Grocery Shrink Ray Hits Folgers, Makes More Cups From Less Coffee?

Here’s a fun little mystery for you guys. How can taking away 4 oz of coffee produce more cups of coffee? We’ve been thinking about it ever since Blueprint for Financial Prosperity sent us this photo the other day, and we just can’t figure it out. Could it be magic? Some strange new property of the Grocery Shrink Ray?

I bought a can of Folgers coffee two days ago from Costco. When I compared it to my last can, also from Costco, I saw that the new one had 4 oz less of ground coffee. Ok, no big deal, but then I saw that the small can claimed to make more coffee than the larger can. This is the first time I’ve seen a company shrink their product but claim you get more. It’s not a matter of coffee potency either, the preparation instructions are the same.

Now we’re not math geniuses or anything here, so please do let us know if we’re missing something or messed this up but, the preparation instructions are in tablespoons (volume) and the product is sold by weight… but the ingredients say that both cans contain 100% pure coffee. Has the density of coffee changed lately?

Hmm, let’s see. ?=m/V, and 1 tablespoon is 15 cm³… 360 6 oz cups…

By our calculations, the old density of Folgers coffee was .272 g/cm³ and the new density is .238 g/cm³. Did you guys get the same thing?

The shrink ray is getting more complicated all the time.

Folgers Coffee: Magic Shrink Ray Make More From Less [Blueprint For Financial Prosperity]

1. AmbroseP says:

I’m seeing inconsistent definitions for density. It’s the mass per unit volume occupied in space–not the mass per unit volume filled in a measuring utensil.

Density is an intrinsic quality for a substance.

I think what many of you are referring to is the “bulk density” which accounts for the volume of the substance, its pores and the air pockets between particles (i.e. it depends on how you pack it down).

Bulk density is an extrinsic quality for a substance.

I think this is just another case of marketing gurus gone wild.

2. bavb says:

um, basically they are lying.

3. JackAshley says:

Certain coffees taste much stronger, even if used less…

IE: My Mother in law uses a store bought dark roast, and does three heaping tablespoons for a pot (12ish cups). It’s STRONG! At home, I buy the beans and grind them myself, and the ones I get take about one heaping tablespoon PER CUP and it’s still not as strong as my Mother in law’s three tablespoons.

4. @chucklebuck: Why?! You son of a b*tch! You no good damn son of a b*tch! You lied to me! You lied to me!!

I’ll get you! I’ll kill you all!! As God is my witness…

[www.ebaumsworld.com]

5. Altdotweb says:

@bavb:

Buy a container and let us know if you are correct.

6. DylanMorgan says:

Actually, this isn’t the first time coffee brewers have done this. When you put less coffee in (and more water) you get an overextracted, bitter cup that still tastes “strong.” Bet the brewing recommendation has fewer scoops per cup of water.

7. mike says:

I’ve got to hand it to Folder’s. They are getting creative to the point that they are refying the laws of physics!

8. eirrom says:

I was just thinking that. 3lbs is a lot. Opening and closing that container, exposing the coffee grounds to the air just kills what little taste the Folger’s might have had.

9. it probably has to do with the way instant coffee like this is made.
first, they brew super-strong coffee.
then, they dehydrate it.
they might simply be increasing the strength of the initial brew, therefore needing to transport less instant “coffee” and still being able to make the same number of cups (or more, in this case)

10. Ben Popken says:

Simple. They reduced volume and package size while increasing concentration.

11. Anonymous says:

Did anyone else notice that it specifies a RANGE for the number of cups of coffee? 335-380 for the new, 320-360 for the old design.

So basically you can get 350 cups of coffee from either container. I do find it misleading that they get this with LESS coffee in the container, however.