On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 10:51:55 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 8:39 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Here we go again with the same ridiculous assertion that consumers are being deceived by smaller packages. I'll make this easy for you.

Here's is the definition of "deceive". Do us all a favor and explain to us how a clearly marking a container with the weight of the contents and the price fits this definition.

de·ceive
dəˈsēv/
verb

- (of a person) cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage.

- (of a thing) give a mistaken impression.

Don't talk about the legality or the sleaziness of the practice, focus only on the "deception" aspect.


What do you call it? The intent is to reduce the package size and hope
the customer does not notice we are making more money. Use all the
fancy word you want, but that is the intention.

How I wish you were kidding me, but I'm pretty sure you are not, and that is sad.

They "hope" the customer does not notice?

How long as this practice been going on? How many articles, TV stories, internet blogs, usenet groups, etc. have covered this issue? Do you honestly think that the companies marketing the smaller packages are sitting around "hoping" the consumer doesn't notice?

I can just picture those board room strategy meetings. "Shh...don't tell anybody, but we're going to reduce the mayonnaise package size again, label it correctly but not lower the price. Those idiot shoppers will never notice. Heck they haven't noticed it yet. We haven't heard a word about it, so we're good to go. 30 oz this week, 28 oz next week. Eventually, all we'll ever need to ship is those little squeeze packages. Gawd, those consumers are such idiots."

The "intention" may be to make more money but it is not to *deceive* the buying public. I don't know how many different ways it can be said, but if a consumer is "deceived" by a clearly labeled package, then they are the ones at fault, not the company selling the product.