Article: Spur 200g ribs fight

[Albereth]

A man has taken the Spur restaurant group to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) claiming that his 200 gram ribs did not weigh that much.

But the case was dismissed on Wednesday, with the ASA finding that Spur's advertising was not misleading.

Lyndon van Wyk submitted that he had weighed the ribs and found it was 130g. When querying it, he was informed that the food was weighed when raw, which accounted for the difference.

Van Wyk lodged a complaint with ASA over Spur's menu board that promoted a "Tuesday's 200g ribs & four buffalo wings" deal for R49.95.

Van Wyk contended that the ribs did not weigh 200g as advertised.

The Spur Group in response said it had checks and balances in place at store, regional, and head office levels.

It argued that its quality management system ensured that the correct products and weights were served to customers.

Confidential information was submitted to illustrate this point. Spur said even though every care was taken to ensure that its plated products were made to specification in line with its marketing material, it could be that an incorrect portion unit could have been grilled and incorrectly plated because of human error.

Spur said all its weights were classified as raw mass, as customer preferences varied in terms of the cooked product.

It gave an example that a "blue steak" would weigh more than a well-done steak.

This concept was printed on all menus and was standard practice in the restaurant and food service industry, said Spur.

At the request of the ASA, the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) submitted an opinion on the matter.

The NRCS submitted that the meat portion (200g) was raw mass as it is practically impossible to weigh a cooked product.

The regulator concluded it was not fair to expect the cooked product to meet the declared mass.

In its ruling, the ASA said a point was also made that the preparation method would also impact on the weight, presumably because of the loss of moisture contained in the meat.


Source : Sapa /mar/hdw/jk/jje
Date : 13 Feb 2014 14:30

You can get medium rare ribs?

 

[BLIXEMPIE]

Did... Did this guy take a scale... to a Spur?...

 

[RanzB]

There's not much in the way of businesses premises in chakas rock (2 small buildings). There's a semi-new butcher there already and I suspect it might be your guy. I've heard people mention good things so far but I've never been there.

I dunno if it'll be him, unless he's opened up there while he sets about closing down in the CBD. But if you see him you'll know it's him because he looks like German butcher from the Middle Ages..

But next time I'm there I'll ask.

Everybody knows meat will shrimp after being cook.

Yes, everyone knows meat will shrimp.

You can get medium rare ribs?

Actually... Yes. But not the way Spur does it.

Did... Did this guy take a scale... to a Spur?...

The world is a fascinating place, full of wonderful characters... And this knob.

 

[SSung]

I've been very disappointed with overall response to this case. The idea that this guy was petty for complaining about a reduction of over a 1/3 in the weight of the ribs just saddens me. South Africans are such pushovers when it comes to this type of thing. People accept crappy products & services with a smile, and are happy to pay more for the privilege year after year.

https://www.spur.co.za/promotions/special/cheddamelt-wednesdays -nothing about raw/cooked weight there. There's a disclaimer on the 'main menu' part of the site but nothing on the 'specials' page. This guy was perfectly justified in complaining & also should have complained about the wings as they are not wings, but just parts of wings (winglets?).

After the MWEB decision & now this; it's starting to look more & more like the ASA is corrupt & anti-consumer. If all companies have to do to justify their actions is claim that whatever they do is "industry practise" then there's no point any more. The ASA should be in the business of changing "industry practise" if it's against the interests of the consumer.

 

[APoc184]

People accept crappy products & services with a smile, and are happy to pay more for the privilege year after year.

Erm... No we do not! We go elsewhere.

Only an idiot would keep going back to a place where he gets crappy products and service year after year.

EDIT: Disclaimer: Telkom and Eskom... We do not have a choice there.

 

[longboy]

View attachment 99871

 

[SSung]

Erm... No we do not! We go elsewhere.

Only an idiot would keep going back to a place where he gets crappy products and service year after year.

Do you complain before you go elsewhere or just suck it up as a loss?

EDIT: Disclaimer: Telkom and Eskom... We do not have a choice there.

Agreed.

 

[RanzB]

Do you complain before you go elsewhere or just suck it up as a loss?

Complaining is one thing, taking it up with the ASA is another. In any case, it's silly to moan about Spur doing it when all restaurants do it.

 

[SSung]

Complaining is one thing, taking it up with the ASA is another. In any case, it's silly to moan about Spur doing it when all restaurants do it.

Are all restaurants advising of a potential loss of over a 1/3rd of the advertised weight of their meat dishes?

 

[RanzB]

Are all restaurants advising of a potential loss of over a 1/3rd of the advertised weight of their meat dishes?

His issue wasn't how much the difference, but that there was a difference. Do you think that every other restaurant you go to will have the exact weight of the meat that it states on the menu?

 

[SSung]

His issue wasn't how much the difference, but that there was a difference.

It's not clear from the article, but if it was me I'd be more than pissed about the difference between 130g & 200g.

Do you think that every other restaurant you go to will have the exact weight of the meat that it states on the menu?

No, but what should have happened is that ASA should have ruled that the restaurant industry has to come together & decide on a charter of revised rules to limit the effects of such discrepancies.

What we're left with now is an 'anything goes' world where a business/company can do whatever it wants as long as they can claim it's "industry practice". Here's a scenario:

I open a restaurant tomorrow & advertise a 500g steak for R24.90. You steak arrives but you complain that it looks more like a 100g Wimpy steak. Oh sorry, wait; you didn't read the disclaimer buried on our website? The one stating that my cats get to eat what want from your cooked steak before I serve it. New "industry practise" & all that, you see...the new industry being my kitchen.

 

[RanzB]

It's not clear from the article, but if it was me I'd be more than pissed about the difference between 130g & 200g.

"A man has taken the Spur restaurant group to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) claiming that his 200 gram ribs did not weigh that much."

No, but what should have happened is that ASA should have ruled that the restaurant industry has to come together & decide on a charter of revised rules to limit the effects of such discrepancies.

That isn't what they were being asked to decide on.

I open a restaurant tomorrow & advertise a 500g steak for R24.90. You steak arrives but you complain that it looks more like a 100g Wimpy steak. Oh sorry, wait; you didn't read the disclaimer buried on our website? The one stating that my cats get to eat what want from your cooked steak before I serve it. New "industry practise" & all that, you see...the new industry being my kitchen.

Oh dear.

 

[bwana]

No, but what should have happened is that ASA should have ruled that the restaurant industry has to come together & decide on a charter of revised rules to limit the effects of such discrepancies.

Pre-cooked weight is the (widely acknowledged) industry standard because it's the only way it can be done. Would you be happier if bits of your steak were removed prior to serving if it was overweight and those removed pieces were added to underweight steaks to make up the difference?

 

[SSung]

"A man has taken the Spur restaurant group to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) claiming that his 200 gram ribs did not weigh that much."

The article is a synopsis. 130g is less than 200g. It doesn't say that he would still have complained if the ribs weighed 190g, but it ultimately doesn't affect my arguments & how I would have complained.

That isn't what they were being asked to decide on.

It should be in their powers to order the industry to adjust/amend a practice that is clearly open to abuse. Spur can claim to have checks & balances, but what about the rest?

Oh dear.

It's what you'd be happy with. I'll continue to complain & get the better value/service.

 

[RanzB]

The article is a synopsis. 130g is less than 200g. It doesn't say that he would still have complained if the ribs weighed 190g, but it ultimately doesn't affect my arguments & how I would have complained.

So what happened when you took your case to the ASA?

It should be in their powers to order the industry to adjust/amend a practice that is clearly open to abuse. Spur can claim to have checks & balances, but what about the rest?

Again, you're asking why they made a ruling on something they were asked to make a decision on instead of making up regulations they weren't asked to formulate.

If you have this much of a problem with it, go to them yourself with the suggestion.

It's what you'd be happy with. I'll continue to complain & get the better value/service.

Good for you. I choose not to go to crappy restaurants like Spur, and spend my money where the value and service are up to a standard of my liking. I wouldn't go to your restaurant in the inane hypothetical situation you put forward either.

 

[SSung]

Pre-cooked weight is the (widely acknowledged) industry standard because it's the only way it can be done.

That may be "the (widely acknowledged) industry standard", but it's clearly open to abuse & certainly not "the only way it can be done". I don't trust Spur or anyone else now after this saga.

Would you be happier if bits of your steak were removed prior to serving if it was overweight and those removed pieces were added to underweight steaks to make up the difference?

Why not just make the advertised weight the minimum cooked weight? Everything will average out over time & the consumer won't be ripped off...

 

[thestaggy]

People still go to Spur? I was last there about 6-years ago, but I had enough of getting the gypos after eating there. It also gets slagged off by many people I know.

 

[SSung]

So what happened when you took your case to the ASA?

I don't trust them; like most people in SA, they're not doing their job; as illustrated by the MWEB case. I would sooner take the ASA to ASA for falsely advertising their mandate.

Again, you're asking why they made a ruling on something they were asked to make a decision on instead of making up regulations they weren't asked to formulate.

I'm arguing for what powers they apparently don't have or don't choose to exercise. If a company can just evade any charge of false advertising by claiming "industry practice" then there's really no point to the ASA now is there?

If you have this much of a problem with it, go to them yourself with the suggestion.

Right after I'm done with lunch.

Good for you. I choose not to go to crappy restaurants like Spur, and spend my money where the value and service are up to a standard of my liking.

Hungry Lion? I knew there was somebody else!!!

I wouldn't go to your restaurant in the inane hypothetical situation you put forward either.

Thanks to the ASA, you can be even less sure of that now.

 

[APoc184]

If a company can just evade any charge of false advertising by claiming "industry practice" then there's really no point to the ASA now is there?.

It is not a baseless claim and I'm pretty sure they presented solid evidence to showcase this.

In your scenario, Coca Cola can print 330ml on a can of coke but only fill it with 300ml. When then asked by the ASA why this is the case, they claim industry practice.

Their case will be lost because they will never be able to prove that. Spur did not grab industry practice out of the air as their first defence. It is a fact.

*and yes I have measured a can of coke. Mine had 325ml in it according to the jug.

 

[SSung]

It is not a baseless claim and I'm pretty sure they presented solid evidence to showcase this.

In your scenario, Coca Cola can print 330ml on a can of coke but only fill it with 300ml. When then asked by the ASA why this is the case, they claim industry practice.

Their case will be lost because they will never be able to prove that. Spur did not grab industry practice out of the air as their first defence. It is a fact.

*and yes I have measured a can of coke. Mine had 325ml in it according to the jug.

Evaporation.