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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
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.

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?