"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.