In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
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.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.