"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:yNn4i.10231$kf1.4762@trnddc01...
> "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.
>

How about a poster hanging over any item whose size has been changed? Or, a
personal letter sent to your home? Would either of those make you happy?



>> 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.


Assuming the size remained at 32 oz, what price level would stop you from
buying it?




> 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.

If they publicized the change in a big way, where and how would you expect
them to do so?




>> 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.


I suspect you're in the minority there.

This reminds me of the moron in this group who condemned Breyers because his
supermarket used a "Sale" sign that still said 1/2 gallon, but Breyers had
shrunken the package to whatever it is now. Someone at Breyers was supposed
to know that the store ****ed up, perhaps using a crystal ball.