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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
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?

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.

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

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