"KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in message
...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "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.
>>
>>
>
> Believe it or not....after my response....I am a sales executive for a
> large
> logistics company <G> ...and one of the deciding factors for me in joining
> this company was their overwhelming commitment to a high standard of
> business ethics.
>
> KW

That's good. Let's see what some of the others say.

Logistics: Trucking?

On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:35:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 22:14:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:Gxl4i.4948$qp5.2303@trnddc03...
>>>>> > "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>>> >> Subtle price change.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The new quart jar is 30 ounces.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 6.25% price increase.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Rat *******s
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks for pointing that out. I would have never thought of looking
>>>>> > for
>>>>> > that. I just checked my recent mayo purchase (Safeway store brand)
>>>>> > and
>>>>> > it
>>>>> > is still 32 ounces.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It's like the half gallon of ice cream in the new "convenience sized"
>>>>> > 1.75
>>>>> > quart package.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but are
>>>>> annoyed when a package gets smaller.
>>>>
>>>> I'm annoyed when what should be a standard package size changes as a way
>>>> to hide a price increase. Give my my f***'n 5# sugar, 1# coffee and 1qt
>>>> mayo. Adjust prices as needed, don't play asinine packaging games,
>>>> particularly when in most states the stores are required to display the
>>>> unit price anyway. You do look at the unit price don't you?
>>>>
>>>> Pete C.
>>>
>>>Yes, but that doesn't really address the issue. No matter how
>>>what's-his-name ngg tries to twist reality, there *IS* a price level where
>>>you will stop buying a product. I doubt mayo is at that point yet, but
>>>there
>>>*is* a point, in the minds of customers.
>>
>> This is one of my pet peeves. I look at cost per ounce; the point
>> where I stop buying something remains the same. If I won't pay $6.00
>> for 32 ounces of mayo, I'm not going to pay $5.63 for 30 ounces of
>> mayo that the manufacturer tries to pass off as a quart. Reducing
>> the package size as opposed to raising the price =is= an attempt to
>> decieve your customers however you try to twist it; it's a lie for
>> profit and it's inexcusable. More importantly, this practice screws up
>> all those "grandma" recipes that call for a package, carton, etc. of
>> this or that; when the unit has been downsized by dishonest
>> manufacturers, one has to buy two to get the same outcome and
>> (probably) part of one goes to waste, which costs the consumer even
>> more.
>>
>> For god's sake, I understand that gas has gone up. Keep the size the
>> same and charge me a fair price that still keeps you in business. I'll
>> still buy it if I need it. Don't try to trick me into paying more for
>> less.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tracy R.
>
>
>I can understand your point, especially since whatever job you do, you do
>for free. Right?
>
>Hmmm? Right?

What the hell has that got to do with anything? Did you understand the
part about "a fair price that still keeps you in business"? No one is
saying you can't make a profit, just stop trying to do so through
fraud. What's so hard to understand about that?

Regards,
Tracy R.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:45:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"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.

Again, what has that got to do with anything? No, I'm not in sales.
That doesn't change the fact that the practice is deceptive and
intended to defraud your customers.

Regards,
Tracy R.

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:35:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 22:14:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Gxl4i.4948$qp5.2303@trnddc03...
>>>>>> > "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>>>> >> Subtle price change.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> The new quart jar is 30 ounces.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 6.25% price increase.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Rat *******s
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Thanks for pointing that out. I would have never thought of looking
>>>>>> > for
>>>>>> > that. I just checked my recent mayo purchase (Safeway store brand)
>>>>>> > and
>>>>>> > it
>>>>>> > is still 32 ounces.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > It's like the half gallon of ice cream in the new "convenience
>>>>>> > sized"
>>>>>> > 1.75
>>>>>> > quart package.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> annoyed when a package gets smaller.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm annoyed when what should be a standard package size changes as a
>>>>> way
>>>>> to hide a price increase. Give my my f***'n 5# sugar, 1# coffee and
>>>>> 1qt
>>>>> mayo. Adjust prices as needed, don't play asinine packaging games,
>>>>> particularly when in most states the stores are required to display
>>>>> the
>>>>> unit price anyway. You do look at the unit price don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pete C.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but that doesn't really address the issue. No matter how
>>>>what's-his-name ngg tries to twist reality, there *IS* a price level
>>>>where
>>>>you will stop buying a product. I doubt mayo is at that point yet, but
>>>>there
>>>>*is* a point, in the minds of customers.
>>>
>>> This is one of my pet peeves. I look at cost per ounce; the point
>>> where I stop buying something remains the same. If I won't pay $6.00
>>> for 32 ounces of mayo, I'm not going to pay $5.63 for 30 ounces of
>>> mayo that the manufacturer tries to pass off as a quart. Reducing
>>> the package size as opposed to raising the price =is= an attempt to
>>> decieve your customers however you try to twist it; it's a lie for
>>> profit and it's inexcusable. More importantly, this practice screws up
>>> all those "grandma" recipes that call for a package, carton, etc. of
>>> this or that; when the unit has been downsized by dishonest
>>> manufacturers, one has to buy two to get the same outcome and
>>> (probably) part of one goes to waste, which costs the consumer even
>>> more.
>>>
>>> For god's sake, I understand that gas has gone up. Keep the size the
>>> same and charge me a fair price that still keeps you in business. I'll
>>> still buy it if I need it. Don't try to trick me into paying more for
>>> less.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tracy R.
>>
>>
>>I can understand your point, especially since whatever job you do, you do
>>for free. Right?
>>
>>Hmmm? Right?
>
> What the hell has that got to do with anything? Did you understand the
> part about "a fair price that still keeps you in business"? No one is
> saying you can't make a profit, just stop trying to do so through
> fraud. What's so hard to understand about that?
>
> Regards,
> Tracy R.

Let's try this: Think of a local business where you live, one you are happy
patronizing. What I need to know from you is this: What profit margin,
expressed in a numerical percentage, does that business require in order to
remain solvent? Not grow - just stay as it is.

What is that number, please?

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:45:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"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.
>
> Again, what has that got to do with anything? No, I'm not in sales.
> That doesn't change the fact that the practice is deceptive and
> intended to defraud your customers.
>
> Regards,
> Tracy R.


I didn't ask if you were in sales. I asked an open ended question. What is
your job function?

On 2007-05-22, JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:

> Yes, it most certainly does. And, you cannot mention gasoline and food in
> the same discussion. You MUST buy gasoline.

Absurd. You would have me believe I must buy gasoline but I need not
buy food? You are going to try and convince me feeding a
Humm-O-Guzzle instead of a vehicle getting 3 times the mileage or
riding a bike or taking public transportation is a MUST or that
traveling to Consum-O-World for vacation is necessary? Bull. Also,
people are more than willing to pay ludicrous prices for crap cereal.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be a whole isle dedicated to the stuff.
Your argument is bogus.

nb

Dimitri wrote:
> Subtle price change.
>
> The new quart jar is 30 ounces.
>
> 6.25% price increase.
>
> Rat *******s
>
> That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.
>
> Dimitri
>
>


Grit your teeth and live with it. If you agonize over every price
increase, life won't be worth living and you blood pressure will suffer.

How many non-canned items in YOUR supermarket are still under $4? We're
in another inflationary spiral much like the one during the Vietnam War
and the end results are not pretty.

My sympathy goes to the retired elderly who end up living on cat food or
worse every time this happens.

gloria p

"notbob" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 2007-05-22, JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>
>> Yes, it most certainly does. And, you cannot mention gasoline and food in
>> the same discussion. You MUST buy gasoline.
>
> Absurd. You would have me believe I must buy gasoline but I need not
> buy food? You are going to try and convince me feeding a
> Humm-O-Guzzle instead of a vehicle getting 3 times the mileage or
> riding a bike or taking public transportation is a MUST or that
> traveling to Consum-O-World for vacation is necessary? Bull. Also,
> people are more than willing to pay ludicrous prices for crap cereal.
> Otherwise, there wouldn't be a whole isle dedicated to the stuff.
> Your argument is bogus.
>
> nb

I said nothing about one vehicle versus another. You're creating clutter.

If you live and work in a place without mass transit, and you must drive to
work, then you MUST buy fuel. Not the same for the vast majority of
groceries, except a totally unique item like fresh ginger, without which a
recipe might not be workable.

"Puester" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
>> Subtle price change.
>>
>> The new quart jar is 30 ounces.
>>
>> 6.25% price increase.
>>
>> Rat *******s
>>
>> That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.
>>
>> Dimitri
>
>
> Grit your teeth and live with it. If you agonize over every price increase,
> life won't be worth living and you blood pressure will suffer.
>
> How many non-canned items in YOUR supermarket are still under $4? We're in
> another inflationary spiral much like the one during the Vietnam War and the
> end results are not pretty.
>
> My sympathy goes to the retired elderly who end up living on cat food or worse
> every time this happens.
>
> gloria p

I know were in the cycle I'm surprised the stupid markets have not added a 2
cent fuel charge to everything .... Shhhh we may give them some ideas.

I just hate it when people think we're (the average consumer) is an idiots.

LOL

Dimitri

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> "KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Believe it or not....after my response....I am a sales executive for a
> > large
> > logistics company <G> ...and one of the deciding factors for me in
joining
> > this company was their overwhelming commitment to a high standard of
> > business ethics.
> >
> > KW
>
> That's good. Let's see what some of the others say.
>
> Logistics: Trucking?
>
>

Part of our offering, yes. We actually manage entire supply chain networks
worldwide including supply chain engineering and all modes of freight
transportation, storage & handling, inventory control, and import/export
activities. Our largest presence is in all of North America with the Europe
and Asia markets rounding out the top 3.

KW

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:36:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:45:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"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.
>>
>> Again, what has that got to do with anything? No, I'm not in sales.
>> That doesn't change the fact that the practice is deceptive and
>> intended to defraud your customers.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tracy R.
>
>
>I didn't ask if you were in sales. I asked an open ended question. What is
>your job function?

That's none of your business and completely irrelevant to the
discussion of whether it's ethical to downsize products in an effort
to keep consumers from realizing the price has been raised.

Regards,
Tracy R.

"KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in message
...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Believe it or not....after my response....I am a sales executive for a
>> > large
>> > logistics company <G> ...and one of the deciding factors for me in
> joining
>> > this company was their overwhelming commitment to a high standard of
>> > business ethics.
>> >
>> > KW
>>
>> That's good. Let's see what some of the others say.
>>
>> Logistics: Trucking?
>>
>>
>
> Part of our offering, yes. We actually manage entire supply chain networks
> worldwide including supply chain engineering and all modes of freight
> transportation, storage & handling, inventory control, and import/export
> activities. Our largest presence is in all of North America with the
> Europe
> and Asia markets rounding out the top 3.
>
> KW
>
>

I wonder what would happen if a customer told you they wanted to pay the
same per-mile trucking rate today that they paid when fuel was 35% cheaper
than it is now. Just trucking. No other services.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:36:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:35:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> > wrote:
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 22:14:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Gxl4i.4948$qp5.2303@trnddc03...
>>>>>>> > "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>>>>> >> Subtle price change.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> The new quart jar is 30 ounces.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> 6.25% price increase.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Rat *******s
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Thanks for pointing that out. I would have never thought of looking
>>>>>>> > for
>>>>>>> > that. I just checked my recent mayo purchase (Safeway store brand)
>>>>>>> > and
>>>>>>> > it
>>>>>>> > is still 32 ounces.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > It's like the half gallon of ice cream in the new "convenience
>>>>>>> > sized"
>>>>>>> > 1.75
>>>>>>> > quart package.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> annoyed when a package gets smaller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm annoyed when what should be a standard package size changes as a
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to hide a price increase. Give my my f***'n 5# sugar, 1# coffee and
>>>>>> 1qt
>>>>>> mayo. Adjust prices as needed, don't play asinine packaging games,
>>>>>> particularly when in most states the stores are required to display
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> unit price anyway. You do look at the unit price don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pete C.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but that doesn't really address the issue. No matter how
>>>>>what's-his-name ngg tries to twist reality, there *IS* a price level
>>>>>where
>>>>>you will stop buying a product. I doubt mayo is at that point yet, but
>>>>>there
>>>>>*is* a point, in the minds of customers.
>>>>
>>>> This is one of my pet peeves. I look at cost per ounce; the point
>>>> where I stop buying something remains the same. If I won't pay $6.00
>>>> for 32 ounces of mayo, I'm not going to pay $5.63 for 30 ounces of
>>>> mayo that the manufacturer tries to pass off as a quart. Reducing
>>>> the package size as opposed to raising the price =is= an attempt to
>>>> decieve your customers however you try to twist it; it's a lie for
>>>> profit and it's inexcusable. More importantly, this practice screws up
>>>> all those "grandma" recipes that call for a package, carton, etc. of
>>>> this or that; when the unit has been downsized by dishonest
>>>> manufacturers, one has to buy two to get the same outcome and
>>>> (probably) part of one goes to waste, which costs the consumer even
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> For god's sake, I understand that gas has gone up. Keep the size the
>>>> same and charge me a fair price that still keeps you in business. I'll
>>>> still buy it if I need it. Don't try to trick me into paying more for
>>>> less.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tracy R.
>>>
>>>
>>>I can understand your point, especially since whatever job you do, you do
>>>for free. Right?
>>>
>>>Hmmm? Right?
>>
>> What the hell has that got to do with anything? Did you understand the
>> part about "a fair price that still keeps you in business"? No one is
>> saying you can't make a profit, just stop trying to do so through
>> fraud. What's so hard to understand about that?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tracy R.
>
>Let's try this: Think of a local business where you live, one you are happy
>patronizing. What I need to know from you is this: What profit margin,
>expressed in a numerical percentage, does that business require in order to
>remain solvent? Not grow - just stay as it is.
>
>What is that number, please?

I'd have to know a lot more than you have told me to take a guess at
that; it would vary from business to business depending on various
overhead factors. And, again, it's irrelevant. I said a fair price; I
meant just that. By all means, charge what you must to make the profit
you need. Just don't lie to me to do it. Is that so hard to
understand? Are you seriously trying to argue that it's ok to try and
deceive consumers in order to remain profitable? If so, I'd like to
know exactly where =you= work; clearly, it's a business we should all
know about so we can avoid it.

Regards,
Tracy R.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:02:22 GMT, "wff_ng_7" >
wrote:

>"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.
>

no. alberto would acknowledge making the decision to reduce the size,
but say he can't remember why or when.

your pal,
arlen

On 2007-05-22, JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>
> I said nothing about one vehicle versus another. You're creating clutter.

No I'm not. You said you "must" buy gasoline. I disagree and you
start throwing "if"s at me. Who's creating clutter?

The whole price point thing is bogus, too. You'll notice they didn't
just decrease the size, they also raised the price. So, apparently
that precious price point is not so sacred after all. I believe the
real rationale over decreasing size is to get the consumer to buy
another jar of mayo sooner than they would have if they still had a
couple ozs left in the jar.

nb

On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:45:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"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.
>

what difference does their 'job function' make? the money doesn't
care whether you made it laying bricks or found it on the street.
this is a consumer question, not a producer question.

your pal,
blake

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>
> If you live and work in a place without mass transit, and you must drive to
> work, then you MUST buy fuel.

That's true, and there are lots of places without good public transit.
There aren't many cities in North America that have really good public
transit. Needing a car to commute and to shop is fact of life for most of
us, but we don't *need* huge gas guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks. While
they get better mileage than some of their predecessors, there are still
more efficient models that we should be using. Some may occasionally need a
pickup for something. It is cheaper to rent one once in a while than it is
to use on every day for commuting.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
> >> Interesting. In one paragraph, you call it deceptive. In another, you
> >> explain why the practice is valid.
> >
> > Scammers use all sorts of ploys to get people to part with their money.
> > Their greed does not make the ploy valid.
>
> What is your job function?

I worked in law enforcement and am now retired, but what the hell does that
have to do with recognizing deceptive marketing practices?

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> "KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> "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.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Believe it or not....after my response....I am a sales executive for
a
> >> > large
> >> > logistics company <G> ...and one of the deciding factors for me in
> > joining
> >> > this company was their overwhelming commitment to a high standard of
> >> > business ethics.
> >> >
> >> > KW
> >>
> >> That's good. Let's see what some of the others say.
> >>
> >> Logistics: Trucking?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Part of our offering, yes. We actually manage entire supply chain
networks
> > worldwide including supply chain engineering and all modes of freight
> > transportation, storage & handling, inventory control, and import/export
> > activities. Our largest presence is in all of North America with the
> > Europe
> > and Asia markets rounding out the top 3.
> >
> > KW
> >
> >
>
> I wonder what would happen if a customer told you they wanted to pay the
> same per-mile trucking rate today that they paid when fuel was 35% cheaper
> than it is now. Just trucking. No other services.
>
>

Good question and the answer is that linehaul rates (price per mile from
point A to point B) have not changed substantially over the last few years.
The reason being is that most of the industry has adopted a standard Fuel
Surcharge program. Typically the program is based on 3 datum points 1.
Average fuel economy (5 MPG is common) 2. Fuel price peg (A base price of
fuel is set at say $1.25 per gallon established when the per mile rates were
initialized) and 3. the current average price of fuel as published weekly by
the Department of Energy (DOE)
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/wohdp/diesel.asp

From there a "Surcharge" is applied to all shipments of $.01 per mile for
every $.05 increase in the cost of fuel over the peg. This week the average
nationwide price of fuel is $2.803 and the "Fuel Surcharge" is $.31 per
mile.

To answer your question directly, let's say that the customer's rate in 1995
(before surcharges became a standard part of everyday life) was $1.00 per
mile and they asked for the same $1.00 rate today inclusive of fuel.....I
would wish them luck in finding someone that will move their freight for
that price and send them on their merry way. But in reality, they are billed
the same $1.00 in linehaul and pay a $.31 per mile premium for fuel cost
increases as a direct pass-through of incremental costs which IMHO is much
better than playing the blame the fuel cost game and using it to take
advantage of the unknowledgeable consumer by jacking their overall rate to
$2.00 per mile.

KW

On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:09:19 -0400, "KW"
<keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote:

<snipple>
>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
>

not to knock dear old granny, but it irritates the hell out of me when
recipe writers do this. 'one can of tomato sauce...' what the hell
does this mean?

at least a can of beer you can assume twelve ounces, at least in the
u.s. (see? you're already in trouble.) but sometimes it's impossible
to figure out, even without manufacturers dicking around with package
sizes.

your sporadically anal pal,
blake

Emma Thackery wrote:
>
>
> > What makes you think it's deceptive? It's clearly labeled as being a
> > different size.
>
> Let's say that for the last several years you've been paying your ISP
> $10 a month for your 24/7 DSL line. One day, you get an email from the
> ISP with a notice raising your rate to $12/mo. You are not happy about
> the increase but you shrug and pay it since it seems to be in line with
> what other ISPs are charging.



My ISP had a monthly rate for my high speed connection that included
"unlimited access" but after a few years they capped uploads and
downloads. When I questioned that, I was told that some people were
abusing the system by transferring enormous amounts of data and that it was
putting pressure on the system. I don't understand how you can abuse
"unlimited access". That is what was offered, and to differentiate between
access and file transfers seemed like weasel words to me.

I had to question that the system was subject to excessive demand from
those "abusers" because at the same time they were whining that they system
could not handle all the use they were in the middle of a campaign to get
more users. It is like a transit system whining that people are abusing
their monthly passes by riding the subway too much, and then selling cut
rate passes to get more riders.


My service used to include access to news groups, and that is what I waste
most of my computer time on. They dropped the use net access but I pay the
same monthly fee to the ISP, and now have to pay extra to a news group
provider.




> The reason it is deceptive is that it is really a cost increase, just
> the same as the mayonnaise, disguised as a quantity change. When Best
> decreased the size of the mayo jar, they did not decrease the price.
> Instead, they attempted to hide the cost increase from the consumer by
> shaving the quantity of product in a way that the consumer might not
> notice. And that is deceptive.

In my Shredded Wheat example, they already had 12, 18 and 24 packs. They
changed the shape of the 18 packs so that the box is the same height and
width of the old 24 pack, but they made the box thinner and now have only
75% of the contents of the old large size box but the same price.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:16:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"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.
>

i'm a freelance layabout. satisfied?

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:52:50 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > A also mentioned the new (here) 18 pack of soft drinks. When soft
>>> > drinks
>>> > go on sale it is the 18 can cartons that go on sale. They are becoming
>>> > more
>>> > and more common.
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>
>> Scammers use all sorts of ploys to get people to part with their money.
>> Their greed does not make the ploy valid.
>
>
>What is your job function?
>

i make fun of nosy *******s.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 22 May 2007 03:17:56 GMT, "wff_ng_7" >
wrote:

>"raymond" > wrote:
>> You meant that in jest, but there is a move afoot to convert gas pumps
>> to liters. 1 gal = 3.7854 liters
>>
>> I understand it is being pushed by someone named Ancel Condray (sp?)
>> who is a big wheel at Exxon/Mobil. I didn't bother to look him up.
>>
>> $4.00 gal = $1.06 a liter. Sounds much better, no?
>
>A dollar does sound a lot better even if it doesn't mean much! ;-)
>
>It's kind of sad that we aren't metric already. I remember the big controversy
>about 30 years ago, the last time changeover was taken seriously. So many people
>insisted it was too hard. So here we are 30 years later, and the USA is one of
>only 3 countries in the world still not using metric. The other two are Liberia
>and Burma. That's great company to keep.
>
>A couple of years ago I had a conversation with two of my nieces. They said why
>change to metric, it's too hard. They had to deal with it in science classes in
>high school. I told them if we had bitten the bullet 30 years ago (well before
>they were born), they would be using metric and it would be a non-issue for
>them.
>
>It's funny that in spite of the public's stubborn resistance, a vast number of
>things are in metric and have been for quite a long time. Global trade does that
>kind of thing.

wine and booze have been metric for some time.

'this is a liter of vodka? oh, good, i don't think i can drink a
whole quart.'

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 21 May 2007 14:02:48 -0500, Emma Thackery >
wrote:

>In article > ,
> "Dimitri" > wrote:
>
>> Subtle price change.
>>
>> The new quart jar is 30 ounces.
>>
>> 6.25% price increase.
>>
>> Rat *******s
>>
>> That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.
>
>
>I posted about the smaller jar recently. The other terrible thing is
>that they changed the formulations on the Hellman's low/less fat mayos
>too. It does not taste nearly as good IMO. I don't know about the
>regular mayo, however, as I've not tried it yet. Damn! I am giving
>serious thought to making my own. And btw, Cook's Illustrated no longer
>rates Hellman's as the best of the common brands either.
>

so who do they like better now?

your pal,
blake

In article >,
says...
> My service used to include access to news groups, and that is what I waste
> most of my computer time on. They dropped the use net access but I pay the
> same monthly fee to the ISP, and now have to pay extra to a news group
> provider.
>

If you accept the lower service for the same fee, then who is to blame?
Corporations will try to screw every last dollar from their customers,
but they cannot do it to you unless you let them.

--
Peter Aitken

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:36:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:35:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 22:14:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:Gxl4i.4948$qp5.2303@trnddc03...
>>>>>>>> > "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> Subtle price change.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> The new quart jar is 30 ounces.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> 6.25% price increase.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Rat *******s
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Thanks for pointing that out. I would have never thought of
>>>>>>>> > looking
>>>>>>>> > for
>>>>>>>> > that. I just checked my recent mayo purchase (Safeway store
>>>>>>>> > brand)
>>>>>>>> > and
>>>>>>>> > it
>>>>>>>> > is still 32 ounces.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > It's like the half gallon of ice cream in the new "convenience
>>>>>>>> > sized"
>>>>>>>> > 1.75
>>>>>>>> > quart package.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> annoyed when a package gets smaller.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm annoyed when what should be a standard package size changes as a
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>> to hide a price increase. Give my my f***'n 5# sugar, 1# coffee and
>>>>>>> 1qt
>>>>>>> mayo. Adjust prices as needed, don't play asinine packaging games,
>>>>>>> particularly when in most states the stores are required to display
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> unit price anyway. You do look at the unit price don't you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pete C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, but that doesn't really address the issue. No matter how
>>>>>>what's-his-name ngg tries to twist reality, there *IS* a price level
>>>>>>where
>>>>>>you will stop buying a product. I doubt mayo is at that point yet, but
>>>>>>there
>>>>>>*is* a point, in the minds of customers.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is one of my pet peeves. I look at cost per ounce; the point
>>>>> where I stop buying something remains the same. If I won't pay $6.00
>>>>> for 32 ounces of mayo, I'm not going to pay $5.63 for 30 ounces of
>>>>> mayo that the manufacturer tries to pass off as a quart. Reducing
>>>>> the package size as opposed to raising the price =is= an attempt to
>>>>> decieve your customers however you try to twist it; it's a lie for
>>>>> profit and it's inexcusable. More importantly, this practice screws up
>>>>> all those "grandma" recipes that call for a package, carton, etc. of
>>>>> this or that; when the unit has been downsized by dishonest
>>>>> manufacturers, one has to buy two to get the same outcome and
>>>>> (probably) part of one goes to waste, which costs the consumer even
>>>>> more.
>>>>>
>>>>> For god's sake, I understand that gas has gone up. Keep the size the
>>>>> same and charge me a fair price that still keeps you in business. I'll
>>>>> still buy it if I need it. Don't try to trick me into paying more for
>>>>> less.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Tracy R.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I can understand your point, especially since whatever job you do, you
>>>>do
>>>>for free. Right?
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm? Right?
>>>
>>> What the hell has that got to do with anything? Did you understand the
>>> part about "a fair price that still keeps you in business"? No one is
>>> saying you can't make a profit, just stop trying to do so through
>>> fraud. What's so hard to understand about that?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tracy R.
>>
>>Let's try this: Think of a local business where you live, one you are
>>happy
>>patronizing. What I need to know from you is this: What profit margin,
>>expressed in a numerical percentage, does that business require in order
>>to
>>remain solvent? Not grow - just stay as it is.
>>
>>What is that number, please?
>
> I'd have to know a lot more than you have told me to take a guess at
> that; it would vary from business to business depending on various
> overhead factors. And, again, it's irrelevant. I said a fair price; I
> meant just that. By all means, charge what you must to make the profit
> you need. Just don't lie to me to do it. Is that so hard to
> understand? Are you seriously trying to argue that it's ok to try and
> deceive consumers in order to remain profitable? If so, I'd like to
> know exactly where =you= work; clearly, it's a business we should all
> know about so we can avoid it.
>
> Regards,
> Tracy R.

I don't see it as deception. Apparently, you are easily deceived.

Some here are also implying that "notification" is relevant, but nobody has
suggested a way of "notifying" customers of size changes. Perhaps they'd
like individual letters sent to every home in America. Or, billboards.

"KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in message
...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> "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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Believe it or not....after my response....I am a sales executive for
> a
>> >> > large
>> >> > logistics company <G> ...and one of the deciding factors for me in
>> > joining
>> >> > this company was their overwhelming commitment to a high standard of
>> >> > business ethics.
>> >> >
>> >> > KW
>> >>
>> >> That's good. Let's see what some of the others say.
>> >>
>> >> Logistics: Trucking?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Part of our offering, yes. We actually manage entire supply chain
> networks
>> > worldwide including supply chain engineering and all modes of freight
>> > transportation, storage & handling, inventory control, and
>> > import/export
>> > activities. Our largest presence is in all of North America with the
>> > Europe
>> > and Asia markets rounding out the top 3.
>> >
>> > KW
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I wonder what would happen if a customer told you they wanted to pay the
>> same per-mile trucking rate today that they paid when fuel was 35%
>> cheaper
>> than it is now. Just trucking. No other services.
>>
>>
>
> Good question and the answer is that linehaul rates (price per mile from
> point A to point B) have not changed substantially over the last few
> years.
> The reason being is that most of the industry has adopted a standard Fuel
> Surcharge program. Typically the program is based on 3 datum points 1.
> Average fuel economy (5 MPG is common) 2. Fuel price peg (A base price of
> fuel is set at say $1.25 per gallon established when the per mile rates
> were
> initialized) and 3. the current average price of fuel as published weekly
> by
> the Department of Energy (DOE)
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/wohdp/diesel.asp
>
> From there a "Surcharge" is applied to all shipments of $.01 per mile for
> every $.05 increase in the cost of fuel over the peg. This week the
> average
> nationwide price of fuel is $2.803 and the "Fuel Surcharge" is $.31 per
> mile.
>
> To answer your question directly, let's say that the customer's rate in
> 1995
> (before surcharges became a standard part of everyday life) was $1.00 per
> mile and they asked for the same $1.00 rate today inclusive of fuel.....I
> would wish them luck in finding someone that will move their freight for
> that price and send them on their merry way. But in reality, they are
> billed
> the same $1.00 in linehaul and pay a $.31 per mile premium for fuel cost
> increases as a direct pass-through of incremental costs which IMHO is much
> better than playing the blame the fuel cost game and using it to take
> advantage of the unknowledgeable consumer by jacking their overall rate to
> $2.00 per mile.
>
> KW


Do you suppose higher shipping costs (regardless of how the price is
labeled) is something a business has to include in its pricing plans? Keep
it short and simple, to it can be understood by all the business geniuses in
this discussion, who think they deserve raises while nobody else does.

> wrote:
> I'd have to know a lot more than you have told me to take a guess at
> that; it would vary from business to business depending on various
> overhead factors. And, again, it's irrelevant. I said a fair price; I
> meant just that. By all means, charge what you must to make the profit
> you need. Just don't lie to me to do it. Is that so hard to
> understand? Are you seriously trying to argue that it's ok to try and
> deceive consumers in order to remain profitable? If so, I'd like to
> know exactly where =you= work; clearly, it's a business we should all
> know about so we can avoid it.

Don't waste your breath. The ******* clearly has different ethics than most
people and you're not going to change him. He spewed this exact same garbage
about 2-1/2 years ago. Some things never change.

I decided to look up the prior thread I remembered.Take a look at just this one
comparison. Either he is plagarizing someone else's post, or he is the same
person as 2-1/2 years ago, but under a different account:

From a post of his in this current thread:
--------
From: "JoeSpareBedroom" >
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
Subject: Best Foods - Hellmans Mayo
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:59:23 GMT
....
Five years ago, it cost my company (and others) between $1.20 and $1.75 per
mile to ship product via common carrier truckers. Please tell me what we are
paying now.
....
--------

From 2-1/2 years ago:
--------
From: "Doug Kanter" >
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
Subject: Breyer's ice cream
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:34:27 GMT
....
Oh....I forgot to mention the following fact. Two years ago, we (at my
company) were able to use $1.10 - $1.20 per mile when calculating freight
rates for grocery deliveries. Due to the cost of fuel, we now have to use
$1.95 - $2.20, depending on the route and whether the trucker can get a
backhaul for the trip home.

So, let's say I want to ship a truckload of Swanson dinners from Jackson TN
to Rochester NY. It's 910 miles. At 2.20 per mile, that's about $2000.00 for
freight. Two years ago, it would've been $1090.00.

Any questions?
....
--------

If you follow these rest of both threads, you will see how similar
"JoeSpareBedroom" is to "Doug Kanter". I believe they are one and the same. No
wonder I was having feelings of deja vu. I've heard his crap before. The
arguments and the writing style are pretty much identical.

I too would like to know where he works so I can avoid that business myself!

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:36:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:45:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"B. Anderson" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Again, what has that got to do with anything? No, I'm not in sales.
>>> That doesn't change the fact that the practice is deceptive and
>>> intended to defraud your customers.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tracy R.
>>
>>
>>I didn't ask if you were in sales. I asked an open ended question. What is
>>your job function?
>
> That's none of your business and completely irrelevant to the
> discussion of whether it's ethical to downsize products in an effort
> to keep consumers from realizing the price has been raised.
>
> Regards,
> Tracy R.

It's completely relevant. You may work in a job where you are exposed to
exactly NONE of the financial structure of the company. And, telling us
you're a nurse or a carpenter is not going to threaten your privacy,
although you are pretending it will.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:45:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"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.
>>
>
> what difference does their 'job function' make? the money doesn't
> care whether you made it laying bricks or found it on the street.
> this is a consumer question, not a producer question.
>
> your pal,
> blake

When I have answer, I'll tell you why it's relevant.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>> >> Interesting. In one paragraph, you call it deceptive. In another, you
>> >> explain why the practice is valid.
>> >
>> > Scammers use all sorts of ploys to get people to part with their money.
>> > Their greed does not make the ploy valid.
>>
>> What is your job function?
>
> I worked in law enforcement and am now retired, but what the hell does
> that
> have to do with recognizing deceptive marketing practices?

It tells me that you didn't run a business, and that you may have limited
exposure to the range of options available to companies as they work to keep
their products viable.

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:3UF4i.10354$kf1.9225@trnddc01...
> > wrote:
>> I'd have to know a lot more than you have told me to take a guess at
>> that; it would vary from business to business depending on various
>> overhead factors. And, again, it's irrelevant. I said a fair price; I
>> meant just that. By all means, charge what you must to make the profit
>> you need. Just don't lie to me to do it. Is that so hard to
>> understand? Are you seriously trying to argue that it's ok to try and
>> deceive consumers in order to remain profitable? If so, I'd like to
>> know exactly where =you= work; clearly, it's a business we should all
>> know about so we can avoid it.
>
> Don't waste your breath. The ******* clearly has different ethics than
> most people and you're not going to change him. He spewed this exact same
> garbage about 2-1/2 years ago. Some things never change.


Ah yes - the famous Breyer's discussion, in which the manufacturer was
blamed for a mistake made by an individual supermarket.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:33:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:36:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> > wrote:
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:35:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 22:14:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:Gxl4i.4948$qp5.2303@trnddc03...
>>>>>>>>> > "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> Subtle price change.
>>>>>>>>> >>
<snip>
>>
>> I'd have to know a lot more than you have told me to take a guess at
>> that; it would vary from business to business depending on various
>> overhead factors. And, again, it's irrelevant. I said a fair price; I
>> meant just that. By all means, charge what you must to make the profit
>> you need. Just don't lie to me to do it. Is that so hard to
>> understand? Are you seriously trying to argue that it's ok to try and
>> deceive consumers in order to remain profitable? If so, I'd like to
>> know exactly where =you= work; clearly, it's a business we should all
>> know about so we can avoid it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tracy R.
>
>I don't see it as deception. Apparently, you are easily deceived.
>
>Some here are also implying that "notification" is relevant, but nobody has
>suggested a way of "notifying" customers of size changes. Perhaps they'd
>like individual letters sent to every home in America. Or, billboards.

Ok, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You apparently have
a very different set of beliefs than I do about right and wrong. I
don't see how you can defend this practice as not being deceptive, but
whatever. I think it's obvious to the rest of us that it is, or at
least that it attempts to be. <shrug> And I notice you failed to
answer the question about where you work. <eg>

Regards,
Tracy R.

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:33:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:36:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:35:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
y> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:blq553lntfjq4bbgchn5ijp63qqpj9s7mv@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 22:14:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:Gxl4i.4948$qp5.2303@trnddc03...
>>>>>>>>>> > "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >> Subtle price change.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> I'd have to know a lot more than you have told me to take a guess at
>>> that; it would vary from business to business depending on various
>>> overhead factors. And, again, it's irrelevant. I said a fair price; I
>>> meant just that. By all means, charge what you must to make the profit
>>> you need. Just don't lie to me to do it. Is that so hard to
>>> understand? Are you seriously trying to argue that it's ok to try and
>>> deceive consumers in order to remain profitable? If so, I'd like to
>>> know exactly where =you= work; clearly, it's a business we should all
>>> know about so we can avoid it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tracy R.
>>
>>I don't see it as deception. Apparently, you are easily deceived.
>>
>>Some here are also implying that "notification" is relevant, but nobody
>>has
>>suggested a way of "notifying" customers of size changes. Perhaps they'd
>>like individual letters sent to every home in America. Or, billboards.
>
> Ok, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You apparently have
> a very different set of beliefs than I do about right and wrong. I
> don't see how you can defend this practice as not being deceptive, but
> whatever. I think it's obvious to the rest of us that it is, or at
> least that it attempts to be. <shrug> And I notice you failed to
> answer the question about where you work. <eg>
>
> Regards,
> Tracy R.

I missed your question. I work in a niche within the grocery wholesale biz.

Let's start over. Do you believe that via research, manufacturers have a
very good idea of what price range will turn off customers completely and
make them seek a different product?

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Mon, 21 May 2007 14:02:48 -0500, Emma Thackery >
> wrote:
>
> >In article > ,
> > "Dimitri" > wrote:
> >
> >> Subtle price change.
> >>
> >> The new quart jar is 30 ounces.
> >>
> >> 6.25% price increase.
> >>
> >> Rat *******s
> >>
> >> That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.
> >
> >
> >I posted about the smaller jar recently. The other terrible thing is
> >that they changed the formulations on the Hellman's low/less fat mayos
> >too. It does not taste nearly as good IMO. I don't know about the
> >regular mayo, however, as I've not tried it yet. Damn! I am giving
> >serious thought to making my own. And btw, Cook's Illustrated no longer
> >rates Hellman's as the best of the common brands either.
>
> so who do they like better now?

I'm thinking Kraft Mayo. Someone correct me please if that is wrong.

Emma Thackery wrote:
> I posted about the smaller jar recently. The other terrible thing is
> that they changed the formulations on the Hellman's low/less fat mayos
> too. It does not taste nearly as good IMO. I don't know about the
> regular mayo, however, as I've not tried it yet. Damn! I am giving
> serious thought to making my own. And btw, Cook's Illustrated no longer
> rates Hellman's as the best of the common brands either.

What is higher rated?
>
> Thai Kitchens little noodle boxes have also been recently changed for
> the hugely worse (GAK!!!).

Too bad. Thai Kitchen products used to be pretty good. (I
don't know specifically about the noodle boxes though.)

It seems like most of these kinds of changes
> to good products consist of supplanting quality ingredients with lesser
> quality crap thinking that the customers will never notice the
> difference.

I agree. My daughter says "new and improved" means improved
from the manufacturer's perspective, and I think she's right.

--
Jean B.

Dimitri wrote:
> Subtle price change.
>
> The new quart jar is 30 ounces.
>
> 6.25% price increase.
>
> Rat *******s
>
> That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.
>
> Dimitri
>
>
I'll say one thing. I'd rather have them do that than tinker
with the contents. Well, how 'bout they should go back to the
original formula--call it "Hellmann's Classic" and charge more
if they must.

Actually, other than the fact that it's sneaky, I don't care
so much about the change in size for this product. After all,
how often do you see recipes that call for a jar of mayo? I
DO mind about the chiseling away at other containers when the
specific amount is used in a recipe. Perhaps one can get away
with the first small change, but eventually those changes can
make a critical difference in the end result.

--
Jean B.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
> > I worked in law enforcement and am now retired, but what the hell does
> > that
> > have to do with recognizing deceptive marketing practices?
>
> It tells me that you didn't run a business, and that you may have limited
> exposure to the range of options available to companies as they work to keep
> their products viable.

Perhaps it means that I am not up on all the jargon that marketing people
use in their efforts to boost sales and profits. I used the example of
Shredded Wheat, a product that has been around and marketed in boxes of 12,
18 and 24 for decades. Judging from the shelf space allotted, and for all
three sizes, it was a viable product. People were buying the large size.
Meanwhile, the large size of Muffets, which is has almost the same taste
and texture, was IIRC always 18, but sells for a little less than the old
Shredded Wheat 18 size, and still does. Meanwhile, Nabisco sold out to
Post, which is owned by Kraft, which is notorious for buying out the
competition and dumbing down the products.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>> > I worked in law enforcement and am now retired, but what the hell does
>> > that
>> > have to do with recognizing deceptive marketing practices?
>>
>> It tells me that you didn't run a business, and that you may have limited
>> exposure to the range of options available to companies as they work to
>> keep
>> their products viable.
>
> Perhaps it means that I am not up on all the jargon that marketing people
> use in their efforts to boost sales and profits. I used the example of
> Shredded Wheat, a product that has been around and marketed in boxes of
> 12,
> 18 and 24 for decades. Judging from the shelf space allotted, and for all
> three sizes, it was a viable product. People were buying the large size.
> Meanwhile, the large size of Muffets, which is has almost the same taste
> and texture, was IIRC always 18, but sells for a little less than the old
> Shredded Wheat 18 size, and still does. Meanwhile, Nabisco sold out to
> Post, which is owned by Kraft, which is notorious for buying out the
> competition and dumbing down the products.


When you wrote to the manufacturer about this, what did they tell you?