POPPYCOCK ripoff

0 comments
Not resolved
1.0
Details
Advertised vs Delivered
Customer service
Product or Service Quality
Value for money

I bought a 10.5 oz can of Poppycock labeled "original" and paid a premium price of $6.99. I hadn't had Poppycock in over 10 years.

When I opened it, I found virtually all popcorn and very few almonds and literally 5 broken pecan pieces. Nuts are the second ingredient listed! And NONE of the nuts were clustered to the popcorn as shown in the label. I expected more nuts than popcorn but all I got was a can of popcorn.

This is a gross rip-off and I can never trust the brand again.

I hope your "cost" savings on omitting the nuts is more than the value of the lost sales.

Product or Service Mentioned: Poppycock Original Popcorn.

Reason of review: Bad quality.

Monetary Loss: $7.

Preferred solution: Let the company propose a solution.

I liked: Popcorn was good.

I didn't like: Nuts were missing.

Company wrote 0 public responses to the review from Jul 06, 2016.

Poppycock - Simple Review #1459201736

0 comments
Not resolved

I have the same complaint. I buy poppycock for the enjoyment of the nut and popcorn but all I'm getting for all this money is glazed popcorn not fair

Reason of review: Poor customer service.

Company wrote 0 public responses to the review from Mar 28, 2016.

Poppycock 7 oz. package contents

0 comments
Not resolved

Attached is a picture of the contents of a 7 oz. package of Poppycock.

As you can see, there are many kernels of popcorn and there are nuts as well. However, almost every kernel and nut is detached from one another. There are very few pieces whereby the popcorn and nuts are adjoined. I've been eating Poppycock for over 20 years.

Lately, every package/container that I purchased has this detachment. The real treasure is in tasting the two together, but there is very little of this to be enjoyed.

What has happened to the recipe?? Almost the entire contents of the bag is either a kernel of popcorn or a nut by itself.

Company wrote 0 private or public responses to the review from Aug 24, 2013.

You May Also Like