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

On 2007-05-21, Dimitri > wrote:
>
> 6.25% price increase.
>
> Rat *******s

Only buy when 2-for-1.

> That's like the 11 ounce pound of coffee.

Buy green and roast your own. $5lb.


nb

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
. net...
> Subtle price change.
>
> The new quart jar is 30 ounces.
>
> 6.25% price increase.
>
> Rat *******s


What kind of work do you do, Dmitri?

"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.

When will the new 100 ounce "convenience sized" gallon of gasoline hit the
market? ;-)

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

"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 find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but are
> annoyed when a package gets smaller.
Yeah! After all, what is the point of being able to afford more if you
don't spend it! Yay!
Are you really this stupid? Is anybody?

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>> "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.

Because subtly changing the package size is a deliberate attempt at deceiving
the customer. They are hoping no one notices. If they are so innocent, why don't
they just raise the price?

And don't say that the new smaller packages are the result of customer demand.
Was anyone clamoring for a 1.75 quart " convenience sized half gallon"? A 30
ounce "quart"? I don't think so.

By the way, wages have lagged inflation for quite some time now, so deceptive
practices like downsizing products are important issues. Those toward the upper
end of the income scale have not been affected by these trends, so they would
tend to think the issue is irrelevant.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> "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.

probably the same people who start cutting their workday short, so the boss
won't notice.

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:ESl4i.10213$kf1.320@trnddc01...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>>> "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.
>
> Because subtly changing the package size is a deliberate attempt at
> deceiving the customer. They are hoping no one notices. If they are so
> innocent, why don't they just raise the price?

Because they know EXACTLY what most people are willing to pay.



> And don't say that the new smaller packages are the result of customer
> demand. Was anyone clamoring for a 1.75 quart " convenience sized half
> gallon"? A 30 ounce "quart"? I don't think so.

I never said it was due to customer demand.



> By the way, wages have lagged inflation for quite some time now, so
> deceptive practices like downsizing products are important issues. Those
> toward the upper end of the income scale have not been affected by these
> trends, so they would tend to think the issue is irrelevant.


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.

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.

Thai Kitchens little noodle boxes have also been recently changed for
the hugely worse (GAK!!!). 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.

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>> Because subtly changing the package size is a deliberate attempt at deceiving
>> the customer. They are hoping no one notices. If they are so innocent, why
>> don't they just raise the price?
>
> Because they know EXACTLY what most people are willing to pay.

Are you saying that people are so fixated on a specific price for an item that
they won't buy it for any higher price? Hogwash. There is absolutely no
difference whether the size is reduced or the price is increased. The only
possible motivation for reducing package size in most of these cases is
intentional deception.

The ONLY exceptions are in scenarios where the price is essentially fixed, so
package size must be decreased. That is fairly rare, but does occur in items
like those sold in vending machines that only accept coins in fixed fashion. No
way is that an issue on either the ice cream or the mayo cases.

>> By the way, wages have lagged inflation for quite some time now, so deceptive
>> practices like downsizing products are important issues. Those toward the
>> upper end of the income scale have not been affected by these trends, so they
>> would tend to think the issue is irrelevant.
>
>
> 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.

Are you suggesting that you would be justified engaging in deceptive practices
because your costs go up? If you can't find an honest and straightforward method
for covering your costs, you deserve to go out of business.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:hfm4i.10216$kf1.1328@trnddc01...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>>> Because subtly changing the package size is a deliberate attempt at
>>> deceiving the customer. They are hoping no one notices. If they are so
>>> innocent, why don't they just raise the price?
>>
>> Because they know EXACTLY what most people are willing to pay.
>
> Are you saying that people are so fixated on a specific price for an item
> that they won't buy it for any higher price? Hogwash.

Hogwash NOT. Manufacturers and stores know what RANGE will turn off
customers. Whether you believe it or not is completely unimportant. But,
what I'm telling you is a fact.



> There is absolutely no difference whether the size is reduced or the price
> is increased.

Correct. Either way, it's a price increase.


> The only possible motivation for reducing package size in most of these
> cases is intentional deception.

See below.



>> 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.
>
> Are you suggesting that you would be justified engaging in deceptive
> practices because your costs go up? If you can't find an honest and
> straightforward method for covering your costs, you deserve to go out of
> business.


Scenario:

1) You need X amount of profit to stay in business.
2) There's a price increase in a raw material you cannot control. A big
increase.
3) You know your $2.79 product won't fly at $3.29.

You seem to have huge amounts of business acumen. What would you do?

wrote:
>> I find it odd that so many people expect cost-of-living raises, but
>> are annoyed when a package gets smaller.
> Yeah! After all, what is the point of being able to afford more if you
> don't spend it! Yay!
> Are you really this stupid? Is anybody?

If they were honest they would simply raise the price not make the
package smaller.

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

My preference is Hellman's. Unfortunately, here in Germany, it is
REALLY expensive. What did Cook's Illustrated rate as the #1 mayo? By
the way, making your own mayonaisse is extremely simple and you can
vary it up quite a bit--use rosemary, basil, etc..., to make a great
sandwhich spread.

David

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that you would be justified engaging in deceptive
>> practices because your costs go up? If you can't find an honest and
>> straightforward method for covering your costs, you deserve to go out of
>> business.
>
>
> Scenario:
>
> 1) You need X amount of profit to stay in business.
> 2) There's a price increase in a raw material you cannot control. A big
> increase.
> 3) You know your $2.79 product won't fly at $3.29.
>
> You seem to have huge amounts of business acumen. What would you do?

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.

I recall one major change in warranty policy in a company I worked for. They
changed the terms such that onsite repair was no longer covered during the 90
day warranty term. This was to encourage the purchase of maintenance contracts.

Sure there was still a warranty. But on a $100,000 piece of equipment, who is
going to do parts exchange by mail. No one could afford the downtime.
Essentially the price of the equipment was raised by the cost of 90 days of a
maintenance contract.

The marketing people thought they were being very clever. Unfortunately the
sales force didn't think so much of it and rebeled. They knew the customer's
trust was more valuable to them than the increased profit. They refused to tow
the company line.

In the end, the company went under. Not as the result of any one thing, but
losing the customer's trust and respect was a significant part of it.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
newsQm4i.3971$TU1.954@trnddc07...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>>> Are you suggesting that you would be justified engaging in deceptive
>>> practices because your costs go up? If you can't find an honest and
>>> straightforward method for covering your costs, you deserve to go out of
>>> business.
>>
>>
>> Scenario:
>>
>> 1) You need X amount of profit to stay in business.
>> 2) There's a price increase in a raw material you cannot control. A big
>> increase.
>> 3) You know your $2.79 product won't fly at $3.29.
>>
>> You seem to have huge amounts of business acumen. What would you do?
>
> 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.

Also, you're pretending not to believe that manufacturers know what price
the market will bear. Why are you doing that?

And finally, in order to better address your concerns, what business are you
in? If retired, what business WERE you involved with?

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>> The problem is you cannot base a long term strategy on deceptive practices.
>> The corporate graveyard is littered with the remains of businesses that lost
>> the trust and respect of their customers.
>
> What makes you think it's deceptive? It's clearly labeled as being a different
> size.

If you can't see why it's deceptive, you must have gone to the Alberto Gonzales
School of Ethics. There's a big difference between what is legal and what is
ethical. The labeling is certainly legal, but it is far from ethical.

Clearly labeled as to size? When there has been an industry convention
stretching back perhaps over 100 years as to what a "quart" container of mayo
means? You're proposing a world where a consumer has to pick up every item every
time and read the label to verify its true size.

> Also, you're pretending not to believe that manufacturers know what price the
> market will bear. Why are you doing that?

These are not items where "what the market will bear" comes into play. It's not
a case where there is a point where the product is not bought at all because of
the increased price. It is a case where the product may appear to be cheaper
than the competitors who did raise their price (but did not change their size).
It's also not a case where some "magic" threshold is crossed, such as going from
a $19,999 car to a $20,000 car or a $299,999 condo to a $300,000 condo.

By the way, here's the official statement on Hellmann's size change:

--
"At Unilever Bestfoods we have always taken great pride in offering the highest
quality products at reasonable and fair prices.

Recently, inflationary pressures have brought about by the increased costs of
raw materials. Rather than raise our prices, we chose to slightly reduce the
size of the 32 oz quart and 16 oz pint. This is the first time in over three
years that we have had to increase costs to our consumers."
--

But what they don't say is they're counting on most consumers not noticing the
size change.

> And finally, in order to better address your concerns, what business are you
> in? If retired, what business WERE you involved with?

The computer industry. The company I worked for played many other games aside
from the warranty issue mentioned. Fooling with processor speeds by selling the
same machine with varying degrees of "crippling" to meet perceived price points
was another favorite. They also played games with employee benefits, making
reductions while touting them as "improved choices".

When you lose the trust of both your employees AND your customers, you are
doomed.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:yNn4i.10231$kf1.4762@trnddc01...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>>> The problem is you cannot base a long term strategy on deceptive
>>> practices. The corporate graveyard is littered with the remains of
>>> businesses that lost the trust and respect of their customers.
>>
>> What makes you think it's deceptive? It's clearly labeled as being a
>> different size.
>
> If you can't see why it's deceptive, you must have gone to the Alberto
> Gonzales School of Ethics. There's a big difference between what is legal
> and what is ethical. The labeling is certainly legal, but it is far from
> ethical.
>
> Clearly labeled as to size? When there has been an industry convention
> stretching back perhaps over 100 years as to what a "quart" container of
> mayo means? You're proposing a world where a consumer has to pick up every
> item every time and read the label to verify its true size.
>

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



>> Also, you're pretending not to believe that manufacturers know what price
>> the market will bear. Why are you doing that?
>
> These are not items where "what the market will bear" comes into play.
> It's not a case where there is a point where the product is not bought at
> all because of the increased price. It is a case where the product may
> appear to be cheaper than the competitors who did raise their price (but
> did not change their size). It's also not a case where some "magic"
> threshold is crossed, such as going from a $19,999 car to a $20,000 car or
> a $299,999 condo to a $300,000 condo.


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




> By the way, here's the official statement on Hellmann's size change:
>
> --
> "At Unilever Bestfoods we have always taken great pride in offering the
> highest quality products at reasonable and fair prices.
>
> Recently, inflationary pressures have brought about by the increased costs
> of raw materials. Rather than raise our prices, we chose to slightly
> reduce the size of the 32 oz quart and 16 oz pint. This is the first time
> in over three years that we have had to increase costs to our consumers."
> --
>
> But what they don't say is they're counting on most consumers not noticing
> the size change.

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




>> And finally, in order to better address your concerns, what business are
>> you in? If retired, what business WERE you involved with?
>
> The computer industry. The company I worked for played many other games
> aside from the warranty issue mentioned. Fooling with processor speeds by
> selling the same machine with varying degrees of "crippling" to meet
> perceived price points was another favorite. They also played games with
> employee benefits, making reductions while touting them as "improved
> choices".
>
> When you lose the trust of both your employees AND your customers, you are
> doomed.


I suspect you're in the minority there.

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

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>> If you can't see why it's deceptive, you must have gone to the Alberto
>> Gonzales School of Ethics. There's a big difference between what is legal and
>> what is ethical. The labeling is certainly legal, but it is far from ethical.
>>
>> Clearly labeled as to size? When there has been an industry convention
>> stretching back perhaps over 100 years as to what a "quart" container of mayo
>> means? You're proposing a world where a consumer has to pick up every item
>> every time and read the label to verify its true size.
>>
>
> How about a poster hanging over any item whose size has been changed? Or, a
> personal letter sent to your home? Would either of those make you happy?

In case it isn't obvious, you have a completely different value system than I
do. You don't seem to have any problem with such practices. Is there a line
where you do consider something to be deceptive? Are the mortgage loan practices
with "teaser" rates misleading? Are the terms of payday loans predatory? Sure
all these things are perfectly legal, but all of them are "wrong" in my book. I
would hope people would aspire to have higher standards that just being "legal".

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
news:wfo4i.10234$kf1.5220@trnddc01...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>>> If you can't see why it's deceptive, you must have gone to the Alberto
>>> Gonzales School of Ethics. There's a big difference between what is
>>> legal and what is ethical. The labeling is certainly legal, but it is
>>> far from ethical.
>>>
>>> Clearly labeled as to size? When there has been an industry convention
>>> stretching back perhaps over 100 years as to what a "quart" container of
>>> mayo means? You're proposing a world where a consumer has to pick up
>>> every item every time and read the label to verify its true size.
>>>
>>
>> How about a poster hanging over any item whose size has been changed? Or,
>> a personal letter sent to your home? Would either of those make you
>> happy?
>
> In case it isn't obvious, you have a completely different value system
> than I do. You don't seem to have any problem with such practices. Is
> there a line where you do consider something to be deceptive? Are the
> mortgage loan practices with "teaser" rates misleading? Are the terms of
> payday loans predatory? Sure all these things are perfectly legal, but all
> of them are "wrong" in my book. I would hope people would aspire to have
> higher standards that just being "legal".


I asked you two questions: What price would make you stop buying the
product? And, since raising the price isn't always feasible, how would YOU
reduce the size without making the event "deceptive"? Until you answer those
questions, we can proceed no further. These are questions which would be
asked in any well-run business class in college. If you can't imagine why
they're important, you're not qualified to discuss the issue.

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.

"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.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:59:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
>news:ESl4i.10213$kf1.320@trnddc01...
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>> "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>>>> "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.
>>
>> Because subtly changing the package size is a deliberate attempt at
>> deceiving the customer. They are hoping no one notices. If they are so
>> innocent, why don't they just raise the price?
>
>Because they know EXACTLY what most people are willing to pay.

For the classic example of that look at the history of the Hershey bar.
Stayed a nickel from 1921 to 1968. The weight varied, up and down,
between 2 oz and 3/4 oz.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:28:54 GMT, "wff_ng_7" >
wrote:

>"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.
>
>When will the new 100 ounce "convenience sized" gallon of gasoline hit the
>market? ;-)

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?

"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.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

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 calls try 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.

> 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 calls try 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?

y wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 calls try 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.


You are right. It is a marketing trick. I have seen the same thing in other
products lately. Shredded Wheat changed it's packaging. They used to lay
the packages of biscuits flat in the box and had 12, 18 and 24 size
boxes,with the larger boxes more economical than the smaller size. A few
months ago they changed to to a new size format, turning the packages of
biscuits on their side. The new size format of the 18 pack is the same size
as the old 24 box, but thinner, but it is the same price as the old 24
pack.

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.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> y wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 calls try 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.
>
>
> You are right. It is a marketing trick. I have seen the same thing in
> other
> products lately. Shredded Wheat changed it's packaging. They used to lay
> the packages of biscuits flat in the box and had 12, 18 and 24 size
> boxes,with the larger boxes more economical than the smaller size. A few
> months ago they changed to to a new size format, turning the packages of
> biscuits on their side. The new size format of the 18 pack is the same
> size
> as the old 24 box, but thinner, but it is the same price as the old 24
> pack.
>
> 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.

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.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:25:13 -0500,
y wrote:

>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.

Like those 12 oz "pounds" of bacon? Same sized packaging.... oz in
small print.

--
See return address to reply by email

"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.

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.

"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?

On 2007-05-21, JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:

> Because they know EXACTLY what most people are willing to pay.

The price "most people are willing to pay" for a gallon of gasoline
or a box of cold breakfast cereal doesn't lend much credence to your
argument.

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 2007-05-21, JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>
>> Because they know EXACTLY what most people are willing to pay.
>
> The price "most people are willing to pay" for a gallon of gasoline
> or a box of cold breakfast cereal doesn't lend much credence to your
> argument.
>
> nb


Yes, it most certainly does. And, you cannot mention gasoline and food in
the same discussion. You MUST buy gasoline. But, you are not required to buy
cereal #1 because there are plenty of other things you can eat for
breakfast. If the price of cereal #1 is too high, you might buy cereal #2,
or wait for a sale or a coupon.

In article >,
"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:

> "wff_ng_7" > wrote in message
> newsQm4i.3971$TU1.954@trnddc07...
[...]
> > 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.

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.

But this might have worked a different way. Instead, let's say that on
the 28th of the month, you were suddenly unable to get online. Unable
to visit your ISP's website, you phone them and they explain that
increased equipment costs forced them to either increase the rates or
decrease the amount of time the customers could actually get online.
They chose the latter explains the representative. "But you didn't
notify me" you assert. "Oh yes we did," explains the rep, "... it was
on your last bill, down at the bottom in the fine print... you don't
usually read that? Oh gee that's too bad... you should have turned your
DSL off now and then to avoid the lapse in service. Too bad you failed
to read our notice."

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. Is it illegal? Maybe not but,
personally, I think it should be. Mayonnaise has been sold in quart and
pint jars for nearly a century so consumers would be very unlikely to
notice a change. The company was counting on that.

"Disguise" is the key word here. It is most certainly unethical by the
most meager of standards. The company admitted, in its response to the
many consumers who complained, that it was their way of handling the
cost increase. Instead of increasing the price in a way that consumers
were much more apt to notice, they instead hid it by decreasing the
size. Just because others have done it, does not make it right or
acceptable. It was deceptive, unethical and contemptuous of their own
customers.

Emma

"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

"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.

"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