In article >,
"Doug Kanter" > wrote:

> Two responses:
> - How was it obscured? Were the packages legally marked with their new size?
> - In order for you to NOT consider them obscured, how would you like to have
> seen the transition handled?

You've mixed up the issue. The obfuscation occurred when they
deliberately chose to change something people don't look for (the
container size) rather than one that they do (the price). They do it
this way because they know that a per-package price increase is the
simplest, clearest method of raising prices (whether the impetus is
covering costs or raising profit), therefore the one that people would
notice and understand immediately. This is a statement of fact, not a
value judgment about the practice.


> In case you missed the question above, here it is again:
> - In order for you to NOT consider them obscured, how would you like to have
> seen the transition handled?

Actually, you changed the question, apparently seeing how your previous
arguments were off the mark. In your earlier post, referenced by the
above quote, you asked "You have refused to think about why it might
have been necessary to raise the price." I made no such refusal; it
simply had nothing to do with how the transaction was handled.


> Everyone wants their pay to increase each year, but nobody wants products to
> go up in price. Too bad that's next to impossible, unless size, quantity,
> quality or place/method of manufacturing are changed.

<sigh>. Again, irrelevant. Putting aside the misstatement about
economics, the issue was: the companies choose to raise prices in ways
that hide the fact that they're raising the price.


> And I'd be a lousy shopper if I didn't take that into account.

Good for you.


> Address the issue. Is there any sane reason why, if the raw material
> increases drastically in price, that the finished product's price
> should be unaffected?

Don't try to change MY issue into YOUR issue. I'll repeat it for the
fourth or so time: I addressed why they chose the method used for the
price increase, not why they raised the price. Your argument is
appropriate to make against someone who asserts that prices should never
change; I did not make that argument.


> It's totally relevant because the manufacturers (and some stores) know
> EXACTLY what works and what does not.

Your logic is haywire. At best, it peripherally addresses the issue by
(drumroll) perfectly agreeing with my original point: the companies know
how people think, and they know that people will likely fail to notice a
shrinking package whereas they *will* notice an explicit price change.


> I've asked you what price would be too much to pay for Breyers. Rest
> assured that Breyers already knows what you're willing to pay. Not
> only that, but they know WHEN you're willing to pay various prices,
> based on holidays & seasons. Therefore, they knew that due to
> increased cost of the raw ingredients, as well as the cost of
> freight, not shrinking the package would've forced them to price the
> product right into a different category, one in which they don't want
> to compete.

You never asked *me* what price would be too much to pay for Breyer. And
you're just making my point for me: they don't want the consumer to
really notice the price increase, and so they're using plenty of
marketing and psychological research to put it into place in a way that
tends to escape notice.


> You should shop two ways. One, you look at the unit price if it matters to
> you. If you're comparing Wesson canola oil to the store brand and you're
> happy with either one, you buy based on unit price. Two, you look at the
> unit price as a matter of interest, but you buy the higher priced item
> anyway because it's unique or you simply like it better. So, noticing has
> more than one purpose. And, if you do NOT notice the unit price, whose
> problem is that?

But price-per-package is the way most people shop, and manufacturers
count on it.


> Answer this question, and perhaps we can get somewhe For a half gallon
> of Breyer's ice cream, what is the maximum you'd be willing to pay before
> you'd choose, instead, to wait for it to go on sale? Since you're familiar
> with the product, you must have a sense of the price range you've seen over
> the years. This is easy. "If the price went to X or higher, I'd wait for a
> sale or a coupon". What is X?

Beats me. I don't buy packaged ice cream. Never said I did. I was
addressing marketing practice, not my food preferences. And you
sidestepped my question: "What reason do they have for shrinking the
size of the product without raising the price, if it's not to raise the
price without appearing to raise the price?"

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>