In alt.home.repair on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:01:15 GMT "Doug Kanter"
posted:


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" 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.



Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.