Packaging

I was listening to "Any Questions" the other day, and was trying to stop my toes curling  - an involuntary spasm caused by the foolish inanities of Jeanette Winterson who is apparently a famous writer. Ms Winterson was telling us about protests which various environmentalist bodies had organised in order to protest at what they saw as the excessive volume of packaging produced by supermarkets. However, it can't be true that the packaging is unnecessary. Here's why.

The green argument takes two premises:

1. The level of packaging found in supermarkets is unnecessary.
2. This is annoying to customers
   

They reason therefore that supermarkets should not use so much packaging in future.

Let us observe however that supermarkets are greedy capitalist organisations. I don't think that anyone, least of all Ms Winterson, would disagree with this. We should also observe that supermarkets spend huge sums of money on packaging - which has become a multi-billion pound industry on the back of supermarkets' custom.

The question we therefore need to ask (and which Ms Winterson and her ilk need to supply an answer to) is: "Why are these greedy capitalists spending such large sums of money on something which is (a) unnecessary and (b)pisses their customers off?" Could it be that the packaging is, in fact, necessary after all? Could it be that it is actually protecting valuable products from damage or decay? Could it be that the supermarkets are actually the good environmentalists, and the Wintersons are in fact pushing us down a road that will see us wasting huge amounts of food, as happens in the third world?

Perish the thought.

 

Comments

[Chris]

It's far too easy and a little unfair to set up straw men. Environmentalists (at least the clever ones) don't complain about packaging because it annoys people, they do it because of the environmental damage it does (thus their 'environmentalist' label). And their gripe with packaging has nothing to do with packaging that keeps food healthy - it has to do with the large amount of packaging used for marketing purposes, and the sheer amount of out-of-season food imported at great environmental cost, which often also needing packaging to keep it healthy when it shouldn't even be being sold.
If you reject the premise that we shouldn't be importing food then attack that premise, but otherwise you're wholly misrepresenting their argument,

[Bishop Hill]

Now hold your horses. I've said that the environmentalists see the level of packaging as unnecessary - I don't say so explicitly, but the reason they think it unnecessary is presumably that they believe that the costs (environmental damage) outweigh the benefits (food protection). However the reasons for their belief are irrelevant to my argument anyway.

Next, I observe that they think that this is annoying to customers. I do not say that this is the reason that they attack packaging. So it is you who have set up a straw man, not me.

Your points about importing food are not relevant to the scope of the posting, which is about packaging. The clue's in the title.

Your case about packaging used for marketing purposes only is worth examining. It seems almost inconceivable that the greedy capitalists would invest significant resources in packaging the only purpose of which was marketing. Can you give some examples, and can you show that this kind of packaging is a significant proportion of the total? I have never heard this distinction made by an environmentalist before.

[HJHJ]

"Marketing purposes"? Does it not occur to Chris and Bishop Hill that all products are produced for marketing purposes? That's what Marketing is about - how to provide what your customers want and do it profitably. That's the whole purpose of companies and thats why (as Peter Drucker said), the only essential functions of companies are Marketing and Innovation - everything else is just a cost).

I suppose they meant promotional purposes. Well if packaging was for promotional purposes, then if it annoyed customers it would be counterproductive as they would be less likely to buy. If, on the other hand, it attracts customers (either because the packaging serves a useful purpose or it just looks nicer) and they buy the product then presumably they don't find it annoying. If it imposes disposal costs then the correct thing to do is to charge those costs - then consumers will have the choice between choosing between possibly more expensive packaged products or less expensive unpackaged (or less packaged) products.

[Bishop Hill]

As I was composing my response to Chris I did wonder whether to get into the semantic debate over whether he actually meant advertising rather than marketing, but I knew what he was referring to, so I didn't think it worth pursuing.

I agree though that making the consumer pay the waste disposal costs is the correct approach. I just thought it was more fun pointing out the flaws in Chris's arguments rather than advancing any of my own.