. Not if the information is vague or subjective or manipulable (as I think "expected lifespan" would be), or if that information is very costly for the manufacturer to estimate, or for the government to verify. Sometimes its better to let the market work on its own, e.g. through product reviews.
- molyss 12y ago
  unfortunately, product reviews don't give any information whatsoever on the lifespan of any product, instead focusing on the instant gratification, ease of use and shiny new things. Maybe that's what the consumer wants, but maybe that's just the only information they have access to in order to decide how to get the most bang for their bucks. Giving different information will at least let everyone decide what they believe is the most bangs (lifespan vs shiny new things) and buy accordingly
  - swatow 12y ago
    You're not considering the cost of obtaining this information. And plenty of reviews that I read contained information on the lifespan (usually in the form of "this broke! zero stars!")
    - molyss 12y ago
      any company a little bit serious will do some statistical analysis on expected lifespan of their product. Without speaking about planned obsolescence, you want to know what warranty to give to your customers, which parts will break first and so on. We are already paying the price to get the information. We just don't have access to it. And "it broke" just tells me it has a very short lifespan, but won't let me know if some stuff has a 6 months vs 6 years lifespan. "short lifespan" is fundamentally different from "not working". We're used to the former (unfortunately), but won't consider the latter acceptable, except maybe when buying obviously overly cheap stuff
- Shivetya 12y ago
bigbugbag 12y ago
> The title of the article seems... misleading. The content too… > (...) what they are doing is forcing manufacturers to disclose to customer they planned lifespan of a product. This part was removed from the law mid-february by the senate as reported by numerama[1] on feb 17th. What the law says is that deliberately limiting a product expected life during the design process is punishable by law with a maximum sentence of 2 years if prison and 300k € fine. Everybody understands that this is mostly for show as it is hardly enforceable. [1]: http://www.numerama.com/magazine/32252-le-delit-d-obsolescence-programmee-adopte-au-senat.html http://www.numerama.com/magazine/32252-le-delit-d-obsolescen...
- Natsu 12y ago
  I think perhaps they should instead mandate something like showing price per year of manufacturer's warranty. Then the manufacturers would have to compete on one front or the other.
- Iv 12y ago
  That's actually an excellent first step. It makes it clear that such a practice is not just cynical marketing but actually fraud. It will clear things a bit for people who ask designs that break after a set time. It will allow engineers and designers to refuse such tasks as illegal.

by rodgerd 12y ago

bobbles 12y ago

Would be great if they standardised on 'price per year of use' like they do now in australia where food always has to have the $/100g or $/100ml in addition to the unit price. (Many supermarkets were basically rorting people by charging more for the 'bulk' items but labelling them as best value)

eru 12y ago
In Britain they also have some unit-price law. But Tesco blatantly abuses it: eg one kind of apple is priced by piece, the next goes per 100g (or per 1kg, but converting between 100g and 1kg is simpler).
- johnchristopher 12y ago
  For what it's worth we have a unit-price law in France and Belgium as well. I can't be certain but I am pretty sure we had that before the Euro currency was introduced and it was mandatory after that.
- joshvm 12y ago
  I believe that's because you have situations where you're buying multiple items that have variable weights, but a fixed total price. For instance, a bag of apples will not be exactly 200g, it might be 205g or 195g. However, you know it will have 4 apples in it so you're paying per apple. If you buy apples loosely then you can pick the weight and pay accordingly. You can see the same for the fixed price chickens vs the organic/free-range that are priced by weight. Although Tesco will no doubt try to game the system, it is in their interest to show you understandable unit prices because they want to flog their stuff cheaper than the brands.
  - eru 12y ago
    Oh, I don't mind if they would price all their apples either by unit or by kg. It's just the mix and match that's designed to confuse you. > Although Tesco will no doubt try to game the system, it is in their interest to show you understandable unit prices because they want to flog their stuff cheaper than the brands. I'm not sure Tesco makes more money on the cheaper stuff. People who care about price and quality go to Lidl and Aldi anyway (if available in the vicinity).
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  In Shanghai there's a brand of milk, Ubest, that comes in 500 mL, 950 mL, and 1350 mL containers. The best price per mL is always the 950 mL size. This always bugs me -- what's the point of buying larger sizes if it's not cheaper?
  - eru 12y ago
    Could be more convenient in the fridge? Though I guess it's just a ploy by the retailer. Perhaps they are trying to hit certain magic price points. (Like 0.99 of local currency.)
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      They're definitely not going for special price points; pricing for the two larger sizes is quite odd. I think I generally pay 16.8 yuan for a 950 mL carton.
  - imjustsaying 12y ago
    People may have become accustomed to assume that the larger product is a better deal, so perhaps this is a way to achieve the higher profit margin of the two options through understanding consumer behavior. Note that this most likely not Ubest's pricing decision, but the convenience store or grocer retailer that sells the product to the end consumer.
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      I tend to suspect that Ubest's pricing decisions play into it, because it's easy to observe the price of Ubest milk varying between convenience stores, wal-mart, supermarkets in poorer areas, supermarkets in richer areas, etc, but the fact that the largest size is more expensive per unit weight than the second-largest size never changes.

swatow 12y ago

> Anything that gives customers more accurate information should lead to better-functioning markets. Not if the information is vague or subjective or manipulable (as I think "expected lifespan" would be), or if that information is very costly for the manufacturer to estimate, or for the government to verify. Sometimes its better to let the market work on its own, e.g. through product reviews.

molyss 12y ago
unfortunately, product reviews don't give any information whatsoever on the lifespan of any product, instead focusing on the instant gratification, ease of use and shiny new things. Maybe that's what the consumer wants, but maybe that's just the only information they have access to in order to decide how to get the most bang for their bucks. Giving different information will at least let everyone decide what they believe is the most bangs (lifespan vs shiny new things) and buy accordingly
- swatow 12y ago
  You're not considering the cost of obtaining this information. And plenty of reviews that I read contained information on the lifespan (usually in the form of "this broke! zero stars!")
  - molyss 12y ago
    any company a little bit serious will do some statistical analysis on expected lifespan of their product. Without speaking about planned obsolescence, you want to know what warranty to give to your customers, which parts will break first and so on. We are already paying the price to get the information. We just don't have access to it. And "it broke" just tells me it has a very short lifespan, but won't let me know if some stuff has a 6 months vs 6 years lifespan. "short lifespan" is fundamentally different from "not working". We're used to the former (unfortunately), but won't consider the latter acceptable, except maybe when buying obviously overly cheap stuff
Shivetya 12y ago

bigbugbag 12y ago

> The title of the article seems... misleading. The content too… > (...) what they are doing is forcing manufacturers to disclose to customer they planned lifespan of a product. This part was removed from the law mid-february by the senate as reported by numerama[1] on feb 17th. What the law says is that deliberately limiting a product expected life during the design process is punishable by law with a maximum sentence of 2 years if prison and 300k € fine. Everybody understands that this is mostly for show as it is hardly enforceable. [1]: http://www.numerama.com/magazine/32252-le-delit-d-obsolescence-programmee-adopte-au-senat.html http://www.numerama.com/magazine/32252-le-delit-d-obsolescen...

Natsu 12y ago
I think perhaps they should instead mandate something like showing price per year of manufacturer's warranty. Then the manufacturers would have to compete on one front or the other.
Iv 12y ago
That's actually an excellent first step. It makes it clear that such a practice is not just cynical marketing but actually fraud. It will clear things a bit for people who ask designs that break after a set time. It will allow engineers and designers to refuse such tasks as illegal.