Sizes matter

Curse the person who first decided that it would make a product more appealing to rename product sizes from the logical small, medium, and large to something more catchy. First they got rid of small and started sizes with medium, which was annoying enough. Then they started renaming the "large" size. At Wendy's, you can't get a large order of fries; you have to get a "biggie." (Or at least, that used to be the case; I haven't eaten at Wendy's in a while.) I refuse to say biggie. Once I ordered a large fries and the cashier asked, "You mean a biggie?" "Yeah."

Then they started getting really crazy and just naming the sizes whatever they felt like. Starbucks was an early leader, with the famous "tall" drink being the smallest size on the menu (though I understand you can actually order a "short"). Then comes "grande," Spanish for "large," and finally "venti," Italian for "20" (the number of ounces in a cup). Who wants to have to figure out what size drink to order? Below is a clip from the movie "Role Models" in which a guy refuses to order using Starbucks's insane sizing system, which cracked me up. I also laughed at Burger King's coffee ad: "Comes in three easy-to-pronounce sizes."



I thought Starbucks was the worst until I ate at Coldstone's, where the sizes are "like it," "love it," and "gotta have it." Give me a break. I'm starting to think that companies do this, not in the relatively benign attempt to make their product sound more exciting, but simply to confuse the customer. Coldstone's wall menu shows pictures and descriptions for only the most expensive items -- you have to figure out that cheaper items (like normal ice cream, or ice cream with just one mix-in) aren't listed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Three stages in liberal denial of media bias

I was 15 years old in 1984, and an avid follower of politics and the news. When Reagan was making his decision whether to run for re-election, I was opposed to it. It wasn't that I didn't like Reagan; I loved him. But I was convinced that he wouldn't stand a chance in the election, and I didn't want to see him lose. Of course, he went on to win one of the most lopsided elections in history. Why was I so wrong? Because I had been watching network news (the only kind, back then) and the coverage was overwhelmingly negative. Since that time, I have watched with disbelief as liberals have criticized Fox News as unbalanced, culminating in the amazing spectacle of the president himself declaring that Fox is not a legitimate source of journalism. Meanwhile, these same liberals refuse to acknowledge that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. (ad nauseum) have any bias of their own. What makes this all the more incredible is that a number of studies have been produced demonstr
Read more