Dave Smith wrote:
> 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.

Hmmm, but Kraft is owned by yet another big corp.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...

Snipped

>
>
> 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.
>

Short answer......YES.

Still think they could be more aboveboard about the methodology however.
Spent the better part of my first 20 years in the logistics business working
with the food and beverage industry (wholesale, retail and distribution) and
know that it is for the most part a low-margin business and they have to
look at every angle to extract profits, sometimes it is for the good and
sometimes not.

KW

wff_ng_7 wrote:
>
> 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.


I beg to differ with you nieces. The metric system is not harder than the
Imperial system, which makes little sense to most people who swear by it. I
am always prepared for people who claim it is better than metric, just ask
them how many pints are in a gallon, how many gils in a pint, how many
yards in a furlong, how many square rods in an acre. Metric is much easy
to deal with.


> 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.

We have been metric in Canada for thirty years now and it works. Soft
drinks come in the same size cans as in the US, but the contents are listed
as 355 ml instead of 12 oz. The only problem with metric for most people is
that that they spend too much time trying to convert it to Imperial instead
of just learning to think metric. It is like learning a second language.
When you start off you spend a lot of energy translating everything from
one language to another. Once you become fluent you stop translating to
yourself.

"KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in message
...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Snipped
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Short answer......YES.
>
> Still think they could be more aboveboard about the methodology however.
> Spent the better part of my first 20 years in the logistics business
> working
> with the food and beverage industry (wholesale, retail and distribution)
> and
> know that it is for the most part a low-margin business and they have to
> look at every angle to extract profits, sometimes it is for the good and
> sometimes not.
>
> KW
>
>

Yep.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>
> 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?



There are several reasons why I refuse to answer marketing surveys. Aside
from them wasting my time and bothering me with questions, I don't want to
tell the marketing people information they will use to try to squeeze more
money out of me. I don't want them to get me to identify with any
particular brand.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>
> > 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?


I didn't bother writing the manufacturer. I told the people in the grocery
store.

Dave Smith > wrote:

> I beg to differ with you nieces. The metric system is not harder than the
> Imperial system, which makes little sense to most people who swear by it. I
> am always prepared for people who claim it is better than metric, just ask
> them how many pints are in a gallon, how many gils in a pint, how many
> yards in a furlong, how many square rods in an acre. Metric is much easy
> to deal with.

Of those questions, only the first is even reasonable. Nobody uses gils
in everyday measurement, and except for horse races nobody uses furlongs.
Any decent surveyor will know the rods and acre conversion, because they
would have a use for it.

I was once asked by an Italian friend how many feet in a mile, which I
knew because I learned it in school, but for everyday usage who really
cares? You don't normally need to know because the scale is so different
it doesn't make sense to convert feet to miles. It may be easy to convert
picolitres to litres, but is it really a common need?

> > 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.

> We have been metric in Canada for thirty years now and it works. Soft
> drinks come in the same size cans as in the US, but the contents are listed
> as 355 ml instead of 12 oz. The only problem with metric for most people is
> that that they spend too much time trying to convert it to Imperial instead
> of just learning to think metric. It is like learning a second language.

I totally agree with you here. I lived in France for a while and I came to
understand that 500 grams was, for practical everyday use, about a pound.
There is no need to know it's really 1.1 pound when you are buying flour,
luncheon meat or butter. Converting precisely from one to the other is
pointless. Note that even in the US soft drinks like Coke and Pepsi are
sold by the litre except for the small sizes. 1, 1.5, 2 and 3 litre are
all commonly sold in the supermarkets. Does anyone really spend time
figuring out the exact conversion? I hope not. But, that kind of thinking
does lead to confusion.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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?
>
>
>
> There are several reasons why I refuse to answer marketing surveys. Aside
> from them wasting my time and bothering me with questions, I don't want to
> tell the marketing people information they will use to try to squeeze more
> money out of me. I don't want them to get me to identify with any
> particular brand.

If I'd asked why you refuse to answer surveys, your answer would've been
ideal. But, that's not what I asked.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>
>> > 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?
>
>
> I didn't bother writing the manufacturer. I told the people in the grocery
> store.


Oh. I thought you were actually concerned and bothered by the package
change. Never mind.

"Dave Smith" > wrote:
> I beg to differ with you nieces. The metric system is not harder than the
> Imperial system, which makes little sense to most people who swear by it. I
> am always prepared for people who claim it is better than metric, just ask
> them how many pints are in a gallon, how many gils in a pint, how many
> yards in a furlong, how many square rods in an acre. Metric is much easy
> to deal with.

I don't think is was so much a question of metric itself being harder but that
having to convert and make the adjustment to the new system was harder (than not
doing it). They are several years older now and both preparing for careers
involving science or engineering, so I think they have a different opinion at
this point.

> We have been metric in Canada for thirty years now and it works. Soft
> drinks come in the same size cans as in the US, but the contents are listed
> as 355 ml instead of 12 oz. The only problem with metric for most people is
> that that they spend too much time trying to convert it to Imperial instead
> of just learning to think metric. It is like learning a second language.
> When you start off you spend a lot of energy translating everything from
> one language to another. Once you become fluent you stop translating to
> yourself.

I can't say I'm completely used to metric, but that's because I still have to
deal with Imperial measurements for most things in daily life. I was first
exposed to metric when I was about 12 years old (around 1965) when I got very
interested in foreign cars and got several car books from Europe with all the
specs in metric. Later I got a degree in engineering. So metric is quite
ingrained in my mind. I've got the constants 2.54 and 454 imprinted in my mind
just as strongly as 3.14. Then there's the approximations that come naturally: a
quart and a liter, a meter and a yard, a pound and half a kilogram, a mile and
two kilometers. So I can get a rough feel for things very quickly.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

wrote:
>
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > I beg to differ with you nieces. The metric system is not harder than the
> > Imperial system, which makes little sense to most people who swear by it. I
> > am always prepared for people who claim it is better than metric, just ask
> > them how many pints are in a gallon, how many gils in a pint, how many
> > yards in a furlong, how many square rods in an acre. Metric is much easy
> > to deal with.
>
> Of those questions, only the first is even reasonable. Nobody uses gils
> in everyday measurement, and except for horse races nobody uses furlongs.
> Any decent surveyor will know the rods and acre conversion, because they
> would have a use for it.

It doesn't really matter how often people use the measurements, they are
part of the nonsensical system of measurement that so many people claim to
be easier. Even the everyday measurement is nonsense.... 12 inches in a
foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile etc. In metric, everything is
based on 10s, so you don't have to convert metres to centimetres or
kilometres. You just move a decimal point.

Temperature is more meaningful IMO in metric. One degree C. is a more
discernible difference than 1 degree F. and the freezing point of water is
0 instead of 32, and there is a big difference in weather when you hit the
freezing point.


>

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
> "
> >
> > I didn't bother writing the manufacturer. I told the people in the grocery
> > store.
>
> Oh. I thought you were actually concerned and bothered by the package
> change. Never mind.


Screw them. If their sales drop as a result of their deceptive marketing
practices I will let them try to figure out why. The people in grocery
store can pass on my comments if they so choose. They have some clout
there. Let them tell the company that their customers refuse to buy the new
format.

On 2007-05-22, > wrote:

> Of those questions, only the first is even reasonable. Nobody uses gils
> in everyday measurement......

No kidding. I've never even heard of it and I get a kick out of
strange measures. I can only find two mentions of it on google. One
of my faves is troy weight. How many grains in a pennyweight? Used
mostly by jewelers, except for grains, which is also used to measure
gunpowder and bullet weight. But, in a world that uses mostly metric,
it is kind of silly. I had to learn metric in college and it's no big
deal and so much more practical. One of the dumbest things this
country (USA) ever did was abandon the program to change to metric
back in the 80s.

nb

Dave Smith > wrote:

wrote:

>It doesn't really matter how often people use the measurements, they are
>part of the nonsensical system of measurement that so many people claim to
>be easier. Even the everyday measurement is nonsense.... 12 inches in a
>foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile etc. In metric, everything is
>based on 10s, so you don't have to convert metres to centimetres or
>kilometres. You just move a decimal point.

Of course, if you're truly commited to metric, you must measure
all time intervals in seconds and forget about using minutes and hours.
Thus, you smoke your ribs for 14,440 seconds instead of four hours.

You call that simpler?

Steve

"Dave Smith" > wrote:
> There are several reasons why I refuse to answer marketing surveys. Aside
> from them wasting my time and bothering me with questions, I don't want to
> tell the marketing people information they will use to try to squeeze more
> money out of me. I don't want them to get me to identify with any
> particular brand.

I'm also one who refuses to answer surveys. Aside from the wasting time issue, I
don't want companies to determine what's important to the customer by those
methods. It seems for the past decade or so in particular that companies have
this notion that they can figure everything out from surveys and statistics, and
they no longer listen to customer letters or phone calls. There was a school of
thought that says that the customers that go out of their way to contact a
company are more indicative of the way customers in general feel about products
and services than those chosen for random surveys. Obviously that's no longer in
vogue.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

wff_ng_7 wrote:
>
>
> I don't think is was so much a question of metric itself being harder but that
> having to convert and make the adjustment to the new system was harder (than not
> doing it). They are several years older now and both preparing for careers
> involving science or engineering, so I think they have a different opinion at
> this point.

You have to get rid of the conversions. Think metric. For some people it
takes time. We have been metric for 30 years, and it is seems to be only in
the last few years that people I deal with have been referring to the
weather in metric. We now think of a nice day as something in the 20s
rather than 70-80.



> ingrained in my mind. I've got the constants 2.54 and 454 imprinted in my mind
> just as strongly as 3.14. Then there's the approximations that come naturally: a
> quart and a liter, a meter and a yard, a pound and half a kilogram, a mile and
> two kilometers. So I can get a rough feel for things very quickly.


I stopped that a long time ago. When I am at the butcher shop I am more
likely to ask for a half kilo than a pound.

Dave Smith wrote:


> Temperature is more meaningful IMO in metric. One degree C. is a more
> discernible difference than 1 degree F. and the freezing point of
> water is 0 instead of 32, and there is a big difference in weather
> when you hit the freezing point.

I disagree strongly there. A degree F is small enough granularity that
we never need fractional degrees. Also, we have the useful 100F is
really hot weatherwise, and 0F is really cold. In 100C is off the
charts and 0C is coldish, not really that bad.



Brian


--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Dave Smith > wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Of those questions, only the first is even reasonable. Nobody uses gils
> > in everyday measurement, and except for horse races nobody uses furlongs.
> > Any decent surveyor will know the rods and acre conversion, because they
> > would have a use for it.

> It doesn't really matter how often people use the measurements, they are
> part of the nonsensical system of measurement that so many people claim to
> be easier. Even the everyday measurement is nonsense.... 12 inches in a
> foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile etc. In metric, everything is
> based on 10s, so you don't have to convert metres to centimetres or
> kilometres. You just move a decimal point.

I understand decimal just fine, thanks, but there are *some* advantages
to 12 inches in a foot, etc. You can divide 12 by 2, 3, 4, and 6 so it's
easy to know what 1/3 of a foot is, or 1/4, or half. These are handy
for woodworking and some other things. What's 1/3 of a meter? Yes,
I know what it is, it's a repeating decimal. As someone else pointed out,
clocks are divided into 12s and 60s. No one seems bothered by that.

Now, please understand, I'm not saying Imperial measurements are better
or even that we should not switch to metric, just that they aren't totally
nonsensical. It's just different.

> Temperature is more meaningful IMO in metric. One degree C. is a more
> discernible difference than 1 degree F. and the freezing point of water is
> 0 instead of 32, and there is a big difference in weather when you hit the
> freezing point.

I'm sort of annoyed that they decided to rename the scale from centigrade
to Celsius, but other than that I can deal with either. Believe me, if
you are measuring temperature in a pool, shower or hot tub, 1 degree F
is quite noticable. Though C is really just as arbitrary when it comes
right down to it.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

"Dave Smith" > wrote:
> wff_ng_7 wrote:
>> ingrained in my mind. I've got the constants 2.54 and 454 imprinted in my
>> mind
>> just as strongly as 3.14. Then there's the approximations that come
>> naturally: a
>> quart and a liter, a meter and a yard, a pound and half a kilogram, a mile
>> and
>> two kilometers. So I can get a rough feel for things very quickly.
>
>
> I stopped that a long time ago. When I am at the butcher shop I am more
> likely to ask for a half kilo than a pound.

But I can't stop doing it because most things in daily life are not metric in
the USA. I have to deal with both systems. My internal "scales" have to be set
to Imperial measurements by default. There are items where my default is metric,
like buying wine or spirits. I don't think quarts or gallons when I buy wine,
just as I don't think liters when I buy milk. There are probably other things I
deal with similarly in the length and weight domains, but I can't think of them
off the top of my head.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:07:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

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

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:

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. Therefore, we have decided to package 30 oz. in a 32 oz.
container, sell it for slightly less than $x and hope that most of our
customers are too oblivious to notice that they're getting less for
their money than they did last week, or too dumb to do the math and
realize that they are now, in fact, paying a price they find
unacceptable for our product. Thus we stay in business a little while
longer.

Does this strategy work? Undoubtedly, at least for a while. I suspect
it's unsustainable in the long run because sooner or later, your
customers are going to realize that they aren't getting the value they
expect for their money and they will buy someone else's product. The
bottom line is that, regardless of production costs, a product is only
worth what people are willing to pay for it, and smarmy marketing
tricks can only cover your ass for so long. In the meantime, is it
insulting to your customer's intelligence? Yes. Is it ethical?
Absolutely not, because it is an attempt to trick your customers into
purchasing something you know they would stop buying if they realized
that the price had crossed what they feel is an "acceptable"
threshhold. And you =do= know that, right? Sure you do, because you've
done the marketing research; that's how you know it's time to try and
pull a fast one.

Regards,
Tracy R.

Default User wrote:

> > Temperature is more meaningful IMO in metric. One degree C. is a more
> > discernible difference than 1 degree F. and the freezing point of
> > water is 0 instead of 32, and there is a big difference in weather
> > when you hit the freezing point.
>
> I disagree strongly there. A degree F is small enough granularity that
> we never need fractional degrees.

Current weather readings and forecasts are rounded off to the closest
degree C. I defy you to identify a one degree F difference in temperature.

> Also, we have the useful 100F is
> really hot weatherwise, and 0F is really cold. In 100C is off the
> charts and 0C is coldish, not really that bad.

That depends on what you are used to. Around here, 100 F (38F) is all but
unheard of, and most people consider 35C to be really bloody hot, but if
you want to deal with convenient references you could make it 40C being the
indicator of really bloody hot. The convenient thing about the freezing
point being 0C is that, due to the heat exchange involved in change of
state of water, water to ice or ice to water, the freezing point makes a
major difference in the climate and its effect on a person. Accordingly,
using that point for 0 makes sense. It's above freezing or below freezing,
A positive or negative reading, rather than having at it 32.



..

wrote:
>
>
> I understand decimal just fine, thanks, but there are *some* advantages
> to 12 inches in a foot, etc. You can divide 12 by 2, 3, 4, and 6 so it's
> easy to know what 1/3 of a foot is, or 1/4, or half. These are handy
> for woodworking and some other things. What's 1/3 of a meter? Yes,
> I know what it is, it's a repeating decimal. As someone else pointed out,
> clocks are divided into 12s and 60s. No one seems bothered by that.

The clock could also be divided into 100. For that matter, dividing it into
8 would have been just as easier as 12.
>
> Now, please understand, I'm not saying Imperial measurements are better
> or even that we should not switch to metric, just that they aren't totally
> nonsensical. It's just different.

AFAIAC it doesn't matter what you call something. A dimension is a
dimension no matter what system of measurement you use. Calling it a metre
or calling it a metre or 39.37 inches doesn't change the size. What metric
does make simpler is accounting for conversions within the system.
Consider this example...... cloth is sold by the yard. If someone is
making banners that are a yard wide and 8 feet long you have to first
convert the total number of feet to yards to know how much material you
need. With metric measurement you don't have to do that. If dealing with
weights and you want to make something that weighs 6 ounces and the
material is sold by the pound you have to total the ounces and divide by
16. With metric weights you just take the number of grams and multiply by
the number of items you want to produce.



> > Temperature is more meaningful IMO in metric. One degree C. is a more
> > discernible difference than 1 degree F. and the freezing point of water is
> > 0 instead of 32, and there is a big difference in weather when you hit the
> > freezing point.
>
> I'm sort of annoyed that they decided to rename the scale from centigrade
> to Celsius, but other than that I can deal with either. Believe me, if
> you are measuring temperature in a pool, shower or hot tub, 1 degree F
> is quite noticable. Though C is really just as arbitrary when it comes
> right down to it.

True, water temperature differences are more noticeable than air
temperatures, but still, a 1 degree C difference is easier to detect that a
1 degree F difference.

COnverting to the metric system is not a big deal. I coped with it and I
prefer it.

y 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.

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.

(Steve Pope) wrote in
:

>
> Of course, if you're truly commited to metric, you must measure
> all time intervals in seconds and forget about using minutes and
> hours. Thus, you smoke your ribs for 14,440 seconds instead of four
> hours.
>
> You call that simpler?
>


This is not a valid comparison as we do not have a metric time system. If
we did there would be metric hours/minutes and we would not be counting
things in seconds. Of course it would take some getting used to all the
same, but any change becomes normality given enough time.

K

Amarantha > wrote:

(Steve Pope) wrote in

>> Of course, if you're truly commited to metric, you must measure
>> all time intervals in seconds and forget about using minutes and
>> hours. Thus, you smoke your ribs for 14,440 seconds instead of four
>> hours.

>> You call that simpler?

> This is not a valid comparison as we do not have a metric
> time system. If we did there would be metric hours/minutes
> and we would not be counting things in seconds.

Indeed something like this was proposed at one point at the
international standards level -- a proposed metric day would have ten
hours, each with 100 metric minutes, each of those with 100
metric seconds. No country would support the proposal other
than France. Too radical of a changeover.

The result is that the only valid metric unit of time is the second,
and its metric compounds (milliseconds, decaseconds, kiloseconds and
so on, but in practice only milli, micro, nano, and pico are much used).
These comprise time under the metric system.

In 14, maybe 15 kiloseconds we can enjoy those ribs.

Steve

In article >,
"Jean B." > wrote:

> 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?

IIRC, it was Kraft Mayo (not Miracle Whip).

Emma Thackery > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> IIRC, it was Kraft Mayo (not Miracle Whip).
>


Not S&W????!!!!

I'd rather go without than buy Kraft Mayo!!


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


Come to the edge, Life said.
They said: We are afraid.
Come to the edge, Life said.
They came.
Life pushed them...and they flew."
-Guillaume Apollinaire-

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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?
>
>
>
> There are several reasons why I refuse to answer marketing surveys. Aside
> from them wasting my time and bothering me with questions, I don't want to
> tell the marketing people information they will use to try to squeeze more
> money out of me. I don't want them to get me to identify with any
> particular brand.


By the way, manufacturers don't need to ask you questions in order to find
out what prices are acceptable.

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:07:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:33:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:36:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
y> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:u33653l4kdp029ptvslgkm1r39cfbmu1n6@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:35:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
y> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:blq553lntfjq4bbgchn5ijp63qqpj9s7mv@4a x.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?
>
> 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:
>
> 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. Therefore, we have decided to package 30 oz. in a 32 oz.
> container, sell it for slightly less than $x and hope that most of our
> customers are too oblivious to notice that they're getting less for
> their money than they did last week, or too dumb to do the math and
> realize that they are now, in fact, paying a price they find
> unacceptable for our product. Thus we stay in business a little while
> longer.
>
> Does this strategy work? Undoubtedly, at least for a while. I suspect
> it's unsustainable in the long run because sooner or later, your
> customers are going to realize that they aren't getting the value they
> expect for their money and they will buy someone else's product. The
> bottom line is that, regardless of production costs, a product is only
> worth what people are willing to pay for it, and smarmy marketing
> tricks can only cover your ass for so long. In the meantime, is it
> insulting to your customer's intelligence? Yes. Is it ethical?
> Absolutely not, because it is an attempt to trick your customers into
> purchasing something you know they would stop buying if they realized
> that the price had crossed what they feel is an "acceptable"
> threshhold. And you =do= know that, right? Sure you do, because you've
> done the marketing research; that's how you know it's time to try and
> pull a fast one.
>
> Regards,
> Tracy R.


I guess the word "trick" is where our opinions differ. I don't make such
judgements without having what I consider to be enough information. However,
I'll say this: Two highly accurate recent surveys prove that about 54% of
the population isn't especially bright. I think a significant portion of
those individuals would have a tough time understand why a $2.99 container
of food gradually crept up to $4.50, instead of being converted to a smaller
container.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>> "
>> >
>> > I didn't bother writing the manufacturer. I told the people in the
>> > grocery
>> > store.
>>
>> Oh. I thought you were actually concerned and bothered by the package
>> change. Never mind.
>
>
> Screw them. If their sales drop as a result of their deceptive marketing
> practices I will let them try to figure out why. The people in grocery
> store can pass on my comments if they so choose. They have some clout
> there. Let them tell the company that their customers refuse to buy the
> new
> format.


The grocery store staff is highly unlikely to pass your comments to anyone.
Buyers at the main office have some clout, though.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>
> > There are several reasons why I refuse to answer marketing surveys. Aside
> > from them wasting my time and bothering me with questions, I don't want to
> > tell the marketing people information they will use to try to squeeze more
> > money out of me. I don't want them to get me to identify with any
> > particular brand.
>
> By the way, manufacturers don't need to ask you questions in order to find
> out what prices are acceptable.

I realize that. They can look at their sales figures and get a more
accurate picture than they get from surveys and people who lie or give
evasive answers.

Emma Thackery wrote:
> In article >,
> "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> IIRC, it was Kraft Mayo (not Miracle Whip).

Really! Any particular formulation, assuming there are
several now? I'll have to get the smallest possible jar and
try it--after I scrutinize the contents.

--
Jean B.

In article >,
David > wrote:

> I remember a commercial(?), where an employee had a great idea to
> save the company money. They put one less olive in each jar that they
> sold. Now, that does not sound like much, except when you realize how
> many jars of olives they must sell per year. The savings to them
> could easily be in the millions, and the customer will never notice
> one olive less in the jar.

In 1987, American Airlines saved about US$40000 by omitting the
olive from each salad they served on board. Just the olive. When
you're talking huge volume (airplane meals, jarred olives, etc.),
amounts add up quickly.

sd

In article <Eht4i.4028$TU1.2283@trnddc07>,
"wff_ng_7" > wrote:

> 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.

It's an American thing. Look at the "Coalition of the Willing"....

sd

In article >,
sd > wrote:

> In article <Eht4i.4028$TU1.2283@trnddc07>,
> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> It's an American thing. Look at the "Coalition of the Willing"....

I am quite familiar with the metric system, but I still have to do the
math in my head for kilometers per hour to miles per hour and liter to
gallon conversions to think the result. Seeing a tsp in grams isn't easy
either. In other words, I still think in the old and familiar terms.
When I was the most familiar with the metric system in 1970, I still
thought of liters as liters and quarts as quarts. I drank part of a
quart of milk and made a liter of 1N potassium permanganate solution. I
never truly connected the two. My bad.
If the U.S. converted to metric in one fell swoop which should have been
done fifty years ago if at all, we'd probably cope after an enormous
amount of bitching for two years. Boy, would the traffic in this group
go up!

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

In article >,
sd > wrote:

> It's an American thing. Look at the "Coalition of the Willing"....

To follow up to my previous post since I forgot this part, what the hell
am I going to do with all my tools? Criminy!

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

On May 22, 5:27 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:

> It doesn't really matter how often people use the measurements, they are
> part of the nonsensical system of measurement that so many people claim to
> be easier. Even the everyday measurement is nonsense.... 12 inches in a
> foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile etc. In metric, everything is
> based on 10s, so you don't have to convert metres to centimetres or
> kilometres. You just move a decimal point.
>

I agree that the U.S. should already have converted.
However, you are ignoring the historical context of
measurement in the Imperial system.

If a carpenter has a string that he's using as a measuring
device, and if the string is, e.g., 1 foot long, he need only
fold it in quarters, halves, thirds, sixths, or twelfths to get
a wide variety of even-inch measurements.

There *is* a reason for having a measuring system based
on factors of 3 and 4: it's extremely simple and flexible
for a nonliterate user with limited technology.

Still, I wish we'd just convert. So many things would be
much easier, and people would eventually adapt. Ah, well,
someday the U.S. won't be the largest economy in the
world, and we'll basically be forced to adopt the metric
system.

Cindy Hamilton