0993: "Brand Awareness"

[Shriiimp]

I can't believe that I went through 3 pages of posts of people saying "this is the worst comic", "they already exists in my country". OF COURSE IT ALREADY EXISTS! What he is trying to illustrate, imo, is that he would not use a single mainstreamed design. He would not use a simple style like "i'm cheap", or "i'm great", or, "i'm a copy of the real thing". It would just be random, a big confusion. A confusion as big as the one you are all being put through.

[Karilyn]

Early in the morning (when you're probably still half-asleep), accidentally making a bowl of corn flakes and orange juice is distinctly undelicious.

If it's early enough, this can happen even if the products are very clearly labeled. :-S.

If it's early enough, it can happen even if the products look nothing alike.

About a month ago, I did put orange juice on my corn flakes. But to make it even worse... these were the brands (and size) of orange juice and milk that I keep in stock. And the brands (and sizes) that I've used religiously for the past 6 years.

Never underestimate the power of being tired.

[ahdok]

[SirMustapha]

I think what most people are missing is that the products which stand out the most and as such have the most brand awareness is the bland white ones. The irony being that for all the pictures and cleaver names, nothing beats black on white contrast and state-the-obvious naming. It would stick in peoples mind and would link all your products in peoples heads, so once they try one out they feel confident trying other products.

Look at the shelf and try to identify what some of the products are. I couldn't get any other than the white ones with names.

What you're clearly missing is that those aren't real brands -- they're incredibly cluttered, shit brands that Randall devised to make a point that everybody already knows.

In other words, it's a "strawman argument", something Randall has done many, many times before. It's tolerable when the joke is indeed just a joke, but a comic like this is presented like it has something really, really interesting and relevant to say.

[FalseProphet]

Although the marketing can be on the order of 50% of a product*, you can find how much is the cost of the brand for store brands vs. name brands of products where they're virtually identical, such as for aspirin or paper towels. Sometimes there IS a quality difference, so buying store brands when you can't tell the difference, and name brands when you can, saved my family enough over a few years to pay for the computer for this post.

Offering a generic product as a high-end brand is a bold strategy, and I like it.

Actually, it's the reverse. Most No Frills/No Name/generic brands are actually higher-end brands with simplified packaging. It's a form of price discrimination: the distributors know that higher income shoppers will buy the name brand, but lower income shoppers will balk at the inflated price. So they sell the same product as generic. Same principle as generic drugs.

[DragonHawk]

but Walmart pretty much already does this with their "Great Value" products:

Great Value's products -- and most other store brands, for that matter -- tend to be *much* more decorated than this, though. Not just black lettering on plain white backgrounds. They typically feature a store logo, a photo or depiction of the product, maybe some color. Heck, even the "No Frills" brand I posted had that pinstripe. A few of the images people have been posting look like this gag, but most are just *simpler* packaging. Not completely plain. There's a difference between "our marketing people are cheap, so turned in a plain design" and "our packages are as plain as humanly possible".

Note to all you non-US people: We do have store brands here in the US, too.
-----

I always thought that if I had to do a TV advertisement, I'd make it completely silent. The sudden change of volume would probably attract lots of attention. I'm surprised I've never seen one like this. Of course as soon as other people started doing it it'd stop being original.

Infinity (the car maker) did something like this when they premiered. Their commercials were nothing but 10 seconds of some shot of a forest or something, and then their logo and a voiceover about how awesome they were going to be.

I also recall a completely silent commercial which big title cards that went:

Research shows that people tune out commercials

[next card]

But they do read titles

[next card]

(whatever they were advertising)

[YuriPup]

Ahem. No one remembers Public Image Ltd?

Beat me to it. I have CD at home. I thought I had a copy of it here at work, but I only have Happy.

I remember buying CD. A friend saw them on that tour and the T-shirts, of course, was T-Shirt.

(Other images cut to save the forum.)

[3Nex]

There is a company that already did this. Their name is "Standard" and they're from Serbia (I think). This is an example of their chocolate (the grey label reads "milk chocolate"):
(sorry if someone already mentioned this, i didn't read through the thread)

[RobertWagner]

This was done long ago.

Visit any WalMart store. Surely you have one?

[SamSam]

Actually, it's the reverse. Most No Frills/No Name/generic brands are actually higher-end brands with simplified packaging. It's a form of price discrimination: the distributors know that higher income shoppers will buy the name brand, but lower income shoppers will balk at the inflated price. So they sell the same product as generic. Same principle as generic drugs.

Any evidence for that, besides generic drugs (which are a different kettle of fish)?

Generic pasta sucks compared to good pasta. Generic toilet paper is scratchy and falls apart. Generic eggs are made from battery chickens.

It's everyone's personal choice whether they think it's worth buying the higher-end product if they can afford it (and if they can't, it's not a choice), but what makes you think that they're actually the same product?

[Karilyn]

Actually, it's the reverse. Most No Frills/No Name/generic brands are actually higher-end brands with simplified packaging. It's a form of price discrimination: the distributors know that higher income shoppers will buy the name brand, but lower income shoppers will balk at the inflated price. So they sell the same product as generic. Same principle as generic drugs.

Any evidence for that, besides generic drugs (which are a different kettle of fish)? Generic pasta sucks compared to good pasta. Generic toilet paper is scratchy and falls apart. Generic eggs are made from battery chickens. It's everyone's personal choice whether they think it's worth buying the higher-end product if they can afford it (and if they can't, it's not a choice), but what makes you think that they're actually the same product?

False Prophet is right. It's definitely true that the low end products are often identical to a high end brand, with a different package. The only problem goes when the generic happens to be based on a high end brand that you don't like. A common one is Ketchup. Generic Ketchup is usually Hunts, not Heinz, and some people don't like Hunts. Another one is Peanut Butter, one of the few things I buy non-generic. Generic peanut butter is usually Jif or Skippy, both of which I don't like because they are too sweet and too salty, I always pick up Peter Pan as one of the few non-generics I buy.

If you're familiar with a variety of name brands, it's often not hard to figure out which name brand your generic actually is.

I was so happy when stores started carrying generic Miracle Whip. You have to keep an close eye to figure out which ones are Mayo (usually Heilman's equivalent) and which are Miracle Whip, considering they are both frequently labeled generically as Salad Dressing (who puts miracle whip or mayo on their salad?)

[Michael D]

It is unclear whether "Sugar", "Hot Sauce", and "Tea" are part of the brand. Or are they off-brand knockoffs?

[dp2]

Actually, it's the reverse. Most No Frills/No Name/generic brands are actually higher-end brands with simplified packaging. It's a form of price discrimination: the distributors know that higher income shoppers will buy the name brand, but lower income shoppers will balk at the inflated price. So they sell the same product as generic. Same principle as generic drugs.

Any evidence for that, besides generic drugs (which are a different kettle of fish)? Generic pasta sucks compared to good pasta. Generic toilet paper is scratchy and falls apart. Generic eggs are made from battery chickens. It's everyone's personal choice whether they think it's worth buying the higher-end product if they can afford it (and if they can't, it's not a choice), but what makes you think that they're actually the same product?

False Prophet is right. It's definitely true that the low end products are often identical to a high end brand, with a different package. The only problem goes when the generic happens to be based on a high end brand that you don't like. A common one is Ketchup. Generic Ketchup is usually Hunts, not Heinz, and some people don't like Hunts. Another one is Peanut Butter, one of the few things I buy non-generic. Generic peanut butter is usually Jif or Skippy, both of which I don't like because they are too sweet and too salty, I always pick up Peter Pan as one of the few non-generics I buy.

If you're familiar with a variety of name brands, it's often not hard to figure out which name brand your generic actually is.

I was so happy when stores started carrying generic Miracle Whip. You have to keep an close eye to figure out which ones are Mayo (usually Heilman's equivalent) and which are Miracle Whip, considering they are both frequently labeled generically as Salad Dressing (who puts miracle whip or mayo on their salad?)

I have occasionally seen store-brand products that have small print, explicitly stating that it is identical to whatever name brand.

I'll always try store brands. There are a few items where it's just not acceptable. Some brands of Rice Krispies, for example, are shit. But I actually prefer store brand yellow mustard over French's.

[alcore]

Every good idea I have and someone else goes and publicises it.

*GRUMP*

[SamSam]

False Prophet is right. It's definitely true that the low end products are often identical to a high end brand, with a different package. The only problem goes when the generic happens to be based on a high end brand that you don't like. A common one is Ketchup. Generic Ketchup is usually Hunts, not Heinz, and some people don't like Hunts. Another one is Peanut Butter, one of the few things I buy non-generic. Generic peanut butter is usually Jif or Skippy, both of which I don't like because they are too sweet and too salty, I always pick up Peter Pan as one of the few non-generics I buy.

If you're familiar with a variety of name brands, it's often not hard to figure out which name brand your generic actually is.

I was so happy when stores started carrying generic Miracle Whip. You have to keep an close eye to figure out which ones are Mayo (usually Heilman's equivalent) and which are Miracle Whip, considering they are both frequently labeled generically as Salad Dressing (who puts miracle whip or mayo on their salad?)

You seem to be contradicting yourself. If the generics are the same as the high-end brands, then why are you saying that the ketchup, penut butter, miracle whip and whatever aren't as good as the high-end brands? I guess what you're saying is that generics are often the same as the cheapest name brands. Generic ketchup is the same as (the cheaper ketchup) Hunts, generic peanut butter is the same as (the cheaper peanut butter) Jif, etc.

For the most part, you're probably right there -- if you're going to buy Hunts, you may as well save an extra penny and buy Walmart brand or whatever.

FalseProphet, however, was suggesting that the no-frills brands were actually putting the same product as the higher-end brands into their packages. While I agree that Walmart ketchup probably tastes like Hunts ketchup, I haven't seen any evidence that they're getting them from the same factory.

[DaveInsurgent]

False Prophet is right. It's definitely true that the low end products are often identical to a high end brand, with a different package. The only problem goes when the generic happens to be based on a high end brand that you don't like. A common one is Ketchup. Generic Ketchup is usually Hunts, not Heinz, and some people don't like Hunts. Another one is Peanut Butter, one of the few things I buy non-generic. Generic peanut butter is usually Jif or Skippy, both of which I don't like because they are too sweet and too salty, I always pick up Peter Pan as one of the few non-generics I buy.

If you're familiar with a variety of name brands, it's often not hard to figure out which name brand your generic actually is.

I was so happy when stores started carrying generic Miracle Whip. You have to keep an close eye to figure out which ones are Mayo (usually Heilman's equivalent) and which are Miracle Whip, considering they are both frequently labeled generically as Salad Dressing (who puts miracle whip or mayo on their salad?)

You seem to be contradicting yourself. If the generics are the same as the high-end brands, then why are you saying that the ketchup, penut butter, miracle whip and whatever aren't as good as the high-end brands? I guess what you're saying is that generics are often the same as the cheapest name brands. Generic ketchup is the same as (the cheaper ketchup) Hunts, generic peanut butter is the same as (the cheaper peanut butter) Jif, etc.

For the most part, you're probably right there -- if you're going to buy Hunts, you may as well save an extra penny and buy Walmart brand or whatever.

FalseProphet, however, was suggesting that the no-frills brands were actually putting the same product as the higher-end brands into their packages. While I agree that Walmart ketchup probably tastes like Hunts ketchup, I haven't seen any evidence that they're getting them from the same factory.

Not to mention that the store brands usually have different ingredients..

Glad cling-wrap is superior to no-name cling wrap. It took one roll to realize "never again". Same for tin foil, and as mentioned, toilet paper. I much prefer the taste of Heinz ketchup. We tend to eat instant potatoes a lot, and Idahoan are way better than No-Name. Sure there's an element of preference to everything... we buy 90% brand name items, perhaps 95%, and our family of 4 spends $800 a month on groceries. I think that is pretty reasonable. We buy things on sale, and I always check the $/item ratio. You have to watch out for cheap no-name products selling you 0.8 units for a small price difference. Yes, you're saving 15 cents, but you're getting 20% less product. If you just bought the 250 foot roll (or 500, or whatever), or the 48-pack of Eggos, etc... you'd save a lot more.

[Karilyn]

False Prophet is right. It's definitely true that the low end products are often identical to a high end brand, with a different package. The only problem goes when the generic happens to be based on a high end brand that you don't like. A common one is Ketchup. Generic Ketchup is usually Hunts, not Heinz, and some people don't like Hunts. Another one is Peanut Butter, one of the few things I buy non-generic. Generic peanut butter is usually Jif or Skippy, both of which I don't like because they are too sweet and too salty, I always pick up Peter Pan as one of the few non-generics I buy.

If you're familiar with a variety of name brands, it's often not hard to figure out which name brand your generic actually is.

I was so happy when stores started carrying generic Miracle Whip. You have to keep an close eye to figure out which ones are Mayo (usually Heilman's equivalent) and which are Miracle Whip, considering they are both frequently labeled generically as Salad Dressing (who puts miracle whip or mayo on their salad?)

You seem to be contradicting yourself. If the generics are the same as the high-end brands, then why are you saying that the ketchup, penut butter, miracle whip and whatever aren't as good as the high-end brands? I guess what you're saying is that generics are often the same as the cheapest name brands. Generic ketchup is the same as (the cheaper ketchup) Hunts, generic peanut butter is the same as (the cheaper peanut butter) Jif, etc.

For the most part, you're probably right there -- if you're going to buy Hunts, you may as well save an extra penny and buy Walmart brand or whatever.

FalseProphet, however, was suggesting that the no-frills brands were actually putting the same product as the higher-end brands into their packages. While I agree that Walmart ketchup probably tastes like Hunts ketchup, I haven't seen any evidence that they're getting them from the same factory.

Try working on your reading comprehension. I said buy generic Miracle Whip. I also buy generic ketchup. One of the only things I don't get generic is Peanut Butter, because it's almost always a brand I don't like (generic Jif or generic Skippy, not generic Peter Pan). In case you didn't notice, there are multiple high end brands of most products. And they all use different recipes. If a generic peanut butter is Skippy, and you don't like Skippy, of course you aren't going to like the generic, anymore than when it was labeled as the high end Skippy. And in your specific case, you are combining the Nocebo effect of thinking that it's not good because it's generic (even though it's identical to a high end brand), which makes you think it's even worse (even though it's identical).

It's no secret. Take two bottles of Coca-Cola. Rip the label off one. Put a generic label on it instead, any generic label. Have people sample them; almost 100% of people will say they think the bottle which didn't have the generic label tasted better. This experiment has been done repeatedly in many different ways (such as by swapping the label on Coca-Cola and Pepsi), and it always comes up the same. These experiments have even been done with brain imaging. Mentally people aren't identifying a physical difference in the taste Coca-Cola and a Coca-Cola with a generic label (obviously), but they still experiencing the non-generic bottle as tasting better, because it triggers emotional responses which they've been trained by advertisement to have to the product.

[DonQuigleone]

I have to agree that Tesco pretty much already does this. It's not plain white, but it's as close as you can get really.

[Karilyn]

We tend to eat instant potatoes a lot, and Idahoan are way better than No-Name. Sure there's an element of preference to everything... we buy 90% brand name items, perhaps 95%, and our family of 4 spends $800 a month on groceries. I think that is pretty reasonable. We buy things on sale, and I always check the $/item ratio. You have to watch out for cheap no-name products selling you 0.8 units for a small price difference. Yes, you're saving 15 cents, but you're getting 20% less product. If you just bought the 250 foot roll (or 500, or whatever), or the 48-pack of Eggos, etc... you'd save a lot more.

I'm not going to lie, I'm baffled at how you spend $200 a month on groceries per person. I'm guessing nobody in your family cooks? The suggestion of Eggos as being something you'd buy would seem to indicate that. Home-made whole-wheat waffles with fruit inside and real maple syrup, or go home. I couldn't imagine spending more than $100 a month, and I cook big meals for every meal of the day. Actually, it probably has to do with being a vegetarian. I forget how expensive meat is ($1 for a quarter pound of minced beef? That's highway robbery @_@).

I don't know why people would buy food that tastes worse and costs 4 times as much as it would simply cooking the same thing yourself. But then again, I'm kind of a foodie, so I guess my opinion can be taken with a grain of salt by a non-foodie.

Also any person looking at the price and not the price per unit is a fool. I've caught generics occasionally being more expensive per unit than the name-brands. Of course, for every time I've caught that, I've also seen a dozen generics being only 60% the price of a name-brand per unit.

[Sprocket]

Yes, that IS how XKCD brand food products would look, given the already established look of XKCD.

[Drain]

I remember my dad drinking this stuff. Seems like the time is ripe for it to make a come back here in Seattle.

[webgrunt]

This has actually been done. Back in the 1970s, a generic line of products came out with a plain white label and the name of the contents on it. Exactly as shown here--black and white, no color anywhere on the label, and a plain, unassuming font. Before everyone found out these were called "generic", everyone just called them "white label" products. They were cheaper than brand-name products.

A few years later, they changed the label color from white to yellow, perhaps to boost sales.

Eventually, you didn't see them much anymore, then not at all. I guess people don't like paying less if there's no pretty label graphics and brand name they can relate to. Were the products inferior? No, it turns out they were made by all the name-brand companies, their exact same products just packaged differently--the companies got together and created a generic brand in order to compete with store brands and other lower-priced brands. Why didn't they just lower the prices on their regularly-labeled items? Why, because marketing studies showed that many consumers would think there was something wrong with the product if it was as cheap as the store brands, and wouldn't trust it anymore.

Some people choose a brand because it's the cheapest; some people choose a brand because it's the most expensive, or has the slickest packaging.

Marketing can be a fascinating subject. It's closely related to psychology.

Sorry that I repeated what others have already said, but I needed to post this.

[DragonHawk]

While I agree that Walmart ketchup probably tastes like Hunts ketchup, I haven't seen any evidence that they're getting them from the same factory.

Heh. In many cases, the products actually do come from the same factory, but that doesn't mean they're identical. Sometimes it's just as simple as the cheaper brands are thinner (for paper products), or don't contain the same spices or formulations (for something like ketchup or soda). The equipment is the same, though, so the factory owners will get some extra money by producing generic brands on contract. A few decades ago when I worked at a stupor-market, I learned that several local supermarket brand sodas were mixed and bottled by Polar Beverages. That doesn't necessarily mean they're identical to each other or Polar's products, though. (Although they may have been, for all I know.)
-----

Yes, you're saving 15 cents, but you're getting 20% less product.

Then you're not saving 15 cents.

[DillyD]

Guys I have this great idea for a comic! It's about a tiny bagel with pizza stuff on top that you heat up in the oven. I'm pretty original I came up with it all by myself.

[DaveInsurgent]

We tend to eat instant potatoes a lot, and Idahoan are way better than No-Name. Sure there's an element of preference to everything... we buy 90% brand name items, perhaps 95%, and our family of 4 spends $800 a month on groceries. I think that is pretty reasonable. We buy things on sale, and I always check the $/item ratio. You have to watch out for cheap no-name products selling you 0.8 units for a small price difference. Yes, you're saving 15 cents, but you're getting 20% less product. If you just bought the 250 foot roll (or 500, or whatever), or the 48-pack of Eggos, etc... you'd save a lot more.

I'm not going to lie, I'm baffled at how you spend $200 a month on groceries per person. I'm guessing nobody in your family cooks? The suggestion of Eggos as being something you'd buy would seem to indicate that. Home-made whole-wheat waffles with fruit inside and real maple syrup, or go home. I couldn't imagine spending more than $100 a month, and I cook big meals for every meal of the day. Actually, it probably has to do with being a vegetarian. I forget how expensive meat is ($1 for a quarter pound of minced beef? That's highway robbery @_@).

I don't know why people would buy food that tastes worse and costs 4 times as much as it would simply cooking the same thing yourself. But then again, I'm kind of a foodie, so I guess my opinion can be taken with a grain of salt by a non-foodie.

Also any person looking at the price and not the price per unit is a fool. I've caught generics occasionally being more expensive per unit than the name-brands. Of course, for every time I've caught that, I've also seen a dozen generics being only 60% the price of a name-brand per unit.

So you make points both about cost and about quality of food.. I'm going to address cost:

$100 per month is $1200 a year or $3.28 per day.

-- Breakfast --
1 1/2 cups of cereal: $0.40
Milk: $0.15
Orange Juice: $0.25
-- Lunch --
Apple: $0.40
Banana: $0.25
Grapes: $0.20
Bread for a sandwich at lunch: $0.30
PB+J on sammich: $0.10

That's $2.05 or $1.23 left for supper and snacks. The kids drink a lot more milk than that, and seem to never stop eating cereal.

So let's take $1 from that for supper - leaving the 23 cents for a snack. Combined, that is $4 for the family to eat on. Can you provide some sample meals

We eat chicken once a week - that's $10 just for the meat.
We eat tenderloin once a week - that's $8 of it's on sale, $16 if not. I stock up when on sale.
We have a take-out night on Friday, which is around $40. The thing is, that in that situation, it's over your budget by $36. Amortize that over the week, and that's another $6 for each other day. Or, you know, $182.50 a month. Add the chicken ($43 a month over - maybe a bit less depending on what is served with it).. I'm already, roughly, at $625 and we still have the tenderloin (so let's round to $650) and then that leaves 4 nights still unaccounted for.

Your other argument is about quality of food: you take the time to prepare things, that's great. But that's added cost. Putting an extra half hour a day of my time in to preparation would be a monthly expense of $608 of my time.

Not perfect math, but I don't see how you're so surprised. I don't have a lot of labels to throw around, but I guess "middle-class" comes to mind. I think we have a balance between prepared meals and free time.

[DaveInsurgent]

While I agree that Walmart ketchup probably tastes like Hunts ketchup, I haven't seen any evidence that they're getting them from the same factory.

Yes, you're saving 15 cents, but you're getting 20% less product.

Then you're not saving 15 cents.

That's my point. It is misleading, and it is targeted at certain people - it's almost predatory towards a certain part of the population.

[Karilyn]

Your other argument is about quality of food: you take the time to prepare things, that's great. But that's added cost. Putting an extra half hour a day of my time in to preparation would be a monthly expense of $608 of my time.

That argument is always silly. What are you going to be doing with the time if you don't spend it cooking? Watching TV? Surfing the Internet? And that also implies that cooking is a chore. Personally it's a hobby for me, always coming up with new and better recipes, adjusting tweaking, making amazing new flavors. Personally I find that cooking is a great bonding time between me and my partner, but I suppose not everyone can be lucky enough to have a girl who likes cooking too. I say that if you don't have enough time to spend an hour or two cooking every day, you're probably not utilizing your time well.

Then again I don't have kids, so that might also have something to do with it. And I don't keep a TV in my house. Forces you to find better ways to spend your time.

[DaveInsurgent]

Your other argument is about quality of food: you take the time to prepare things, that's great. But that's added cost. Putting an extra half hour a day of my time in to preparation would be a monthly expense of $608 of my time.

That argument is always silly. What are you going to be doing with the time if you don't spend it cooking? Watching TV? Surfing the Internet? And that also implies that cooking is a chore. Personally it's a hobby for me, always coming up with new and better recipes, adjusting tweaking, making amazing new flavors. Personally I find that cooking is a great bonding time between me and my partner, but I suppose not everyone can be lucky enough to have a girl who likes cooking too. I say that if you don't have enough time to spend an hour or two cooking every day, you're probably not utilizing your time well.

Then again I don't have kids, so that might also have something to do with it. And I don't keep a TV in my house. Forces you to find better ways to spend your time.

I hope my fairly detailed account of our shopping/eating habits (and local prices where we live) helped un-baffle you as to how others might approach life or at least part of it.

I view cooking/eating as mostly a chore, yes. It is something mandatory and repetitive and an interruption. You've established that it is a matter of personal preference, I suppose. Note that I said an additional 30 minutes. We take turns cooking (I prefer cooking the steak) but specifically in the morning, an additional 30 minutes is 30 minutes less I have for myself. I think you fail to understand that an Average Parent (tm) with two small children has very little time to themselves. I'm tempted argue that your ability to throw 2 hours a day at fiddling with food puts you in a completely different bracket of leisure and luxury than a lot of people, but what you seem to be suggesting by your indicating of a lack of television is just a difference in priorities. You choose to spend your time differently. For me, and I realize this is an exception, there is a direct cost because I am currently moonlighting as a contractor to save up to buy a house. That aside, even after I am back to one job, I'd still prefer a plethora of other activities (I've always wanted to make my own speaker cabinets) than cooking. I think that you're being a little ambitious or self-righteous by saying "better ways to spend your time".

[boriquajake]

Two straight weeks of below average comics. I won't be worried until he gets through February without being funny.

[Whys]

When viewed from a short distance among other packaging, it definitely catches the eye. But once it has their attention, people don't like to put things in their cart that aren't pretty.

[just john]

During the "generic" fad, there were even generic novels. The one labelled "Mystery" wasn't bad, for the price.

[iChef]

The best label in this style I've seen is from U.S. Government food assistance canned meat. After I got out of a homeless shelter and found an apartment I was on food assistance for a few months. They would give us cans of meat that were plain white labels with a black outline picture of whatever was in the can. The chicken would have an outline of a chicken on the can and just the word chicken above it and nothing else. They also had pork and beef like that. The meat was pretty bad, but edible if you were hungry enough. Thankfully I had a cooking job so I could get at least one meal of real food per day and had access to spices to make the government canned meat taste like something. Lodes of cayenne pepper and chili powder are your friend when you are eating government meat.

[DaveInsurgent]

I couldn't imagine spending more than $100 a month, and I cook big meals for every meal of the day.

Please provide an example of one such "big meal" including ingredients and amounts so that we could replicate it. Assuming you eat three of these big meals per day, the total for the meal must be equal to or less than $1.33.

A head of romaine lettuce is $1 here ($2.99 for a 3-pack) - add some dressing and you're done. So much for salad. Corn, sweet potatoes and green beans is about $1 I suspect. And if you look at my calculations, I think I'm eating a pretty bland, non-varying diet (cereal and a sandwich for lunch with basic fruits) which I would expect a 'foodie' (I hate that term) to baulk at. That's also drinking a glass of juice and nothing else - not even the recommended intake of milk per day. I wonder what will be said as I explain I spend $800 a month to own and operate a vehicle? Or $1425 on rent? There seems to be no shortage of people who claim to spend a small fraction of what I spend. Except I don't see any in real life. The first step in frugality is exaggeration: probably by not counting items that last more than a month as a 'monthly' expense.

[webgrunt]

So you make points both about cost and about quality of food.. I'm going to address cost:

$100 per month is $1200 a year or $3.28 per day.

-- Breakfast --
(etc.)

It would be very easy to stay within budget by not eating anything fresh, frozen, processed or canned, and buying all dried things for ingredients, like uncooked beans and rice and cooking them yourself. How cheaply can beans and rice be purchased? I suspect you could come in far enough under budget to add some fresh veggies or fruits each day. Then there's other bulk products such as dried grains, textured vegetable protein, etc. which can provide fairly decent basic sustenance for pennies per serving.

I can see it. Now, the kids might complain, but hey, what are you going to do? You can't be spending a ridiculous two bucks or more on a meal, can you?

[DaveInsurgent]

So you make points both about cost and about quality of food.. I'm going to address cost:

$100 per month is $1200 a year or $3.28 per day.

-- Breakfast --
(etc.)

It would be very easy to stay within budget by not eating anything fresh, frozen, processed or canned, and buying all dried things for ingredients, like uncooked beans and rice and cooking them yourself. How cheaply can beans and rice be purchased? I suspect you could come in far enough under budget to add some fresh veggies or fruits each day. Then there's other bulk products such as quinoa, textured vegetable protein, etc.

I can see it. Now, the kids might complain, but hey, what are you going to do? You can't be spending a ridiculous two bucks or more on a meal, can you?

Not when you're a foodie, right? You love food, but there's nothing in the world delicious or nutritious above $1.33.

[icthulu]

Not perfect math, but I don't see how you're so surprised. I don't have a lot of labels to throw around, but I guess "middle-class" comes to mind. I think we have a balance between prepared meals and free time.

I was going to add a comment in this vein as well, but yours was much better. Though I disagree with your breakfast and lunch numbers, seeing that that seems like so very little in terms of caloric intake to make it through a day if you are active... It does show you shouldn't live off less than $200 per month in food expenses.

[Steve the Pocket]

As already stated, this would be funnier if it hadn't already been done a million times over all over the world in real life.

maybe Randall only shops at high end grocery stores?

Or more likely at ones where all the generic brands are designed to look like cheap imitations of the name brands. Like they are where I live. (One local store brand, Best Foods or something like that, even gives some of its sodas ridiculous names like "Best-Up" and "Dr. Best". That second one sort of makes sense, since there's no accepted name for what Dr. Pepper's flavor is, but still.)

My biggest problem with this isn't that it turned out to be something that has been done before; it's that Randall OF ALL PEOPLE should know better than to not do the requisite research. I mean, it's not like he's averse to doing research; just look at that "Money" chart from a few weeks back! But this is the second time in recent memory that he's presented a comic whose sole purpose is to say "Look how clever I am that I thought of this totally original idea"... when it's so unoriginal as to be laughable.

In fact, getting back to things like the "Money" chart, this doesn't say good things about stuff like that. If we can't trust him to do the research on a simple cartoon that he's not making any money off of, how can we be sure that chart — which he had a monetary incentive to make — is accurate, either?

[Sprocket]

honestly it took a good long time for the black and white products to pop out at me, I had to contemplate the premise of the words for a bit before realizing what the hell the image was trying to say.

[Yakk]

During the "generic" fad, there were even generic novels. The one labelled "Mystery" wasn't bad, for the price.

I liked "Science Fiction" myself.

[DaveInsurgent]

Not perfect math, but I don't see how you're so surprised. I don't have a lot of labels to throw around, but I guess "middle-class" comes to mind. I think we have a balance between prepared meals and free time.

I was going to add a comment in this vein as well, but yours was much better. Though I disagree with your breakfast and lunch numbers, seeing that that seems like so very little in terms of caloric intake to make it through a day if you are active... It does show you shouldn't live off less than $200 per month in food expenses.

Well, I am not very active - I have a desk job. I see your point though, that this is even less practical for someone who does anything remotely physical. For me, that's a good size bowl of cereal by my measurements, then I have a banana, apple, about 15 grapes (one serving) and a sandwich for lunch. I am usually quite hungry by the time I get home. We have subsidized snacks here so I often grab one at 50 cents. Also free coffee which I drink quite a lot of.

What I said, but not very directly was also: if you eat out, that counts. There are a lot of "we only spend $[3-5]00 a month" families, that eat out twice a week, but aren't counting that value. I included that.

I felt a little insulted when it was suggested that "no one in my family cooks" considering my wife is very tolerant of our kids: she often cooks them something separate. I tend to eat leftovers for the sake of not wasting, so when I come home I eat up their leftover spaghetti or mashed potatoes before I make or ask for anything else. I usually down their leftover breakfast cereal in addition to mine before I leave, too. Speaking of which, some executives apparently didn't want all of their catered food ... +1 for me today.