On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:25:13 -0500,
y wrote:

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.

Like those 12 oz "pounds" of bacon? Same sized packaging.... oz in
small print.

--
See return address to reply by email

"B. Anderson" wrote in message
...
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.


Until some of the participants in this discussion reveal their job
functions, I think we're stalled for the moment. I think you know why.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:



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.

Scammers use all sorts of ploys to get people to part with their money.
Their greed does not make the ploy valid.

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



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.

Scammers use all sorts of ploys to get people to part with their money.
Their greed does not make the ploy valid.


What is your job function?

On 2007-05-21, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

The price "most people are willing to pay" for a gallon of gasoline
or a box of cold breakfast cereal doesn't lend much credence to your
argument.

nb

"notbob" wrote in message
. ..
On 2007-05-21, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

The price "most people are willing to pay" for a gallon of gasoline
or a box of cold breakfast cereal doesn't lend much credence to your
argument.

nb


Yes, it most certainly does. And, you cannot mention gasoline and food in
the same discussion. You MUST buy gasoline. But, you are not required to buy
cereal #1 because there are plenty of other things you can eat for
breakfast. If the price of cereal #1 is too high, you might buy cereal #2,
or wait for a sale or a coupon.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"wff_ng_7" wrote in message
newsQm4i.3971$TU1.954@trnddc07...
[...]
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.

Let's say that for the last several years you've been paying your ISP
$10 a month for your 24/7 DSL line. One day, you get an email from the
ISP with a notice raising your rate to $12/mo. You are not happy about
the increase but you shrug and pay it since it seems to be in line with
what other ISPs are charging.

But this might have worked a different way. Instead, let's say that on
the 28th of the month, you were suddenly unable to get online. Unable
to visit your ISP's website, you phone them and they explain that
increased equipment costs forced them to either increase the rates or
decrease the amount of time the customers could actually get online.
They chose the latter explains the representative. "But you didn't
notify me" you assert. "Oh yes we did," explains the rep, "... it was
on your last bill, down at the bottom in the fine print... you don't
usually read that? Oh gee that's too bad... you should have turned your
DSL off now and then to avoid the lapse in service. Too bad you failed
to read our notice."

The reason it is deceptive is that it is really a cost increase, just
the same as the mayonnaise, disguised as a quantity change. When Best
decreased the size of the mayo jar, they did not decrease the price.
Instead, they attempted to hide the cost increase from the consumer by
shaving the quantity of product in a way that the consumer might not
notice. And that is deceptive. Is it illegal? Maybe not but,
personally, I think it should be. Mayonnaise has been sold in quart and
pint jars for nearly a century so consumers would be very unlikely to
notice a change. The company was counting on that.

"Disguise" is the key word here. It is most certainly unethical by the
most meager of standards. The company admitted, in its response to the
many consumers who complained, that it was their way of handling the
cost increase. Instead of increasing the price in a way that consumers
were much more apt to notice, they instead hid it by decreasing the
size. Just because others have done it, does not make it right or
acceptable. It was deceptive, unethical and contemptuous of their own
customers.

Emma

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"B. Anderson" wrote in message
...
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.


Until some of the participants in this discussion reveal their job
functions, I think we're stalled for the moment. I think you know why.



JSP,

Your point is well taken and I expect companies to remain both competitive
*and* profitable....otherwise the laws of finance come into play and they
company will die. What I do take issue with is the deceptive means with
which they often accomplish this goal. i.e. the way that they intestinally
reduce the amount of product yield but oftentimes continue to sell it in the
same size canister/box/bag as before in an attempt to hide the fact that the
consumer is not expected amount of goods. To put it in a way that addresses
the question you have repeatedly posed in this thread.....I do hope for an
increase each year, but if I don't receive one, I don't simply cut a couple
of hours out of my time *on the clock* each week to create a higher rate of
pay per hour and then make every effort to hide the fact that I'm sticking
it to the company.

Not to mention that I too have inherited a lot of recipes from my dear old
Granny that list ingredients per the package/can/bag...etc with no other
units of measure, so when the old standard packaging is mucked with, the
recipes have to be adjusted as well.

KW

"KW" keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"B. Anderson" wrote in message
...
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.


Until some of the participants in this discussion reveal their job
functions, I think we're stalled for the moment. I think you know why.



JSP,

Your point is well taken and I expect companies to remain both competitive
*and* profitable....otherwise the laws of finance come into play and they
company will die. What I do take issue with is the deceptive means with
which they often accomplish this goal. i.e. the way that they intestinally
reduce the amount of product yield but oftentimes continue to sell it in
the
same size canister/box/bag as before in an attempt to hide the fact that
the
consumer is not expected amount of goods. To put it in a way that
addresses
the question you have repeatedly posed in this thread.....I do hope for an
increase each year, but if I don't receive one, I don't simply cut a
couple
of hours out of my time *on the clock* each week to create a higher rate
of
pay per hour and then make every effort to hide the fact that I'm sticking
it to the company.

Not to mention that I too have inherited a lot of recipes from my dear old
Granny that list ingredients per the package/can/bag...etc with no other
units of measure, so when the old standard packaging is mucked with, the
recipes have to be adjusted as well.

KW


A sensible response. But, we still don't have honest answers about the job
functions of various participants in this discussion. This is important to
me.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"KW" keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"B. Anderson" wrote in message
...
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.


Until some of the participants in this discussion reveal their job
functions, I think we're stalled for the moment. I think you know why.



JSP,

Your point is well taken and I expect companies to remain both
competitive
*and* profitable....otherwise the laws of finance come into play and
they
company will die. What I do take issue with is the deceptive means with
which they often accomplish this goal. i.e. the way that they
intestinally
reduce the amount of product yield but oftentimes continue to sell it in
the
same size canister/box/bag as before in an attempt to hide the fact that
the
consumer is not expected amount of goods. To put it in a way that
addresses
the question you have repeatedly posed in this thread.....I do hope for
an
increase each year, but if I don't receive one, I don't simply cut a
couple
of hours out of my time *on the clock* each week to create a higher rate
of
pay per hour and then make every effort to hide the fact that I'm
sticking
it to the company.

Not to mention that I too have inherited a lot of recipes from my dear
old
Granny that list ingredients per the package/can/bag...etc with no other
units of measure, so when the old standard packaging is mucked with, the
recipes have to be adjusted as well.

KW


A sensible response. But, we still don't have honest answers about the job
functions of various participants in this discussion. This is important to
me.



Believe it or not....after my response....I am a sales executive for a large
logistics company G ...and one of the deciding factors for me in joining
this company was their overwhelming commitment to a high standard of
business ethics.

KW

"KW" keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"KW" keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"B. Anderson" wrote in message
...
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.


Until some of the participants in this discussion reveal their job
functions, I think we're stalled for the moment. I think you know why.



JSP,

Your point is well taken and I expect companies to remain both
competitive
*and* profitable....otherwise the laws of finance come into play and
they
company will die. What I do take issue with is the deceptive means with
which they often accomplish this goal. i.e. the way that they
intestinally
reduce the amount of product yield but oftentimes continue to sell it
in
the
same size canister/box/bag as before in an attempt to hide the fact
that
the
consumer is not expected amount of goods. To put it in a way that
addresses
the question you have repeatedly posed in this thread.....I do hope for
an
increase each year, but if I don't receive one, I don't simply cut a
couple
of hours out of my time *on the clock* each week to create a higher
rate
of
pay per hour and then make every effort to hide the fact that I'm
sticking
it to the company.

Not to mention that I too have inherited a lot of recipes from my dear
old
Granny that list ingredients per the package/can/bag...etc with no
other
units of measure, so when the old standard packaging is mucked with,
the
recipes have to be adjusted as well.

KW


A sensible response. But, we still don't have honest answers about the
job
functions of various participants in this discussion. This is important
to
me.



Believe it or not....after my response....I am a sales executive for a
large
logistics company G ...and one of the deciding factors for me in joining
this company was their overwhelming commitment to a high standard of
business ethics.

KW

That's good. Let's see what some of the others say.

Logistics: Trucking?

On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:35:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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 tries 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?

What the hell has that got to do with anything? Did you understand the
part about "a fair price that still keeps you in business"? No one is
saying you can't make a profit, just stop trying to do so through
fraud. What's so hard to understand about that?

Regards,
Tracy R.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:45:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"B. Anderson" wrote in message
.. .
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.


Until some of the participants in this discussion reveal their job
functions, I think we're stalled for the moment. I think you know why.

Again, what has that got to do with anything? No, I'm not in sales.
That doesn't change the fact that the practice is deceptive and
intended to defraud your customers.

Regards,
Tracy R.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:35:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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 tries 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?

What the hell has that got to do with anything? Did you understand the
part about "a fair price that still keeps you in business"? No one is
saying you can't make a profit, just stop trying to do so through
fraud. What's so hard to understand about that?

Regards,
Tracy R.

Let's try this: Think of a local business where you live, one you are happy
patronizing. What I need to know from you is this: What profit margin,
expressed in a numerical percentage, does that business require in order to
remain solvent? Not grow - just stay as it is.

What is that number, please?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:45:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"B. Anderson" wrote in message
. ..
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.


Until some of the participants in this discussion reveal their job
functions, I think we're stalled for the moment. I think you know why.

Again, what has that got to do with anything? No, I'm not in sales.
That doesn't change the fact that the practice is deceptive and
intended to defraud your customers.

Regards,
Tracy R.


I didn't ask if you were in sales. I asked an open ended question. What is
your job function?