"wff_ng_7" wrote in message
newsQm4i.3971$TU1.954@trnddc07...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"wff_ng_7" wrote:
Are you suggesting that you would be justified engaging in deceptive
practices because your costs go up? If you can't find an honest and
straightforward method for covering your costs, you deserve to go out of
business.


Scenario:

1) You need X amount of profit to stay in business.
2) There's a price increase in a raw material you cannot control. A big
increase.
3) You know your $2.79 product won't fly at $3.29.

You seem to have huge amounts of business acumen. What would you do?

The problem is you cannot base a long term strategy on deceptive
practices. The corporate graveyard is littered with the remains of
businesses that lost the trust and respect of their customers.


What makes you think it's deceptive? It's clearly labeled as being a
different size.

Also, you're pretending not to believe that manufacturers know what price
the market will bear. Why are you doing that?

And finally, in order to better address your concerns, what business are you
in? If retired, what business WERE you involved with?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"wff_ng_7" wrote:
The problem is you cannot base a long term strategy on deceptive practices.
The corporate graveyard is littered with the remains of businesses that lost
the trust and respect of their customers.

What makes you think it's deceptive? It's clearly labeled as being a different
size.

If you can't see why it's deceptive, you must have gone to the Alberto Gonzales
School of Ethics. There's a big difference between what is legal and what is
ethical. The labeling is certainly legal, but it is far from ethical.

Clearly labeled as to size? When there has been an industry convention
stretching back perhaps over 100 years as to what a "quart" container of mayo
means? You're proposing a world where a consumer has to pick up every item every
time and read the label to verify its true size.

Also, you're pretending not to believe that manufacturers know what price the
market will bear. Why are you doing that?

These are not items where "what the market will bear" comes into play. It's not
a case where there is a point where the product is not bought at all because of
the increased price. It is a case where the product may appear to be cheaper
than the competitors who did raise their price (but did not change their size).
It's also not a case where some "magic" threshold is crossed, such as going from
a $19,999 car to a $20,000 car or a $299,999 condo to a $300,000 condo.

By the way, here's the official statement on Hellmann's size change:

--
"At Unilever Bestfoods we have always taken great pride in offering the highest
quality products at reasonable and fair prices.

Recently, inflationary pressures have brought about by the increased costs of
raw materials. Rather than raise our prices, we chose to slightly reduce the
size of the 32 oz quart and 16 oz pint. This is the first time in over three
years that we have had to increase costs to our consumers."
--

But what they don't say is they're counting on most consumers not noticing the
size change.

And finally, in order to better address your concerns, what business are you
in? If retired, what business WERE you involved with?

The computer industry. The company I worked for played many other games aside
from the warranty issue mentioned. Fooling with processor speeds by selling the
same machine with varying degrees of "crippling" to meet perceived price points
was another favorite. They also played games with employee benefits, making
reductions while touting them as "improved choices".

When you lose the trust of both your employees AND your customers, you are
doomed.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

"wff_ng_7" wrote in message
news:yNn4i.10231$kf1.4762@trnddc01...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"wff_ng_7" wrote:
The problem is you cannot base a long term strategy on deceptive
practices. The corporate graveyard is littered with the remains of
businesses that lost the trust and respect of their customers.

What makes you think it's deceptive? It's clearly labeled as being a
different size.

If you can't see why it's deceptive, you must have gone to the Alberto
Gonzales School of Ethics. There's a big difference between what is legal
and what is ethical. The labeling is certainly legal, but it is far from
ethical.

Clearly labeled as to size? When there has been an industry convention
stretching back perhaps over 100 years as to what a "quart" container of
mayo means? You're proposing a world where a consumer has to pick up every
item every time and read the label to verify its true size.


How about a poster hanging over any item whose size has been changed? Or, a
personal letter sent to your home? Would either of those make you happy?



Also, you're pretending not to believe that manufacturers know what price
the market will bear. Why are you doing that?

These are not items where "what the market will bear" comes into play.
It's not a case where there is a point where the product is not bought at
all because of the increased price. It is a case where the product may
appear to be cheaper than the competitors who did raise their price (but
did not change their size). It's also not a case where some "magic"
threshold is crossed, such as going from a $19,999 car to a $20,000 car or
a $299,999 condo to a $300,000 condo.


Assuming the size remained at 32 oz, what price level would stop you from
buying it?




By the way, here's the official statement on Hellmann's size change:

--
"At Unilever Bestfoods we have always taken great pride in offering the
highest quality products at reasonable and fair prices.

Recently, inflationary pressures have brought about by the increased costs
of raw materials. Rather than raise our prices, we chose to slightly
reduce the size of the 32 oz quart and 16 oz pint. This is the first time
in over three years that we have had to increase costs to our consumers."
--

But what they don't say is they're counting on most consumers not noticing
the size change.

If they publicized the change in a big way, where and how would you expect
them to do so?




And finally, in order to better address your concerns, what business are
you in? If retired, what business WERE you involved with?

The computer industry. The company I worked for played many other games
aside from the warranty issue mentioned. Fooling with processor speeds by
selling the same machine with varying degrees of "crippling" to meet
perceived price points was another favorite. They also played games with
employee benefits, making reductions while touting them as "improved
choices".

When you lose the trust of both your employees AND your customers, you are
doomed.


I suspect you're in the minority there.

This reminds me of the moron in this group who condemned Breyers because his
supermarket used a "Sale" sign that still said 1/2 gallon, but Breyers had
shrunken the package to whatever it is now. Someone at Breyers was supposed
to know that the store ****ed up, perhaps using a crystal ball.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"wff_ng_7" wrote:
If you can't see why it's deceptive, you must have gone to the Alberto
Gonzales School of Ethics. There's a big difference between what is legal and
what is ethical. The labeling is certainly legal, but it is far from ethical.

Clearly labeled as to size? When there has been an industry convention
stretching back perhaps over 100 years as to what a "quart" container of mayo
means? You're proposing a world where a consumer has to pick up every item
every time and read the label to verify its true size.


How about a poster hanging over any item whose size has been changed? Or, a
personal letter sent to your home? Would either of those make you happy?

In case it isn't obvious, you have a completely different value system than I
do. You don't seem to have any problem with such practices. Is there a line
where you do consider something to be deceptive? Are the mortgage loan practices
with "teaser" rates misleading? Are the terms of payday loans predatory? Sure
all these things are perfectly legal, but all of them are "wrong" in my book. I
would hope people would aspire to have higher standards that just being "legal".

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

"wff_ng_7" wrote in message
news:wfo4i.10234$kf1.5220@trnddc01...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"wff_ng_7" wrote:
If you can't see why it's deceptive, you must have gone to the Alberto
Gonzales School of Ethics. There's a big difference between what is
legal and what is ethical. The labeling is certainly legal, but it is
far from ethical.

Clearly labeled as to size? When there has been an industry convention
stretching back perhaps over 100 years as to what a "quart" container of
mayo means? You're proposing a world where a consumer has to pick up
every item every time and read the label to verify its true size.


How about a poster hanging over any item whose size has been changed? Or,
a personal letter sent to your home? Would either of those make you
happy?

In case it isn't obvious, you have a completely different value system
than I do. You don't seem to have any problem with such practices. Is
there a line where you do consider something to be deceptive? Are the
mortgage loan practices with "teaser" rates misleading? Are the terms of
payday loans predatory? Sure all these things are perfectly legal, but all
of them are "wrong" in my book. I would hope people would aspire to have
higher standards that just being "legal".


I asked you two questions: What price would make you stop buying the
product? And, since raising the price isn't always feasible, how would YOU
reduce the size without making the event "deceptive"? Until you answer those
questions, we can proceed no further. These are questions which would be
asked in any well-run business class in college. If you can't imagine why
they're important, you're not qualified to discuss the issue.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"wff_ng_7" wrote in message
news:Gxl4i.4948$qp5.2303@trnddc03...
"Dimitri" wrote:
Subtle price change.

The new quart jar is 30 ounces.

6.25% price increase.

Rat *******s

That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.

Thanks for pointing that out. I would have never thought of looking for
that. I just checked my recent mayo purchase (Safeway store brand) and it
is still 32 ounces.

It's like the half gallon of ice cream in the new "convenience sized" 1.75
quart package.

I find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but are
annoyed when a package gets smaller.

I'm annoyed when what should be a standard package size changes as a way
to hide a price increase. Give my my f***'n 5# sugar, 1# coffee and 1qt
mayo. Adjust prices as needed, don't play asinine packaging games,
particularly when in most states the stores are required to display the
unit price anyway. You do look at the unit price don't you?

Pete C.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"wff_ng_7" wrote in message
news:Gxl4i.4948$qp5.2303@trnddc03...
"Dimitri" wrote:
Subtle price change.

The new quart jar is 30 ounces.

6.25% price increase.

Rat *******s

That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.

Thanks for pointing that out. I would have never thought of looking for
that. I just checked my recent mayo purchase (Safeway store brand) and
it
is still 32 ounces.

It's like the half gallon of ice cream in the new "convenience sized"
1.75
quart package.

I find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but are
annoyed when a package gets smaller.

I'm annoyed when what should be a standard package size changes as a way
to hide a price increase. Give my my f***'n 5# sugar, 1# coffee and 1qt
mayo. Adjust prices as needed, don't play asinine packaging games,
particularly when in most states the stores are required to display the
unit price anyway. You do look at the unit price don't you?

Pete C.

Yes, but that doesn't really address the issue. No matter how
what's-his-name ngg tries to twist reality, there *IS* a price level where
you will stop buying a product. I doubt mayo is at that point yet, but there
*is* a point, in the minds of customers.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:59:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"wff_ng_7" wrote in message
news:ESl4i.10213$kf1.320@trnddc01...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"wff_ng_7" wrote:
"Dimitri" wrote:
Subtle price change.

The new quart jar is 30 ounces.

6.25% price increase.

Rat *******s

That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.

Thanks for pointing that out. I would have never thought of looking for
that. I just checked my recent mayo purchase (Safeway store brand) and
it is still 32 ounces.

It's like the half gallon of ice cream in the new "convenience sized"
1.75 quart package.


I find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but are
annoyed when a package gets smaller.

Because subtly changing the package size is a deliberate attempt at
deceiving the customer. They are hoping no one notices. If they are so
innocent, why don't they just raise the price?

Because they know EXACTLY what most people are willing to pay.

For the classic example of that look at the history of the Hershey bar.
Stayed a nickel from 1921 to 1968. The weight varied, up and down,
between 2 oz and 3/4 oz.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:28:54 GMT, "wff_ng_7"
wrote:

"Dimitri" wrote:
Subtle price change.

The new quart jar is 30 ounces.

6.25% price increase.

Rat *******s

That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.

Thanks for pointing that out. I would have never thought of looking for that. I
just checked my recent mayo purchase (Safeway store brand) and it is still 32
ounces.

It's like the half gallon of ice cream in the new "convenience sized" 1.75 quart
package.

When will the new 100 ounce "convenience sized" gallon of gasoline hit the
market? ;-)

You meant that in jest, but there is a move afoot to convert gas pumps
to liters. 1 gal = 3.7854 liters

I understand it is being pushed by someone named Ancel Condray (sp?)
who is a big wheel at Exxon/Mobil. I didn't bother to look him up.

$4.00 gal = $1.06 a liter. Sounds much better, no?

"raymond" wrote:
You meant that in jest, but there is a move afoot to convert gas pumps
to liters. 1 gal = 3.7854 liters

I understand it is being pushed by someone named Ancel Condray (sp?)
who is a big wheel at Exxon/Mobil. I didn't bother to look him up.

$4.00 gal = $1.06 a liter. Sounds much better, no?

A dollar does sound a lot better even if it doesn't mean much! ;-)

It's kind of sad that we aren't metric already. I remember the big controversy
about 30 years ago, the last time changeover was taken seriously. So many people
insisted it was too hard. So here we are 30 years later, and the USA is one of
only 3 countries in the world still not using metric. The other two are Liberia
and Burma. That's great company to keep.

A couple of years ago I had a conversation with two of my nieces. They said why
change to metric, it's too hard. They had to deal with it in science classes in
high school. I told them if we had bitten the bullet 30 years ago (well before
they were born), they would be using metric and it would be a non-issue for
them.

It's funny that in spite of the public's stubborn resistance, a vast number of
things are in metric and have been for quite a long time. Global trade does that
kind of thing.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

On Mon, 21 May 2007 22:14:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"wff_ng_7" wrote in message
news:Gxl4i.4948$qp5.2303@trnddc03...
"Dimitri" wrote:
Subtle price change.

The new quart jar is 30 ounces.

6.25% price increase.

Rat *******s

That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.

Thanks for pointing that out. I would have never thought of looking for
that. I just checked my recent mayo purchase (Safeway store brand) and
it
is still 32 ounces.

It's like the half gallon of ice cream in the new "convenience sized"
1.75
quart package.

I find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but are
annoyed when a package gets smaller.

I'm annoyed when what should be a standard package size changes as a way
to hide a price increase. Give my my f***'n 5# sugar, 1# coffee and 1qt
mayo. Adjust prices as needed, don't play asinine packaging games,
particularly when in most states the stores are required to display the
unit price anyway. You do look at the unit price don't you?

Pete C.

Yes, but that doesn't really address the issue. No matter how
what's-his-name ngg tries to twist reality, there *IS* a price level where
you will stop buying a product. I doubt mayo is at that point yet, but there
*is* a point, in the minds of customers.

This is one of my pet peeves. I look at cost per ounce; the point
where I stop buying something remains the same. If I won't pay $6.00
for 32 ounces of mayo, I'm not going to pay $5.63 for 30 ounces of
mayo that the manufacturer calls try to pass off as a quart. Reducing
the package size as opposed to raising the price =is= an attempt to
decieve your customers however you try to twist it; it's a lie for
profit and it's inexcusable. More importantly, this practice screws up
all those "grandma" recipes that call for a package, carton, etc. of
this or that; when the unit has been downsized by dishonest
manufacturers, one has to buy two to get the same outcome and
(probably) part of one goes to waste, which costs the consumer even
more.

For god's sake, I understand that gas has gone up. Keep the size the
same and charge me a fair price that still keeps you in business. I'll
still buy it if I need it. Don't try to trick me into paying more for
less.

Regards,
Tracy R.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007 22:14:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"wff_ng_7" wrote in message
news:Gxl4i.4948$qp5.2303@trnddc03...
"Dimitri" wrote:
Subtle price change.

The new quart jar is 30 ounces.

6.25% price increase.

Rat *******s

That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.

Thanks for pointing that out. I would have never thought of looking
for
that. I just checked my recent mayo purchase (Safeway store brand)
and
it
is still 32 ounces.

It's like the half gallon of ice cream in the new "convenience sized"
1.75
quart package.

I find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but are
annoyed when a package gets smaller.

I'm annoyed when what should be a standard package size changes as a way
to hide a price increase. Give my my f***'n 5# sugar, 1# coffee and 1qt
mayo. Adjust prices as needed, don't play asinine packaging games,
particularly when in most states the stores are required to display the
unit price anyway. You do look at the unit price don't you?

Pete C.

Yes, but that doesn't really address the issue. No matter how
what's-his-name ngg tries to twist reality, there *IS* a price level where
you will stop buying a product. I doubt mayo is at that point yet, but
there
*is* a point, in the minds of customers.

This is one of my pet peeves. I look at cost per ounce; the point
where I stop buying something remains the same. If I won't pay $6.00
for 32 ounces of mayo, I'm not going to pay $5.63 for 30 ounces of
mayo that the manufacturer calls try to pass off as a quart. Reducing
the package size as opposed to raising the price =is= an attempt to
decieve your customers however you try to twist it; it's a lie for
profit and it's inexcusable. More importantly, this practice screws up
all those "grandma" recipes that call for a package, carton, etc. of
this or that; when the unit has been downsized by dishonest
manufacturers, one has to buy two to get the same outcome and
(probably) part of one goes to waste, which costs the consumer even
more.

For god's sake, I understand that gas has gone up. Keep the size the
same and charge me a fair price that still keeps you in business. I'll
still buy it if I need it. Don't try to trick me into paying more for
less.

Regards,
Tracy R.


I can understand your point, especially since whatever job you do, you do
for free. Right?

Hmmm? Right?

y wrote:



This is one of my pet peeves. I look at cost per ounce; the point
where I stop buying something remains the same. If I won't pay $6.00
for 32 ounces of mayo, I'm not going to pay $5.63 for 30 ounces of
mayo that the manufacturer calls try to pass off as a quart. Reducing
the package size as opposed to raising the price =is= an attempt to
decieve your customers however you try to twist it; it's a lie for
profit and it's inexcusable. More importantly, this practice screws up
all those "grandma" recipes that call for a package, carton, etc. of
this or that; when the unit has been downsized by dishonest
manufacturers, one has to buy two to get the same outcome and
(probably) part of one goes to waste, which costs the consumer even
more.

For god's sake, I understand that gas has gone up. Keep the size the
same and charge me a fair price that still keeps you in business. I'll
still buy it if I need it. Don't try to trick me into paying more for
less.


You are right. It is a marketing trick. I have seen the same thing in other
products lately. Shredded Wheat changed it's packaging. They used to lay
the packages of biscuits flat in the box and had 12, 18 and 24 size
boxes,with the larger boxes more economical than the smaller size. A few
months ago they changed to to a new size format, turning the packages of
biscuits on their side. The new size format of the 18 pack is the same size
as the old 24 box, but thinner, but it is the same price as the old 24
pack.

A also mentioned the new (here) 18 pack of soft drinks. When soft drinks
go on sale it is the 18 can cartons that go on sale. They are becoming more
and more common.

It is interesting to note that there are thresholds for the prices people
are willing to pay for some things. Marketing specialists put a lot of
effort into understanding those thresholds. When the price of something
rises above the threshold, consumers stop buying it. So they pack it in
smaller units and get the price under that threshold.

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
y wrote:



This is one of my pet peeves. I look at cost per ounce; the point
where I stop buying something remains the same. If I won't pay $6.00
for 32 ounces of mayo, I'm not going to pay $5.63 for 30 ounces of
mayo that the manufacturer calls try to pass off as a quart. Reducing
the package size as opposed to raising the price =is= an attempt to
decieve your customers however you try to twist it; it's a lie for
profit and it's inexcusable. More importantly, this practice screws up
all those "grandma" recipes that call for a package, carton, etc. of
this or that; when the unit has been downsized by dishonest
manufacturers, one has to buy two to get the same outcome and
(probably) part of one goes to waste, which costs the consumer even
more.

For god's sake, I understand that gas has gone up. Keep the size the
same and charge me a fair price that still keeps you in business. I'll
still buy it if I need it. Don't try to trick me into paying more for
less.


You are right. It is a marketing trick. I have seen the same thing in
other
products lately. Shredded Wheat changed it's packaging. They used to lay
the packages of biscuits flat in the box and had 12, 18 and 24 size
boxes,with the larger boxes more economical than the smaller size. A few
months ago they changed to to a new size format, turning the packages of
biscuits on their side. The new size format of the 18 pack is the same
size
as the old 24 box, but thinner, but it is the same price as the old 24
pack.

A also mentioned the new (here) 18 pack of soft drinks. When soft drinks
go on sale it is the 18 can cartons that go on sale. They are becoming
more
and more common.

It is interesting to note that there are thresholds for the prices people
are willing to pay for some things. Marketing specialists put a lot of
effort into understanding those thresholds. When the price of something
rises above the threshold, consumers stop buying it. So they pack it in
smaller units and get the price under that threshold.

Interesting. In one paragraph, you call it deceptive. In another, you
explain why the practice is valid.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:49:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...

It is interesting to note that there are thresholds for the prices people
are willing to pay for some things. Marketing specialists put a lot of
effort into understanding those thresholds. When the price of something
rises above the threshold, consumers stop buying it. So they pack it in
smaller units and get the price under that threshold.

Interesting. In one paragraph, you call it deceptive. In another, you
explain why the practice is valid.

An observation, the marketing gurus may have studied this issue and
come the conclusion about pricing/packaging practices that you are
defending but the fact that you are the lone voice rationalizing this
practice in this thrread while most others find it deceptive is
somewhat telling. I'm pretty confident that most consumers when given
the facts (costs vs. packaging vs. thresholds vs. profits), would
prefer to see higher prices than unannounced reductions in size or
weight of the products they buy.

I think the marketing gurus need to revisit this issue.