Over the past few months, shoppers have been sharing snaps of the most confusing, misleading and laughable products and labels they’ve spotted on shelves ahead of the CHOICE ‘Shonky Awards’.
Australia’s consumer advocacy group CHOICE host the awards to allow customers the opportunity to share their questionable shopping experiences and in coming days will name the worst offenders.
One mother recently shared a snap of a poorly translated label in a toy shop in Bathurst after her son found a box of toy planes.
The label read: ‘The cool plane is the most popular by the sunshine babies! The kids fondle admiringly’.
‘Translator anyone? My 11 year old son was laughing and asked to borrow my phone in a junk shop in Bathurst, NSW. He returned with this photo,’ she wrote alongside the image.
One of the submissions was of a box of toy planes with the phrase: ‘The kids fondle admiringly’ which a mother’s son snapped a picture of
A shopper shared a snap of an Aldi product that was advertised as ‘Australian sliced beetroot’, but on closer inspection, the shopper found the canned goods was ‘Made in New Zealand’
CHOICE receive hundreds of nominations for ‘shonky’ products and services each year with misleading packaging and labelling a common frustration.
Their website clarifies that although not all nominees are breaking laws and regulations, the purpose of the awards is to name and shame products that aren’t performing how they should be.
One woman shared a snap of an Aldi product that was advertised as Australian sliced beetroot.
But upon further inspection, the shopper found that in actual fact, the canned goods were actually ‘made in New Zealand’.
A mother was shocked to find one of the burning petals fall off a decorative spinning musical lotus candle she purchased for her daughter’s birthday – sparking fire hazard concerns
This pudding said it was on special butcloser inspection the discount was just a mere one cent
This peanut butter’s ‘special’ price was $6.50 – a saving of zero dollars
One of the main reasons products seem to have been nominated on the website is because of simple pricing issues.
Many places advertised ‘specials’ that actually weren’t deals at all, often being more expensive than the original price or not offering any discount at all.
There have also been a number of entries where the ‘special’ price was the same as the original retail price.
These olives (pictured left) were advertised as if there was a price drop – but the new price reamined the same – and the pork fillet (right) had a price hike from AUD $10.80 to $56.70 although it was advertised as ‘reduced’
Upon inspection the special price of the Wokka noodles cost more than the original price tag
Tuna products were also a common sight in the nominations, with two different flavours of Woolworths brand tuna having almost indistinguishable colouring.
‘Of all the colours in all the world, Woolies weren’t arsed to distinguish between two wildly different flavours,’ the frustrated consumer captioned the submission.
A Coles can of tuna had another shopper scratching their head when they bought a can labelled ‘sweetcorn and mayonnaise’ – but upon opening, claimed it was tomato and basil flavoured.
Two different flavours of Woolworths brand tuna having almost indistinguishable colouring were submitted with the person writing: ‘Of all the colours in all the world, Woolies weren’t a***d to distinguish between two wildly different flavours’
A Coles can of tuna had another shopper scratching their head when they bought a tin labelled ‘sweet corn and mayonnaise’, which was not the ingredients found inside
To be worthy of one of these not-so-prestigious awards, products or services must meet criteria including proven faults or flaws, a lack of transparency, false claims or broken promises, consumer confusion, poor value for money or the ‘propensity to outrage or amuse’.
Another submission was a box of spaghetti and meatballs which claimed that it served four.
On closer inspection one eagle-eyed observer noticed that the container only served four people, which didn’t leave many meatballs for each person.
‘Serves four! As long as you aren’t hungry. Only 10 meatballs to the packet. Two for each person with two lucky people getting four.’
A box of spaghetti and meatballs claimed that it served four. On closer inspection the container only serves four meatballs – meaning one meatball per person
Another shopper bought two boxes of Vita Weat from a supermarket and although they were the same brand, same store, same day and same item – the expiration date was well over a year apart
One entry came down to bad product placement on a shelf that left a consumer bewildered with the submitter writing: ‘I’m so confused…. I wonder how their staff member felt!’
This was due to the fact that two health cook books were placed next to each other that seemed to have two entirely different ideas.
One book was titled ‘Don’t Quit Sugar’ while the other was called ‘I Quit Sugar’.
One entry came down to bad product placement on a shelf that left a consumer bewildered with the shopper writing: ‘I’m so confused…. I wonder how their staff member felt!’
Another shopper came across a bag of fluffy white marshmallows that were advertised as ‘premium quality’.
But once you read the label it states that they are genetically modified and include artificial flavours.
The entries go on and on, with one product from Big W being advertised as 50% off but went from AUD $25 to $10 and a Pur perfume for the house where the label stated it contained two gels but it actually had one.
Another shopper came across a bag of fluffy white marshmallows that were advertised as ‘premium quality’ but are genetically modified and include artificial flavours
The entries go on and on, with one product from Big W being advertised as 50 per cent off but went from AUD $25 to $10 (pictured left) and a Pur perfume (right) for the house where the label stated it contained two gels but there was only one
Other products that have left consumers unhappy is Woolworth’s hiding the fat from a slab of meat, a confusing installation date period and a spy toy that is advertised as subtle but is anything but.
‘It’s that time of year again when consumers get to dish the dirt on what they believe is the country’s shonkiest product or service,’ CHOICE previously told Daily Mail Australia in a statement.
‘If you believe a company is being sneaky, slippery, unscrupulous or even unsafe, we want to hear from you.
Other products that have left consumers unhappy is Woolworth’s fat hidden in the pack
Confusing installation date period and a spy toy that is advertised subtle but is anything but
‘Unfortunately the Shonkys are now in their 12th year. We hoped business would have lifted their game years ago but the steady streams of complaints we receive each year seems to suggest we have a lot more lemon squeezing to do.’
‘While not every Shonky Award winner may be breaking laws or breaching regulations, CHOICE believes that consumers deserve better.’
In the lead up to the awards, fed up consumers have been sharing their finds using the hashtag #SpotAShonky – with very interesting results.
‘Oats and nothingness’: Another shared this snap of Uncle Tobys’ Ancient Grains Oats made with ‘100 per cent Australian oats’ and ‘added rye, puffed millet and quinoa’ – but was surprised at how little of the added ingredients there were
One person shared a snap of Uncle Tobys’ Ancient Grains Oats made with ‘100 per cent Australian oats’ and ‘added rye, puffed millet and quinoa’.
And while this is technically true, the shopper found the product was made with 95 per cent oats and just four per cent rye, 0.5 per cent quinoa and 0.5 per cent millet.
‘Delicious blend of oats, and nothingness,’ she wrote.
Which is it?! This $106 dress was described as being made from ‘vegan leather’ but was also labelled as ‘real leather’ and described further down on the page as being made from a ‘leather-look fabric’
Online stores were also a target, with one woman sharing a snap of a dress she was looking at on an e-boutique.
The $106 dress was described as being made from ‘vegan leather’ but was also labelled as ‘real leather’ and described further down on the page as being made from a ‘leather-look fabric’.
‘Leather? Vegan leather? Leather look fabric? Which is it?!’ The customer wrote.