Ripped off at Sherwin WIlliams
Chris
plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! I expected I was
buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
reasonable expectation. Yes, I know that the container is accurately
labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading. The
container doesn't even have an integral, normal number of metric units.
I'd actually appreciate it if they sold 1 liter and 4 liter containers
(6% more paint than a quart or a gallon) and I'd even live with that at
7-8% above the qt/gal price. They could market it as giving you a
little more so you don't run out with 1sq ft on a job.
Chris
> On 29 Jul 2005 06:23:38 -0700, "Chris" <cne...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
> >plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
> >outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
>
> Did they add any colorant?
No.
TURTLE
"Chris" <cne...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1122643418.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is Turtle.
You should call them back up and have them give a answer to this so we can get
both sides of the story. i tried calling the Sherwin Williams store in my area
and ask about it and the fellow who was talking to said this. I said i think the
gallion of paint you sell is short just a little bit of 1 gallion size. He said
awwww let me see how many qt.s are in a gallion ? I said 4 . He said well let me
call the area manager and I will get back with you. i told him Never mine I will
call back later.
See if you can get a better answer !
TURTLE
Doug Kanter
Admittedly, it's annoying when package sizes change (as they do constantly
with groceries), but I think "preyed on me" is not accurate. As you said,
the container was clearly marked.
SQLit
And you thought that the cute marketing and packaging was to your benefit.
wrong again melon head. ( humor is intended )
I have gotten so that I read the packaging on everything before I buy.
Products change so fast it is harder and harder to maintain the "informed
consumer" status.
Percival P. Cassidy
the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
Yes, so are the 56oz. "half gallon" (NOT) ice cream packs "clearly
marked" -- but many people aren't going to read the markings on the
package every time, especially if it's a brand that they've been buying
for years.
And the "unit pricing" labels in the grocer store don't always help,
because the label for one brand may give the price in cents/oz. while
the label for another brand may be in $/lb.
Perce
Doug Kanter
"Percival P. Cassidy" <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote in message
news:wWsGe.34907$Iv5....@fe02.lga...
> On 07/29/05 11:19 am Doug Kanter tossed the following ingredients into the
> ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
>
>>>I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
>>>plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
>>>outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
>>>or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! I expected I was
>>>buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
>>>reasonable expectation. Yes, I know that the container is accurately
>>>labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading. The
>>>container doesn't even have an integral, normal number of metric units.
>>>I'd actually appreciate it if they sold 1 liter and 4 liter containers
>>>(6% more paint than a quart or a gallon) and I'd even live with that at
>>>7-8% above the qt/gal price. They could market it as giving you a
>>>little more so you don't run out with 1sq ft on a job.
>
>> Admittedly, it's annoying when package sizes change (as they do
>> constantly with groceries), but I think "preyed on me" is not accurate.
>> As you said, the container was clearly marked.
>
> Yes, so are the 56oz. "half gallon" (NOT) ice cream packs "clearly
> marked" -- but many people aren't going to read the markings on the
> package every time, especially if it's a brand that they've been buying
> for years.
Well, what's the company supposed to do? Using your ice cream example: You
know the price of dairy products has gone up, right? Now, Breyers has a
choice. They can raise the price, or shrink the package. The first option's
a little dicey. Breyers knows EXACTLY what price range is acceptable to
customers, and what price will make sales drop off by a huge percentage.
They get this information from the stores, obviously. Second option - shrink
the package. This has kept Breyers closer to the acceptable price range. In
a way, it's necessary because many shoppers think the cheap crap ice cream
is an identical replacement for Breyers, so if the price of Breyers is too
high, they'll make nothing. Lots of shoppers will opt for the lesser brand.
But meanwhile, Breyers pisses off customers by shrinking the package. What's
the alternative? Put up big signs pointing out that the package size has
been reduced? For how many months or years should these signs be displayed?
Maybe design some temporary packaging with a big reminder on the front?
That's expensive. Guess who's going to pay for that? And, how long should
that temporary packaging be used?
> And the "unit pricing" labels in the grocer store don't always help,
> because the label for one brand may give the price in cents/oz. while the
> label for another brand may be in $/lb.
Wal Mart's famous for that nonsense. For that, you should scream at the
store manager, and also go past him/her and call the home office. In some
place, it's illegal, too. Call your county's department of weights &
measures.
Back to the paint: If you were responsible for cost control at
Sherwin-Williams, and because of some REAL factor (raw materials, labor,
etc), you absolutely had to maintain a certain profit margin, how would you
handle it?
Duane Bozarth
...
> Back to the paint: If you were responsible for cost control at
> Sherwin-Williams, and because of some REAL factor (raw materials, labor,
> etc), you absolutely had to maintain a certain profit margin, how would you
> handle it?
Unequivocally, <I> would either find a way to cut production costs or
reluctantly raise prices. I would <not> under any circumstances choose
of my own volition the "under-size the container" solution.
And, btw, I think the undersized ply is an abomination too (and always
will no matter <how> long they label it 23/32".
Doug Kanter
"Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
news:42EA6E1F...@swko.dot.net...
Some production costs are beyond your control. For instance, is latex paint
in ANY way dependent on the cost of petroleum? And, what about
transportation? Two years ago, I could ship groceries by truck for $1.50 a
mile. Now, it's between $1.90 and $2.25, depending on location. Pretty hefty
price hike. Would you be OK with paying $25 for a gallon of paint instead of
$19?
Duane Bozarth
> >...<I> would either find a way to cut production costs or
> > reluctantly raise prices. ...
> Some production costs are beyond your control.
Where did I say they weren't? What about <either...or> did you not
understand?
...
> ...Would you be OK with paying $25 for a gallon of paint instead of $19?
The point is, either way you <are> paying the higher volume price...just
one way it's clear while the other way it's not (and a deliberate
attempt to pull a "fast one" over on the consumer, imo)...
ba...@sme-online.com
the most transparent, nonsensical, rationalization one could respond
with.
If there's a recognized, or informal, standard unit of measure involved
in some trade, that should not be putzed about with. Good thing such
crooks can't transform the magnitude of a pound, gallon, dozen,
whatever for bulk products.
People in D.C. also should learn that what matters is the TRUTH. Tell
it. Charge accordingly. Let people make their own decisions as to
tradeoffs, and don't manipulate.
TTFN,
J
Doug Kanter
Why not call a few manufacturers and see what their logic was. Start with
Sherwin-Williams. Continue with General Mills, Kraft. Del Monte etc etc etc.
Maybe they found out from focus groups that the smaller package was a better
idea. There might be a reason for this. Think about it. Let's say you have a
fairly strict food budget. $100 a week, to pick a number. Now, your favorite
ice cream goes up $1.00 in price. 5 cans of beans go up a quarter each. Your
detergent does the same, along with paper goods. Add it all up and perhaps
your bill is now $120.00. You may say you can adjust to that, but a whole
lot of people can't. So, who should the manufacturers cater to?
I'm not saying you're wrong to be outraged by a size change, but I don't
think the motives behind it are pure evil, as some people suggest.
Doug Kanter
Do you know the precise reason for the size change?
<ba...@sme-online.com> wrote in message
news:1122663429.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Doug Miller
>Why not call a few manufacturers and see what their logic was. Start with
>Sherwin-Williams. Continue with General Mills, Kraft. Del Monte etc etc etc.
>Maybe they found out from focus groups that the smaller package was a better
>idea. There might be a reason for this. Think about it. Let's say you have a
>fairly strict food budget. $100 a week, to pick a number. Now, your favorite
>ice cream goes up $1.00 in price. 5 cans of beans go up a quarter each. Your
>detergent does the same, along with paper goods. Add it all up and perhaps
>your bill is now $120.00. You may say you can adjust to that, but a whole
>lot of people can't. So, who should the manufacturers cater to?
What part of "getting less for your money" are you having such a hard time
understanding? The alternatives are pretty clear: spend more to buy the same,
or spend the same to buy less. Neither one is at all desirable from the
consumer's POV.
Suppose five cans of beans go up a quarter each (while the size stays the
same) and you can't afford the increase, so you buy only four.
Alternatively, suppose that the amount of product in the can is cut by twenty
percent while the price stays the same. You buy five cans, just like you
always have, but now you're getting only as much beans as you used to get with
four.
Either way, you spent the same amount of money buying four cans' worth of
beans that *used* to buy you five cans' worth.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Doug Kanter
"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:xavGe.583$Gc2...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Thanks for the math lesson. Let's eliminate one possible reason for such
changes, even though it's equally likely to BE the reason. Here it is:
A bunch of suits sit around a conference table discussing how they all want
to dump their company's stock, which has been flat for 3 years. So, they
MUST increase profits. They can either cook the books, or they can actually
raise profits. They decide to do it by screwing the consumer.
Keep in mind that I said this ***** IS ***** a possible reason.
Now that we've eliminated evil as a motive, what's left? As a person who
understands business, what OTHER reasons can you come up with? There HAVE to
be reasons. What are they?
meirman
<cne...@nycap.rr.com> posted:
In addition, I would suspect (but don't know) that it's going to screw
up experienced painters who know how much they can paint with a
gallon.
Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
nobody
> <cne...@nycap.rr.com> posted:
>
>
>>I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
>>plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
>>outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
>>or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! I expected I was
>>buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
>>reasonable expectation. Yes, I know that the container is accurately
>>labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading. The
>>container doesn't even have an integral, normal number of metric units.
>>I'd actually appreciate it if they sold 1 liter and 4 liter containers
>>(6% more paint than a quart or a gallon) and I'd even live with that at
>>7-8% above the qt/gal price. They could market it as giving you a
>>little more so you don't run out with 1sq ft on a job.
>
My first guess is that the contents of the can are
deliberately kept a bit "short" of a gallon to allow for a
typical addition of tint. Remember, most paint color is
blended in the store and some of the tones require a lot of
added pigment.
Nobody
Duane Bozarth
...
> understands business, what OTHER reasons can you come up with? There HAVE to
> be reasons. What are they?
Again, no one else has said it was "evil" although I do believe it
verges on unethical (although I'm sure those who choose to do so can
convince themselves that it's ok because, after all, the label says what
is in the container).
Actually, the reasons are quite simple--
1. People <are> price-conscious...see the "99 cent" pricing syndrome.
2. People <have been> conditioned to expect certain things to be in
certain size packages--coffee in 1-lb tins, for example. People tend to
<not> actively scan similar-sized containers for the actual label, so it
is possible to "get by with" a price increase, on the whole, w/o
actually acknowledging it. This is, of course, the previous argument
against the practice, but it is a real factor in the pricing and
purchasing mentality.
So it boils down to an argument in psychology and the marketeers and
advertisers have determined they optimize their overall return by using
the subterfuge of raising prices by lowering quantity as opposed to
raising prices on fixed quantities.
Doug Kanter
Well, I think the solution is for enough people to bitch directly to
Sherwin-Williams, claiming that the precise one gallon size is important
because it allows people to determine surface coverage in a predictable way.
Of course, this isn't quite true, because humidity and a few other random
things can affect whether seven nineteenths of an ounce makes a difference,
but if enough people yell about it, that won't matter.
About 5 years ago, there was a plot afoot to reduce the size of cans of
evaporated milk. I heard about it 2 months ahead of time because I'm in the
grocery business. It never happened. Initially, I wondered if an army of
home bakers got all over the manufacturers' cases, but it might've been
bigger than that. Unrelated manufacturers often specify "one such-and-such
ounce can of evap milk" in recipes. So, it might've been insider influence
that put a stop to it.
The idea made no sense. The vast majority of evaporated milk is sold around
holidays. Tell your average grandma that the price of the stuff's gone up
forty cents since last year and she'll say "So? It's Easter".
Edwin Pawlowski
"Doug Kanter" <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Why not call a few manufacturers and see what their logic was. Start with
> Sherwin-Williams. Continue with General Mills, Kraft. Del Monte etc etc
> etc. Maybe they found out from focus groups that the smaller package was a
> better idea. There might be a reason for this. Think about it. Let's say
> you have a fairly strict food budget. $100 a week, to pick a number. Now,
> your favorite ice cream goes up $1.00 in price. 5 cans of beans go up a
> quarter each. Your detergent does the same, along with paper goods. Add it
> all up and perhaps your bill is now $120.00. You may say you can adjust to
> that, but a whole lot of people can't. So, who should the manufacturers
> cater to?
Are people getting skinny since they now consume less from the smaller
packages?
I really really want a 7 Series BMW but it is not in my budget. Do you
think they should sell a version with only three wheels so that I can
afford it? Or do yo think I should buy another brand that I can afford?
>
> I'm not saying you're wrong to be outraged by a size change, but I don't
> think the motives behind it are pure evil, as some people suggest.
I do. They want to keep the price in line with the competition. They do
this by reducing size. I was part of a program years ago to reduce cost on
some products. The idea was to make the tubing walls thinner, a few less
fasteners, and on and on. It worked for a while, but when customers got
PO'd, the company went out of business. The problem with the food industry
is that they all do it so they are all equal.
My favorite ice cream did go up $a package, but it is still smaller than the
half gallon of decades before. No I only buy it when it is on sale and I
stock up. What did they gain?
Evil, I say, evil in the name of market share and profits.
Doug Miller
Nonsense - you haven't eliminated it, you've *dismissed* it.
>what's left? As a person who
>understands business, what OTHER reasons can you come up with? There HAVE to
>be reasons. What are they?
Greed is, of course, the most obvious explanation. Did you have something else
in mind?
jeffc
"meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:362le1925gvnskbmb...@4ax.com...
>
> In addition, I would suspect (but don't know) that it's going to screw
> up experienced painters who know how much they can paint with a
> gallon.
Oh for crissakes people. No 2 "gallons" of colored paint contain the same
amount of paint. The base paint takes a certain volume. They have to leave
room for adding colorant in the store to make any color you want.
Experienced painters are going to be "screwed up" because they haven't ever
gotten an exact gallon in their lives, and they never expect to.
jeffc
> plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
> outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
> or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! I expected I was
> buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
> reasonable expectation. Yes, I know that the container is accurately
> labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading.
Um, it's so that it can take all sorts of colors, i.e. colorant. It takes
space ya know.
Edwin Pawlowski
"jeffc" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> Oh for crissakes people. No 2 "gallons" of colored paint contain the same
> amount of paint. The base paint takes a certain volume. They have to
> leave room for adding colorant in the store to make any color you want.
No so. I just looked at two cans of Pittsburgh paints. One was a pre
colored paint the it is clearly marked "one gallon" while the base for
tinting is marked 3 15/16 quarts. Another brand is plainly 1 gallon also.
If the OP bought a pre colored paint, he is screwed, If it was in fact a
base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but it still seems like a
lot of room for tinting.
Doug Kanter
Ya know, whenever you're asked to explore any possibility except the one
you've chosen and carved in stone, you refuse. So, live in a narrow world,
and have a nice day. By the way, keep your lamps trimmed and burning. The
black helicopters are on the way.
Doug Kanter
"Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:CVyGe.2665$gt5...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Evil? What's the alternative? Slowly go out of business??? And, what's so
evil about a company like Breyers shrinking their package a bit, when
there's a world full of rocky road/marshmallow addicts who are happy to pay
twice as much (unit price) for those little Ben & Jerry's containers?
Your "thinner tube walls" analogy is a bit off, by the way. You reduced the
quality. Not the same as a food or paint company reducing the amount per
package.
Doug Kanter
"3rd eye" <3rd...@inyourface.com> wrote in message
news:i3fle119fmpr0emqo...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:51:37 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In alt.home.repair on 29 Jul 2005 06:23:38 -0700 "Chris"
>><cne...@nycap.rr.com> posted:
>>
>>>I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
>>>plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
>>>outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
>>>or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! I expected I was
>>>buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
>>>reasonable expectation. Yes, I know that the container is accurately
>>>labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading. The
>>>container doesn't even have an integral, normal number of metric units.
>>> I'd actually appreciate it if they sold 1 liter and 4 liter containers
>>>(6% more paint than a quart or a gallon) and I'd even live with that at
>>>7-8% above the qt/gal price. They could market it as giving you a
>>>little more so you don't run out with 1sq ft on a job.
>>
>>In addition, I would suspect (but don't know) that it's going to screw
>>up experienced painters who know how much they can paint with a
>>gallon.
>>
>>Meirman
>
> We are talking about 5 ounces here.
> I can't imagine any painter that can estimate any job down to a
> 1/2 cup/gal.
Actually, there are painters like that. They're the same guys who swear
their Chevy Suburbans are getting upward of 35 miles per gallon. :-)
Doug Kanter
Maybe it's related to current fashions. Are more people asking for dark
colors than in the past? If you want a green that's 30% darker than an army
uniform, does it require more tint (by volume) than a pale green?
Edwin Pawlowski
> evil about a company like Breyers shrinking their package a bit, when
> there's a world full of rocky road/marshmallow addicts who are happy to
> pay twice as much (unit price) for those little Ben & Jerry's containers?
So you are saying that since others are being deceptive it is OK for all to
be deceptive?
You are saying since people are willing to pay a lot of money per ounce for
B & J is is OK for Breyers to go to a smaller container? It has been a half
gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that 1.75
quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day consumer that
may not have even notices for a few months
The "owner of the month" of Breyers is whoring the name and reducing quality
also. Most of the new proudcts have all sorts of unneeded crap in them that
they never needed. Guar gum is cheaper than cream so they came out with a
new vanilla. Now it is a crappy as the competition.
Breyers used to be a very good independent in the Philadelphia area but then
they were sold to Sealtest, then Kraft, Good Humor, now Unilever. They
also had better flavors years ago, like raspberry ice and bananna.
>
> Your "thinner tube walls" analogy is a bit off, by the way. You reduced
> the quality. Not the same as a food or paint company reducing the amount
> per package.
My point was less product for the same or more money. It was not so much
the quality but the lesser value that did them in.
dances_wit...@yahoo.com
consumers are worthy of respect than producers
> either way, you spent the same amount of money buying four cans' worth
> of
> beans that *used* to buy you five cans' worth.
just the other day, a oil producer told me that he's sick and tired
of selling the same size barrel of oil to you for $40, when you keep
shrinking the value of the dollar by deficit spending
~^Johnny^~
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:36:44 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>On 07/29/05 11:19 am Doug Kanter tossed the following ingredients
>into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
>
>>>I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that
>>>new plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home,
>>>I was outraged to see that the container is labeled as having
>>>123oz (I think) or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure).
>Yes, so are the 56oz. "half gallon" (NOT) ice cream packs "clearly
>marked" -- but many people aren't going to read the markings on the
>package every time, especially if it's a brand that they've been
>buying for years.
Damn! I know the feeling!!!
I get gypped every time I buy lumber!!!!! :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1
iQA/AwUBQutRpgIk7T39FC4ZEQIF4QCeOpNVPz4zJ6pv0qT5tIWDIiLwMKsAnAkH
UyYL6sgCbT1OpGu2wK4Xspb+
=psyS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info
Hopkins
to add chocolate sauce before you leave, making it a "true"
half-gallon.
Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
full to the top?
>>If it was in fact a base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but it still seems like a lot of room for tinting.
5 ounces is by not a lot of tint.
Percival P. Cassidy
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
> My God, people, paint is not like ice cream. The grocery is not going
> to add chocolate sauce before you leave, making it a "true"
> half-gallon.
>
> Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
> colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
> full to the top?
So if I buy an old-fashioned metal can of paint that is labeled "1
gallon" (and really does contain a full gallon), it has no room for
tinting??? Baloney!!!
Perce
Doug Miller
>
>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Greed is, of course, the most obvious explanation. Did you have something
>> else
>> in mind?
>
>Ya know, whenever you're asked to explore any possibility except the one
>you've chosen and carved in stone, you refuse. So, live in a narrow world,
>and have a nice day. By the way, keep your lamps trimmed and burning. The
>black helicopters are on the way.
What's the matter, Kanter, couldn't you think of any other explanations?
Like I said... Greed is the most obvious. Were you thinking of something else?
Doug Miller
>
>"Doug Kanter" <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>
>> Evil? What's the alternative? Slowly go out of business??? And, what's so
>> evil about a company like Breyers shrinking their package a bit, when
>> there's a world full of rocky road/marshmallow addicts who are happy to
>> pay twice as much (unit price) for those little Ben & Jerry's containers?
>
>So you are saying that since others are being deceptive it is OK for all to
>be deceptive?
Excuse me, where is the deception in selling a 1.75-quart container that is
clearly labelled "1.75 quarts"?
>
>You are saying since people are willing to pay a lot of money per ounce for
>B & J is is OK for Breyers to go to a smaller container?
He's saying that companies will charge what the market will bear. To do
anything else is, from a business standpoint, foolish.
>It has been a half
>gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that 1.75
>quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day consumer that
>may not have even notices for a few months
Better for the manufacturer, obviously. Like I said in another post: greed.
[snip]
>>
>> Your "thinner tube walls" analogy is a bit off, by the way. You reduced
>> the quality. Not the same as a food or paint company reducing the amount
>> per package.
>
>My point was less product for the same or more money. It was not so much
>the quality but the lesser value that did them in.
As you described it, it pretty clearly *was* the lower quality that did them
in.
Doug Miller
>> Neither one is at all desirable from the consumer's POV
>
> consumers are worthy of respect than producers
Why is either one inherently more worthy than the other?
>
>> either way, you spent the same amount of money buying four cans' worth
>> of beans that *used* to buy you five cans' worth.
>
> just the other day, a oil producer told me that he's sick and tired
>of selling the same size barrel of oil to you for $40, when you keep
>shrinking the value of the dollar by deficit spending
>
It would be nice if oil still was only $40 a barrel -- last I heard it was
over $60.
Doug Miller
Did it actually have a full gallon of tint base in it? Or was it a few ounces
short, so that the tint would bring it up to a full gallon? I never bothered
checking, did you?
Edwin Pawlowski
"Hopkins" <nasi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
> colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
> full to the top?
You conveniently left out the FACTS that I posted. The pre-colored paint by
other brands is one gallon, it is the tint base that was less to allow for
adding t he colorant.
>
>>>If it was in fact a base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but
>>>it still seems like a lot of room for tinting.
>
> 5 ounces is by not a lot of tint.
Perhaps, but Pittsburgh allows for 2 ounces.
Doug Kanter
>
> "Doug Kanter" <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>
>> Evil? What's the alternative? Slowly go out of business??? And, what's
>> so evil about a company like Breyers shrinking their package a bit, when
>> there's a world full of rocky road/marshmallow addicts who are happy to
>> pay twice as much (unit price) for those little Ben & Jerry's containers?
>
> So you are saying that since others are being deceptive it is OK for all
> to be deceptive?
B&J isn't being deceptive. Those small containers have always been
overpriced (at least from my point of view, but apparently, not everyone's).
Haagen Dasz is the same. Both have created an image which the public has
bought into.
> You are saying since people are willing to pay a lot of money per ounce
> for B & J is is OK for Breyers to go to a smaller container? It has been
> a half gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find
> that 1.75 quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day
> consumer that may not have even notices for a few months
Were you equally bothered when canned vegetables went from 16 oz to 14.5 oz?
I keep coming back to two things: First, how much did a half gallon of milk
increase in price over the past 5 years? Do you remember? Forget for the
moment that many stores price it as a loss leader much of the time. Or,
consider the corresponding hike in the prices of other dairy basics like
yogurt and cream cheese. There is simply NO WAY this doesn't affect ice
cream manufacturers.
Second: If this discussion continues for one more day, then it's ridiculous.
Wanna flip a coin and decide who gets to write a letter to Breyers, and see
what they say? Somebody's gotta do it. Or, I'll handle Breyers, you handle
Sherwin Williams. :-)
> The "owner of the month" of Breyers is whoring the name and reducing
> quality also. Most of the new proudcts have all sorts of unneeded crap in
> them that they never needed. Guar gum is cheaper than cream so they came
> out with a new vanilla. Now it is a crappy as the competition.
They've still got the basic no-guar flavors alongside the adulterated ones.
I suspect they've introduced the newer crap because what the hell...why not?
It enables them to grab some of the B&J crowd who insists on 118 different
tastes in the same container. (Cherry Garcia, however, is nothing to shake a
stick at). :-)
> Breyers used to be a very good independent in the Philadelphia area but
> then they were sold to Sealtest, then Kraft, Good Humor, now Unilever.
> They also had better flavors years ago, like raspberry ice and bananna.
Here's a scary thought: They almost dumped strawberry about 5 years ago, not
because customers weren't buying it, but because so many stores were not
stocking it. You'd be shocked at how many stupid policies can be kept in
place by just one buyer at a chain's headquarters. Here, for instance, we
have a local brand called Perry's. And, the otherwise excellent chain,
Wegman's, also has their store brand. Both strawberry offerings are sad
imitations. Artificially colored bright pink, guar gum, "other flavors". Our
other major store, Tops, carried Breyer's strawberry occasionally, if you
believed the shelf tag. Out of stock most of the time.
My company was dealing with Wegman's, so I had access to the buyers. I
called the frozen buyer and asked about Breyer's. His response: "First of
all, we don't need it. We carry two other strawberry products. And, nobody
buys it anyway. The movement numbers were real low last time we had it".
Turns out "last time" was 8 or 10 years earlier. I reminded him that nobody
buys it because it's not there. That didn't make much impact, although it
seems logical to me. Anyway, I guess enough people bitched and now they
carry it. (That buyer retired, too.)
I found out later (from a company rep) that local and private label brands
had impacted certain flavors to the point where they were almost
discontinued. Strawberry was one of them. It took some reeducation by the
reps to change this.
Back to the subject: I don't know about how other families shop, but I don't
have ice cream around all the time. When I do, I tend to forget it's there
and go for fruit instead. I'm sure some people consider it a staple item
like milk & eggs. There's always going to be a segment of this group who
will compare the price of Breyer's to the private label or local brands
every time they buy, even though they KNOW the last two are usually cheaper
and are of lower quality. The cheaper brands will consistently snag some of
those customers, SOME of the time. Nobody knows why. But, when these brands
are selling for $0.99 to $2.00 per half gallon, the national brand has to do
SOMETHING. You may recall that not long ago, Breyer's (not on sale) sold for
$3.50 to $4.25, depending on the market. Like me, many people never bought
it at that price, waiting for a sale instead.
That was simply not working for Breyer's. First of all, it's obvious that
they weren't moving enough product. And, it meant that if they offered deals
to the stores, it sometimes did not generate larger orders because nobody
wanted to be stuck with aging product. They don't want to store it, and you
& I don't want to buy it. This generated quite a scam a few years back when
someone in the NYC area altered the freshness dates on a few truckloads of
Breyer's ice cream.
Faced with this, and the drastic increase in the price of raw milk, I think
they had no choice but to change something. It worked. They're moving more
ice cream. Go figure.
Doug Kanter
> In article <jKBGe.3047$j21....@news01.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>>news:mBzGe.1247$gQ5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>>
>>> Greed is, of course, the most obvious explanation. Did you have
>>> something
>>> else
>>> in mind?
>>
>>Ya know, whenever you're asked to explore any possibility except the one
>>you've chosen and carved in stone, you refuse. So, live in a narrow world,
>>and have a nice day. By the way, keep your lamps trimmed and burning. The
>>black helicopters are on the way.
>
> What's the matter, Kanter, couldn't you think of any other explanations?
>
> Like I said... Greed is the most obvious. Were you thinking of something
> else?
What's the difference between greed, and wanting to do more business? Are
you in a business which has a policy of not finding ways to grow?
Go find the message I just wrote to Edwin. Open your mind to other
possibilities.
Doug Kanter
>>It has been a half
>>gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that 1.75
>>quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day consumer
>>that
>>may not have even notices for a few months
>
> Better for the manufacturer, obviously. Like I said in another post:
> greed.
> [snip]
Greed??? They were getting hammered by local brands and private label, at a
time when the price of raw milk rose drastically. What would YOU do?
Increase the price beyond a point which, in the minds of consumers, was
already a little edgy, in terms of what they think a half gallon of ice
cream is worth?
Try this: What would have to happen in order for you to pay $6.75 for a half
gallon of ice cream, and to do so 3-4 times a month? If you think that price
is too high, then name your limit, and describe how you came up with it.
ds...@webtv.net
how you feel, bought a pound of bacon that i realized was 12 oz when i
got home.
Ranieri
> plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
> outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
> buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
> reasonable expectation. Yes, I know that the container is accurately
> labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading. The
> container doesn't even have an integral, normal number of metric units.
> I'd actually appreciate it if they sold 1 liter and 4 liter containers
> (6% more paint than a quart or a gallon) and I'd even live with that at
> 7-8% above the qt/gal price. They could market it as giving you a
> little more so you don't run out with 1sq ft on a job.
>
One time I bought a 2x4, and the damn thing was only 3.5" x1.5"!!!
Edwin Pawlowski
"Ranieri" <uh-uh> wrote in message
news:sqOdndRBFcK...@comcast.com...
>>
>
> One time I bought a 2x4, and the damn thing was only 3.5" x1.5"!!!
But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to 3/4"
to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It was cut a
true 1" at the sawmill though.
Edwin Pawlowski
> is
> clearly labelled "1.75 quarts"?
Oh, it is perfectly legal. It is just that after selling true half gallon
for more than a half century, shrinking containers is a sleazy, but legal,
method of increasing prices and hoping that the consumer does not notice.
How often do you check the milk container to see if it is still a quart or
half gallon? Do you do it every time you go shopping? Shame on you if you
don't.
>>
>>You are saying since people are willing to pay a lot of money per ounce
>>for
>>B & J is is OK for Breyers to go to a smaller container?
>
> He's saying that companies will charge what the market will bear. To do
> anything else is, from a business standpoint, foolish.
No doubt, but relying on perception is different that giving the real deal.
Some are still selling full half gallons, some are going to small
containers. The reality is they are relying on the customer not noticing
the downsizing when comparison shopping.
Doug Kanter
>
> "Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message news:5gKGe.828
>>
>> Excuse me, where is the deception in selling a 1.75-quart container that
>> is
>> clearly labelled "1.75 quarts"?
>
>
> Oh, it is perfectly legal. It is just that after selling true half gallon
> for more than a half century, shrinking containers is a sleazy, but legal,
> method of increasing prices and hoping that the consumer does not notice.
> How often do you check the milk container to see if it is still a quart or
> half gallon? Do you do it every time you go shopping? Shame on you if
> you don't.
I'll repeat a question I asked earlier, which nobody is comfortable
answering: If you were informed of the size change, would that have
satisfied you? If yes, how would you like to be informed?
Doug Kanter
I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not true?
phleg...@yahoo.com
> No doubt, but relying on perception is different that giving the real deal.
> Some are still selling full half gallons, some are going to small
> containers. The reality is they are relying on the customer not noticing
> the downsizing when comparison shopping.
people who homebrew their own ice cream don't have the problem.
people who don't can piss and moan all day long... then buy what's on
offer.
"the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on"
Doug Miller
>
>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>news:9cKGe.825$Ok5...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <jKBGe.3047$j21....@news01.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mBzGe.1247$gQ5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Greed is, of course, the most obvious explanation. Did you have
>>>> something
>>>> else
>>>> in mind?
>>>
>>>Ya know, whenever you're asked to explore any possibility except the one
>>>you've chosen and carved in stone, you refuse. So, live in a narrow world,
>>>and have a nice day. By the way, keep your lamps trimmed and burning. The
>>>black helicopters are on the way.
>>
>> What's the matter, Kanter, couldn't you think of any other explanations?
>>
>> Like I said... Greed is the most obvious. Were you thinking of something
>> else?
>
>What's the difference between greed, and wanting to do more business? Are
>you in a business which has a policy of not finding ways to grow?
Greed: selling more cans of beans by selling smaller cans at the same price
per can, which is of course entirely equivalent to selling the same amount of
product at a higher price.
Expanding the business: selling more cans of beans by providing greater value
(actual or perceived) through a better product, better advertising, greater
variety of choices, etc. -- IOW, selling more product.
Note that the former case is *not* actually expanding the business; it's
merely increasing profitability.
>
>Go find the message I just wrote to Edwin. Open your mind to other
>possibilities.
If you actually have something in mind, just state it, instead of playing this
guessing game.
Doug Miller
>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>news:5gKGe.828$Ok5...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>>It has been a half
>>>gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that 1.75
>>>quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day consumer
>>>that
>>>may not have even notices for a few months
>>
>> Better for the manufacturer, obviously. Like I said in another post:
>> greed.
>> [snip]
>
>Greed??? They were getting hammered by local brands and private label, at a
>time when the price of raw milk rose drastically.
And I suppose the rising cost of raw milk affected only them, not the local
brands and private labels too? That won't wash. Increased costs of raw
materials affect all producers.
>What would YOU do?
Keep the size the same, raise the price a little, and hammer the point home in
my advertising that, unlike my competitors, MY product is still the full two
quarts that the consumers expect and deserve.
>Increase the price beyond a point which, in the minds of consumers, was
>already a little edgy, in terms of what they think a half gallon of ice
>cream is worth?
It works for Ben & Jerry, and Edy...
Duane Bozarth
even) the most important factors--competition. In many cases, <someone>
will do it and others will feel forced to follow suit. I suppose
there's also the mentality if one is in the retail (or even wholesale
for that matter) market to be the one to beat the other guy to the punch
as well.
Thinking further, I'll restate my position--I'd <hope> I'd have the
fortitude to not be first belligerent so to speak, and only stoop to the
tactic if, after competitors had dones so, it was shown that my sales
were actually being hurt by using what I'll term "honest pricing"
against the smaller-volume equivalently-priced competition...
Doug Kanter
Addressing your comments about "merely increasing profitability" and
"guessing game" - here's yet another chance to entertain a new idea. The
price of transportation has gone through the roof. Whether a company runs
its own trucks, or uses common carriers, there is NO WAY they can control
the price of oil. I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.
Transportation takes an enormous bite out of profits in the grocery
industry. Exactly how would YOU deal with this, if you did not want to raise
prices or shrink sizes?
Doug Miller
Not true. Ed's explanation is correct; the amount of shrinkage is measurable,
but _nowhere_near_ the 25% that would be required to turn two inches into one
and a half.
Doug Miller
No, of course not - why would I, or anyone, be satisfied with paying the same
price, for 12.5% less product? That's a disguised price increase of over 14%.
It's sleazy, but as long as the label accurately describes the contents, it's
hardly deceptive.
Doug Kanter
> In article <fSKGe.3082$j21....@news01.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>>news:5gKGe.828$Ok5...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>>It has been a half
>>>>gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that
>>>>1.75
>>>>quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day consumer
>>>>that
>>>>may not have even notices for a few months
>>>
>>> Better for the manufacturer, obviously. Like I said in another post:
>>> greed.
>>> [snip]
>>
>>Greed??? They were getting hammered by local brands and private label, at
>>a
>>time when the price of raw milk rose drastically.
>
> And I suppose the rising cost of raw milk affected only them, not the
> local
> brands and private labels too? That won't wash. Increased costs of raw
> materials affect all producers.
It affects them to varying extents, depending on how much filler they add to
their product.
>
>>What would YOU do?
>
> Keep the size the same, raise the price a little, and hammer the point
> home in
> my advertising that, unlike my competitors, MY product is still the full
> two
> quarts that the consumers expect and deserve.
And, that leads us right back to the question you snipped, which deals with
perception, something you don't want to entertain, and which also drives
manufacturer crazy trying to figure out.
Here's the question:
What would have to happen in order for you to pay $6.75 for a half
Doug Kanter
What? First, you say the change is disguised, and then you say it's hardly
deceptive if it's labeled accurately. But, all along, you've been arguing
that the situation stinks. So, back to my question: Would it be better if
you saw signage in the store announcing the size decrease? Or, temporary
packaging with a large banner announcing the change?
Doug Miller
Here you go again... "Moving Target Kanter" finds the discussion not going the
way he wanted it, and so he changes the subject *again*. You haven't addressed
my comments at all.
>The
>price of transportation has gone through the roof. Whether a company runs
>its own trucks, or uses common carriers, there is NO WAY they can control
>the price of oil. I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
>costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.
Nope, not me.
>
>Transportation takes an enormous bite out of profits in the grocery
>industry. Exactly how would YOU deal with this, if you did not want to raise
>prices or shrink sizes?
Stick to the point, or shut up.
Doug Miller
It doesn't "lead us right back to [that] question" at all.
>
>Here's the question:
>
>What would have to happen in order for you to pay $6.75 for a half
>gallon of ice cream, and to do so 3-4 times a month? If you think that price
>is too high, then name your limit, and describe how you came up with it.
Irrelevant. Stick to the subject, instead of constantly changing it, or shut
up.
G Henslee
>
>
> Here you go again... "Moving Target Kanter" finds the discussion not going the
> way he wanted it, and so he changes the subject *again*. You haven't addressed
> my comments at all.
That's Dogless at his finest.
>
>
> Stick to the point, or shut up.
>
*that* will never happen.
Doug Kanter
I am sticking to the point. You're talking about "increasing profitability".
I'm modifying that slightly - how about restoring lost profitability, which
you may need in order to remain in business. In other words, if you made 15%
profit for 10 years, and suddenly, something beyond your control causes that
to drop significantly, you either find a way to recover the money, or maybe
you go out of business.
One factor which affects the bottom line is transportation. How would you
address a factor over which you had little or no control? We're talking
about fuel costs.
Doug Kanter
Define the subject you think I'm not addressing and we'll continue.
Edwin Pawlowski
>> straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to
>> 3/4" to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It
>> was cut a true 1" at the sawmill though.
>>
>
> I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not true?
Partly true. It will shrink a bit as it dries, but then it is planed to a
consistent size. It may be possible that some 2 x 4 can be made to 1 5/8 or
1 11/6, but then that would drive everyone crazy.
meirman
<xxt...@back.net> posted:
>meirman wrote:
>
>> <cne...@nycap.rr.com> posted:
>>
>>
>>>I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
>>>plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
>>>outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
>>>or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! I expected I was
>>>buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
>>>reasonable expectation. Yes, I know that the container is accurately
>>>labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading. The
>>>container doesn't even have an integral, normal number of metric units.
>>>I'd actually appreciate it if they sold 1 liter and 4 liter containers
>>>(6% more paint than a quart or a gallon) and I'd even live with that at
>>>7-8% above the qt/gal price. They could market it as giving you a
>>>little more so you don't run out with 1sq ft on a job.
>
>
>My first guess is that the contents of the can are
>deliberately kept a bit "short" of a gallon to allow for a
>typical addition of tint. Remember, most paint color is
>blended in the store and some of the tones require a lot of
>added pigment.
Aw, come on. Wasn't that true, isn't that true, with paint that comes
in cans too.
We should learn if it is base or not, but Edwin says even his base is
only 1/16 of a quart shy, 2/32, not 5/32nds.
I know what they do with candy, they keep making the bar smaller and
smaller with the same price until there is a price hike, when they go
to the higher price and original size. I don't know if that is the
case here or not.
>Nobody
Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
G Henslee
>>>I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
>>>plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
>>>outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
>>>or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! ...
Try Dumb-Edwards paint supply. Their 1 gallon can is actually 1.175.
Which means their 5 gallon containers must be almost 6 gallons!!
Duane Bozarth
>
...
> ...I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
> costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.
No, it was I, but you took what I said and conveniently snipped the part
which included <either> control cost <or> raise price which I also
pointed out in response to your comment there...
> Transportation takes an enormous bite out of profits in the grocery
> industry. Exactly how would YOU deal with this, if you did not want to raise
> prices or shrink sizes?
Either figure out a way to lower energy inputs or add transportation
surcharges (which is equivalent to raising prices)...sometimes one has
to do things one doesn't want to do.
Duane Bozarth
...
>
> One factor which affects the bottom line is transportation. How would you
> address a factor over which you had little or no control? We're talking
> about fuel costs.
Obviously, one either finds other ways to economize or eventually has to
raise prices to cover increased costs. It's not rocket science, just a
complex combination of marketing, competition and myriad other factors
involved in running a business...
One obvious solution for many in the US continues to be to go overseas
to reduce manufacturing costs, for example.
Duane Bozarth
...
> ....Would it be better if
> you saw signage in the store announcing the size decrease? Or, temporary
> packaging with a large banner announcing the change?
There must be <some> reason you <don't> see such signs whereas you <do>
see signs and labels touting "10% more FREE!", mustn't there??? :)
Duane Bozarth
Actually, like the paint or coffee, they did <used> to be... :)
Somewhere along about in the 60s, they went to the "standard" sub-1/2"
dimensions. I figured at the time it was a combination of making a
convienient standard at the "even" fraction plus better sawmill control
to shave a few extra tuba-ex's from a log, just like getting a few extra
sheets of ply by going from full dimension to sub-32'nds--over enough
sheets, that extra 32-nd of material adds up to quite a bit of raw
material saved.
Doug Kanter
"Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
news:42EB9B68...@swko.dot.net...
Those bastards!
Doug Kanter
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
> ...
>> ...I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
>> costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.
>
> No, it was I, but you took what I said and conveniently snipped the part
> which included <either> control cost <or> raise price which I also
> pointed out in response to your comment there...
I probably snipped because I wanted to focus on fuel. I don't remember.
Could've also applied to the price of milk, sugar or vanilla, though.
>> Transportation takes an enormous bite out of profits in the grocery
>> industry. Exactly how would YOU deal with this, if you did not want to
>> raise
>> prices or shrink sizes?
>
> Either figure out a way to lower energy inputs or add transportation
> surcharges (which is equivalent to raising prices)...sometimes one has
> to do things one doesn't want to do.
"things one doesn't want to do" Let's look at the answer our other
contestants chose. Mr. Miller says "evil and deception". Sorry...
Bells! Whistles! Balloons! Duane, our contestant from somewhere USA just won
the bonus round! Duane, let's watch as Vanna shows you what you've won! :-)
A lifetime supply of Molson Brodor, the real stuff, smuggled over the border
from Canada!
Doug Kanter
You are racking up some serious points today. :-)
Doug Kanter
Right, but the moment I see "made in someplace else" on a container of ice
cream, I'm gone. :-)
Doug Miller
>I am sticking to the point. You're talking about "increasing profitability".
>I'm modifying that slightly
In other words, NOT sticking to the point.
Bye.
Doug Miller
Your fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no contradiction
there.
>But, all along, you've been arguing
>that the situation stinks. So, back to my question: Would it be better if
>you saw signage in the store announcing the size decrease? Or, temporary
>packaging with a large banner announcing the change?
That's silly. Why would that be better?
Doug Kanter
> In article <NpMGe.3089$j21...@news01.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I am sticking to the point. You're talking about "increasing
>>profitability".
>>I'm modifying that slightly
>
> In other words, NOT sticking to the point.
>
> Bye.
Of course I am. The point is profitability. Doesn't matter whether you're
increasing it, or simply maintaining it in the face of various factors. You
seem to be saying that increasing it is a bad thing. Why?
Doug Kanter
Because you're complaining about package size as if it were hidden from you
somehow. Something sneaky. The only to make it clear is to (ready?) make it
clear. I suggested two ways of doing so, both of which you consider silly.
By doing so, you're saying that you consider it unethical to shrink a
package. The only way for them to deal with increasing costs is to raise
their prices, as far as you're concerned.
But: I explained to you that customers have certain perceptions - certain
price levels beyond which they simply will not buy a product. Manufacturers
know what these perceptions are, based on research and product movement
data. I asked you where YOUR limit was for a half gallon of ice cream. You
refused to respond sensibly.
We've covered almost every angle that I had to deal with in a series of
business courses. Same debates YOU would be subjected to if you were the CEO
of a corporation and your board of directors called you on the carpet to
discuss profitability issues. But, you seem to think these ideas originated
in the twilight zone. Do you want to continue, or would you like to discuss
it in exactly the same way you would if you were working on your MBA from
Harvard?
Edwin Pawlowski
"
OK, enough already. I stopped at the Sherwin Williams tore this morning (on
my way to another paint store) and checked the actual sizes on the
containers. The base for tinting is marked 3 11/16 quarts. The pre-colored
already mixed on the shelf containers is 3 27/32 quarts.
How many "gallons" of paint do they sell in a year? At a million containers
it amounts to 39,062 gallons. If the manufacturing cost is $5 a gallon,
that is $195,312 in added profits. Not bad considering the efforts of
changing a label and adjusting a filler machine.
Most of their other product are still a full gallon.
Doug Miller
>
>"Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
>news:42EB9865...@swko.dot.net...
>> Doug Kanter wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>> ...I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
>>> costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.
>>
>> No, it was I, but you took what I said and conveniently snipped the part
>> which included <either> control cost <or> raise price which I also
>> pointed out in response to your comment there...
>
>I probably snipped because I wanted to focus on fuel.
Changing the subject again...
[snip]
>"things one doesn't want to do" Let's look at the answer our other
>contestants chose. Mr. Miller says "evil and deception". Sorry...
Liar. I never said it was "evil". And I explicitly said it is *not* deceptive.
*YOU* said it was deceptive.
Doug Miller
Stop putting words in my mouth, Kanter. I never said that, and you know it.
Doug Miller
>
>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>news:kbNGe.2906$aT1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <kkMGe.2684$cg....@news02.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>But, all along, you've been arguing
>>>that the situation stinks. So, back to my question: Would it be better if
>>>you saw signage in the store announcing the size decrease? Or, temporary
>>>packaging with a large banner announcing the change?
>>
>> That's silly. Why would that be better?
>
>Because you're complaining about package size as if it were hidden from you
>somehow. Something sneaky.
It *is* sneaky to repackage your product in a carton that's *nearly* the same
size but twelve percent smaller, and sell it at the same price.
>The only to make it clear is to (ready?) make it
>clear. I suggested two ways of doing so, both of which you consider silly.
They *are* silly.
>By doing so, you're saying that you consider it unethical to shrink a
>package. The only way for them to deal with increasing costs is to raise
>their prices, as far as you're concerned.
I didn't say that.
>
>But: I explained to you that customers have certain perceptions - certain
>price levels beyond which they simply will not buy a product. Manufacturers
>know what these perceptions are, based on research and product movement
>data. I asked you where YOUR limit was for a half gallon of ice cream. You
>refused to respond sensibly.
I declined to respond, because the question is silly and irrelevant.
Doug Kanter
> In article <w9NGe.3096$j2...@news01.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
>>news:42EB9865...@swko.dot.net...
>>> Doug Kanter wrote:
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>> ...I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
>>>> costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.
>>>
>>> No, it was I, but you took what I said and conveniently snipped the part
>>> which included <either> control cost <or> raise price which I also
>>> pointed out in response to your comment there...
>>
>>I probably snipped because I wanted to focus on fuel.
>
> Changing the subject again...
No. We've been talking about costs you cannot control. Fuel/transportation
is one such cost.
> [snip]
>
>>"things one doesn't want to do" Let's look at the answer our other
>>contestants chose. Mr. Miller says "evil and deception". Sorry...
>
> Liar. I never said it was "evil". And I explicitly said it is *not*
> deceptive.
> *YOU* said it was deceptive.
OK. Perhaps you're right. But, you definitely HAVE been pointing to
increased profits as something you view as a negative reason for decreasing
package size.
Doug Kanter
> In article <4pNGe.2693$cg....@news02.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>>news:kbNGe.2906$aT1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> In article <kkMGe.2684$cg....@news02.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
>>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>But, all along, you've been arguing
>>>>that the situation stinks. So, back to my question: Would it be better
>>>>if
>>>>you saw signage in the store announcing the size decrease? Or, temporary
>>>>packaging with a large banner announcing the change?
>>>
>>> That's silly. Why would that be better?
>>
>>Because you're complaining about package size as if it were hidden from
>>you
>>somehow. Something sneaky.
>
> It *is* sneaky to repackage your product in a carton that's *nearly* the
> same
> size but twelve percent smaller, and sell it at the same price.
Can you describe ANY way to shrink a package that would NOT be sneaky?
>>The only to make it clear is to (ready?) make it
>>clear. I suggested two ways of doing so, both of which you consider silly.
>
> They *are* silly.
Why silly?
>>By doing so, you're saying that you consider it unethical to shrink a
>>package. The only way for them to deal with increasing costs is to raise
>>their prices, as far as you're concerned.
>
> I didn't say that.
I've told you that there are costs which cannot be controlled. Therefore,
size must decrease or price must increase. You don't like sizes being
changed, as you've repeated a number of times. That leaves price increases
as the only option. You may not have said it explicitly, but since there is
no other option, you've agreed to it.
>>But: I explained to you that customers have certain perceptions - certain
>>price levels beyond which they simply will not buy a product.
>>Manufacturers
>>know what these perceptions are, based on research and product movement
>>data. I asked you where YOUR limit was for a half gallon of ice cream. You
>>refused to respond sensibly.
>
> I declined to respond, because the question is silly and irrelevant.
Customer perceptions (and YOUR perceptions) are silly and irrelevant? Why?
Hopkins
Okay. Oh, and when someone conveniently leaves out facts, it's to twist
someones else's words. I did no such thing; in fact, I did the
opposite. I seconded what you said - just because I didn't second
everything you said is no reason to get froggy.
Doug Miller
>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>news:qANGe.2913$aT1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <4pNGe.2693$cg....@news02.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kbNGe.2906$aT1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> In article <kkMGe.2684$cg....@news02.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
>>>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>But, all along, you've been arguing
>>>>>that the situation stinks. So, back to my question: Would it be better
>>>>>if
>>>>>you saw signage in the store announcing the size decrease? Or, temporary
>>>>>packaging with a large banner announcing the change?
>>>>
>>>> That's silly. Why would that be better?
>>>
>>>Because you're complaining about package size as if it were hidden from
>>>you
>>>somehow. Something sneaky.
>>
>> It *is* sneaky to repackage your product in a carton that's *nearly* the
>> same
>> size but twelve percent smaller, and sell it at the same price.
>
>Can you describe ANY way to shrink a package that would NOT be sneaky?
Certainly. If you're reducing the package size by 1/8, the straightforward
way to do it is to keep width and depth the same, and reduce length by 1/8. A
side-by-side comparison of the larger and smaller packages makes the
difference instantly obvious. The sneaky way to do it is with a 4.4% reduction
in each dimension, which is scarcely noticeable, and even if noticed would
hardly be suspected by the average person as resulting in a 12.5% decrease in
package volume.
>>>The only to make it clear is to (ready?) make it
>>>clear. I suggested two ways of doing so, both of which you consider silly.
>>
>> They *are* silly.
>
>Why silly?
Come off it, Kanter, who advertises his product as "Now! Less for your money!"
That's silly.
>
>
>>>By doing so, you're saying that you consider it unethical to shrink a
>>>package. The only way for them to deal with increasing costs is to raise
>>>their prices, as far as you're concerned.
>>
>> I didn't say that.
>
>I've told you that there are costs which cannot be controlled. Therefore,
>size must decrease or price must increase. You don't like sizes being
>changed, as you've repeated a number of times.
I didn't say that either. I said I don't like package sizes being changed in a
way that disguises the change.
>That leaves price increases
>as the only option. You may not have said it explicitly, but since there is
>no other option, you've agreed to it.
Wow! Two falsehoods in one! There *are* other options (e.g. cutting costs),
and no, I didn't agree to it.
>
>
>>>But: I explained to you that customers have certain perceptions - certain
>>>price levels beyond which they simply will not buy a product.
>>>Manufacturers
>>>know what these perceptions are, based on research and product movement
>>>data. I asked you where YOUR limit was for a half gallon of ice cream. You
>>>refused to respond sensibly.
>>
>> I declined to respond, because the question is silly and irrelevant.
>
>Customer perceptions (and YOUR perceptions) are silly and irrelevant? Why?
Again... I didn't say that. You keep attributing to me things I didn't say,
and then demand that I justify them.
No, Kanter, _your_questions_ are silly and irrelevant. I thought that was
clear.
Doug Miller
>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>news:SwNGe.2911$aT1....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <w9NGe.3096$j2...@news01.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
>> <ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
>>>news:42EB9865...@swko.dot.net...
>>>> Doug Kanter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> ...I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
>>>>> costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.
>>>>
>>>> No, it was I, but you took what I said and conveniently snipped the part
>>>> which included <either> control cost <or> raise price which I also
>>>> pointed out in response to your comment there...
>>>
>>>I probably snipped because I wanted to focus on fuel.
>>
>> Changing the subject again...
>
>No. We've been talking about costs you cannot control. Fuel/transportation
>is one such cost.
Actually, we were talking about disguising price increases by shrinking the
packages. *Do* try to pay attention a bit more closely.
>> [snip]
>>
>>>"things one doesn't want to do" Let's look at the answer our other
>>>contestants chose. Mr. Miller says "evil and deception". Sorry...
>>
>> Liar. I never said it was "evil". And I explicitly said it is *not*
>> deceptive.
>> *YOU* said it was deceptive.
>
>OK. Perhaps you're right.
Is that as close as you can come to an apology for distorting my words into
the _exact_opposite_ of what I actually wrote?
>But, you definitely HAVE been pointing to
>increased profits as something you view as a negative reason for decreasing
>package size.
I don't view "increased profits" as negative; rather, I take a negative view
of the greed that drives a company to increase its profits by providing its
customers with less value.
Duane Bozarth
>
> I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
> plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
> outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
> buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
Well, you'll be pleased to learn this is as it has always been w/ base
for tint--there's room left to make the full gallon w/ the tint.
To be sure, I just checked on several really, really old (some as much
as approaching 25-30 yrs) from several manufacturers including S-W.
<All> tint bases were from 126 to 128 oz. A couple of cans of finish
exterior white which were <not> a tint base were full gallons. One of
those was also S-W, btw...
Edwin Pawlowski
> for tint--there's room left to make the full gallon w/ the tint.
>
Well you'll be sorry to learn this. The tint base was 3 11/16 quarts but the
ready mixed colors are 3 27/32. Yes, they are shorting what was formerly
known as a "gallon" of paint. This was on the line in question. Some
others were still a full gallon.
meirman
<ancien...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>"Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
>news:42EA77F0...@swko.dot.net...
>> Doug Kanter wrote:
>>>
>>> "Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> >...<I> would either find a way to cut production costs or
>>> > reluctantly raise prices. ...
>>
>>> Some production costs are beyond your control.
>>
>> Where did I say they weren't? What about <either...or> did you not
>> understand?
>>
>> ...
>>> ...Would you be OK with paying $25 for a gallon of paint instead of $19?
>>
>> The point is, either way you <are> paying the higher volume price...just
>> one way it's clear while the other way it's not (and a deliberate
>> attempt to pull a "fast one" over on the consumer, imo)...
>
>Why not call a few manufacturers and see what their logic was. Start with
>Sherwin-Williams. Continue with General Mills, Kraft. Del Monte etc etc etc.
>Maybe they found out from focus groups that the smaller package was a better
>idea. There might be a reason for this. Think about it. Let's say you have a
>fairly strict food budget. $100 a week, to pick a number. Now, your favorite
>ice cream goes up $1.00 in price. 5 cans of beans go up a quarter each. Your
>detergent does the same, along with paper goods. Add it all up and perhaps
>your bill is now $120.00. You may say you can adjust to that, but a whole
>lot of people can't. So, who should the manufacturers cater to?
Not the best example. Most people can cut down on ice cream, but
being less hungry, and less dirty are very hard to do. Cutting down
on beans, detergent, and toilet paper, because the same money buys
less will just leave people needing more sooner, regardless of how
much money they have.
>
>I'm not saying you're wrong to be outraged by a size change, but I don't
>think the motives behind it are pure evil, as some people suggest.
phleg...@yahoo.com
> Greed
If they're successfully being greedy, how come their stock price
doesn't show it. How come YOU haven't bought the stock? Oh,
wait, because of your higher moral grounds? Hang on, i'll save a
place for your portrait in the Chappaquiddick Museum of Fighting For
The People
The people who put their money where their mouth is, apparently
feel that the shrinking-package syndrome is just playing catch-up with
external costs.
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
You don't have the balls.
Duane Bozarth
I don't think that necessarily shows it's any different than previous,
however, does it?
Were any that were "full" gallons marked a tint base? I'd suspect not.
In most instances, starting from 126 oz, say, the net would still be
somewhat under 132 even after tinting. So, if they've "pre-tinted" from
the tint base quantity, it's still likely to be what you would always
have gotten starting from the tint base and custom tinting.
IOW, a "gallon" hasn't always been a gallon and the amount "short" in
the OP's note is the same amount short as has been shown for an extended
period of time.
I suppose it is possible a pre-tinted before (other than the basic
white) <may> have been marketed in 132 oz gal, but I have no old
examples of that to compare with. My suspicion is that they don't make
any distinction in manufacturing and use the tint base volumes in order
to achieve simplicity of manufacture of consistency of color.
meirman
<ancien...@hotmail.com> posted:
>"Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
>news:42EA9EC7...@swko.dot.net...
>>
>> 1. People <are> price-conscious...see the "99 cent" pricing syndrome.
My mother told me she would hear an advertisement or see a product at
$7.99. To make it simple, she would think $8. Then later she
wouldn't remember if it were 7.99 or 8.99, and would often remember
the price a dollar higher than it was. The opposite effect of what
they wanted.
>>
>> 2. People <have been> conditioned to expect certain things to be in
>> certain size packages--coffee in 1-lb tins, for example. People tend to
There was a big outrage when they started messing with the size of
coffee packages. That was about 30? years ago?
>> <not> actively scan similar-sized containers for the actual label, so it...
>>
>
>Well, I think the solution is for enough people to bitch directly to
>Sherwin-Williams, claiming that the precise one gallon size is important
>because it allows people to determine surface coverage in a predictable way.
>Of course, this isn't quite true, because humidity and a few other random
>things can affect whether seven nineteenths of an ounce makes a difference,
It wasn't 7/19ths of an ounce. It was 5/32nds of a quart which is
about 8 times as much. It's almost 4% of the entire gallon. Other
than that, I agree with you.
Another difference about paint is that that is one product whose
package size hasn't varied for my whole life and probably much longer.
People are used to it with candy.
Also, when one runs out of candy no one says, Look, there's a corner
of your stomach that isn't covered in candy.
>but if enough people yell about it, that won't matter.
meirman
<ancien...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>What's the difference between greed, and wanting to do more business? Are
>you in a business which has a policy of not finding ways to grow?
A private owner can sacrifice profits to do what is right, without
anyone to complain about it (except maybe his wife.)
But corporate CEOs and boards are always saying they have a duty to
the stockholders to maximize profits. I wonder how true that is, in
law and in practice.
This is what little I know about it. The law could be both stricter
and/or more lenient than in practice. I think it can both at the same
time, but in different ways, of course.
The law might provide exceptions, probably does provide leeway, but
that doesn't mean that stockholders were settle for less than the
maximum. OTOH, in practice most stockholder pay little attention to
what is going on, and only a few big ones do pay attention, most of
the time. And very few vote against board nominees, nor do they have
much chance of electing an opposition slate except when things are
very bad.
Acting the "right" way is good for customer relations, even if it is
only done because it is right, so decisions about "truth in packaging"
are probably never a violation of the management's duty to maximize
profits. OTOH, at the end of the line, stockholders won't care what
went wrong if the company is losing money or making a lot less than it
did. (How is Sherwin Williams doing financially?) Like owners not
caring why a team is losing when he fires the coach. But team owners
are different because usually one person makes the decision.
I've been to one corporate annual meeting, a Fortune 500 company but I
forget which. All I remember is that the meeting was west of Rutgers
University in NJ. (at some big community college or community
auditorium iirc.) One dissenter wanted a vote on something, maybe
enviornmental although I think it was not that but similar. She
didn't even get to make a speech. This is typical iiuc. But they did
have a nice buffet in the "lobby?".
Doug Kanter
> Certainly. If you're reducing the package size by 1/8, the straightforward
> way to do it is to keep width and depth the same, and reduce length by
> 1/8. A
> side-by-side comparison of the larger and smaller packages makes the
> difference instantly obvious. The sneaky way to do it is with a 4.4%
> reduction
> in each dimension, which is scarcely noticeable, and even if noticed would
> hardly be suspected by the average person as resulting in a 12.5% decrease
> in
> package volume.
Side by side comparison. OK. You wrote that yesterday. I assume that by now,
you've realized why it's unlikely you'd have an opportunity for such a
comparison. There are at least two reasons.
>>That leaves price increases
>>as the only option. You may not have said it explicitly, but since there
>>is
>>no other option, you've agreed to it.
>
> Wow! Two falsehoods in one! There *are* other options (e.g. cutting
> costs),
> and no, I didn't agree to it.
Nope. If you've already cut costs as much as possible in the area of labor,
and raw materials you CAN control, there are still some things you cannot
change. No avenue left but to adjust size or price.
What business are you in???
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> But corporate CEOs and boards are always saying they have a duty to
> the stockholders to maximize profits. I wonder how true that is, in
> law and in practice.
It never seems to bother them when their negotiating their own compensation
packages. Just this last week there was some media coverage of the former Delta
Airlines CEO who managed to get a multi-year multi-million dollar "consulting
fee" thaat included clauses to prevent the consultations from being either
inconvenient nor taking very much of his time. All it took was a lot of
stockholder money.
There ought to be a law mandating the maximum amount of compensation allowed in
publicly held corporations directly tied to the income of their average
employee. In Japan, the CEOs of the largest corporations make 7-10 times that
of their average employee; here it can run 100s of times.
Don't tell me you have to offer 100s of times the average salary to attract the
best. I'm sure they're not interested in earning what the average man makes and
will accept what you offer on top of that. Even if they wouldn't, what have you
lost? Most of these overpaid CEOs seem to be running their companies into the
ground. The CEO of Delta didn't set the world on fire with anything except his
exit package.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
msch...@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE
Doug Miller
>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>news:cyQGe.2969$aT1....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> Certainly. If you're reducing the package size by 1/8, the straightforward
>> way to do it is to keep width and depth the same, and reduce length by
>> 1/8. A
>> side-by-side comparison of the larger and smaller packages makes the
>> difference instantly obvious. The sneaky way to do it is with a 4.4%
>> reduction
>> in each dimension, which is scarcely noticeable, and even if noticed would
>> hardly be suspected by the average person as resulting in a 12.5% decrease
>> in
>> package volume.
>
>Side by side comparison. OK. You wrote that yesterday. I assume that by now,
>you've realized why it's unlikely you'd have an opportunity for such a
>comparison. There are at least two reasons.
Guessing games again, Kanter?
>
>>>That leaves price increases
>>>as the only option. You may not have said it explicitly, but since there
>>>is
>>>no other option, you've agreed to it.
>>
>> Wow! Two falsehoods in one! There *are* other options (e.g. cutting
>> costs),
>> and no, I didn't agree to it.
>
>Nope. If you've already cut costs as much as possible in the area of labor,
>and raw materials you CAN control,
Unjustified assumption on your part. That's a big IF.
>there are still some things you cannot
>change. No avenue left but to adjust size or price.
No, there are at least two other things you can do as well.
>
>What business are you in???
Irrelevant.
Doug Kanter
"corpse". Rest in peace.