Category: default || By jt3y

Since buying a house, I've been trying to cut expenses in any possible way. That hasn't quite extended to flushing every other time, or making my own paper from wood pulped in the bathtub, but I have become obsessed with keeping the thermostat set low in the wintertime (if you can't see your breath, it's warm enough) and turning off unused lights. I don't have cable TV any more --- if there's nothing on the goggle box, that's my cue to do something useful with my time. Be frugal, that's my motto; watch the pennies, and the dollars will take care of themselves.

I'm also buying a lot of store-brand and generic products. So far, I haven't really gotten burned too badly, except in one case, which I'll get to in a moment. Most of the stuff seems as good as anything else --- I haven't noticed a particularly off taste in store-brand breakfast cereal versus the Kellogg's or Big G varieties, for example, and no-name sponges absorb just as much water as the "O-cell-o" ones.

Is there a rule, though, that says that store-brand products have to have poorly illustrated labels and gaudy colors? Some law that governs graphic-design of non-nationally advertised consumables? ("Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, Sec. 14: That no food, drug, or liquor that is not supported by handbills, traveling vendors, photoplay advertisements, or other promotional activities shall prominently display its name in ugly type using illustrations that shall make the contents as unappetizing as possible.")

I realize that one of the reasons that the store brands are cheaper is because they don't spend as much on packaging as the national brands, but they could hire a first-year student from the Art Institute of Pittsburgh to come up with more attractive labels than they use.

Maybe they figure if we're too cheap to spring for the name brand, we don't deserve a package with a label that isn't eye-poppingly awful, or they're trying to shame us into paying more for the more expensive products. All I can assume is that the labels are designed by the daughters of the foremen who run the factories.

"Look, daddy! It says 'grape jelly!'"

"No, sweetie, it says 'grepe jelly,' but that's close enough for people who are trying to save 79 cents off of a jar of Smuckers."

Also, I love how store-brand product packaging tries to get as close to the nationally advertised packaging as they can without getting sued. Take Pepto-Bismol, which comes in a familiar pink bottle; the store brands are invariably called something like "Pepta-Bismate" and come in bottles that are almost, but not quite, the same shade of pink.

The store-brand imitation of Sugar Smacks cereal (with "Dig 'Em Frog" on the package) will be called "Sugar Snackers" and feature a cartoon character called "Excavatin' Toad." In tiny type on the package will be the sentence: "Try this if you like Sugar Smacks!"

The one I love is the store-brand corn flakes. Unlike the Kellogg's Corn Flakes, the store-brand doesn't have a rooster on the package --- I think it has a cartoon of an ostrich with a thyroid problem --- but it has giant black capital letters on the package that say, "CORN FLAKES." And underneath in tiny letters, it says "Try this if you like Corn Flakes."

Well, duh. I'm glad they put that sentence on there. They must have gotten a lot of complaints. "Gee, I bought this cereal with the words 'CORN FLAKES' prominently displayed on the box, but I don't like Corn Flakes. I only wish they had warned me."

The product that surprised me most was non-Heinz ketchup, which was surprisingly good. I know, Pittsburgh loyalty and all that, but I don't feel too bad; I bought Bell-View brand, which is packed right over in Penn Borough, and it was significantly cheaper. (In fact, the whole Bell-View line --- pickles, relish, mustard, jelly, etc. --- is excellent for the price. I actually prefer Bell-View peanut butter to Jif or Skippy.)

Indeed, the only store-brand product that I've bought that was a complete disaster was saltine crackers. Usually I buy the Sunshine saltines, which are themselves about a dollar less than Nabisco Premium saltines, but the store-brand saltines were a buck cheaper than Sunshine saltines. Well, I couldn't resist --- it was like saving two dollars, after all!

Let me just say that store-brand saltine crackers are awful, awful stuff. I think they're made from recycled acoustical ceiling tile. They can't be eaten on their own, and they don't taste good in soup. The birds won't even eat them. I don't know how a cracker factory could screw up something as simple as saltines, but they did it.

Still, I hate to waste food, so I'm currently scraping off the salt to melt ice in the driveway and mushing up the crackers to spackle holes in the plaster.

Like I said, I'm trying to be frugal.

...

In other news, No. 7,151 of the "Reasons That I Hate The Walt Disney Company." Disneyphile Jim Hill conducts personal tours of Disneyland in Anaheim to explain the history of the park, but yesterday:

... 20 minutes into my 2 o'clock tour, I was suddenly interrupted by two officials from the park's security staff. They quietly pulled me aside and said that they'd had complaints about my tour. That they'd heard that I was saying negative things about their theme park. More importantly, that my JHM tour was somehow undercutting Disneyland Guest Relations' ability to sell its own tours of the theme park. ...

I can't help but think that the First Amendment sort-of, kind-of covers this issue. The right to tell somewhat embarassing stories about the Mouse. That's somewhere in the Constitution ... isn't it?

Well, that's clearly not how Disneyland Security sees it. The next thing I know, I've got an Anaheim police detective advising me that -- should I decide to continue with my tour -- the park's security staff could have me escorted off property. Worse yet, they could have me arrested. Which -- to my way of thinking, anyway -- wasn't exactly the best way to end my day at "The Happiest Place on Earth."

I could argue this both ways --- Disneyland is private property, just as Kennywood is, and this guy is transacting commerce on their property without giving them a cut. On the other hand, one has to wonder what possible harm this guy was doing to Disneyland. These folks were all paying the standard Disneyland admission and were likely going to be eating and spending other money at the park, after all. How was this any different than any group of people getting together and talking inside Disneyland?

In point of fact, this is just typical of Disney's bullying tactics. Anyone interested in the inside story on how Disney does business owes it to themselves to read Carl Hiaasen's Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World. (Tip o' the Tube City hard hat to BoingBoing.)

Speaking of my alma mater, Kennywood: A tipster pointed out to me that they've redesigned their Website. It's worth a look.