On 2007-05-22, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Yes, it most certainly does. And, you cannot mention gasoline and food in
the same discussion. You MUST buy gasoline.

Absurd. You would have me believe I must buy gasoline but I need not
buy food? You are going to try and convince me feeding a
Humm-O-Guzzle instead of a vehicle getting 3 times the mileage or
riding a bike or taking public transportation is a MUST or that
traveling to Consum-O-World for vacation is necessary? Bull. Also,
people are more than willing to pay ludicrous prices for crap cereal.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be a whole isle dedicated to the stuff.
Your argument is bogus.

nb

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.

Dimitri




Grit your teeth and live with it. If you agonize over every price
increase, life won't be worth living and you blood pressure will suffer.

How many non-canned items in YOUR supermarket are still under $4? We're
in another inflationary spiral much like the one during the Vietnam War
and the end results are not pretty.

My sympathy goes to the retired elderly who end up living on cat food or
worse every time this happens.

gloria p

"notbob" wrote in message
. ..
On 2007-05-22, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Yes, it most certainly does. And, you cannot mention gasoline and food in
the same discussion. You MUST buy gasoline.

Absurd. You would have me believe I must buy gasoline but I need not
buy food? You are going to try and convince me feeding a
Humm-O-Guzzle instead of a vehicle getting 3 times the mileage or
riding a bike or taking public transportation is a MUST or that
traveling to Consum-O-World for vacation is necessary? Bull. Also,
people are more than willing to pay ludicrous prices for crap cereal.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be a whole isle dedicated to the stuff.
Your argument is bogus.

nb

I said nothing about one vehicle versus another. You're creating clutter.

If you live and work in a place without mass transit, and you must drive to
work, then you MUST buy fuel. Not the same for the vast majority of
groceries, except a totally unique item like fresh ginger, without which a
recipe might not be workable.

"Puester" wrote in message
...
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.

Dimitri


Grit your teeth and live with it. If you agonize over every price increase,
life won't be worth living and you blood pressure will suffer.

How many non-canned items in YOUR supermarket are still under $4? We're in
another inflationary spiral much like the one during the Vietnam War and the
end results are not pretty.

My sympathy goes to the retired elderly who end up living on cat food or worse
every time this happens.

gloria p

I know were in the cycle I'm surprised the stupid markets have not added a 2
cent fuel charge to everything .... Shhhh we may give them some ideas.

I just hate it when people think we're (the average consumer) is an idiots.

LOL

Dimitri

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"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?



Part of our offering, yes. We actually manage entire supply chain networks
worldwide including supply chain engineering and all modes of freight
transportation, storage & handling, inventory control, and import/export
activities. Our largest presence is in all of North America with the Europe
and Asia markets rounding out the top 3.

KW

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:36:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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?

That's none of your business and completely irrelevant to the
discussion of whether it's ethical to downsize products in an effort
to keep consumers from realizing the price has been raised.

Regards,
Tracy R.

"KW" keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"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?



Part of our offering, yes. We actually manage entire supply chain networks
worldwide including supply chain engineering and all modes of freight
transportation, storage & handling, inventory control, and import/export
activities. Our largest presence is in all of North America with the
Europe
and Asia markets rounding out the top 3.

KW



I wonder what would happen if a customer told you they wanted to pay the
same per-mile trucking rate today that they paid when fuel was 35% cheaper
than it is now. Just trucking. No other services.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:36:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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?

I'd have to know a lot more than you have told me to take a guess at
that; it would vary from business to business depending on various
overhead factors. And, again, it's irrelevant. I said a fair price; I
meant just that. By all means, charge what you must to make the profit
you need. Just don't lie to me to do it. Is that so hard to
understand? Are you seriously trying to argue that it's ok to try and
deceive consumers in order to remain profitable? If so, I'd like to
know exactly where =you= work; clearly, it's a business we should all
know about so we can avoid it.

Regards,
Tracy R.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:02:22 GMT, "wff_ng_7"
wrote:

"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.


no. alberto would acknowledge making the decision to reduce the size,
but say he can't remember why or when.

your pal,
arlen

On 2007-05-22, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I said nothing about one vehicle versus another. You're creating clutter.

No I'm not. You said you "must" buy gasoline. I disagree and you
start throwing "if"s at me. Who's creating clutter?

The whole price point thing is bogus, too. You'll notice they didn't
just decrease the size, they also raised the price. So, apparently
that precious price point is not so sacred after all. I believe the
real rationale over decreasing size is to get the consumer to buy
another jar of mayo sooner than they would have if they still had a
couple ozs left in the jar.

nb

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.


what difference does their 'job function' make? the money doesn't
care whether you made it laying bricks or found it on the street.
this is a consumer question, not a producer question.

your pal,
blake

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


If you live and work in a place without mass transit, and you must drive to
work, then you MUST buy fuel.

That's true, and there are lots of places without good public transit.
There aren't many cities in North America that have really good public
transit. Needing a car to commute and to shop is fact of life for most of
us, but we don't *need* huge gas guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks. While
they get better mileage than some of their predecessors, there are still
more efficient models that we should be using. Some may occasionally need a
pickup for something. It is cheaper to rent one once in a while than it is
to use on every day for commuting.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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?

I worked in law enforcement and am now retired, but what the hell does that
have to do with recognizing deceptive marketing practices?

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

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"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?



Part of our offering, yes. We actually manage entire supply chain
networks
worldwide including supply chain engineering and all modes of freight
transportation, storage & handling, inventory control, and import/export
activities. Our largest presence is in all of North America with the
Europe
and Asia markets rounding out the top 3.

KW



I wonder what would happen if a customer told you they wanted to pay the
same per-mile trucking rate today that they paid when fuel was 35% cheaper
than it is now. Just trucking. No other services.



Good question and the answer is that linehaul rates (price per mile from
point A to point B) have not changed substantially over the last few years.
The reason being is that most of the industry has adopted a standard Fuel
Surcharge program. Typically the program is based on 3 datum points 1.
Average fuel economy (5 MPG is common) 2. Fuel price peg (A base price of
fuel is set at say $1.25 per gallon established when the per mile rates were
initialized) and 3. the current average price of fuel as published weekly by
the Department of Energy (DOE)
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/wohdp/diesel.asp

From there a "Surcharge" is applied to all shipments of $.01 per mile for
every $.05 increase in the cost of fuel over the peg. This week the average
nationwide price of fuel is $2.803 and the "Fuel Surcharge" is $.31 per
mile.

To answer your question directly, let's say that the customer's rate in 1995
(before surcharges became a standard part of everyday life) was $1.00 per
mile and they asked for the same $1.00 rate today inclusive of fuel.....I
would wish them luck in finding someone that will move their freight for
that price and send them on their merry way. But in reality, they are billed
the same $1.00 in linehaul and pay a $.31 per mile premium for fuel cost
increases as a direct pass-through of incremental costs which IMHO is much
better than playing the blame the fuel cost game and using it to take
advantage of the unknowledgeable consumer by jacking their overall rate to
$2.00 per mile.

KW

On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:09:19 -0400, "KW"
keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet wrote:

snipple
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


not to knock dear old granny, but it irritates the hell out of me when
recipe writers do this. 'one can of tomato sauce...' what the hell
does this mean?

at least a can of beer you can assume twelve ounces, at least in the
u.s. (see? you're already in trouble.) but sometimes it's impossible
to figure out, even without manufacturers dicking around with package
sizes.

your sporadically anal pal,
blake