Emma Thackery wrote:


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.



My ISP had a monthly rate for my high speed connection that included
"unlimited access" but after a few years they capped uploads and
downloads. When I questioned that, I was told that some people were
abusing the system by transferring enormous amounts of data and that it was
putting pressure on the system. I don't understand how you can abuse
"unlimited access". That is what was offered, and to differentiate between
access and file transfers seemed like weasel words to me.

I had to question that the system was subject to excessive demand from
those "abusers" because at the same time they were whining that they system
could not handle all the use they were in the middle of a campaign to get
more users. It is like a transit system whining that people are abusing
their monthly passes by riding the subway too much, and then selling cut
rate passes to get more riders.


My service used to include access to news groups, and that is what I waste
most of my computer time on. They dropped the use net access but I pay the
same monthly fee to the ISP, and now have to pay extra to a news group
provider.




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.

In my Shredded Wheat example, they already had 12, 18 and 24 packs. They
changed the shape of the 18 packs so that the box is the same height and
width of the old 24 pack, but they made the box thinner and now have only
75% of the contents of the old large size box but the same price.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:16:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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.


i'm a freelance layabout. satisfied?

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:52:50 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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?


i make fun of nosy *******s.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 22 May 2007 03:17:56 GMT, "wff_ng_7"
wrote:

"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.

wine and booze have been metric for some time.

'this is a liter of vodka? oh, good, i don't think i can drink a
whole quart.'

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 21 May 2007 14:02:48 -0500, Emma Thackery
wrote:

In article ,
"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.


I posted about the smaller jar recently. The other terrible thing is
that they changed the formulations on the Hellman's low/less fat mayos
too. It does not taste nearly as good IMO. I don't know about the
regular mayo, however, as I've not tried it yet. Damn! I am giving
serious thought to making my own. And btw, Cook's Illustrated no longer
rates Hellman's as the best of the common brands either.


so who do they like better now?

your pal,
blake

In article ,
says...
My service used to include access to news groups, and that is what I waste
most of my computer time on. They dropped the use net access but I pay the
same monthly fee to the ISP, and now have to pay extra to a news group
provider.


If you accept the lower service for the same fee, then who is to blame?
Corporations will try to screw every last dollar from their customers,
but they cannot do it to you unless you let them.

--
Peter Aitken

wrote in message
...
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
m...
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.

I don't see it as deception. Apparently, you are easily deceived.

Some here are also implying that "notification" is relevant, but nobody has
suggested a way of "notifying" customers of size changes. Perhaps they'd
like individual letters sent to every home in America. Or, billboards.

"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
...
"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


Do you suppose higher shipping costs (regardless of how the price is
labeled) is something a business has to include in its pricing plans? Keep
it short and simple, to it can be understood by all the business geniuses in
this discussion, who think they deserve raises while nobody else does.

wrote:
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.

Don't waste your breath. The ******* clearly has different ethics than most
people and you're not going to change him. He spewed this exact same garbage
about 2-1/2 years ago. Some things never change.

I decided to look up the prior thread I remembered.Take a look at just this one
comparison. Either he is plagarizing someone else's post, or he is the same
person as 2-1/2 years ago, but under a different account:

From a post of his in this current thread:
--------
From: "JoeSpareBedroom"
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
Subject: Best Foods - Hellmans Mayo
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:59:23 GMT
....
Five years ago, it cost my company (and others) between $1.20 and $1.75 per
mile to ship product via common carrier truckers. Please tell me what we are
paying now.
....
--------

From 2-1/2 years ago:
--------
From: "Doug Kanter"
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
Subject: Breyer's ice cream
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:34:27 GMT
....
Oh....I forgot to mention the following fact. Two years ago, we (at my
company) were able to use $1.10 - $1.20 per mile when calculating freight
rates for grocery deliveries. Due to the cost of fuel, we now have to use
$1.95 - $2.20, depending on the route and whether the trucker can get a
backhaul for the trip home.

So, let's say I want to ship a truckload of Swanson dinners from Jackson TN
to Rochester NY. It's 910 miles. At 2.20 per mile, that's about $2000.00 for
freight. Two years ago, it would've been $1090.00.

Any questions?
....
--------

If you follow these rest of both threads, you will see how similar
"JoeSpareBedroom" is to "Doug Kanter". I believe they are one and the same. No
wonder I was having feelings of deja vu. I've heard his crap before. The
arguments and the writing style are pretty much identical.

I too would like to know where he works so I can avoid that business myself!

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

wrote in message
...
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
m...
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.

It's completely relevant. You may work in a job where you are exposed to
exactly NONE of the financial structure of the company. And, telling us
you're a nurse or a carpenter is not going to threaten your privacy,
although you are pretending it will.

"blake murphy" 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.


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

When I have answer, I'll tell you why it's relevant.

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
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?

It tells me that you didn't run a business, and that you may have limited
exposure to the range of options available to companies as they work to keep
their products viable.

"wff_ng_7" wrote in message
news:3UF4i.10354$kf1.9225@trnddc01...
wrote:
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.

Don't waste your breath. The ******* clearly has different ethics than
most people and you're not going to change him. He spewed this exact same
garbage about 2-1/2 years ago. Some things never change.


Ah yes - the famous Breyer's discussion, in which the manufacturer was
blamed for a mistake made by an individual supermarket.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:33:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
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
om...
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.

snip

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.

I don't see it as deception. Apparently, you are easily deceived.

Some here are also implying that "notification" is relevant, but nobody has
suggested a way of "notifying" customers of size changes. Perhaps they'd
like individual letters sent to every home in America. Or, billboards.

Ok, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You apparently have
a very different set of beliefs than I do about right and wrong. I
don't see how you can defend this practice as not being deceptive, but
whatever. I think it's obvious to the rest of us that it is, or at
least that it attempts to be. shrug And I notice you failed to
answer the question about where you work. eg

Regards,
Tracy R.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:33:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

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

y wrote in message
news:blq553lntfjq4bbgchn5ijp63qqpj9s7mv@4ax. com...
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.

snip

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.

I don't see it as deception. Apparently, you are easily deceived.

Some here are also implying that "notification" is relevant, but nobody
has
suggested a way of "notifying" customers of size changes. Perhaps they'd
like individual letters sent to every home in America. Or, billboards.

Ok, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You apparently have
a very different set of beliefs than I do about right and wrong. I
don't see how you can defend this practice as not being deceptive, but
whatever. I think it's obvious to the rest of us that it is, or at
least that it attempts to be. shrug And I notice you failed to
answer the question about where you work. eg

Regards,
Tracy R.

I missed your question. I work in a niche within the grocery wholesale biz.

Let's start over. Do you believe that via research, manufacturers have a
very good idea of what price range will turn off customers completely and
make them seek a different product?