On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:37:12 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm sure they do, but that doesn't change anything. I have a college
>> education and an IQ in the high 140s. You can stop being patronizing.
>> I understand your premise. Allow me to paraphrase:
>
>Mine is only in the mid 130s ao I hope I don't confuse you.
>>
>> Our marketing department's research indicates that most consumers will
>> not purchase our product if the price goes above $x per package;
>> however, due to cost of production increases, we cannot afford to
>> produce the 32 oz. package we have made in the past and sell it for $x
>> or less.
>
>
>My purchasing department..... me.... has a number of things to consider
>when shopping for products. I am prepared to accept that prices rise due to
>a number of factors. The prices charged for your product vary from store to
>store, sometimes by 25% or more. I sometimes go to a specific store for
>your product because I know it is always cheaper there. Sometimes I figure
>it is not worth it to go to another store and risk all the impulse
>purchases there to save a dollar or two on your particular product.
>However, what I, and a number of others resent, is a manufacturer reducing
>the size (volume, wight...) of the product and selling it for the same
>price. We may not have IQs that we like to boast are in the high 140s, but
>we are not all idiots.
>
>We are accustomed to economy of scale. Manufacturers have to pay to package
>their products, which is not cheap. We are used to the idea that when we
>buy a larger amount of your product we get a better price per unit weight.
>By reducing the size of your product, we lose that advantage.

Err, yeah, that's exactly what I was trying to explain to
JoeSpareBedroom. I think you need to read a bit more carefully. I'm
not defending the practice; I was condemning it. The paragraph you
quoted was me paraphrasing what he has said.

Regards,
Tracy R.