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.

3rd eye wrote:
On 29 Jul 2005 06:23:38 -0700, "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!! ...

Did they add any colorant?

No.

"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.


This is Turtle.

You should call them back up and have them give a answer to this so we can get
both sides of the story. i tried calling the Sherwin Williams store in my area
and ask about it and the fellow who was talking to said this. I said i think the
gallion of paint you sell is short just a little bit of 1 gallion size. He said
awwww let me see how many qt.s are in a gallion ? I said 4 . He said well let me
call the area manager and I will get back with you. i told him Never mine I will
call back later.

See if you can get a better answer !

TURTLE

"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.


Admittedly, it's annoying when package sizes change (as they do constantly
with groceries), but I think "preyed on me" is not accurate. As you said,
the container was clearly marked.

"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.


And you thought that the cute marketing and packaging was to your benefit.
wrong again melon head. ( humor is intended )

I have gotten so that I read the packaging on everything before I buy.
Products change so fast it is harder and harder to maintain the "informed
consumer" status.

On 07/29/05 11:19 am Doug Kanter tossed the following ingredients into
the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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.

Admittedly, it's annoying when package sizes change (as they do constantly
with groceries), but I think "preyed on me" is not accurate. As you said,
the container was clearly marked.

Yes, so are the 56oz. "half gallon" (NOT) ice cream packs "clearly
marked" -- but many people aren't going to read the markings on the
package every time, especially if it's a brand that they've been buying
for years.

And the "unit pricing" labels in the grocer store don't always help,
because the label for one brand may give the price in cents/oz. while
the label for another brand may be in $/lb.

Perce

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 07/29/05 11:19 am Doug Kanter tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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.

Admittedly, it's annoying when package sizes change (as they do
constantly with groceries), but I think "preyed on me" is not accurate.
As you said, the container was clearly marked.

Yes, so are the 56oz. "half gallon" (NOT) ice cream packs "clearly
marked" -- but many people aren't going to read the markings on the
package every time, especially if it's a brand that they've been buying
for years.

Well, what's the company supposed to do? Using your ice cream example: You
know the price of dairy products has gone up, right? Now, Breyers has a
choice. They can raise the price, or shrink the package. The first option's
a little dicey. Breyers knows EXACTLY what price range is acceptable to
customers, and what price will make sales drop off by a huge percentage.
They get this information from the stores, obviously. Second option - shrink
the package. This has kept Breyers closer to the acceptable price range. In
a way, it's necessary because many shoppers think the cheap crap ice cream
is an identical replacement for Breyers, so if the price of Breyers is too
high, they'll make nothing. Lots of shoppers will opt for the lesser brand.

But meanwhile, Breyers ****es off customers by shrinking the package. What's
the alternative? Put up big signs pointing out that the package size has
been reduced? For how many months or years should these signs be displayed?
Maybe design some temporary packaging with a big reminder on the front?
That's expensive. Guess who's going to pay for that? And, how long should
that temporary packaging be used?


And the "unit pricing" labels in the grocer store don't always help,
because the label for one brand may give the price in cents/oz. while the
label for another brand may be in $/lb.

Wal Mart's famous for that nonsense. For that, you should scream at the
store manager, and also go past him/her and call the home office. In some
place, it's illegal, too. Call your county's department of weights &
measures.

Back to the paint: If you were responsible for cost control at
Sherwin-Williams, and because of some REAL factor (raw materials, labor,
etc), you absolutely had to maintain a certain profit margin, how would you
handle it?

Doug Kanter wrote:
....
Back to the paint: If you were responsible for cost control at
Sherwin-Williams, and because of some REAL factor (raw materials, labor,
etc), you absolutely had to maintain a certain profit margin, how would you
handle it?

Unequivocally, I would either find a way to cut production costs or
reluctantly raise prices. I would not under any circumstances choose
of my own volition the "under-size the container" solution.

And, btw, I think the undersized ply is an abomination too (and always
will no matter how long they label it 23/32".

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
Back to the paint: If you were responsible for cost control at
Sherwin-Williams, and because of some REAL factor (raw materials, labor,
etc), you absolutely had to maintain a certain profit margin, how would
you
handle it?

Unequivocally, I would either find a way to cut production costs or
reluctantly raise prices. I would not under any circumstances choose
of my own volition the "under-size the container" solution.

And, btw, I think the undersized ply is an abomination too (and always
will no matter how long they label it 23/32".

Some production costs are beyond your control. For instance, is latex paint
in ANY way dependent on the cost of petroleum? And, what about
transportation? Two years ago, I could ship groceries by truck for $1.50 a
mile. Now, it's between $1.90 and $2.25, depending on location. Pretty hefty
price hike. Would you be OK with paying $25 for a gallon of paint instead of
$19?

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)...

Excuse me, but do you work for one of these marketeers? IMHO, that's
the most transparent, nonsensical, rationalization one could respond
with.

If there's a recognized, or informal, standard unit of measure involved
in some trade, that should not be putzed about with. Good thing such
crooks can't transform the magnitude of a pound, gallon, dozen,
whatever for bulk products.

People in D.C. also should learn that what matters is the TRUTH. Tell
it. Charge accordingly. Let people make their own decisions as to
tradeoffs, and don't manipulate.

TTFN,
J

"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?

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.

Who? Me? No.

Do you know the precise reason for the size change?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Excuse me, but do you work for one of these marketeers? IMHO, that's
the most transparent, nonsensical, rationalization one could respond
with.

If there's a recognized, or informal, standard unit of measure involved
in some trade, that should not be putzed about with. Good thing such
crooks can't transform the magnitude of a pound, gallon, dozen,
whatever for bulk products.

People in D.C. also should learn that what matters is the TRUTH. Tell
it. Charge accordingly. Let people make their own decisions as to
tradeoffs, and don't manipulate.

TTFN,
J

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

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?

What part of "getting less for your money" are you having such a hard time
understanding? The alternatives are pretty clear: spend more to buy the same,
or spend the same to buy less. Neither one is at all desirable from the
consumer's POV.

Suppose five cans of beans go up a quarter each (while the size stays the
same) and you can't afford the increase, so you buy only four.

Alternatively, suppose that the amount of product in the can is cut by twenty
percent while the price stays the same. You buy five cans, just like you
always have, but now you're getting only as much beans as you used to get with
four.

Either way, you spent the same amount of money buying four cans' worth of
beans that *used* to buy you five cans' worth.

--
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:

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?

What part of "getting less for your money" are you having such a hard time
understanding? The alternatives are pretty clear: spend more to buy the
same,
or spend the same to buy less. Neither one is at all desirable from the
consumer's POV.

Suppose five cans of beans go up a quarter each (while the size stays the
same) and you can't afford the increase, so you buy only four.

Alternatively, suppose that the amount of product in the can is cut by
twenty
percent while the price stays the same. You buy five cans, just like you
always have, but now you're getting only as much beans as you used to get
with
four.

Either way, you spent the same amount of money buying four cans' worth of
beans that *used* to buy you five cans' worth.

Thanks for the math lesson. Let's eliminate one possible reason for such
changes, even though it's equally likely to BE the reason. Here it is:

A bunch of suits sit around a conference table discussing how they all want
to dump their company's stock, which has been flat for 3 years. So, they
MUST increase profits. They can either cook the books, or they can actually
raise profits. They decide to do it by screwing the consumer.

Keep in mind that I said this ***** IS ***** a possible reason.

Now that we've eliminated evil as a motive, what's left? As a person who
understands business, what OTHER reasons can you come up with? There HAVE to
be reasons. What are they?

In alt.home.repair on 29 Jul 2005 06:23:38 -0700 "Chris"
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.

In addition, I would suspect (but don't know) that it's going to screw
up experienced painters who know how much they can paint with a
gallon.

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

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.

Nobody

Doug Kanter wrote:
....
Now that we've eliminated evil as a motive, what's left? As a person who
understands business, what OTHER reasons can you come up with? There HAVE to
be reasons. What are they?

Again, no one else has said it was "evil" although I do believe it
verges on unethical (although I'm sure those who choose to do so can
convince themselves that it's ok because, after all, the label says what
is in the container).

Actually, the reasons are quite simple--

1. People are price-conscious...see the "99 cent" pricing syndrome.

2. People have been conditioned to expect certain things to be in
certain size packages--coffee in 1-lb tins, for example. People tend to
not actively scan similar-sized containers for the actual label, so it
is possible to "get by with" a price increase, on the whole, w/o
actually acknowledging it. This is, of course, the previous argument
against the practice, but it is a real factor in the pricing and
purchasing mentality.

So it boils down to an argument in psychology and the marketeers and
advertisers have determined they optimize their overall return by using
the subterfuge of raising prices by lowering quantity as opposed to
raising prices on fixed quantities.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
Now that we've eliminated evil as a motive, what's left? As a person who
understands business, what OTHER reasons can you come up with? There HAVE
to
be reasons. What are they?

Again, no one else has said it was "evil" although I do believe it
verges on unethical (although I'm sure those who choose to do so can
convince themselves that it's ok because, after all, the label says what
is in the container).

Actually, the reasons are quite simple--

1. People are price-conscious...see the "99 cent" pricing syndrome.

2. People have been conditioned to expect certain things to be in
certain size packages--coffee in 1-lb tins, for example. People tend to
not actively scan similar-sized containers for the actual label, so it
is possible to "get by with" a price increase, on the whole, w/o
actually acknowledging it. This is, of course, the previous argument
against the practice, but it is a real factor in the pricing and
purchasing mentality.

So it boils down to an argument in psychology and the marketeers and
advertisers have determined they optimize their overall return by using
the subterfuge of raising prices by lowering quantity as opposed to
raising prices on fixed quantities.

Well, I think the solution is for enough people to bitch directly to
Sherwin-Williams, claiming that the precise one gallon size is important
because it allows people to determine surface coverage in a predictable way.
Of course, this isn't quite true, because humidity and a few other random
things can affect whether seven nineteenths of an ounce makes a difference,
but if enough people yell about it, that won't matter.

About 5 years ago, there was a plot afoot to reduce the size of cans of
evaporated milk. I heard about it 2 months ahead of time because I'm in the
grocery business. It never happened. Initially, I wondered if an army of
home bakers got all over the manufacturers' cases, but it might've been
bigger than that. Unrelated manufacturers often specify "one such-and-such
ounce can of evap milk" in recipes. So, it might've been insider influence
that put a stop to it.

The idea made no sense. The vast majority of evaporated milk is sold around
holidays. Tell your average grandma that the price of the stuff's gone up
forty cents since last year and she'll say "So? It's Easter".

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
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?

Are people getting skinny since they now consume less from the smaller
packages?

I really really want a 7 Series BMW but it is not in my budget. Do you
think they should sell a version with only three wheels so that I can
afford it? Or do yo think I should buy another brand that I can afford?


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.

I do. They want to keep the price in line with the competition. They do
this by reducing size. I was part of a program years ago to reduce cost on
some products. The idea was to make the tubing walls thinner, a few less
fasteners, and on and on. It worked for a while, but when customers got
PO'd, the company went out of business. The problem with the food industry
is that they all do it so they are all equal.

My favorite ice cream did go up $a package, but it is still smaller than the
half gallon of decades before. No I only buy it when it is on sale and I
stock up. What did they gain?

Evil, I say, evil in the name of market share and profits.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

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

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?

What part of "getting less for your money" are you having such a hard time
understanding? The alternatives are pretty clear: spend more to buy the
same,
or spend the same to buy less. Neither one is at all desirable from the
consumer's POV.

Suppose five cans of beans go up a quarter each (while the size stays the
same) and you can't afford the increase, so you buy only four.

Alternatively, suppose that the amount of product in the can is cut by
twenty
percent while the price stays the same. You buy five cans, just like you
always have, but now you're getting only as much beans as you used to get
with
four.

Either way, you spent the same amount of money buying four cans' worth of
beans that *used* to buy you five cans' worth.

Thanks for the math lesson. Let's eliminate one possible reason for such
changes, even though it's equally likely to BE the reason. Here it is:

A bunch of suits sit around a conference table discussing how they all want
to dump their company's stock, which has been flat for 3 years. So, they
MUST increase profits. They can either cook the books, or they can actually
raise profits. They decide to do it by screwing the consumer.

Keep in mind that I said this ***** IS ***** a possible reason.

Now that we've eliminated evil as a motive,

Nonsense - you haven't eliminated it, you've *dismissed* it.

what's left? As a person who
understands business, what OTHER reasons can you come up with? There HAVE to
be reasons. What are they?

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

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

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

"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.

Um, it's so that it can take all sorts of colors, i.e. colorant. It takes
space ya know.

"meirman" wrote in message
...

In addition, I would suspect (but don't know) that it's going to screw
up experienced painters who know how much they can paint with a
gallon.

Oh for crissakes people. No 2 "gallons" of colored paint contain the same
amount of paint. The base paint takes a certain volume. They have to leave
room for adding colorant in the store to make any color you want.
Experienced painters are going to be "screwed up" because they haven't ever
gotten an exact gallon in their lives, and they never expect to.

"jeffc" wrote in message

Oh for crissakes people. No 2 "gallons" of colored paint contain the same
amount of paint. The base paint takes a certain volume. They have to
leave room for adding colorant in the store to make any color you want.

No so. I just looked at two cans of Pittsburgh paints. One was a pre
colored paint the it is clearly marked "one gallon" while the base for
tinting is marked 3 15/16 quarts. Another brand is plainly 1 gallon also.

If the OP bought a pre colored paint, he is screwed, If it was in fact a
base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but it still seems like a
lot of room for tinting.

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

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

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?

What part of "getting less for your money" are you having such a hard
time
understanding? The alternatives are pretty clear: spend more to buy the
same,
or spend the same to buy less. Neither one is at all desirable from the
consumer's POV.

Suppose five cans of beans go up a quarter each (while the size stays
the
same) and you can't afford the increase, so you buy only four.

Alternatively, suppose that the amount of product in the can is cut by
twenty
percent while the price stays the same. You buy five cans, just like you
always have, but now you're getting only as much beans as you used to
get
with
four.

Either way, you spent the same amount of money buying four cans' worth
of
beans that *used* to buy you five cans' worth.

Thanks for the math lesson. Let's eliminate one possible reason for such
changes, even though it's equally likely to BE the reason. Here it is:

A bunch of suits sit around a conference table discussing how they all
want
to dump their company's stock, which has been flat for 3 years. So, they
MUST increase profits. They can either cook the books, or they can
actually
raise profits. They decide to do it by screwing the consumer.

Keep in mind that I said this ***** IS ***** a possible reason.

Now that we've eliminated evil as a motive,

Nonsense - you haven't eliminated it, you've *dismissed* it.

what's left? As a person who
understands business, what OTHER reasons can you come up with? There HAVE
to
be reasons. What are they?

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.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
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?

Are people getting skinny since they now consume less from the smaller
packages?

I really really want a 7 Series BMW but it is not in my budget. Do you
think they should sell a version with only three wheels so that I can
afford it? Or do yo think I should buy another brand that I can afford?


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.

I do. They want to keep the price in line with the competition. They do
this by reducing size. I was part of a program years ago to reduce cost
on some products. The idea was to make the tubing walls thinner, a few
less fasteners, and on and on. It worked for a while, but when customers
got PO'd, the company went out of business. The problem with the food
industry is that they all do it so they are all equal.

My favorite ice cream did go up $a package, but it is still smaller than
the half gallon of decades before. No I only buy it when it is on sale
and I stock up. What did they gain?

Evil, I say, evil in the name of market share and profits.


Evil? What's the alternative? Slowly go out of business??? And, what's so
evil about a company like Breyers shrinking their package a bit, when
there's a world full of rocky road/marshmallow addicts who are happy to pay
twice as much (unit price) for those little Ben & Jerry's containers?

Your "thinner tube walls" analogy is a bit off, by the way. You reduced the
quality. Not the same as a food or paint company reducing the amount per
package.

"3rd eye" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:51:37 -0400, meirman
wrote:

In alt.home.repair on 29 Jul 2005 06:23:38 -0700 "Chris"
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.

In addition, I would suspect (but don't know) that it's going to screw
up experienced painters who know how much they can paint with a
gallon.

Meirman

HAW!
We are talking about 5 ounces here.
I can't imagine any painter that can estimate any job down to a
1/2 cup/gal.

Actually, there are painters like that. They're the same guys who swear
their Chevy Suburbans are getting upward of 35 miles per gallon. :-)

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"jeffc" wrote in message

Oh for crissakes people. No 2 "gallons" of colored paint contain the
same amount of paint. The base paint takes a certain volume. They have
to leave room for adding colorant in the store to make any color you
want.

No so. I just looked at two cans of Pittsburgh paints. One was a pre
colored paint the it is clearly marked "one gallon" while the base for
tinting is marked 3 15/16 quarts. Another brand is plainly 1 gallon also.

If the OP bought a pre colored paint, he is screwed, If it was in fact a
base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but it still seems like a
lot of room for tinting.


Maybe it's related to current fashions. Are more people asking for dark
colors than in the past? If you want a green that's 30% darker than an army
uniform, does it require more tint (by volume) than a pale green?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


Evil? What's the alternative? Slowly go out of business??? And, what's so
evil about a company like Breyers shrinking their package a bit, when
there's a world full of rocky road/marshmallow addicts who are happy to
pay twice as much (unit price) for those little Ben & Jerry's containers?

So you are saying that since others are being deceptive it is OK for all to
be deceptive?

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? 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

The "owner of the month" of Breyers is whoring the name and reducing quality
also. Most of the new proudcts have all sorts of unneeded crap in them that
they never needed. Guar gum is cheaper than cream so they came out with a
new vanilla. Now it is a crappy as the competition.

Breyers used to be a very good independent in the Philadelphia area but then
they were sold to Sealtest, then Kraft, Good Humor, now Unilever. They
also had better flavors years ago, like raspberry ice and bananna.



Your "thinner tube walls" analogy is a bit off, by the way. You reduced
the quality. Not the same as a food or paint company reducing the amount
per package.

My point was less product for the same or more money. It was not so much
the quality but the lesser value that did them in.

Neither one is at all desirable from the consumer's POV

consumers are worthy of respect than producers



either way, you spent the same amount of money buying four cans' worth
of
beans that *used* to buy you five cans' worth.

just the other day, a oil producer told me that he's sick and tired
of selling the same size barrel of oil to you for $40, when you keep
shrinking the value of the dollar by deficit spending

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:36:44 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 07/29/05 11:19 am Doug Kanter tossed the following ingredients
into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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).


Yes, so are the 56oz. "half gallon" (NOT) ice cream packs "clearly
marked" -- but many people aren't going to read the markings on the
package every time, especially if it's a brand that they've been
buying for years.

Damn! I know the feeling!!!
I get gypped every time I buy lumber!!!!! :-)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBQutRpgIk7T39FC4ZEQIF4QCeOpNVPz4zJ6pv0qT5tIWDIi LwMKsAnAkH
UyYL6sgCbT1OpGu2wK4Xspb+
=psyS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

My God, people, paint is not like ice cream. The grocery is not going
to add chocolate sauce before you leave, making it a "true"
half-gallon.

Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
full to the top?

If it was in fact a base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but it still seems like a lot of room for tinting.

5 ounces is by not a lot of tint.

On 07/30/05 07:33 am Hopkins tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

My God, people, paint is not like ice cream. The grocery is not going
to add chocolate sauce before you leave, making it a "true"
half-gallon.

Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
full to the top?

So if I buy an old-fashioned metal can of paint that is labeled "1
gallon" (and really does contain a full gallon), it has no room for
tinting??? Baloney!!!

Perce

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...


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?

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

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

In article , "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


Evil? What's the alternative? Slowly go out of business??? And, what's so
evil about a company like Breyers shrinking their package a bit, when
there's a world full of rocky road/marshmallow addicts who are happy to
pay twice as much (unit price) for those little Ben & Jerry's containers?

So you are saying that since others are being deceptive it is OK for all to
be deceptive?

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

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.

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]

Your "thinner tube walls" analogy is a bit off, by the way. You reduced
the quality. Not the same as a food or paint company reducing the amount
per package.

My point was less product for the same or more money. It was not so much
the quality but the lesser value that did them in.

As you described it, it pretty clearly *was* the lower quality that did them
in.

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

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

In article .com, wrote:
Neither one is at all desirable from the consumer's POV

consumers are worthy of respect than producers

Why is either one inherently more worthy than the other?

either way, you spent the same amount of money buying four cans' worth
of beans that *used* to buy you five cans' worth.

just the other day, a oil producer told me that he's sick and tired
of selling the same size barrel of oil to you for $40, when you keep
shrinking the value of the dollar by deficit spending

It would be nice if oil still was only $40 a barrel -- last I heard it was
over $60.

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

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

In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 07/30/05 07:33 am Hopkins tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

My God, people, paint is not like ice cream. The grocery is not going
to add chocolate sauce before you leave, making it a "true"
half-gallon.

Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
full to the top?

So if I buy an old-fashioned metal can of paint that is labeled "1
gallon" (and really does contain a full gallon), it has no room for
tinting??? Baloney!!!

Did it actually have a full gallon of tint base in it? Or was it a few ounces
short, so that the tint would bring it up to a full gallon? I never bothered
checking, did you?

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

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

"Hopkins" wrote in message

Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
full to the top?

You conveniently left out the FACTS that I posted. The pre-colored paint by
other brands is one gallon, it is the tint base that was less to allow for
adding t he colorant.


If it was in fact a base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but
it still seems like a lot of room for tinting.

5 ounces is by not a lot of tint.

Perhaps, but Pittsburgh allows for 2 ounces.

you werent ripped off if the lable was marked properly, but i know
how you feel, bought a pound of bacon that i realized was 12 oz when i
got home.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


Evil? What's the alternative? Slowly go out of business??? And, what's
so evil about a company like Breyers shrinking their package a bit, when
there's a world full of rocky road/marshmallow addicts who are happy to
pay twice as much (unit price) for those little Ben & Jerry's containers?

So you are saying that since others are being deceptive it is OK for all
to be deceptive?

B&J isn't being deceptive. Those small containers have always been
overpriced (at least from my point of view, but apparently, not everyone's).
Haagen Dasz is the same. Both have created an image which the public has
bought into.


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? 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

Were you equally bothered when canned vegetables went from 16 oz to 14.5 oz?

I keep coming back to two things: First, how much did a half gallon of milk
increase in price over the past 5 years? Do you remember? Forget for the
moment that many stores price it as a loss leader much of the time. Or,
consider the corresponding hike in the prices of other dairy basics like
yogurt and cream cheese. There is simply NO WAY this doesn't affect ice
cream manufacturers.

Second: If this discussion continues for one more day, then it's ridiculous.
Wanna flip a coin and decide who gets to write a letter to Breyers, and see
what they say? Somebody's gotta do it. Or, I'll handle Breyers, you handle
Sherwin Williams. :-)



The "owner of the month" of Breyers is whoring the name and reducing
quality also. Most of the new proudcts have all sorts of unneeded crap in
them that they never needed. Guar gum is cheaper than cream so they came
out with a new vanilla. Now it is a crappy as the competition.

They've still got the basic no-guar flavors alongside the adulterated ones.
I suspect they've introduced the newer crap because what the hell...why not?
It enables them to grab some of the B&J crowd who insists on 118 different
tastes in the same container. (Cherry Garcia, however, is nothing to shake a
stick at). :-)


Breyers used to be a very good independent in the Philadelphia area but
then they were sold to Sealtest, then Kraft, Good Humor, now Unilever.
They also had better flavors years ago, like raspberry ice and bananna.

Here's a scary thought: They almost dumped strawberry about 5 years ago, not
because customers weren't buying it, but because so many stores were not
stocking it. You'd be shocked at how many stupid policies can be kept in
place by just one buyer at a chain's headquarters. Here, for instance, we
have a local brand called Perry's. And, the otherwise excellent chain,
Wegman's, also has their store brand. Both strawberry offerings are sad
imitations. Artificially colored bright pink, guar gum, "other flavors". Our
other major store, Tops, carried Breyer's strawberry occasionally, if you
believed the shelf tag. Out of stock most of the time.

My company was dealing with Wegman's, so I had access to the buyers. I
called the frozen buyer and asked about Breyer's. His response: "First of
all, we don't need it. We carry two other strawberry products. And, nobody
buys it anyway. The movement numbers were real low last time we had it".
Turns out "last time" was 8 or 10 years earlier. I reminded him that nobody
buys it because it's not there. That didn't make much impact, although it
seems logical to me. Anyway, I guess enough people bitched and now they
carry it. (That buyer retired, too.)

I found out later (from a company rep) that local and private label brands
had impacted certain flavors to the point where they were almost
discontinued. Strawberry was one of them. It took some reeducation by the
reps to change this.

Back to the subject: I don't know about how other families shop, but I don't
have ice cream around all the time. When I do, I tend to forget it's there
and go for fruit instead. I'm sure some people consider it a staple item
like milk & eggs. There's always going to be a segment of this group who
will compare the price of Breyer's to the private label or local brands
every time they buy, even though they KNOW the last two are usually cheaper
and are of lower quality. The cheaper brands will consistently snag some of
those customers, SOME of the time. Nobody knows why. But, when these brands
are selling for $0.99 to $2.00 per half gallon, the national brand has to do
SOMETHING. You may recall that not long ago, Breyer's (not on sale) sold for
$3.50 to $4.25, depending on the market. Like me, many people never bought
it at that price, waiting for a sale instead.

That was simply not working for Breyer's. First of all, it's obvious that
they weren't moving enough product. And, it meant that if they offered deals
to the stores, it sometimes did not generate larger orders because nobody
wanted to be stuck with aging product. They don't want to store it, and you
& I don't want to buy it. This generated quite a scam a few years back when
someone in the NYC area altered the freshness dates on a few truckloads of
Breyer's ice cream.

Faced with this, and the drastic increase in the price of raw milk, I think
they had no choice but to change something. It worked. They're moving more
ice cream. Go figure.