Reliability of Product Advertisments

Posted: July 29, 2014 in Uncategorized

Dominic Hosea Masigan


First Quarter: Science PT

reeses-cup-smaller                                                      false-advertisement-taco-bell-burger-king1

I. Problem

Under Article 2 of Republic Act No. 7394, or The Consumer Act of The Philippines, it states the following.

a. protection against hazards to health and safety;

b. protection against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts and practices;

c. provision of information and education to facilitate sound choice and the proper exercise of rights

by the consumer;

It is important for the product to keep up with its advertised weight. If the product is actually less that the advertised weight, then the consumer is paying for more that what he got which is unfair. A person with a condition may be strict with his diet and getting more or less can affect his health which is dangerous. It is also important for the company to make sure that their customers are getting what they paid for or else they can be sued. So are we, the consumers, really getting what we paid for?

II. Hypothesis

If the weight of the product is less than the claimed weight, then the consumers aren’t getting what they paid for

III. Materials

unnamed (1)unnamed

15pcs:  “Ding Dong” mixed nuts (7g ea.) (10 packs should be enough to get reliable results, but the more the better)

15pcs: “Happy” peanuts (6g ea.)

Digital weighing scale (due to the products light weight, digital is recommended for more accurate reading.)

Light Bowl (just a bowl to keep the nuts clean and prevent them from scattering)



IV. Procedure

With all the materials ready

Step 1: Place the bowl on top of the digital scale and set it to 0.

Step 2: Open one pack and measure the nuts inside the bowl.

Step 3: Record the data into a table.

Step 4: Repeat steps 2 and 3.


V. Table / Gauss Chart / Standard Deviation

Products Reading 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
“Ding Dong” (Net WT 7g) 7g 8g 7g 8g 8g 7g 7g 7g 7g 8g 7g 7g 7g 7g 7g
“Happy” (Net WT 6g) 6g 5g 5g 5g 6g 5g 7g 6g 6g 6g 5g 6g 6g 5g 6g



“Ding Dong” Variance: 7+8+7+8+8+7+7+7+7+8+7+7+7+7+7 / 15 = 7.26 (Mean/Average)

Difference from the mean = 0.26+0.74+0.26+0.74+0.74+0.26+0.26+0.26+0.26+0.74+0.26+0.26+0.26+0.26+0.26 / 15 = 0.388

Standard Deviation: sq root. of 0.388

σ = 0.622


“Happy” Variance: 6+5+5+5+6+5+7+6+6+6+5+6+6+5+6 / 15 = 5.66

Difference from the mean = 0.34+0.66+0.66+0.66+0.34+0.66+1.34+0.34+0.34+0.34+0.66+0.34+0.34+0.66+0.34 / 15 = 0.534

Standard Deviation: sq root. of 0.534

σ = 0.730

 VI. Analysis

Based on the analysis of the table above, “Ding Dong” was able to fulfil its promise 12/15 times or 80% and the other 20% exceeded the advertised weight by 1g. “Happy” on the other hand only fulfilled its promise 8/15 times or 53%. It exceeded 7% of the time and the rest was lower by 1g. Some factors that may have changed the weight could be failure in technology when packing the products, weighing instrument not properly zeroed when weighing, or some nuts were broken down into crumbs which weren’t included in the package.


VII. Conclusion

The data shows that products are not always consistent with their advertised weight. Some weigh more, and some weigh less, but this is kept at minimal and none of the products had a difference of more than 1 gram. In order to get the best results, companies can improve their technology to get the most accurate reading for their products. They can also make their machines more delicate to the products so they won’t break down before being packed.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s