"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>
>> That's a ridiculous answer. Think harder.
>
> You haven't come up with a better explanation.
>
> --
> to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"
>
> <http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

Oh....I forgot to mention the following fact. Two years ago, we (at my
company) were able to use $1.10 - $1.20 per mile when calculating freight
rates for grocery deliveries. Due to the cost of fuel, we now have to use
$1.95 - $2.20, depending on the route and whether the trucker can get a
backhaul for the trip home.

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

Any questions?

"barry in indy" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Off topic: I once complained to Krups about the way the carafe on
> their four-cup coffee maker tended to make a mess (the coffee ran
> down the side) if you did not pour very slowly. Their response:
> The carafe was DESIGNED to be poured slowly!

I have a 10 cup Krups coffee maker. It also drips, even if you poor it
slowly.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Scott wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Right, but we don't know WHY they do that, instead of raising the
price.
> >
> > They do it so they can raise the price without appearing to raise the
> > price.
>
> The stores where I shop always have a tag on the shelve that indicates the
> price of goods and, in smaller print, the price per unit weight or volume.

Yes, but in every store that I have shopped, they display the unit price in
such a variety of units that it is nearly worthless. For instance, if you
buy oil, some brands will be priced in ounces, some in pints, and some in
quarts. Who does that help?

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > Right, but we don't know WHY they do that, instead of raising the
> price.
>> >
>> > They do it so they can raise the price without appearing to raise the
>> > price.
>>
>> The stores where I shop always have a tag on the shelve that indicates
>> the
>> price of goods and, in smaller print, the price per unit weight or
>> volume.
>
> Yes, but in every store that I have shopped, they display the unit price
> in
> such a variety of units that it is nearly worthless. For instance, if you
> buy oil, some brands will be priced in ounces, some in pints, and some in
> quarts. Who does that help?
>
>

It's a computer programming issue, motivated (or not) by probably just one
idiot. Yell at the manager, write to the home office, and even better, call
one or two local TV news departments. They love that stuff.

In article >,
"Doug Kanter" > wrote:

> 2) The actual reasons are not known to you or I, but could be if you wrote a
> letter to the company instead of complaining about it in a newsgroup where
> nobody has the ability to give you a definitive answer.

Oh, and how have I "complained" about it? Besides stating that the price
was raised in a manner that would obscure the rise, I made no judgment
about the matter.


> 3) You say I haven't come up with a better explanation, but you have yet to
> comment on any of the well-intended things I've written. Your most
> interesting response has merely been "They do it so they can raise the price
> without appearing to raise the price." You have refused to think about why
> it might have been necessary to raise the price.

Irrelevant. Whatever the reasons they may have had to raise the price,
it was raised. I did not comment on the legitimacy on their reasons; the
comment was on the methodology.


> 4) Besides being well-intended, my comments are based on working for many
> years (and currently) in the wholesale end of the grocery business.
> Therefore, they're far from guesses.

But still inapposite to the aspect I commented upon.


> 5) At least twice, I've reminded others here that the price of milk has gone
> through the roof over the past year or two, and wondered why anyone should
> expect a product that's largely made of milk to remain stable in price.
> Nobody (including you) has acknowledged this fact. How about doing that now?

Still irrelevant. The need for the price to be raised has nothing to do
with shrinking the size of the product to hide the price increase.
Again, I commented on methodology, not basis.


> 6) The tone of this entire discussion suggests that some of the participants
> suspect an evil conspiracy. But, nobody is complaining about the other
> grocery products which have gone through the exact same changes. Why is
> that?

If you look at past discussions in rfc, there have been discussions on
other product shrinkages. Someone had an recent experience with Breyer's
ice cream, so that was topical.


> 7) My neighbor's driveway is the same size as mine. He's very happy with the
> company which completely repaved it 5 years ago, so he gave me a copy of the
> invoice for the work because I need to have mine repaved in the spring. In
> addition to the company he used, I called 3 others for estimates. They were
> all pretty close in price, but every one of them was about 40% higher than
> what my neighbor paid. This is far beyond normal inflation. Can you guess
> what raw material the increase is based on? If you answer yes, do you feel
> the increase was still unjustified?

Your analogy is poor. If they'd maintained the same price but quietly
noted that the thickness of the asphalt would be decreased, that's a
different matter.


> Your turn. You need to go back through the thread and actually read what
> I've written before you can tell me that I haven't come up with a better
> explanation.

The justification for a price increase isn't the issue I had commented
upon, and you mainly addressed justification. In one post, you made an
analogy to candy, stating that "There are different case packs for candy
- the ones intended for the displays by the cashiers, and the ones
intended to hang on pegs. We sell more of the former category, so it's
probably safe to say that impulse purchases are greater than purchases
made in the candy aisle. The size/price target is probably tuned to that
issue. In other words, which price point does better in which place in
the store?" How is that relevant to Breyer's ice cream? On one hand,
I've only seen it sold in a single section in the store (frozen foods),
and on the other, there aren't multiple types of packages anyway.

The one time you *did* directly comment on it, you supported my
statement. You wrote: "It's likely that Hershey has hard data which
indicates that they'll sell a lot more candy bars at 99 cents than at
$1.29, even if the more expensive one is bigger. Why do we expect
Hershey to choose the stupid decision instead of the smart one?" Which
is essentially what I said: they put a price increase into place by
cutting the amount of product while maintaining the same price. They
know that maintaining a *seemingly* low price for less product will keep
their sales higher than raising the price for the same quantity. Did I
ever call this a stupid decision?

People pay more attention to price than packaging specifications; almost
everyone would notice a significant price increase. But so long as the
bill doesn't go up, far fewer will notice that they got less product and
a similar increase in per-ounce cost.

So, you still need to give a better explanation. What reason do they
have for shrinking the size of the product without raising the price, if
it's not to raise the price without appearing to raise the price? The
*need* to raise the price was not the issue.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

"Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
...
> 1) I've posted at least three possible reasons, all of which are based on
> the realities of the grocery industry.
>
> 2) The actual reasons are not known to you or I, but could be if you wrote
a
> letter to the company instead of complaining about it in a newsgroup where
> nobody has the ability to give you a definitive answer.
>
> 3) You say I haven't come up with a better explanation, but you have yet
to
> comment on any of the well-intended things I've written. Your most
> interesting response has merely been "They do it so they can raise the
price
> without appearing to raise the price." You have refused to think about why
> it might have been necessary to raise the price.
>
> 4) Besides being well-intended, my comments are based on working for many
> years (and currently) in the wholesale end of the grocery business.
> Therefore, they're far from guesses.
>
> 5) At least twice, I've reminded others here that the price of milk has
gone
> through the roof over the past year or two, and wondered why anyone should
> expect a product that's largely made of milk to remain stable in price.
> Nobody (including you) has acknowledged this fact. How about doing that
now?
>
> 6) The tone of this entire discussion suggests that some of the
participants
> suspect an evil conspiracy. But, nobody is complaining about the other
> grocery products which have gone through the exact same changes. Why is
> that?
>
> 7) My neighbor's driveway is the same size as mine. He's very happy with
the
> company which completely repaved it 5 years ago, so he gave me a copy of
the
> invoice for the work because I need to have mine repaved in the spring. In
> addition to the company he used, I called 3 others for estimates. They
were
> all pretty close in price, but every one of them was about 40% higher than
> what my neighbor paid. This is far beyond normal inflation. Can you guess
> what raw material the increase is based on? If you answer yes, do you feel
> the increase was still unjustified?
>
> Your turn. You need to go back through the thread and actually read what
> I've written before you can tell me that I haven't come up with a better
> explanation.

I never questioned the reasoning behind the price increase. Had they simply
raised the price I would have grumbled under my breath and bought it anyway.
Railing on and on about the cost of doing business has nothing to do with my
original post. Re-read it!

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>
>> 2) The actual reasons are not known to you or I, but could be if you
>> wrote a
>> letter to the company instead of complaining about it in a newsgroup
>> where
>> nobody has the ability to give you a definitive answer.
>
> Oh, and how have I "complained" about it? Besides stating that the price
> was raised in a manner that would obscure the rise, I made no judgment
> about the matter.

Two responses:
- How was it obscured? Were the packages legally marked with their new size?
- In order for you to NOT consider them obscured, how would you like to have
seen the transition handled?



>> 3) You say I haven't come up with a better explanation, but you have yet
>> to
>> comment on any of the well-intended things I've written. Your most
>> interesting response has merely been "They do it so they can raise the
>> price
>> without appearing to raise the price." You have refused to think about
>> why
>> it might have been necessary to raise the price.
>
> Irrelevant. Whatever the reasons they may have had to raise the price,
> it was raised. I did not comment on the legitimacy on their reasons; the
> comment was on the methodology.

In case you missed the question above, here it is again:
- In order for you to NOT consider them obscured, how would you like to have
seen the transition handled?




>> 6) The tone of this entire discussion suggests that some of the
>> participants
>> suspect an evil conspiracy. But, nobody is complaining about the other
>> grocery products which have gone through the exact same changes. Why is
>> that?
>
> If you look at past discussions in rfc, there have been discussions on
> other product shrinkages. Someone had an recent experience with Breyer's
> ice cream, so that was topical.

Everyone wants their pay to increase each year, but nobody wants products to
go up in price. Too bad that's next to impossible, unless size, quantity,
quality or place/method of manufacturing are changed.



>> 7) My neighbor's driveway is the same size as mine. He's very happy with
>> the
>> company which completely repaved it 5 years ago, so he gave me a copy of
>> the
>> invoice for the work because I need to have mine repaved in the spring.
>> In
>> addition to the company he used, I called 3 others for estimates. They
>> were
>> all pretty close in price, but every one of them was about 40% higher
>> than
>> what my neighbor paid. This is far beyond normal inflation. Can you guess
>> what raw material the increase is based on? If you answer yes, do you
>> feel
>> the increase was still unjustified?
>
> Your analogy is poor. If they'd maintained the same price but quietly
> noted that the thickness of the asphalt would be decreased, that's a
> different matter.

And I'd be a lousy shopper if I didn't take that into account. Address the
issue. Is there any sane reason why, if the raw material increases
drastically in price, that the finished product's price should be
unaffected?



>> Your turn. You need to go back through the thread and actually read what
>> I've written before you can tell me that I haven't come up with a better
>> explanation.
>
> The justification for a price increase isn't the issue I had commented
> upon, and you mainly addressed justification. In one post, you made an
> analogy to candy, stating that "There are different case packs for candy
> - the ones intended for the displays by the cashiers, and the ones
> intended to hang on pegs. We sell more of the former category, so it's
> probably safe to say that impulse purchases are greater than purchases
> made in the candy aisle. The size/price target is probably tuned to that
> issue. In other words, which price point does better in which place in
> the store?" How is that relevant to Breyer's ice cream? On one hand,
> I've only seen it sold in a single section in the store (frozen foods),
> and on the other, there aren't multiple types of packages anyway.

It's totally relevant because the manufacturers (and some stores) know
EXACTLY what works and what does not. I've asked you what price would be too
much to pay for Breyers. Rest assured that Breyers already knows what you're
willing to pay. Not only that, but they know WHEN you're willing to pay
various prices, based on holidays & seasons. Therefore, they knew that due
to increased cost of the raw ingredients, as well as the cost of freight,
not shrinking the package would've forced them to price the product right
into a different category, one in which they don't want to compete.



> The one time you *did* directly comment on it, you supported my
> statement. You wrote: "It's likely that Hershey has hard data which
> indicates that they'll sell a lot more candy bars at 99 cents than at
> $1.29, even if the more expensive one is bigger. Why do we expect
> Hershey to choose the stupid decision instead of the smart one?" Which
> is essentially what I said: they put a price increase into place by
> cutting the amount of product while maintaining the same price. They
> know that maintaining a *seemingly* low price for less product will keep
> their sales higher than raising the price for the same quantity. Did I
> ever call this a stupid decision?

How old are you?



> People pay more attention to price than packaging specifications; almost
> everyone would notice a significant price increase. But so long as the
> bill doesn't go up, far fewer will notice that they got less product and
> a similar increase in per-ounce cost.

You should shop two ways. One, you look at the unit price if it matters to
you. If you're comparing Wesson canola oil to the store brand and you're
happy with either one, you buy based on unit price. Two, you look at the
unit price as a matter of interest, but you buy the higher priced item
anyway because it's unique or you simply like it better. So, noticing has
more than one purpose. And, if you do NOT notice the unit price, whose
problem is that?




> So, you still need to give a better explanation. What reason do they
> have for shrinking the size of the product without raising the price, if
> it's not to raise the price without appearing to raise the price? The
> *need* to raise the price was not the issue.

Answer this question, and perhaps we can get somewhe For a half gallon
of Breyer's ice cream, what is the maximum you'd be willing to pay before
you'd choose, instead, to wait for it to go on sale? Since you're familiar
with the product, you must have a sense of the price range you've seen over
the years. This is easy. "If the price went to X or higher, I'd wait for a
sale or a coupon". What is X?

"PhotoMan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 1) I've posted at least three possible reasons, all of which are based on
>> the realities of the grocery industry.
>>
>> 2) The actual reasons are not known to you or I, but could be if you
>> wrote
> a
>> letter to the company instead of complaining about it in a newsgroup
>> where
>> nobody has the ability to give you a definitive answer.
>>
>> 3) You say I haven't come up with a better explanation, but you have yet
> to
>> comment on any of the well-intended things I've written. Your most
>> interesting response has merely been "They do it so they can raise the
> price
>> without appearing to raise the price." You have refused to think about
>> why
>> it might have been necessary to raise the price.
>>
>> 4) Besides being well-intended, my comments are based on working for many
>> years (and currently) in the wholesale end of the grocery business.
>> Therefore, they're far from guesses.
>>
>> 5) At least twice, I've reminded others here that the price of milk has
> gone
>> through the roof over the past year or two, and wondered why anyone
>> should
>> expect a product that's largely made of milk to remain stable in price.
>> Nobody (including you) has acknowledged this fact. How about doing that
> now?
>>
>> 6) The tone of this entire discussion suggests that some of the
> participants
>> suspect an evil conspiracy. But, nobody is complaining about the other
>> grocery products which have gone through the exact same changes. Why is
>> that?
>>
>> 7) My neighbor's driveway is the same size as mine. He's very happy with
> the
>> company which completely repaved it 5 years ago, so he gave me a copy of
> the
>> invoice for the work because I need to have mine repaved in the spring.
>> In
>> addition to the company he used, I called 3 others for estimates. They
> were
>> all pretty close in price, but every one of them was about 40% higher
>> than
>> what my neighbor paid. This is far beyond normal inflation. Can you guess
>> what raw material the increase is based on? If you answer yes, do you
>> feel
>> the increase was still unjustified?
>>
>> Your turn. You need to go back through the thread and actually read what
>> I've written before you can tell me that I haven't come up with a better
>> explanation.
>
> I never questioned the reasoning behind the price increase. Had they
> simply
> raised the price I would have grumbled under my breath and bought it
> anyway.
> Railing on and on about the cost of doing business has nothing to do with
> my
> original post. Re-read it!
>
>

OK. Let's assume we agree that because of real-world factors, they had to
raise the price. Did you want a large sign on the freezer case, warning you
that the package was now smaller? Or, did you want them to load up the ice
cream with guar gum like the store-brand crap, so you wouldn't have to go
through this trauma?

"Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PhotoMan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> 1) I've posted at least three possible reasons, all of which are based
on
> >> the realities of the grocery industry.
> >>
> >> 2) The actual reasons are not known to you or I, but could be if you
> >> wrote
> > a
> >> letter to the company instead of complaining about it in a newsgroup
> >> where
> >> nobody has the ability to give you a definitive answer.
> >>
> >> 3) You say I haven't come up with a better explanation, but you have
yet
> > to
> >> comment on any of the well-intended things I've written. Your most
> >> interesting response has merely been "They do it so they can raise the
> > price
> >> without appearing to raise the price." You have refused to think about
> >> why
> >> it might have been necessary to raise the price.
> >>
> >> 4) Besides being well-intended, my comments are based on working for
many
> >> years (and currently) in the wholesale end of the grocery business.
> >> Therefore, they're far from guesses.
> >>
> >> 5) At least twice, I've reminded others here that the price of milk has
> > gone
> >> through the roof over the past year or two, and wondered why anyone
> >> should
> >> expect a product that's largely made of milk to remain stable in price.
> >> Nobody (including you) has acknowledged this fact. How about doing that
> > now?
> >>
> >> 6) The tone of this entire discussion suggests that some of the
> > participants
> >> suspect an evil conspiracy. But, nobody is complaining about the other
> >> grocery products which have gone through the exact same changes. Why is
> >> that?
> >>
> >> 7) My neighbor's driveway is the same size as mine. He's very happy
with
> > the
> >> company which completely repaved it 5 years ago, so he gave me a copy
of
> > the
> >> invoice for the work because I need to have mine repaved in the spring.
> >> In
> >> addition to the company he used, I called 3 others for estimates. They
> > were
> >> all pretty close in price, but every one of them was about 40% higher
> >> than
> >> what my neighbor paid. This is far beyond normal inflation. Can you
guess
> >> what raw material the increase is based on? If you answer yes, do you
> >> feel
> >> the increase was still unjustified?
> >>
> >> Your turn. You need to go back through the thread and actually read
what
> >> I've written before you can tell me that I haven't come up with a
better
> >> explanation.
> >
> > I never questioned the reasoning behind the price increase. Had they
> > simply
> > raised the price I would have grumbled under my breath and bought it
> > anyway.
> > Railing on and on about the cost of doing business has nothing to do
with
> > my
> > original post. Re-read it!
> >
> >
>
> OK. Let's assume we agree that because of real-world factors, they had to
> raise the price. Did you want a large sign on the freezer case, warning
you
> that the package was now smaller? Or, did you want them to load up the ice
> cream with guar gum like the store-brand crap, so you wouldn't have to go
> through this trauma?

Absolutely not. No sign. No guar gum. It's not traumatic in the least. It's
simply a shady WAY to raise prices. I'm not as gullible as they seem to
think many people are.

"PhotoMan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "PhotoMan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> 1) I've posted at least three possible reasons, all of which are based
> on
>> >> the realities of the grocery industry.
>> >>
>> >> 2) The actual reasons are not known to you or I, but could be if you
>> >> wrote
>> > a
>> >> letter to the company instead of complaining about it in a newsgroup
>> >> where
>> >> nobody has the ability to give you a definitive answer.
>> >>
>> >> 3) You say I haven't come up with a better explanation, but you have
> yet
>> > to
>> >> comment on any of the well-intended things I've written. Your most
>> >> interesting response has merely been "They do it so they can raise the
>> > price
>> >> without appearing to raise the price." You have refused to think about
>> >> why
>> >> it might have been necessary to raise the price.
>> >>
>> >> 4) Besides being well-intended, my comments are based on working for
> many
>> >> years (and currently) in the wholesale end of the grocery business.
>> >> Therefore, they're far from guesses.
>> >>
>> >> 5) At least twice, I've reminded others here that the price of milk
>> >> has
>> > gone
>> >> through the roof over the past year or two, and wondered why anyone
>> >> should
>> >> expect a product that's largely made of milk to remain stable in
>> >> price.
>> >> Nobody (including you) has acknowledged this fact. How about doing
>> >> that
>> > now?
>> >>
>> >> 6) The tone of this entire discussion suggests that some of the
>> > participants
>> >> suspect an evil conspiracy. But, nobody is complaining about the other
>> >> grocery products which have gone through the exact same changes. Why
>> >> is
>> >> that?
>> >>
>> >> 7) My neighbor's driveway is the same size as mine. He's very happy
> with
>> > the
>> >> company which completely repaved it 5 years ago, so he gave me a copy
> of
>> > the
>> >> invoice for the work because I need to have mine repaved in the
>> >> spring.
>> >> In
>> >> addition to the company he used, I called 3 others for estimates. They
>> > were
>> >> all pretty close in price, but every one of them was about 40% higher
>> >> than
>> >> what my neighbor paid. This is far beyond normal inflation. Can you
> guess
>> >> what raw material the increase is based on? If you answer yes, do you
>> >> feel
>> >> the increase was still unjustified?
>> >>
>> >> Your turn. You need to go back through the thread and actually read
> what
>> >> I've written before you can tell me that I haven't come up with a
> better
>> >> explanation.
>> >
>> > I never questioned the reasoning behind the price increase. Had they
>> > simply
>> > raised the price I would have grumbled under my breath and bought it
>> > anyway.
>> > Railing on and on about the cost of doing business has nothing to do
> with
>> > my
>> > original post. Re-read it!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> OK. Let's assume we agree that because of real-world factors, they had to
>> raise the price. Did you want a large sign on the freezer case, warning
> you
>> that the package was now smaller? Or, did you want them to load up the
>> ice
>> cream with guar gum like the store-brand crap, so you wouldn't have to go
>> through this trauma?
>
> Absolutely not. No sign. No guar gum. It's not traumatic in the least.
> It's
> simply a shady WAY to raise prices. I'm not as gullible as they seem to
> think many people are.
>
>

We're going around in circles. If you think it was shady, pretend you're the
brand manager for Good Humor-Breyers. What would you have done differently?

In article >,
"Doug Kanter" > wrote:

> Two responses:
> - How was it obscured? Were the packages legally marked with their new size?
> - In order for you to NOT consider them obscured, how would you like to have
> seen the transition handled?

You've mixed up the issue. The obfuscation occurred when they
deliberately chose to change something people don't look for (the
container size) rather than one that they do (the price). They do it
this way because they know that a per-package price increase is the
simplest, clearest method of raising prices (whether the impetus is
covering costs or raising profit), therefore the one that people would
notice and understand immediately. This is a statement of fact, not a
value judgment about the practice.


> In case you missed the question above, here it is again:
> - In order for you to NOT consider them obscured, how would you like to have
> seen the transition handled?

Actually, you changed the question, apparently seeing how your previous
arguments were off the mark. In your earlier post, referenced by the
above quote, you asked "You have refused to think about why it might
have been necessary to raise the price." I made no such refusal; it
simply had nothing to do with how the transaction was handled.


> Everyone wants their pay to increase each year, but nobody wants products to
> go up in price. Too bad that's next to impossible, unless size, quantity,
> quality or place/method of manufacturing are changed.

<sigh>. Again, irrelevant. Putting aside the misstatement about
economics, the issue was: the companies choose to raise prices in ways
that hide the fact that they're raising the price.


> And I'd be a lousy shopper if I didn't take that into account.

Good for you.


> Address the issue. Is there any sane reason why, if the raw material
> increases drastically in price, that the finished product's price
> should be unaffected?

Don't try to change MY issue into YOUR issue. I'll repeat it for the
fourth or so time: I addressed why they chose the method used for the
price increase, not why they raised the price. Your argument is
appropriate to make against someone who asserts that prices should never
change; I did not make that argument.


> It's totally relevant because the manufacturers (and some stores) know
> EXACTLY what works and what does not.

Your logic is haywire. At best, it peripherally addresses the issue by
(drumroll) perfectly agreeing with my original point: the companies know
how people think, and they know that people will likely fail to notice a
shrinking package whereas they *will* notice an explicit price change.


> I've asked you what price would be too much to pay for Breyers. Rest
> assured that Breyers already knows what you're willing to pay. Not
> only that, but they know WHEN you're willing to pay various prices,
> based on holidays & seasons. Therefore, they knew that due to
> increased cost of the raw ingredients, as well as the cost of
> freight, not shrinking the package would've forced them to price the
> product right into a different category, one in which they don't want
> to compete.

You never asked *me* what price would be too much to pay for Breyer. And
you're just making my point for me: they don't want the consumer to
really notice the price increase, and so they're using plenty of
marketing and psychological research to put it into place in a way that
tends to escape notice.


> You should shop two ways. One, you look at the unit price if it matters to
> you. If you're comparing Wesson canola oil to the store brand and you're
> happy with either one, you buy based on unit price. Two, you look at the
> unit price as a matter of interest, but you buy the higher priced item
> anyway because it's unique or you simply like it better. So, noticing has
> more than one purpose. And, if you do NOT notice the unit price, whose
> problem is that?

But price-per-package is the way most people shop, and manufacturers
count on it.


> Answer this question, and perhaps we can get somewhe For a half gallon
> of Breyer's ice cream, what is the maximum you'd be willing to pay before
> you'd choose, instead, to wait for it to go on sale? Since you're familiar
> with the product, you must have a sense of the price range you've seen over
> the years. This is easy. "If the price went to X or higher, I'd wait for a
> sale or a coupon". What is X?

Beats me. I don't buy packaged ice cream. Never said I did. I was
addressing marketing practice, not my food preferences. And you
sidestepped my question: "What reason do they have for shrinking the
size of the product without raising the price, if it's not to raise the
price without appearing to raise the price?"

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

"Scott" > wrote in message
...

>
>> It's totally relevant because the manufacturers (and some stores) know
>> EXACTLY what works and what does not.
>
> Your logic is haywire. At best, it peripherally addresses the issue by
> (drumroll) perfectly agreeing with my original point: the companies know
> how people think, and they know that people will likely fail to notice a
> shrinking package whereas they *will* notice an explicit price change.

You're turning their information gathering into a negative, and depending on
your point of view, it sometimes is. But, sometimes it's not. What if you
could only buy cookies in a 10 lb bag, but you lived alone, so 9 lbs went
stale within a month, or you grew tired of that flavor before you finished
them all? Would you not want the manufacturer to eventually discover the
flaw in their thinking?

In a similar vein, if Breyers kept their package size the same and adjusted
the price (out of necessity) to $6.00 per container, would that seem like a
lofty price to you? Might you then want them to make the container smaller?



>> I've asked you what price would be too much to pay for Breyers. Rest
>> assured that Breyers already knows what you're willing to pay. Not
>> only that, but they know WHEN you're willing to pay various prices,
>> based on holidays & seasons. Therefore, they knew that due to
>> increased cost of the raw ingredients, as well as the cost of
>> freight, not shrinking the package would've forced them to price the
>> product right into a different category, one in which they don't want
>> to compete.
>
> You never asked *me* what price would be too much to pay for Breyer.

Actually, I *did* ask you, and you chose not to answer the question. Even if
you make your own ice cream, you must have SOME idea what price you'd find
too high.

In article >,
"Doug Kanter" > wrote:

> You're turning their information gathering into a negative, and depending on
> your point of view, it sometimes is.

I didn't change it into a negative, merely stated fact. It's not a big
discovery to realize that companies serve themselves and not
consumer--except for the extent that it aids the company.


> But, sometimes it's not. What if you could only buy cookies in a 10
> lb bag, but you lived alone, so 9 lbs went stale within a month, or
> you grew tired of that flavor before you finished them all? Would you
> not want the manufacturer to eventually discover the flaw in their
> thinking?

Product freshness was never the issue. What you're discussing is the
manufacturer finding a new market niche: smaller packaging for people
who live alone.

On the other hand, if a company changed a $7, 10-pound bag of bags into
a $4, 2-pound bag (eliminated the 10-pound bag entirely) and sold it
with the blurb "New! More convenient size!", then they're not likely
being honest.


> In a similar vein, if Breyers kept their package size the same and adjusted
> the price (out of necessity) to $6.00 per container, would that seem like a
> lofty price to you? Might you then want them to make the container smaller?

You make it sound like a service. It's not: it's an appeal to poor
arithmetic. Unless you decrease your yearly ice cream consumption, your
expenditure will be the same--it'll simply be over a greater number of
purchases.


> > You never asked *me* what price would be too much to pay for Breyer.
>
> Actually, I *did* ask you, and you chose not to answer the question. Even if
> you make your own ice cream, you must have SOME idea what price you'd find
> too high.

Prior to the post to which I responded above, when did you ask? You may
be thinking of someone else; I believe you asked Photoman:
<http://tinyurl.com/4h6se>

Since I don't buy packaged ice cream, and infrequently consume ice cream
in general, any answer I give would be in the abstract at best. When I
make it, I do so because I enjoy the process more than the product.

Further, I tend to purchase items because I "need" them, not because of
their price. If I needed to buy ice cream (or some other product) for a
dinner party, I'd buy it.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

"Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PhotoMan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "PhotoMan" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> 1) I've posted at least three possible reasons, all of which are
based
> > on
> >> >> the realities of the grocery industry.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) The actual reasons are not known to you or I, but could be if you
> >> >> wrote
> >> > a
> >> >> letter to the company instead of complaining about it in a newsgroup
> >> >> where
> >> >> nobody has the ability to give you a definitive answer.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3) You say I haven't come up with a better explanation, but you have
> > yet
> >> > to
> >> >> comment on any of the well-intended things I've written. Your most
> >> >> interesting response has merely been "They do it so they can raise
the
> >> > price
> >> >> without appearing to raise the price." You have refused to think
about
> >> >> why
> >> >> it might have been necessary to raise the price.
> >> >>
> >> >> 4) Besides being well-intended, my comments are based on working for
> > many
> >> >> years (and currently) in the wholesale end of the grocery business.
> >> >> Therefore, they're far from guesses.
> >> >>
> >> >> 5) At least twice, I've reminded others here that the price of milk
> >> >> has
> >> > gone
> >> >> through the roof over the past year or two, and wondered why anyone
> >> >> should
> >> >> expect a product that's largely made of milk to remain stable in
> >> >> price.
> >> >> Nobody (including you) has acknowledged this fact. How about doing
> >> >> that
> >> > now?
> >> >>
> >> >> 6) The tone of this entire discussion suggests that some of the
> >> > participants
> >> >> suspect an evil conspiracy. But, nobody is complaining about the
other
> >> >> grocery products which have gone through the exact same changes. Why
> >> >> is
> >> >> that?
> >> >>
> >> >> 7) My neighbor's driveway is the same size as mine. He's very happy
> > with
> >> > the
> >> >> company which completely repaved it 5 years ago, so he gave me a
copy
> > of
> >> > the
> >> >> invoice for the work because I need to have mine repaved in the
> >> >> spring.
> >> >> In
> >> >> addition to the company he used, I called 3 others for estimates.
They
> >> > were
> >> >> all pretty close in price, but every one of them was about 40%
higher
> >> >> than
> >> >> what my neighbor paid. This is far beyond normal inflation. Can you
> > guess
> >> >> what raw material the increase is based on? If you answer yes, do
you
> >> >> feel
> >> >> the increase was still unjustified?
> >> >>
> >> >> Your turn. You need to go back through the thread and actually read
> > what
> >> >> I've written before you can tell me that I haven't come up with a
> > better
> >> >> explanation.
> >> >
> >> > I never questioned the reasoning behind the price increase. Had they
> >> > simply
> >> > raised the price I would have grumbled under my breath and bought it
> >> > anyway.
> >> > Railing on and on about the cost of doing business has nothing to do
> > with
> >> > my
> >> > original post. Re-read it!
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> OK. Let's assume we agree that because of real-world factors, they had
to
> >> raise the price. Did you want a large sign on the freezer case, warning
> > you
> >> that the package was now smaller? Or, did you want them to load up the
> >> ice
> >> cream with guar gum like the store-brand crap, so you wouldn't have to
go
> >> through this trauma?
> >
> > Absolutely not. No sign. No guar gum. It's not traumatic in the least.
> > It's
> > simply a shady WAY to raise prices. I'm not as gullible as they seem to
> > think many people are.
> >
> >
>
> We're going around in circles. If you think it was shady, pretend you're
the
> brand manager for Good Humor-Breyers. What would you have done
differently?

I'd have bitten the bullet and raised the price of the 2 quart package. No
deceit, nothing hidden. What would be wrong in doing so? More importantly,
explain why NOT to do it that way.

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>
>> You're turning their information gathering into a negative, and depending
>> on
>> your point of view, it sometimes is.
>
> I didn't change it into a negative, merely stated fact. It's not a big
> discovery to realize that companies serve themselves and not
> consumer--except for the extent that it aids the company.

I am militant about corporations which represent what I consider pure evil,
and this ain't one of them. Try Monsanto or Dow Chemical, if you want to see
lies (and dangerous ones) or the sake of profit.

As far as Breyers, were you planning on writing to them today, or tomorrow?
Here's their contact info:
Good Humor-Breyers Ice Cream
PO Box 19007
Green Bay WI 54307-9007
www.icecreamusa.com

You can probably contact them via the web site, but I think a paper letter
gets more attention.



>> But, sometimes it's not. What if you could only buy cookies in a 10
>> lb bag, but you lived alone, so 9 lbs went stale within a month, or
>> you grew tired of that flavor before you finished them all? Would you
>> not want the manufacturer to eventually discover the flaw in their
>> thinking?
>
> Product freshness was never the issue. What you're discussing is the
> manufacturer finding a new market niche: smaller packaging for people
> who live alone.
>
> On the other hand, if a company changed a $7, 10-pound bag of bags into
> a $4, 2-pound bag (eliminated the 10-pound bag entirely) and sold it
> with the blurb "New! More convenient size!", then they're not likely
> being honest.

Based on unit pricing, that's about what you pay now for a 1 lb box of
cookies.



>> In a similar vein, if Breyers kept their package size the same and
>> adjusted
>> the price (out of necessity) to $6.00 per container, would that seem like
>> a
>> lofty price to you? Might you then want them to make the container
>> smaller?
>
> You make it sound like a service. It's not: it's an appeal to poor
> arithmetic. Unless you decrease your yearly ice cream consumption, your
> expenditure will be the same--it'll simply be over a greater number of
> purchases.

It may seem that way, but how do you or I know what they've discovered with
market research? Perhaps, if you're on a limited budget, a $6.00 container
of ice cream won't get your attention, but a $4.00 one will, REGARDLESS of
the price per ounce?

PhotoMan wrote:
>
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
> ...
> > We're going around in circles. If you think it was shady, pretend you're
> the
> > brand manager for Good Humor-Breyers. What would you have done
> differently?
>
> I'd have bitten the bullet and raised the price of the 2 quart package. No
> deceit, nothing hidden. What would be wrong in doing so? More importantly,
> explain why NOT to do it that way.

Indeed, that would be the most clearly ethical thing to do. However, if
one really *were* the brand manager for the corporation which produces
it, I wonder how long one would keep one's job were one to endorse
transparent action like that. Probably not long. This is why I don't
work for a for-profit organization. Not that non-profit is all *that*
much better, but it feels like it.

Priscilla

"PhotoMan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "PhotoMan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "PhotoMan" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> 1) I've posted at least three possible reasons, all of which are
> based
>> > on
>> >> >> the realities of the grocery industry.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2) The actual reasons are not known to you or I, but could be if
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> wrote
>> >> > a
>> >> >> letter to the company instead of complaining about it in a
>> >> >> newsgroup
>> >> >> where
>> >> >> nobody has the ability to give you a definitive answer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 3) You say I haven't come up with a better explanation, but you
>> >> >> have
>> > yet
>> >> > to
>> >> >> comment on any of the well-intended things I've written. Your most
>> >> >> interesting response has merely been "They do it so they can raise
> the
>> >> > price
>> >> >> without appearing to raise the price." You have refused to think
> about
>> >> >> why
>> >> >> it might have been necessary to raise the price.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 4) Besides being well-intended, my comments are based on working
>> >> >> for
>> > many
>> >> >> years (and currently) in the wholesale end of the grocery business.
>> >> >> Therefore, they're far from guesses.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 5) At least twice, I've reminded others here that the price of milk
>> >> >> has
>> >> > gone
>> >> >> through the roof over the past year or two, and wondered why anyone
>> >> >> should
>> >> >> expect a product that's largely made of milk to remain stable in
>> >> >> price.
>> >> >> Nobody (including you) has acknowledged this fact. How about doing
>> >> >> that
>> >> > now?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 6) The tone of this entire discussion suggests that some of the
>> >> > participants
>> >> >> suspect an evil conspiracy. But, nobody is complaining about the
> other
>> >> >> grocery products which have gone through the exact same changes.
>> >> >> Why
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 7) My neighbor's driveway is the same size as mine. He's very happy
>> > with
>> >> > the
>> >> >> company which completely repaved it 5 years ago, so he gave me a
> copy
>> > of
>> >> > the
>> >> >> invoice for the work because I need to have mine repaved in the
>> >> >> spring.
>> >> >> In
>> >> >> addition to the company he used, I called 3 others for estimates.
> They
>> >> > were
>> >> >> all pretty close in price, but every one of them was about 40%
> higher
>> >> >> than
>> >> >> what my neighbor paid. This is far beyond normal inflation. Can you
>> > guess
>> >> >> what raw material the increase is based on? If you answer yes, do
> you
>> >> >> feel
>> >> >> the increase was still unjustified?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your turn. You need to go back through the thread and actually read
>> > what
>> >> >> I've written before you can tell me that I haven't come up with a
>> > better
>> >> >> explanation.
>> >> >
>> >> > I never questioned the reasoning behind the price increase. Had they
>> >> > simply
>> >> > raised the price I would have grumbled under my breath and bought it
>> >> > anyway.
>> >> > Railing on and on about the cost of doing business has nothing to do
>> > with
>> >> > my
>> >> > original post. Re-read it!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> OK. Let's assume we agree that because of real-world factors, they had
> to
>> >> raise the price. Did you want a large sign on the freezer case,
>> >> warning
>> > you
>> >> that the package was now smaller? Or, did you want them to load up the
>> >> ice
>> >> cream with guar gum like the store-brand crap, so you wouldn't have to
> go
>> >> through this trauma?
>> >
>> > Absolutely not. No sign. No guar gum. It's not traumatic in the least.
>> > It's
>> > simply a shady WAY to raise prices. I'm not as gullible as they seem to
>> > think many people are.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> We're going around in circles. If you think it was shady, pretend you're
> the
>> brand manager for Good Humor-Breyers. What would you have done
> differently?
>
> I'd have bitten the bullet and raised the price of the 2 quart package. No
> deceit, nothing hidden. What would be wrong in doing so? More importantly,
> explain why NOT to do it that way.
>
>

Because based on surveys, they may know it would've raised the price to a
point that simply seemed wrong to shoppers. Example: When my wife and I were
first married, we chose $60 per week as our supermarket budget. This was
around 1982, in case anyone here thinks that's an insane number. If we were
standing in the store, the shopping list was covered, and we were debating
one luxury item, we would've chosen the item that was more expensive per
unit, if it fit the budget, rather than the cheaper-per-unit item that cost
$6.00 or $7.00 and put us over budget.

Another possibility which is highly likely: As I've reminded you, the price
of milk has almost doubled in the past couple of years. If Breyers had kept
their containers at a half gallon and raised the price, I doubt the price
would've doubled, but I'll wager that it would've gone up enough that you
would've been shocked. If it went from $4.00 to $7.00, what would have been
your reaction? Would you have made the connection between the milk you buy,
and the cost of ice cream?

"Priscilla H. Ballou" > wrote in message
...
> PhotoMan wrote:
>>
>> "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > We're going around in circles. If you think it was shady, pretend
>> > you're
>> the
>> > brand manager for Good Humor-Breyers. What would you have done
>> differently?
>>
>> I'd have bitten the bullet and raised the price of the 2 quart package.
>> No
>> deceit, nothing hidden. What would be wrong in doing so? More
>> importantly,
>> explain why NOT to do it that way.
>
> Indeed, that would be the most clearly ethical thing to do. However, if
> one really *were* the brand manager for the corporation which produces
> it, I wonder how long one would keep one's job were one to endorse
> transparent action like that. Probably not long. This is why I don't
> work for a for-profit organization. Not that non-profit is all *that*
> much better, but it feels like it.
>
> Priscilla

By the way, the cost of General Mills cereals just took a nice jump. Enjoy.
Is this easier to swallow because we're all accustomed to paying so much for
a box that feels so light?

In article >,
"Doug Kanter" > wrote:

> I am militant about corporations which represent what I consider pure evil,
> and this ain't one of them. Try Monsanto or Dow Chemical, if you want to see
> lies (and dangerous ones) or the sake of profit.
>
> As far as Breyers, were you planning on writing to them today, or tomorrow?
> Here's their contact info:
[snip]

That's just plain silly. You're comparing the acts of Breyers with
Monsanto and Dow Chemical? Do you also excuse shoplifters because
they're not serial killers?

And why would I write Breyers?
"To Whom It May Concern,
I don't actually buy your product, but...."


> Based on unit pricing, that's about what you pay now for a 1 lb box of
> cookies.

Which is not at all the issue. It was an analogy, not a analysis of
actual prices.


> It may seem that way, but how do you or I know what they've discovered with
> market research? Perhaps, if you're on a limited budget, a $6.00 container
> of ice cream won't get your attention, but a $4.00 one will, REGARDLESS of
> the price per ounce?

Who knows? But that's the budgeting of someone who needs remedial math.
Again, unless they cut down on their total yearly ice cream consumption,
they'll blow their budget.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

In article >,
"Vox Humana" > wrote:

> Yes, but in every store that I have shopped, they display the unit price in
> such a variety of units that it is nearly worthless. For instance, if you
> buy oil, some brands will be priced in ounces, some in pints, and some in
> quarts. Who does that help?

I'm glad I read ahead before I replied. Yes, that's exactly what I see,
too.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>
>> I am militant about corporations which represent what I consider pure
>> evil,
>> and this ain't one of them. Try Monsanto or Dow Chemical, if you want to
>> see
>> lies (and dangerous ones) or the sake of profit.
>>
>> As far as Breyers, were you planning on writing to them today, or
>> tomorrow?
>> Here's their contact info:
> [snip]
>
> That's just plain silly. You're comparing the acts of Breyers with
> Monsanto and Dow Chemical? Do you also excuse shoplifters because
> they're not serial killers?

Well, YOU'RE the one describing their decision as devious! I'm pointing out
that you're wasting a lot of energy over a product you don't buy, with
absolutely zero knowledge of whether it might, in fact, have been a good
decision for both the company and the consumer.



> And why would I write Breyers?
> "To Whom It May Concern,
> I don't actually buy your product, but...."

Uh...because you're taking the time to whine to people who can only offer
POSSIBLE answers to your complaints (this newsgroup), instead of having the
balls to write a letter to the company? Afraid to find out that their
reasons might've been some which are perfectly acceptable to you?




>> It may seem that way, but how do you or I know what they've discovered
>> with
>> market research? Perhaps, if you're on a limited budget, a $6.00
>> container
>> of ice cream won't get your attention, but a $4.00 one will, REGARDLESS
>> of
>> the price per ounce?
>
> Who knows? But that's the budgeting of someone who needs remedial math.
> Again, unless they cut down on their total yearly ice cream consumption,
> they'll blow their budget.

What a snotty attitude. Perhaps they only buy ice cream once every month or
two, as opposed to twice a week, like people who think they should get two
airplane seats for the price of one. (My turn to be snotty)

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Vox Humana" > wrote:
>
>> Yes, but in every store that I have shopped, they display the unit price
>> in
>> such a variety of units that it is nearly worthless. For instance, if
>> you
>> buy oil, some brands will be priced in ounces, some in pints, and some in
>> quarts. Who does that help?
>
> I'm glad I read ahead before I replied. Yes, that's exactly what I see,
> too.
>
> --
> to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"
>
> <http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

Call your county's department of weights and measures. In many localities,
mixed unit pricing is illegal, but not enforced until someone's been
embarrassed. Usually a public employee who's too busy picking his nose.

In article >,
"Doug Kanter" > wrote:

> Well, YOU'RE the one describing their decision as devious! I'm pointing out
> that you're wasting a lot of energy over a product you don't buy, with
> absolutely zero knowledge of whether it might, in fact, have been a good
> decision for both the company and the consumer.

Well, there you go again. Actually, you're the one who made it a major
waste of energy. The paragraph above is so full of errors, I shudder at
the effort required to address all of them.


> Uh...because you're taking the time to whine to people who can only offer
> POSSIBLE answers to your complaints (this newsgroup), instead of having the
> balls to write a letter to the company? Afraid to find out that their
> reasons might've been some which are perfectly acceptable to you?

Again with the ad hominems You don't lose gracefully, do you?

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

"PhotoMan" > wrote:

> I'd have bitten the bullet and raised the price of the 2 quart package. No
> deceit, nothing hidden. What would be wrong in doing so? More importantly,
> explain why NOT to do it that way.

I agree completely.

Another recent scam of sorts is Jack Daniels lowering the proof from 86 down
to 80. Since making whiskey basically consists of distilling to a much
higher proof, then diluting it with water down to the bottling proof, I'm
sure this is just another way of getting more money for the same amount of
product. Jack Daniels is certainly not the first. Southern Comfort has been
at this for a long time, and I believe is now down to the 74 or 76 proof
range. I'm sure someone will come in and say these companies are "enhancing
the customer experience" or some crap like that.

For humorous take on another major corporation's marketing, try this little
cartoon (it's been around a little while):

http://www.laserp.com/fun_stuff/star_schmucks.htm

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>
>> Well, YOU'RE the one describing their decision as devious! I'm pointing
>> out
>> that you're wasting a lot of energy over a product you don't buy, with
>> absolutely zero knowledge of whether it might, in fact, have been a good
>> decision for both the company and the consumer.
>
> Well, there you go again. Actually, you're the one who made it a major
> waste of energy. The paragraph above is so full of errors, I shudder at
> the effort required to address all of them.
>
>
>> Uh...because you're taking the time to whine to people who can only offer
>> POSSIBLE answers to your complaints (this newsgroup), instead of having
>> the
>> balls to write a letter to the company? Afraid to find out that their
>> reasons might've been some which are perfectly acceptable to you?
>
> Again with the ad hominems You don't lose gracefully, do you?

I have a friend who never has written, and says he never will write a letter
to a company or any of his elected officials because "it probably won't make
any difference". Is that you, too?

If it were practical to post one's mailing address in a newsgroup, I'd send
you a whole book of stamps, and I'm absolutely serious.

In article >,
"Doug Kanter" > wrote:

> I have a friend who never has written, and says he never will write a letter
> to a company or any of his elected officials because "it probably won't make
> any difference". Is that you, too?

You don't read very well, do you?

This plays hell with a lot of home-grown recipes that call for things like
"small jar of marshmallow creme" or "16 oz. can of tomatoes", when a can of
tomatoes is now 14.5 oz., and the marshmallow creme has gone from 9 oz to
7oz.


"axlq" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> PhotoMan > wrote:
>>Breyers recently reduced the package size of their ice cream
>>from 1/2 gallon to 1-1/2 quarts, but didn't lower the price at all. That's
>>a
>>25 % difference!!! They do what they think they can get away with. Do
>>price
>>scanners in stores ever err in the customer's favor? Of course not -
>>they're
>>playing the odds that you'll never notice - and if you do, they'll
>>apologize
>>till they get blue in the face.
>
> It's nothing new. Hershey's did that with their chocolate bar years
> ago; now it's a pretty thin bar. Going from 32 oz bottles to 1
> liter bottles and retaining the price has also occurred and escaped
> notice; 1 liter is slightly smaller than a quart.
>
> -A

In article >,
"Doug Kanter" > wrote:

> "Priscilla H. Ballou" > wrote in message
> ...
> > PhotoMan wrote:
> >>
> >> "Doug Kanter" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > We're going around in circles. If you think it was shady, pretend
> >> > you're
> >> the
> >> > brand manager for Good Humor-Breyers. What would you have done
> >> differently?
> >>
> >> I'd have bitten the bullet and raised the price of the 2 quart package.
> >> No
> >> deceit, nothing hidden. What would be wrong in doing so? More
> >> importantly,
> >> explain why NOT to do it that way.
> >
> > Indeed, that would be the most clearly ethical thing to do. However, if
> > one really *were* the brand manager for the corporation which produces
> > it, I wonder how long one would keep one's job were one to endorse
> > transparent action like that. Probably not long. This is why I don't
> > work for a for-profit organization. Not that non-profit is all *that*
> > much better, but it feels like it.
> >
> > Priscilla
>
> By the way, the cost of General Mills cereals just took a nice jump. Enjoy.
> Is this easier to swallow because we're all accustomed to paying so much for
> a box that feels so light?

I don't eat cereal.

Priscilla

--
"It is very, very dangerous to treat any human, lowest
of the low even, with contempt and arrogant whatever.
The Lord takes this kind of treatment very, very personal."
- QBaal in newsgroup alt.religion.christian.episcopal

In article >,
Scott > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>
> > I have a friend who never has written, and says he never will write a
> > letter
> > to a company or any of his elected officials because "it probably won't
> > make
> > any difference". Is that you, too?
>
> You don't read very well, do you?

Look, I think this has long passed any point of usefulness. You're
arguing with someone who appears to have some kind of problem with
logical thinking or who has some apparent need to create a fight where
none is necessary. I suggest you just stop replying to him and maybe
he'll go muttering away.

Priscilla

--
"It is very, very dangerous to treat any human, lowest
of the low even, with contempt and arrogant whatever.
The Lord takes this kind of treatment very, very personal."
- QBaal in newsgroup alt.religion.christian.episcopal

In article >,
"Doug Kanter" > wrote:

> Before it used to go on sale more often, and when it was still a 1/2 gallon,
> Breyers sold for what....four bucks sometimes? If it was still a half
> gallon, what do you suppose it would be selling for now, considering that a
> gallon of milk went from 1.29 to almost 2.00? Close to five bucks, maybe?

So? Now it's five bucks. You pay it or you don't. It's that simple.

To your way of thinking, it would be okay if petroleum companies start
declaring that, henceforth, "gallons" of gasoline are now only 100
ounces because that way they can keep the price per "gallon" (the way
people in the U.S. are used to buying gasoline) at an "attractive"
$1.99. Why do I get the feeling that you wouldn't be very happy about
that (not that you would be alone)?

Prices go up all the time -- no one is arguing that point. Companies
are entitled to make a _decent_ profit -- no one is arguing that
point, either. We are discussing the _mechanism_.

Why not come clean -- as do thousands of other companies (petroleum
companies, companies that use steel to make cars or refrigerators or
buildings, moving companies, etc.) -- and say "Hey, sorry -- it's
costing us more; we absorbed the costs as long as we could; we have to
pass on some increased costs"? Instead, we're faced with a euphemized
(and, as many perceive, sneaky) way of "decontenting" the product.
("Our home pricing no longer includes bathrooms. That's how we could
keep the price low.")

Maybe your theory about price point works if there's a big
psychological price point involved (your 99-cent candy bar example).
But it doesn't make much sense in the context of a $3.89 half-gallon
of ice cream. So it's $4.99 now. At least I'm still getting a full
half-gallon. I get half-a-gallon's worth of servings out of it.

Food and HBC companies are only too happy to print special labels
trumpeting "Now 20% more free!" We all know that deal won't last
forever. Don't those companies believe enough in their products and
the reasons for pricing them to be just as forthright with "New
package! One quarter gallon less!" or "Now makes three pots less
coffee!" Most consumers (and certainly the folks in this ng) are not
dolts. Why should we be treated that way?

sd

In article >,
Priscilla Ballou > wrote:

> Look, I think this has long passed any point of usefulness. You're
> arguing with someone who appears to have some kind of problem with
> logical thinking or who has some apparent need to create a fight where
> none is necessary. I suggest you just stop replying to him and maybe
> he'll go muttering away.

Yes, what I'd decided to do, but that last post hit my amazement button.
The posts have gone along these lines:

"WHY DON'T YOU CONTACT BREYERS?"
"Because I don't buy packaged ice cream, so there's no reason for me to."
"HERE'S THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION SO YOU CAN MAIL THEM."
"I said I don't buy their product. What could I tell them?"
"HAVE YOU CONTACTED THE COMPANY YET?"
"I said I don't buy packaged ice cream."
"I'LL SEND YOU A BUNCH OF STAMPS SO YOU CAN WRITE THEM."
"Look, I said that I don't give them my business anyway, so why would I
write to them?
"I KNOW SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T BOTHER TO WRITE COMPANIES. ARE YOU LIKE
THAT?"
"aaaarrrrggghhh!!"

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

In article >,
sd > wrote:

> To your way of thinking, it would be okay if petroleum companies start
> declaring that, henceforth, "gallons" of gasoline are now only 100
> ounces because that way they can keep the price per "gallon" (the way
> people in the U.S. are used to buying gasoline) at an "attractive"
> $1.99.

Hah! Good point. They could market it as "isn't 128 ounces per gallon
hard to calculate? We've made things easier!"

But the gas companies already have their own shady dealings. It's not
$1.99, it's $1.999.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

"sd" > wrote:
> To your way of thinking, it would be okay if petroleum companies start
> declaring that, henceforth, "gallons" of gasoline are now only 100
> ounces because that way they can keep the price per "gallon" (the way
> people in the U.S. are used to buying gasoline) at an "attractive"
> $1.99. Why do I get the feeling that you wouldn't be very happy about
> that (not that you would be alone)?

I was thinking of precisely the same example... the new, more convenience
sized gallon of gas! ;-)

Actually, what I'd be more worried about is if the gas stations adopted the
airline pricing model. If you absolutely, positively have to travel, you are
really going to pay. There is better than a 10 to 1 price difference between
advance purchase discount tickets and full fare coach on a lot of flights. I
can see this pricing model as applied to gas stations. They would inspect
your gas gauge when you entered the station... if it reads 1/2 tank, the
price is $1.90/gal. If it reads 3/4, the price is $1.00/gal. If 7/8 it's
$0.50/gal. And if it reads full, it's $0.25/gal. But heaven help you if you
really need it. If it reads 1/4 it's $4.00/gal and if it reads empty, it's
$25.00/gal. I'm glad the "traditional carriers" who grew so adept at
screwing the public with this kind of pricing model are now paying their
due. I hope they all go under.

Just speaking as someone who remembers very clearly the 1974 and 1979 gas
crises... and who had to park his car at noon and wait until 4 PM when the
stations reopened.

"sd" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>
>> Before it used to go on sale more often, and when it was still a 1/2
>> gallon,
>> Breyers sold for what....four bucks sometimes? If it was still a half
>> gallon, what do you suppose it would be selling for now, considering that
>> a
>> gallon of milk went from 1.29 to almost 2.00? Close to five bucks, maybe?
>
> So? Now it's five bucks. You pay it or you don't. It's that simple.
>
> To your way of thinking, it would be okay if petroleum companies start
> declaring that, henceforth, "gallons" of gasoline are now only 100
> ounces because that way they can keep the price per "gallon" (the way
> people in the U.S. are used to buying gasoline) at an "attractive"
> $1.99. Why do I get the feeling that you wouldn't be very happy about
> that (not that you would be alone)?
>
> Prices go up all the time -- no one is arguing that point. Companies
> are entitled to make a _decent_ profit -- no one is arguing that
> point, either. We are discussing the _mechanism_.
>
> Why not come clean -- as do thousands of other companies (petroleum
> companies, companies that use steel to make cars or refrigerators or
> buildings, moving companies, etc.) -- and say "Hey, sorry -- it's
> costing us more; we absorbed the costs as long as we could; we have to
> pass on some increased costs"? Instead, we're faced with a euphemized
> (and, as many perceive, sneaky) way of "decontenting" the product.
> ("Our home pricing no longer includes bathrooms. That's how we could
> keep the price low.")
>
> Maybe your theory about price point works if there's a big
> psychological price point involved (your 99-cent candy bar example).
> But it doesn't make much sense in the context of a $3.89 half-gallon
> of ice cream. So it's $4.99 now. At least I'm still getting a full
> half-gallon. I get half-a-gallon's worth of servings out of it.

I agree - I'd pay the higher price, but apparently, a lot of shoppers won't.
Using one of my customers (a supermarket chain) as an example, they move 2
truckloads per month in this county alone, if the ice cream's priced at it's
normal price, whatever that is. When they run a sale, the movement changes
to 7-9 trucks. That's a lot of ice cream. Now, I can't tell you which
shoppers bought all that ice cream, but there are really only two kinds,
right?

1) "I never buy it at the higher price - only on sale"
2) "I buy it at any price, and I'll buy a little extra when it's on sale"

Must be something about the higher price point that puts some people off.

"sd" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>
>> Before it used to go on sale more often, and when it was still a 1/2
>> gallon,
>> Breyers sold for what....four bucks sometimes? If it was still a half
>> gallon, what do you suppose it would be selling for now, considering that
>> a
>> gallon of milk went from 1.29 to almost 2.00? Close to five bucks, maybe?
>
> So? Now it's five bucks. You pay it or you don't. It's that simple.
>
> To your way of thinking, it would be okay if petroleum companies start
> declaring that, henceforth, "gallons" of gasoline are now only 100
> ounces because that way they can keep the price per "gallon" (the way
> people in the U.S. are used to buying gasoline) at an "attractive"
> $1.99. Why do I get the feeling that you wouldn't be very happy about
> that (not that you would be alone)?

That's not the same thing. Breyers isn't redefining the words "half gallon".

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>
>> I have a friend who never has written, and says he never will write a
>> letter
>> to a company or any of his elected officials because "it probably won't
>> make
>> any difference". Is that you, too?
>
> You don't read very well, do you?

Yeah....I reads reel gud, akshully. You appear to be extremely ****ed off,
and IMHO, more information, direct from the source, might make you feel
better. If I'm wrong, oh well. I'm done with this. Have a beer.

"Priscilla Ballou" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Scott > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>>
>> > I have a friend who never has written, and says he never will write a
>> > letter
>> > to a company or any of his elected officials because "it probably won't
>> > make
>> > any difference". Is that you, too?
>>
>> You don't read very well, do you?
>
> Look, I think this has long passed any point of usefulness. You're
> arguing with someone who appears to have some kind of problem with
> logical thinking or who has some apparent need to create a fight where
> none is necessary. I suggest you just stop replying to him and maybe
> he'll go muttering away.
>
> Priscilla

Well, there's a slam, Priscilla. I've simply pointed out various ways of
looking at the issue. Sorry if it disturbed the slumber.....zzzzzzzzz.

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Priscilla Ballou > wrote:
>
>> Look, I think this has long passed any point of usefulness. You're
>> arguing with someone who appears to have some kind of problem with
>> logical thinking or who has some apparent need to create a fight where
>> none is necessary. I suggest you just stop replying to him and maybe
>> he'll go muttering away.
>
> Yes, what I'd decided to do, but that last post hit my amazement button.
> The posts have gone along these lines:
>
> "WHY DON'T YOU CONTACT BREYERS?"
> "Because I don't buy packaged ice cream, so there's no reason for me to."
> "HERE'S THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION SO YOU CAN MAIL THEM."
> "I said I don't buy their product. What could I tell them?"
> "HAVE YOU CONTACTED THE COMPANY YET?"
> "I said I don't buy packaged ice cream."
> "I'LL SEND YOU A BUNCH OF STAMPS SO YOU CAN WRITE THEM."
> "Look, I said that I don't give them my business anyway, so why would I
> write to them?
> "I KNOW SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T BOTHER TO WRITE COMPANIES. ARE YOU LIKE
> THAT?"
> "aaaarrrrggghhh!!"

Calm down. You may not buy packaged ice cream, but you've still expended
quite a bit of energy here, haven't you? If you wrote and told them you
don't buy packaged ice cream, but you want an explanation of their pricing
practices, they'd probably still answer your letter. If you don't think so,
then lie to them and say you're a customer.

Either way, the letter could be written in less time than it will take to
continue this ****ing match.

How about Swanson chicken broth, which says it contains "about 2 cups"? If
you need 2 cups, you have to open 2 cans and freeze part of one.

"texpat" > wrote in message
news:%sOKd.4719$HZ.3359@okepread07...
> This plays hell with a lot of home-grown recipes that call for things like
> "small jar of marshmallow creme" or "16 oz. can of tomatoes", when a can
> of tomatoes is now 14.5 oz., and the marshmallow creme has gone from 9 oz
> to 7oz.
>
>
> "axlq" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> PhotoMan > wrote:
>>>Breyers recently reduced the package size of their ice cream
>>>from 1/2 gallon to 1-1/2 quarts, but didn't lower the price at all.
>>>That's a
>>>25 % difference!!! They do what they think they can get away with. Do
>>>price
>>>scanners in stores ever err in the customer's favor? Of course not -
>>>they're
>>>playing the odds that you'll never notice - and if you do, they'll
>>>apologize
>>>till they get blue in the face.
>>
>> It's nothing new. Hershey's did that with their chocolate bar years
>> ago; now it's a pretty thin bar. Going from 32 oz bottles to 1
>> liter bottles and retaining the price has also occurred and escaped
>> notice; 1 liter is slightly smaller than a quart.
>>
>> -A
>
>

In article >,
says...
>
> "Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
> >
> >> Well, YOU'RE the one describing their decision as devious! I'm pointing
> >> out
> >> that you're wasting a lot of energy over a product you don't buy, with
> >> absolutely zero knowledge of whether it might, in fact, have been a good
> >> decision for both the company and the consumer.
> >
> > Well, there you go again. Actually, you're the one who made it a major
> > waste of energy. The paragraph above is so full of errors, I shudder at
> > the effort required to address all of them.
> >
> >
> >> Uh...because you're taking the time to whine to people who can only offer
> >> POSSIBLE answers to your complaints (this newsgroup), instead of having
> >> the
> >> balls to write a letter to the company? Afraid to find out that their
> >> reasons might've been some which are perfectly acceptable to you?
> >
> > Again with the ad hominems You don't lose gracefully, do you?
>
> I have a friend who never has written, and says he never will write a letter
> to a company or any of his elected officials because "it probably won't make
> any difference". Is that you, too?

Ha! I torqued up the level of paranoia in the Rhode Island legislature
recently when a letter I'd written to the Providence Journal nearly 8
months ago was just published this past week.

Here is what I wrote:

I would find the characterizations of Rhode Island employees and their
compensation laughable, were they not so sad.

For years, Republican governors have been casting the blame on state
employees and the unions that represent some of them. Most state
employees are in unclassified positions; in essence, that means they are
subject to termination on a whim, particularly those in offices led by
elected officials.

Most of the critical departments in the state are understaffed, not
overstaffed. I wonder how people would react were the state to eliminate
20 percent of the prosecutors in the attorney general's office, or the
same percent of those in the public defender's office.

Instead, we should focus on the true wastes in government, most of which
are directly attributable to our legislature.

While I was a state employee, I saw many instances of financial
irresponsibility and outright stupidity. One was the state's purchasing
system. The Master Purchase Agreement left state agencies with shoddy
choices, which in many cases cost the state more money than they should
have. Agencies were forced to use a package called RI-SAIL, which was
despised by those forced to use it, for even simple purchasing.

So when blame is being cast, perhaps we ought to identify the correct
target, and restrain ourselves from vilifying many hard-working state
employees.

--

This caused such a tizzy on the 3rd floor of the state house. You see,
some of the people I worked with in that state job now work for the
legislature and I'm working in another state agency so the fur was
flying. I'm something of a hero among other state employees right now.