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

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


Greed is, of course, the most obvious explanation. Did you have
something
else
in mind?

Ya know, whenever you're asked to explore any possibility except the one
you've chosen and carved in stone, you refuse. So, live in a narrow world,
and have a nice day. By the way, keep your lamps trimmed and burning. The
black helicopters are on the way.

What's the matter, Kanter, couldn't you think of any other explanations?

Like I said... Greed is the most obvious. Were you thinking of something
else?

What's the difference between greed, and wanting to do more business? Are
you in a business which has a policy of not finding ways to grow?

Go find the message I just wrote to Edwin. Open your mind to other
possibilities.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..

It has been a half
gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that 1.75
quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day consumer
that
may not have even notices for a few months

Better for the manufacturer, obviously. Like I said in another post:
greed.
[snip]

Greed??? They were getting hammered by local brands and private label, at a
time when the price of raw milk rose drastically. What would YOU do?
Increase the price beyond a point which, in the minds of consumers, was
already a little edgy, in terms of what they think a half gallon of ice
cream is worth?

Try this: What would have to happen in order for you to pay $6.75 for a half
gallon of ice cream, and to do so 3-4 times a month? If you think that price
is too high, then name your limit, and describe how you came up with it.

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! I expected I was
buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
reasonable expectation. Yes, I know that the container is accurately
labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading. The
container doesn't even have an integral, normal number of metric units.
I'd actually appreciate it if they sold 1 liter and 4 liter containers
(6% more paint than a quart or a gallon) and I'd even live with that at
7-8% above the qt/gal price. They could market it as giving you a
little more so you don't run out with 1sq ft on a job.


One time I bought a 2x4, and the damn thing was only 3.5" x1.5"!!!

"Ranieri" uh-uh wrote in message
...



One time I bought a 2x4, and the damn thing was only 3.5" x1.5"!!!

But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to 3/4"
to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It was cut a
true 1" at the sawmill though.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:5gKGe.828

Excuse me, where is the deception in selling a 1.75-quart container that
is
clearly labelled "1.75 quarts"?


Oh, it is perfectly legal. It is just that after selling true half gallon
for more than a half century, shrinking containers is a sleazy, but legal,
method of increasing prices and hoping that the consumer does not notice.
How often do you check the milk container to see if it is still a quart or
half gallon? Do you do it every time you go shopping? Shame on you if you
don't.



You are saying since people are willing to pay a lot of money per ounce
for
B & J is is OK for Breyers to go to a smaller container?

He's saying that companies will charge what the market will bear. To do
anything else is, from a business standpoint, foolish.

No doubt, but relying on perception is different that giving the real deal.
Some are still selling full half gallons, some are going to small
containers. The reality is they are relying on the customer not noticing
the downsizing when comparison shopping.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:5gKGe.828

Excuse me, where is the deception in selling a 1.75-quart container that
is
clearly labelled "1.75 quarts"?


Oh, it is perfectly legal. It is just that after selling true half gallon
for more than a half century, shrinking containers is a sleazy, but legal,
method of increasing prices and hoping that the consumer does not notice.
How often do you check the milk container to see if it is still a quart or
half gallon? Do you do it every time you go shopping? Shame on you if
you don't.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier, which nobody is comfortable
answering: If you were informed of the size change, would that have
satisfied you? If yes, how would you like to be informed?

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Ranieri" uh-uh wrote in message
...



One time I bought a 2x4, and the damn thing was only 3.5" x1.5"!!!

But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to
3/4" to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It was
cut a true 1" at the sawmill though.


I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not true?

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
No doubt, but relying on perception is different that giving the real deal.
Some are still selling full half gallons, some are going to small
containers. The reality is they are relying on the customer not noticing
the downsizing when comparison shopping.


people who homebrew their own ice cream don't have the problem.

people who don't can **** and moan all day long... then buy what's on
offer.

"the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on"

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

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

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


Greed is, of course, the most obvious explanation. Did you have
something
else
in mind?

Ya know, whenever you're asked to explore any possibility except the one
you've chosen and carved in stone, you refuse. So, live in a narrow world,
and have a nice day. By the way, keep your lamps trimmed and burning. The
black helicopters are on the way.

What's the matter, Kanter, couldn't you think of any other explanations?

Like I said... Greed is the most obvious. Were you thinking of something
else?

What's the difference between greed, and wanting to do more business? Are
you in a business which has a policy of not finding ways to grow?

Greed: selling more cans of beans by selling smaller cans at the same price
per can, which is of course entirely equivalent to selling the same amount of
product at a higher price.

Expanding the business: selling more cans of beans by providing greater value
(actual or perceived) through a better product, better advertising, greater
variety of choices, etc. -- IOW, selling more product.

Note that the former case is *not* actually expanding the business; it's
merely increasing profitability.

Go find the message I just wrote to Edwin. Open your mind to other
possibilities.

If you actually have something in mind, just state it, instead of playing this
guessing game.


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

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

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

It has been a half
gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that 1.75
quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day consumer
that
may not have even notices for a few months

Better for the manufacturer, obviously. Like I said in another post:
greed.
[snip]

Greed??? They were getting hammered by local brands and private label, at a
time when the price of raw milk rose drastically.

And I suppose the rising cost of raw milk affected only them, not the local
brands and private labels too? That won't wash. Increased costs of raw
materials affect all producers.

What would YOU do?

Keep the size the same, raise the price a little, and hammer the point home in
my advertising that, unlike my competitors, MY product is still the full two
quarts that the consumers expect and deserve.

Increase the price beyond a point which, in the minds of consumers, was
already a little edgy, in terms of what they think a half gallon of ice
cream is worth?

It works for Ben & Jerry, and Edy...

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

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

After posting the last I realized I left out one of (if not perhaps
even) the most important factors--competition. In many cases, someone
will do it and others will feel forced to follow suit. I suppose
there's also the mentality if one is in the retail (or even wholesale
for that matter) market to be the one to beat the other guy to the punch
as well.

Thinking further, I'll restate my position--I'd hope I'd have the
fortitude to not be first belligerent so to speak, and only stoop to the
tactic if, after competitors had dones so, it was shown that my sales
were actually being hurt by using what I'll term "honest pricing"
against the smaller-volume equivalently-priced competition...

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

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

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


Greed is, of course, the most obvious explanation. Did you have
something
else
in mind?

Ya know, whenever you're asked to explore any possibility except the one
you've chosen and carved in stone, you refuse. So, live in a narrow
world,
and have a nice day. By the way, keep your lamps trimmed and burning.
The
black helicopters are on the way.

What's the matter, Kanter, couldn't you think of any other explanations?

Like I said... Greed is the most obvious. Were you thinking of something
else?

What's the difference between greed, and wanting to do more business? Are
you in a business which has a policy of not finding ways to grow?

Greed: selling more cans of beans by selling smaller cans at the same
price
per can, which is of course entirely equivalent to selling the same amount
of
product at a higher price.

Expanding the business: selling more cans of beans by providing greater
value
(actual or perceived) through a better product, better advertising,
greater
variety of choices, etc. -- IOW, selling more product.

Note that the former case is *not* actually expanding the business; it's
merely increasing profitability.

Go find the message I just wrote to Edwin. Open your mind to other
possibilities.

If you actually have something in mind, just state it, instead of playing
this
guessing game.

Addressing your comments about "merely increasing profitability" and
"guessing game" - here's yet another chance to entertain a new idea. The
price of transportation has gone through the roof. Whether a company runs
its own trucks, or uses common carriers, there is NO WAY they can control
the price of oil. I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.

Transportation takes an enormous bite out of profits in the grocery
industry. Exactly how would YOU deal with this, if you did not want to raise
prices or shrink sizes?

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

"Ranieri" uh-uh wrote in message
...



One time I bought a 2x4, and the damn thing was only 3.5" x1.5"!!!

But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to
3/4" to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It was
cut a true 1" at the sawmill though.


I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not true?

Not true. Ed's explanation is correct; the amount of shrinkage is measurable,
but _nowhere_near_ the 25% that would be required to turn two inches into one
and a half.

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

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

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

It has been a half
gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that
1.75
quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day consumer
that
may not have even notices for a few months

Better for the manufacturer, obviously. Like I said in another post:
greed.
[snip]

Greed??? They were getting hammered by local brands and private label, at
a
time when the price of raw milk rose drastically.

And I suppose the rising cost of raw milk affected only them, not the
local
brands and private labels too? That won't wash. Increased costs of raw
materials affect all producers.

It affects them to varying extents, depending on how much filler they add to
their product.



What would YOU do?

Keep the size the same, raise the price a little, and hammer the point
home in
my advertising that, unlike my competitors, MY product is still the full
two
quarts that the consumers expect and deserve.

And, that leads us right back to the question you snipped, which deals with
perception, something you don't want to entertain, and which also drives
manufacturer crazy trying to figure out.

Here's the question:

What would have to happen in order for you to pay $6.75 for a half
gallon of ice cream, and to do so 3-4 times a month? If you think that price
is too high, then name your limit, and describe how you came up with it.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
om...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:5gKGe.828

Excuse me, where is the deception in selling a 1.75-quart container that
is
clearly labelled "1.75 quarts"?


Oh, it is perfectly legal. It is just that after selling true half gallon
for more than a half century, shrinking containers is a sleazy, but legal,
method of increasing prices and hoping that the consumer does not notice.
How often do you check the milk container to see if it is still a quart or
half gallon? Do you do it every time you go shopping? Shame on you if
you don't.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier, which nobody is comfortable
answering: If you were informed of the size change, would that have
satisfied you? If yes, how would you like to be informed?

No, of course not - why would I, or anyone, be satisfied with paying the same
price, for 12.5% less product? That's a disguised price increase of over 14%.
It's sleazy, but as long as the label accurately describes the contents, it's
hardly deceptive.


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

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

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

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

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


Greed is, of course, the most obvious explanation. Did you have
something
else
in mind?

Ya know, whenever you're asked to explore any possibility except the one
you've chosen and carved in stone, you refuse. So, live in a narrow
world,
and have a nice day. By the way, keep your lamps trimmed and burning.
The
black helicopters are on the way.

What's the matter, Kanter, couldn't you think of any other explanations?

Like I said... Greed is the most obvious. Were you thinking of something
else?

What's the difference between greed, and wanting to do more business? Are
you in a business which has a policy of not finding ways to grow?

Greed: selling more cans of beans by selling smaller cans at the same
price
per can, which is of course entirely equivalent to selling the same amount
of
product at a higher price.

Expanding the business: selling more cans of beans by providing greater
value
(actual or perceived) through a better product, better advertising,
greater
variety of choices, etc. -- IOW, selling more product.

Note that the former case is *not* actually expanding the business; it's
merely increasing profitability.

Go find the message I just wrote to Edwin. Open your mind to other
possibilities.

If you actually have something in mind, just state it, instead of playing
this
guessing game.

Addressing your comments about "merely increasing profitability" and
"guessing game" - here's yet another chance to entertain a new idea.

Here you go again... "Moving Target Kanter" finds the discussion not going the
way he wanted it, and so he changes the subject *again*. You haven't addressed
my comments at all.

The
price of transportation has gone through the roof. Whether a company runs
its own trucks, or uses common carriers, there is NO WAY they can control
the price of oil. I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.

Nope, not me.

Transportation takes an enormous bite out of profits in the grocery
industry. Exactly how would YOU deal with this, if you did not want to raise
prices or shrink sizes?

Stick to the point, or shut up.

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

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

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:5gKGe.828

Excuse me, where is the deception in selling a 1.75-quart container
that
is
clearly labelled "1.75 quarts"?


Oh, it is perfectly legal. It is just that after selling true half
gallon
for more than a half century, shrinking containers is a sleazy, but
legal,
method of increasing prices and hoping that the consumer does not
notice.
How often do you check the milk container to see if it is still a quart
or
half gallon? Do you do it every time you go shopping? Shame on you if
you don't.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier, which nobody is comfortable
answering: If you were informed of the size change, would that have
satisfied you? If yes, how would you like to be informed?

No, of course not - why would I, or anyone, be satisfied with paying the
same
price, for 12.5% less product? That's a disguised price increase of over
14%.
It's sleazy, but as long as the label accurately describes the contents,
it's
hardly deceptive.

What? First, you say the change is disguised, and then you say it's hardly
deceptive if it's labeled accurately. 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?

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

It has been a half
gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that
1.75
quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day consumer
that
may not have even notices for a few months

Better for the manufacturer, obviously. Like I said in another post:
greed.
[snip]

Greed??? They were getting hammered by local brands and private label, at
a
time when the price of raw milk rose drastically.

And I suppose the rising cost of raw milk affected only them, not the
local
brands and private labels too? That won't wash. Increased costs of raw
materials affect all producers.

It affects them to varying extents, depending on how much filler they add to
their product.



What would YOU do?

Keep the size the same, raise the price a little, and hammer the point
home in
my advertising that, unlike my competitors, MY product is still the full
two
quarts that the consumers expect and deserve.

And, that leads us right back to the question you snipped, which deals with
perception, something you don't want to entertain, and which also drives
manufacturer crazy trying to figure out.

It doesn't "lead us right back to [that] question" at all.

Here's the question:

What would have to happen in order for you to pay $6.75 for a half
gallon of ice cream, and to do so 3-4 times a month? If you think that price
is too high, then name your limit, and describe how you came up with it.

Irrelevant. Stick to the subject, instead of constantly changing it, or shut
up.

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:



Here you go again... "Moving Target Kanter" finds the discussion not going the
way he wanted it, and so he changes the subject *again*. You haven't addressed
my comments at all.

That's Dogless at his finest.




Stick to the point, or shut up.


*that* will never happen.

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

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

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


Greed is, of course, the most obvious explanation. Did you have
something
else
in mind?

Ya know, whenever you're asked to explore any possibility except the
one
you've chosen and carved in stone, you refuse. So, live in a narrow
world,
and have a nice day. By the way, keep your lamps trimmed and burning.
The
black helicopters are on the way.

What's the matter, Kanter, couldn't you think of any other
explanations?

Like I said... Greed is the most obvious. Were you thinking of
something
else?

What's the difference between greed, and wanting to do more business?
Are
you in a business which has a policy of not finding ways to grow?

Greed: selling more cans of beans by selling smaller cans at the same
price
per can, which is of course entirely equivalent to selling the same
amount
of
product at a higher price.

Expanding the business: selling more cans of beans by providing greater
value
(actual or perceived) through a better product, better advertising,
greater
variety of choices, etc. -- IOW, selling more product.

Note that the former case is *not* actually expanding the business; it's
merely increasing profitability.

Go find the message I just wrote to Edwin. Open your mind to other
possibilities.

If you actually have something in mind, just state it, instead of
playing
this
guessing game.

Addressing your comments about "merely increasing profitability" and
"guessing game" - here's yet another chance to entertain a new idea.

Here you go again... "Moving Target Kanter" finds the discussion not going
the
way he wanted it, and so he changes the subject *again*. You haven't
addressed
my comments at all.

The
price of transportation has gone through the roof. Whether a company runs
its own trucks, or uses common carriers, there is NO WAY they can control
the price of oil. I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if
production
costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.

Nope, not me.

Transportation takes an enormous bite out of profits in the grocery
industry. Exactly how would YOU deal with this, if you did not want to
raise
prices or shrink sizes?

Stick to the point, or shut up.

I am sticking to the point. You're talking about "increasing profitability".
I'm modifying that slightly - how about restoring lost profitability, which
you may need in order to remain in business. In other words, if you made 15%
profit for 10 years, and suddenly, something beyond your control causes that
to drop significantly, you either find a way to recover the money, or maybe
you go out of business.

One factor which affects the bottom line is transportation. How would you
address a factor over which you had little or no control? We're talking
about fuel costs.

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

It has been a half
gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that
1.75
quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day
consumer
that
may not have even notices for a few months

Better for the manufacturer, obviously. Like I said in another post:
greed.
[snip]

Greed??? They were getting hammered by local brands and private label,
at
a
time when the price of raw milk rose drastically.

And I suppose the rising cost of raw milk affected only them, not the
local
brands and private labels too? That won't wash. Increased costs of raw
materials affect all producers.

It affects them to varying extents, depending on how much filler they add
to
their product.



What would YOU do?

Keep the size the same, raise the price a little, and hammer the point
home in
my advertising that, unlike my competitors, MY product is still the full
two
quarts that the consumers expect and deserve.

And, that leads us right back to the question you snipped, which deals
with
perception, something you don't want to entertain, and which also drives
manufacturer crazy trying to figure out.

It doesn't "lead us right back to [that] question" at all.

Here's the question:

What would have to happen in order for you to pay $6.75 for a half
gallon of ice cream, and to do so 3-4 times a month? If you think that
price
is too high, then name your limit, and describe how you came up with it.

Irrelevant. Stick to the subject, instead of constantly changing it, or
shut
up.

Define the subject you think I'm not addressing and we'll continue.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to
3/4" to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It
was cut a true 1" at the sawmill though.


I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not true?

Partly true. It will shrink a bit as it dries, but then it is planed to a
consistent size. It may be possible that some 2 x 4 can be made to 1 5/8 or
1 11/6, but then that would drive everyone crazy.

In alt.home.repair on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:26:14 -0700 nobody
posted:

meirman wrote:

posted:


I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! I expected I was
buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
reasonable expectation. Yes, I know that the container is accurately
labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading. The
container doesn't even have an integral, normal number of metric units.
I'd actually appreciate it if they sold 1 liter and 4 liter containers
(6% more paint than a quart or a gallon) and I'd even live with that at
7-8% above the qt/gal price. They could market it as giving you a
little more so you don't run out with 1sq ft on a job.


My first guess is that the contents of the can are
deliberately kept a bit "short" of a gallon to allow for a
typical addition of tint. Remember, most paint color is
blended in the store and some of the tones require a lot of
added pigment.

Aw, come on. Wasn't that true, isn't that true, with paint that comes
in cans too.

We should learn if it is base or not, but Edwin says even his base is
only 1/16 of a quart shy, 2/32, not 5/32nds.

I know what they do with candy, they keep making the bar smaller and
smaller with the same price until there is a price hike, when they go
to the higher price and original size. I don't know if that is the
case here or not.

Nobody


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

Chris wrote:

I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! ...


Try Dumb-Edwards paint supply. Their 1 gallon can is actually 1.175.
Which means their 5 gallon containers must be almost 6 gallons!!

Doug Kanter wrote:

....
...I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.

No, it was I, but you took what I said and conveniently snipped the part
which included either control cost or raise price which I also
pointed out in response to your comment there...

Transportation takes an enormous bite out of profits in the grocery
industry. Exactly how would YOU deal with this, if you did not want to raise
prices or shrink sizes?

Either figure out a way to lower energy inputs or add transportation
surcharges (which is equivalent to raising prices)...sometimes one has
to do things one doesn't want to do.

Doug Kanter wrote:
....

One factor which affects the bottom line is transportation. How would you
address a factor over which you had little or no control? We're talking
about fuel costs.

Obviously, one either finds other ways to economize or eventually has to
raise prices to cover increased costs. It's not rocket science, just a
complex combination of marketing, competition and myriad other factors
involved in running a business...

One obvious solution for many in the US continues to be to go overseas
to reduce manufacturing costs, for example.

Doug Kanter wrote:
....
....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?

There must be some reason you don't see such signs whereas you do
see signs and labels touting "10% more FREE!", mustn't there???

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to
3/4" to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It
was cut a true 1" at the sawmill though.


I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not true?

Partly true. It will shrink a bit as it dries, but then it is planed to a
consistent size. It may be possible that some 2 x 4 can be made to 1 5/8 or
1 11/6, but then that would drive everyone crazy.

Actually, like the paint or coffee, they did used to be...

Somewhere along about in the 60s, they went to the "standard" sub-1/2"
dimensions. I figured at the time it was a combination of making a
convienient standard at the "even" fraction plus better sawmill control
to shave a few extra tuba-ex's from a log, just like getting a few extra
sheets of ply by going from full dimension to sub-32'nds--over enough
sheets, that extra 32-nd of material adds up to quite a bit of raw
material saved.

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

One factor which affects the bottom line is transportation. How would you
address a factor over which you had little or no control? We're talking
about fuel costs.

Obviously, one either finds other ways to economize or eventually has to
raise prices to cover increased costs. It's not rocket science, just a
complex combination of marketing, competition and myriad other factors
involved in running a business...

One obvious solution for many in the US continues to be to go overseas
to reduce manufacturing costs, for example.

Right, but the moment I see "made in someplace else" on a container of ice
cream, I'm gone. :-)

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

There must be some reason you don't see such signs whereas you do
see signs and labels touting "10% more FREE!", mustn't there???

You are racking up some serious points today. :-)

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to
3/4" to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It
was cut a true 1" at the sawmill though.


I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not
true?

Partly true. It will shrink a bit as it dries, but then it is planed to a
consistent size. It may be possible that some 2 x 4 can be made to 1 5/8
or
1 11/6, but then that would drive everyone crazy.

Actually, like the paint or coffee, they did used to be...

Somewhere along about in the 60s, they went to the "standard" sub-1/2"
dimensions. I figured at the time it was a combination of making a
convienient standard at the "even" fraction plus better sawmill control
to shave a few extra tuba-ex's from a log, just like getting a few extra
sheets of ply by going from full dimension to sub-32'nds--over enough
sheets, that extra 32-nd of material adds up to quite a bit of raw
material saved.

Those *******s!

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

...
...I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.

No, it was I, but you took what I said and conveniently snipped the part
which included either control cost or raise price which I also
pointed out in response to your comment there...

I probably snipped because I wanted to focus on fuel. I don't remember.
Could've also applied to the price of milk, sugar or vanilla, though.


Transportation takes an enormous bite out of profits in the grocery
industry. Exactly how would YOU deal with this, if you did not want to
raise
prices or shrink sizes?

Either figure out a way to lower energy inputs or add transportation
surcharges (which is equivalent to raising prices)...sometimes one has
to do things one doesn't want to do.

"things one doesn't want to do" Let's look at the answer our other
contestants chose. Mr. Miller says "evil and deception". Sorry...

Bells! Whistles! Balloons! Duane, our contestant from somewhere USA just won
the bonus round! Duane, let's watch as Vanna shows you what you've won! :-)
A lifetime supply of Molson Brodor, the real stuff, smuggled over the border
from Canada!

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

I am sticking to the point. You're talking about "increasing profitability".
I'm modifying that slightly

In other words, NOT sticking to the point.

Bye.

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

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

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:5gKGe.828

Excuse me, where is the deception in selling a 1.75-quart container
that
is
clearly labelled "1.75 quarts"?


Oh, it is perfectly legal. It is just that after selling true half
gallon
for more than a half century, shrinking containers is a sleazy, but
legal,
method of increasing prices and hoping that the consumer does not
notice.
How often do you check the milk container to see if it is still a quart
or
half gallon? Do you do it every time you go shopping? Shame on you if
you don't.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier, which nobody is comfortable
answering: If you were informed of the size change, would that have
satisfied you? If yes, how would you like to be informed?

No, of course not - why would I, or anyone, be satisfied with paying the
same
price, for 12.5% less product? That's a disguised price increase of over
14%.
It's sleazy, but as long as the label accurately describes the contents,
it's
hardly deceptive.

What? First, you say the change is disguised, and then you say it's hardly
deceptive if it's labeled accurately.

Your fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no contradiction
there.

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?

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

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

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

I am sticking to the point. You're talking about "increasing
profitability".
I'm modifying that slightly

In other words, NOT sticking to the point.

Bye.

Of course I am. The point is profitability. Doesn't matter whether you're
increasing it, or simply maintaining it in the face of various factors. You
seem to be saying that increasing it is a bad thing. Why?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
y.com...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:5gKGe.828

Excuse me, where is the deception in selling a 1.75-quart container
that
is
clearly labelled "1.75 quarts"?


Oh, it is perfectly legal. It is just that after selling true half
gallon
for more than a half century, shrinking containers is a sleazy, but
legal,
method of increasing prices and hoping that the consumer does not
notice.
How often do you check the milk container to see if it is still a
quart
or
half gallon? Do you do it every time you go shopping? Shame on you
if
you don't.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier, which nobody is comfortable
answering: If you were informed of the size change, would that have
satisfied you? If yes, how would you like to be informed?

No, of course not - why would I, or anyone, be satisfied with paying the
same
price, for 12.5% less product? That's a disguised price increase of over
14%.
It's sleazy, but as long as the label accurately describes the contents,
it's
hardly deceptive.

What? First, you say the change is disguised, and then you say it's
hardly
deceptive if it's labeled accurately.

Your fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no contradiction
there.

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. 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.

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.

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.

We've covered almost every angle that I had to deal with in a series of
business courses. Same debates YOU would be subjected to if you were the CEO
of a corporation and your board of directors called you on the carpet to
discuss profitability issues. But, you seem to think these ideas originated
in the twilight zone. Do you want to continue, or would you like to discuss
it in exactly the same way you would if you were working on your MBA from
Harvard?

"
OK, enough already. I stopped at the Sherwin Williams tore this morning (on
my way to another paint store) and checked the actual sizes on the
containers. The base for tinting is marked 3 11/16 quarts. The pre-colored
already mixed on the shelf containers is 3 27/32 quarts.

How many "gallons" of paint do they sell in a year? At a million containers
it amounts to 39,062 gallons. If the manufacturing cost is $5 a gallon,
that is $195,312 in added profits. Not bad considering the efforts of
changing a label and adjusting a filler machine.

Most of their other product are still a full gallon.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

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

...
...I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.

No, it was I, but you took what I said and conveniently snipped the part
which included either control cost or raise price which I also
pointed out in response to your comment there...

I probably snipped because I wanted to focus on fuel.

Changing the subject again...

[snip]

"things one doesn't want to do" Let's look at the answer our other
contestants chose. Mr. Miller says "evil and deception". Sorry...

Liar. I never said it was "evil". And I explicitly said it is *not* deceptive.
*YOU* said it was deceptive.


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

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

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

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

I am sticking to the point. You're talking about "increasing
profitability".
I'm modifying that slightly

In other words, NOT sticking to the point.

Bye.

Of course I am. The point is profitability. Doesn't matter whether you're
increasing it, or simply maintaining it in the face of various factors. You
seem to be saying that increasing it is a bad thing. Why?

Stop putting words in my mouth, Kanter. I never said that, and you know it.

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

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

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.