"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