"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Feb 29, 2:08 pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 02/29/08 10:59 am DerbyDad03 wrote:

I think the theory going around here is that the size change is
sneaky unless the customer is somehow notified.

3rd try at getting this across - they were notified! Maybe a picture
will help...

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/foods/he516-3.gif

That's a great idea as long as the labels for all the packs of sugar
(lets say) use the same units for the price per unit. The laws may vary
form state to state, but what I have seen often is Brand X's unit price
in cents per ounce and that of Brand Y next to it in dollars per pound.
Of course one can do the conversion, but that surely isn't what the
instigators of unit pricing had in mind.

(At least if they do that kind of thing in a sensible country that uses
the metric system it's only a matter of adding one or more zeros or
moving a decimal point.)

Moreover, the stores often don't post revised unit pricing labels when
an item is on sale: the shelf tag still shows the regular price.

Perce

That's a great idea as long as the labels for all the packs of
sugar (lets say) use the same units for the price per unit.

Bringing up an issue specific to unit pricing doesn't negate the idea
that shopping via unit pricing eliminates the "they made the package
smaller" problem.

Inconsistancies within the unit pricing system is a matter worthy of
another discussion, but the bottom line is that by using unit pricing
I don't have to care if they change the package size without changing
the price. I know how much I'm paying on a per unit basis and I know
how much product is in the package. And I sure don't care if they
don't call me everytime they make a change to the package size, shape
or color.

============================


Unit pricing inconsistencies are so simple to eliminate that if you see
inconsistencies, you can conclude with absolute certainty that the
supermarket doesn't give a damn. They don't deserve your business.

On Feb 27, 5:49*pm, greg2468 wrote:
I recently went to our favorite big box store. *While wandering around
the paint department, I noticed that most brands sold there are no
longer full gallons. *They were one pint less than a gallon. *Yet,
spread rate magically remains the same! *Of course the price remains
the same! *I live in the southeast United State and am curious to know
if this has happened in other areas. *(Quarts are now 28 ounces).

just think if you had just arrived from britain, or canada.

On Feb 27, 6:08*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Why the coverage rate remains the same is beyond me. There's a toll free
number on the label. You should call that number and let us know what you
find out.

oh, that's easy. because we are all supposed to be lowering out
standards. 'Ahhh, in the old days i would have given it another coat,
but nowadays, that's good enough'.

On Feb 27, 6:47*pm, "Blattus Slafaly £ ¥ 0/00 "
wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 02/27/08 05:49 pm greg2468 wrote:

I recently went to our favorite big box store. *While wandering around
the paint department, I noticed that most brands sold there are no
longer full gallons. *They were one pint less than a gallon. *Yet,
spread rate magically remains the same! *Of course the price remains
the same! *I live in the southeast United State and am curious to know
if this has happened in other areas. *(Quarts are now 28 ounces).

Sherwin-Williams said that some of their paints are a fraction (can't
remember how much) under a gallon to leave room for the tints. And I
just checked the Pittsburgh paints we bought last week: 3 7/8 quarts,
not the full gallon; I hadn't noticed before. We're in the Midwest.

How many brands of ice cream still have full half-gallon packs? Most are
56oz. instead of 64oz.

-=-
Perce

And a pound of coffee went from 16 ounces to 15, then to 14 and now to
13.5 ounces. A pound of butter I recently noticed was 15 ounces even
though there was plenty of room in the tub for another ounce.
I think it's called 'bend over a little more while I shove it in a
little farther.'

--
Blattus Slafaly *? 3 * * *7/8- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hell, i remember when you could buy a chocolate bar and not lose it in
your shirt pocket.

On Feb 29, 3:29*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...
On Feb 29, 2:08 pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:





On 02/29/08 10:59 am DerbyDad03 wrote:

I think the theory going around here is that the size change is
sneaky unless the customer is somehow notified.

3rd try at getting this across - they were notified! Maybe a picture
will help...

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/foods/he516-3.gif

That's a great idea as long as the labels for all the packs of sugar
(lets say) use the same units for the price per unit. The laws may vary
form state to state, but what I have seen often is Brand X's unit price
in cents per ounce and that of Brand Y next to it in dollars per pound.
Of course one can do the conversion, but that surely isn't what the
instigators of unit pricing had in mind.

(At least if they do that kind of thing in a sensible country that uses
the metric system it's only a matter of adding one or more zeros or
moving a decimal point.)

Moreover, the stores often don't post revised unit pricing labels when
an item is on sale: the shelf tag still shows the regular price.

Perce

*That's a great idea as long as the labels for all the packs of
sugar (lets say) use the same units for the price per unit.

Bringing up an issue specific to unit pricing doesn't negate the idea
that shopping via unit pricing eliminates the "they made the package
smaller" problem.

Inconsistancies within the unit pricing system is a matter worthy of
another discussion, but the bottom line is that by using unit pricing
I don't have to care if they change the package size without changing
the price. I know how much I'm paying on a per unit basis and I know
how much product is in the package. And I sure don't care if they
don't call me everytime they make a change to the package size, shape
or color.

============================

Unit pricing inconsistencies are so simple to eliminate that if you see
inconsistencies, you can conclude with absolute certainty that the
supermarket doesn't give a damn. They don't deserve your business.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee...I wonder how soon it will be before I run out of stores to shop
in. Have you found a chain, or even a single store, where you haven't
ever run into a unit pricing "inconsistancy".

you can conclude with absolute certainty that the supermarket
doesn't give a damn

One also has to wonder who caused the inconsistancy - the store, the
manufacturer or the system? I once ran into a situation where all the
paper towels in the store were priced "per 100 sheets". However, the
sheets were such vastly different sizes that the one that had the
cheaper unit price was actually much more expensive on an overall
square footage basis.

This could certainly be called an inconsistancy, but who's fault was
it? Who says that paper towels should be priced per sheet? Can I be
absolutely certain that it was the store that caused this
inconsistancy? I guess I'll have to track down a manager and see who
made that decision before I place blame.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Feb 29, 10:45 am, George wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Feb 29, 8:27 am, George wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , franz fripplfrappl wrote:
Take a walk down the aisles in a grocery store sometime. A pound of
coffee is about 9 ounces. 5# of sugar is 4#. Prices are more or less
the same.
Utter nonsense. A pound is sixteen ounces. Five pounds is five pounds, not
four. If you buy a bag of sugar that is _plainly_marked_ "4 pounds" thinking
it is five, you need to be looking in the mirror for the source of that
problem.
It is still dishonest no matter how you look at it. I am quite capable
of reading labels. A short quantity non-standard packaging is simply
wrong. A quart should be a quart. Not 28 oz "at everyday low prices".
Ironically it is everybody's friend the big box store (they tell us
that frequently so it must be true) that is behind this.
My buddy works for a company that manufactures packaging equipment. One
of their customers asked to have a "4 up" line installed. Usual
packaging for their product is "6 up" or a six pack. The reason was
because walmart had decided they could screw their customers thinking
that people wouldn't notice that the canned items were in a 4 pack and
think their buddy walmart was helping them with "low everyday prices".
It didn't work and the supplier took a serious hit because of the
money they had to spend on the line.
It is still dishonest no matter how you look at it.
How is it *dishonest* if the package is correctly marked as to the
amount of product it contains?
Because it deviates from normally accepted standards/practices.

Lets say that you have been driving through "Smithville" every day
forever. One night "Smithville" changes all of the speed signs to
reflect a speed which is now 20 MPH lower.

The next morning you are driving through "Smithville" and are pulled
over for speeding. The officer points out the new signs and then issues
a ticket. Would you accept the ticket, plead guilty and pay the fine or
protest it because of lack of notice?

Or lets say that you have been parking in "Brownville" forever to do
errands etc on your way home. The "Brownville" parking rules have been
free parking after 6PM forever. They change the rules without any
announcement and you find a $45 ticket on your car. Would you pay it?





I am quite capable of reading labels.
Then what's the issue? You read the label, you know how much is in the
package and how much it costs, you make a decision as to whether to
buy it or not. Next!
A short quantity non-standard packaging is simply wrong.
What's the standard? If you are referring to the de facto standard
that certain products have always been packaged in certain amounts,
then look up the definition of de facto. It's an agreed upon standard,
not anything legal. If everyone packages ice cream in 56 oz packages
from now on, that will eventually become the de facto standard.
A quart should be a quart
A quart is a quart. 28 oz is 28 oz. Please give us an example of a
product that is labeled as quart but only contains 28 oz.
I've said it before and I'll repeat it here in case it was missed:
If you shop by unit pricing, it doesn't matter if the package is 28 oz
or 32 oz. You're paying for what you're getting - no one cheated, no
one lied. They simply raised the price by charging you the same amount
for less product - but they clearly informed you of the price increase
by posting the unit price on the shelf right next to the product.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you really expecting an answer to those questions?

If I must...

To keep it simple, here's a short program I wrote:

PSL = Posted Speed Limit
DS = Driver's Speed
IF DS PSL Then Driver Guilty of Speeding

How would you like it to read?

PSL = Posted Speed Limit
DS = Driver's Speed
IF DS PSL Then
If Driver has been driving the route every day forever then
Driver Not Guilty of Speeding
Else Driver Guilty of Speeding

Gimme a break. The town has no *obligation* to inform drivers of a
change in the speed limit or of the parking rules. Would it be nice if
they did? Sure. Do they try to do it in most cases? Sure. However,
it's the obligation of the person driving the route or parking his car
to read the signs and follow the rules or risk paying the
consequences. Just like it's the obligation of the shopper to read the
labels and determine for themselves how much they're getting and how
much they're paying for it.

Tell that to the local "Smithville" that installed lower speed limit
signs and didn't follow the state's required procedure that requires
that a flasher be attached to the signs for so many days to call
attention to the change. All of the speeding tickets that were issued in
the reduced speed area were invalidated.


Ya know, by your logic, we shouldn't have to pay the same price for
the smaller package because they didn't tell us beforehand. Let me
know how that works out for you.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything nonsensical
like that.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Feb 29, 2:37 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message



The next morning you are driving through "Smithville" and are pulled
over for speeding. The officer points out the new signs and then issues
a ticket. Would you accept the ticket, plead guilty and pay the fine or
protest it because of lack of notice?
Damned sure I'll protest. Good chance I'll beat it also based on historic
renderings of most traffic courts.
.

No argument there, but please explain how this has anything to do with
the fact that Ice Cream no longer comes in 64 oz containers.

Just reread what I wrote. You seem to be really missing the idea that
people get used to things and it isn't fair if you a just change stuff
without notice.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
The next morning you are driving through "Smithville" and are pulled
over for speeding. The officer points out the new signs and then issues
a ticket. Would you accept the ticket, plead guilty and pay the fine or
protest it because of lack of notice?

Damned sure I'll protest. Good chance I'll beat it also based on historic
renderings of most traffic courts.
.



And you would be correct. A local town changed speeds on a road and did
not follow the required notification procedure. All of the tickets they
issued were invalidated.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Feb 29, 3:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...
On Feb 29, 2:08 pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:





On 02/29/08 10:59 am DerbyDad03 wrote:

I think the theory going around here is that the size change is
sneaky unless the customer is somehow notified.

3rd try at getting this across - they were notified! Maybe a picture
will help...

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/foods/he516-3.gif

That's a great idea as long as the labels for all the packs of sugar
(lets say) use the same units for the price per unit. The laws may vary
form state to state, but what I have seen often is Brand X's unit price
in cents per ounce and that of Brand Y next to it in dollars per pound.
Of course one can do the conversion, but that surely isn't what the
instigators of unit pricing had in mind.

(At least if they do that kind of thing in a sensible country that uses
the metric system it's only a matter of adding one or more zeros or
moving a decimal point.)

Moreover, the stores often don't post revised unit pricing labels when
an item is on sale: the shelf tag still shows the regular price.

Perce

That's a great idea as long as the labels for all the packs of
sugar (lets say) use the same units for the price per unit.

Bringing up an issue specific to unit pricing doesn't negate the idea
that shopping via unit pricing eliminates the "they made the package
smaller" problem.

Inconsistancies within the unit pricing system is a matter worthy of
another discussion, but the bottom line is that by using unit pricing
I don't have to care if they change the package size without changing
the price. I know how much I'm paying on a per unit basis and I know
how much product is in the package. And I sure don't care if they
don't call me everytime they make a change to the package size, shape
or color.

============================

Unit pricing inconsistencies are so simple to eliminate that if you see
inconsistencies, you can conclude with absolute certainty that the
supermarket doesn't give a damn. They don't deserve your business.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee...I wonder how soon it will be before I run out of stores to shop
in. Have you found a chain, or even a single store, where you haven't
ever run into a unit pricing "inconsistancy".

you can conclude with absolute certainty that the supermarket
doesn't give a damn

One also has to wonder who caused the inconsistancy - the store, the
manufacturer or the system? I once ran into a situation where all the
paper towels in the store were priced "per 100 sheets". However, the
sheets were such vastly different sizes that the one that had the
cheaper unit price was actually much more expensive on an overall
square footage basis.

This could certainly be called an inconsistancy, but who's fault was
it? Who says that paper towels should be priced per sheet? Can I be
absolutely certain that it was the store that caused this
inconsistancy? I guess I'll have to track down a manager and see who
made that decision before I place blame.

========================

It's definitely "inconsistency", not "inconsistancy".

I've run into about two inconsistencies in twenty years, shopping at
Wegman's here in Rochester. But, that company does almost everything
perfectly to the point where others in the industry are mystified and
envious. So, it's probably not a valid example.

The example you gave is the store's fault. The unit price should be
designated "per sqare foot". The retailer hired stupid people. Even if a
programmer spotted the problem, some companies are so regimented that
suggestions are never passed back & forth between departments.

Programming could solve the problem, assuming the data entry people were
intelligent enough to use an application correctly. When a new item comes
along, code it appropriately, and have the software disallow certain inputs.
To use an extreme example, they're entering a new Barilla pasta sauce:

- Operator is given a choice for type of item (pasta sauce, dry pasta, paper
towels, juice, etc)
- After choosing "sauce", the application locks the unit of measure, since
those items use weight, not volume.
- Application forces input for ounces only, not pounds, to keep the operator
from trying to "help" by doing any calculating.

This would've eliminated the Wal Mart example I mentioned earlier, where the
unit price stickers used weight for one jar of salsa, and volume for
another. There was no good excuse for that mistake. The labels clearly state
weight (as in sauces) or fluid ounces (as in juices).

You'd think Wal Mart would be more sophisticated than that, but in many
ways, they're backward. Last year, I read an article about how they're
trying to develop software to help analyze front end traffic and minimize
the wait at the register. What nonsense. At Wegman's their goal is to have
no more than one customer waiting while another is checking out. They
achieve the goal, too, just by using their heads. Even when their stores are
mobbed the day before a big holiday, the wait is negligible.

On Feb 29, 3:55*pm, George wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Feb 29, 10:45 am, George wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Feb 29, 8:27 am, George wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , franz fripplfrappl wrote:
Take a walk down the aisles in a grocery store sometime. *A pound of
coffee is about 9 ounces. *5# of sugar is 4#. *Prices are more or less
the same.
Utter nonsense. A pound is sixteen ounces. Five pounds is five pounds, not
four. If you buy a bag of sugar that is _plainly_marked_ "4 pounds" thinking
it is five, you need to be looking in the mirror for the source of that
problem.
It is still dishonest no matter how you look at it. I am quite capable
of reading labels. A short quantity non-standard packaging is simply
wrong. A quart should be a quart. Not 28 oz *"at everyday low prices".
Ironically it is everybody's friend *the big box store (they tell us
that frequently so it must be true) that is behind this.
My buddy works for a company that manufactures packaging equipment. One
of their customers asked to have a "4 up" line installed. Usual
packaging for their product is "6 up" or a six pack. The reason was
because walmart had decided they could screw their customers thinking
that people wouldn't notice that the canned items were in a 4 pack and
think their buddy walmart was helping them with "low everyday prices"..
* It didn't work and the supplier took a serious hit because of the
money they had to spend on the line.
It is still dishonest no matter how you look at it.
How is it *dishonest* if the package is correctly marked as to the
amount of product it contains?
Because it deviates from normally accepted standards/practices.

Lets say that you have been driving through "Smithville" every day
forever. One night "Smithville" changes all of the speed signs to
reflect a speed which is now 20 MPH lower.

The next morning you are driving through "Smithville" and are pulled
over for speeding. The officer points out the new signs and then issues
a ticket. Would you accept the ticket, plead guilty and pay the fine or
protest it because of lack of notice?

Or lets say that you have been parking in "Brownville" forever to do
errands etc on your way home. The "Brownville" parking rules have been
free parking after 6PM forever. They change the rules without any
announcement and you find a $45 ticket on your car. Would you pay it?

I am quite capable of reading labels.
Then what's the issue? You read the label, you know how much is in the
package and how much it costs, you make a decision as to whether to
buy it or not. Next!
A short quantity non-standard packaging is simply wrong.
What's the standard? If you are referring to the de facto standard
that certain products have always been packaged in certain amounts,
then look up the definition of de facto. It's an agreed upon standard,
not anything legal. If everyone packages ice cream in 56 oz packages
from now on, that will eventually become the de facto standard.
A quart should be a quart
A quart is a quart. 28 oz is 28 oz. Please give us an example of a
product that is labeled as quart but only contains 28 oz.
I've said it before and I'll repeat it here in case it was missed:
If you shop by unit pricing, it doesn't matter if the package is 28 oz
or 32 oz. You're paying for what you're getting - no one cheated, no
one lied. They simply raised the price by charging you the same amount
for less product - but they clearly informed you of the price increase
by posting the unit price on the shelf right next to the product.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you really expecting an answer to those questions?

If I must...

To keep it simple, here's a short program I wrote:

PSL = Posted Speed Limit
DS = Driver's Speed
IF DS PSL Then Driver Guilty of Speeding

How would you like it to read?

PSL = Posted Speed Limit
DS = Driver's Speed
IF DS PSL Then
*If Driver has been driving the route every day forever then
* *Driver Not Guilty of Speeding
*Else Driver Guilty of Speeding

Gimme a break. The town has no *obligation* to inform drivers of a
change in the speed limit or of the parking rules. Would it be nice if
they did? Sure. Do they try to do it in most cases? Sure. *However,
it's the obligation of the person driving the route or parking his car
to read the signs and follow the rules or risk paying the
consequences. Just like it's the obligation of the shopper to read the
labels and determine for themselves how much they're getting and how
much they're paying for it.

Tell that to the local "Smithville" that installed lower speed limit
signs and didn't follow the state's required procedure that requires
that a flasher be attached to the signs for so many days to call
attention to the change. All of the speeding tickets that were issued in
the reduced speed area were invalidated.



Ya know, by your logic, we shouldn't have to pay the same price for
the smaller package because they didn't tell us beforehand. Let me
know how that works out for you.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything nonsensical
like that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I stand corrected on the speed limit issue, as least as far as
"Smithville" is concerned.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything
nonsensical like that

Then what was your point in bringing up the speed limit and parking
issues? I'll trust your assertion that there is a state required
procedure related to traffic law, but as far as I know there is no
such procedure governing the size of an ice cream container.

You gave 2 examples of changes that came without notification and
asked if I would pay the fines. If you're not implying that I should
also not have to pay for the smaller packages because I wasn't
notified, how are those examples related to this discussion?

On Feb 29, 3:58*pm, George wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
The next morning you are driving through "Smithville" and are pulled
over for speeding. The officer points out the new signs and then issues
a ticket. Would you accept the ticket, plead guilty and pay the fine or
protest it because of lack of notice?

Damned sure I'll protest. *Good chance I'll beat it also based on historic
renderings of most traffic courts.
.

And you would be correct. A local town changed speeds on a road and did
not follow the required notification procedure. All of the tickets they
issued were invalidated.

.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
You are the CEO at Breyers. You're about to shrink your ice cream
containers. How would YOU notify customers?

Nobody else is involved. Just you. Whatever idea you have for
notifying customers, your employees will make it happen. Describe
your idea(s).

"New Family Size!" (to reflect the size of new families)

"Economy Size!"

"More miles to the gallon!"

"Healthy pack!"

"Doctor approved!"

"Fewer calories!"

"Less filling, more taste!"

There's really no limit...



Those ideas are as ****ty as the so-called "deception" which some are
complaining about in this discussion.

You didn't ask for "non-****ty" ideas. And I think you're wrong. All of them
have worked.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
You are the CEO at Breyers. You're about to shrink your ice cream
containers. How would YOU notify customers?

Nobody else is involved. Just you. Whatever idea you have for
notifying customers, your employees will make it happen. Describe
your idea(s).

"New Family Size!" (to reflect the size of new families)

"Economy Size!"

"More miles to the gallon!"

"Healthy pack!"

"Doctor approved!"

"Fewer calories!"

"Less filling, more taste!"

There's really no limit...



Those ideas are as ****ty as the so-called "deception" which some are
complaining about in this discussion.

You didn't ask for "non-****ty" ideas. And I think you're wrong. All of
them have worked.

Is there anything else I can help you with?



Yes. Please go kill yourself. But, I'll send money to your family to replace
the lost income from your job cleaning bus station bathrooms. Let me know
where to send the check.

z wrote:

hell, i remember when you could buy a chocolate bar and not lose it in
your shirt pocket.

Interestingly enough, I suspect that was the genesis of rasing prices by
lowering package quantity.

Consider the vending machines that would only accept silver coins when candy
bars cost a nickle. When the time came that a price increase was necessary, all
they could do would be to double the product price to go to the next coin
increment. As that would have been unacceptable, they did price increases by
reducing the candy weight.

Going from .85 to .90 for a candy bar doesn't present the same type of problem,
but now the genie is out of the bottle.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

I've said it before and I'll repeat it here in case it was missed:

If you shop by unit pricing, it doesn't matter if the package is 28 oz
or 32 oz. You're paying for what you're getting - no one cheated, no
one lied. They simply raised the price by charging you the same amount
for less product - but they clearly informed you of the price increase
by posting the unit price on the shelf right next to the product.

********************
It is your attitude that allows the marketers to get away with sleaze. For
decades, ice cream came in half gallons, sugar in five pound bags, coffee in
one pound containers. Why, suddenly, do theyhave to be made smaller? Only
to give the perception to the consumer that they are getting the same
product at the same price.

If you think this is OK, it will not be long before new cars are delivered
with three tires, flags with 47 stars, and coming next month, two leafed
clovers. At least crayons still have the 7 primary colors.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

You are the CEO at Breyers. You're about to shrink your ice cream
containers. How would YOU notify customers?

If I was the CEO of Breyers, it would still be 64 ounces, but at a higher
price. Same way they've been doing it for 100 years or so.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

If you were the CEO at Breyers, how would YOU have instituted the price
change so it was not a "scam"???

You run the company, and people will do exactly what you say, no questions
asked. Describe your plan.

I'd just raise the price, the same as they have been doing for many years.
Breyers used to be 79¢ a h alf gallon and they worked it up to about $5 and
still sold ice cream. IMO, going to a smaller package instead is a method
of deception.

While we're at it, notice they no longer have the Pledge of Purity that
graced the cartons for many years. They've added other cheaper ingredients,
even to vanilla that used to be simply: cream, sugar, vanilla. No more.
Profit over quality.

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message

Consider the vending machines that would only accept silver coins when
candy
bars cost a nickle. When the time came that a price increase was
necessary, all
they could do would be to double the product price to go to the next coin
increment. As that would have been unacceptable, they did price increases
by
reducing the candy weight.

They sold cigarettes in vending machines for 23¢. Put a quarter in and the
pack of smokes had two pennies on the side for your change. Free pack of
matches was dispensed also.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

If you were the CEO at Breyers, how would YOU have instituted the price
change so it was not a "scam"???

You run the company, and people will do exactly what you say, no
questions asked. Describe your plan.

I'd just raise the price, the same as they have been doing for many years.
Breyers used to be 79¢ a h alf gallon and they worked it up to about $5
and still sold ice cream. IMO, going to a smaller package instead is a
method of deception.

While we're at it, notice they no longer have the Pledge of Purity that
graced the cartons for many years. They've added other cheaper
ingredients, even to vanilla that used to be simply: cream, sugar,
vanilla. No more. Profit over quality.



According to the grocery purchasing agents I deal with, the sale of Breyers
1/2 gallons slowed to a crawl when it was priced over $4.00. Stores and the
manufacturer know that raising the price cut too much into their volume.
There's a definite limit to how much prices can be raised. Customers have
arbitrarily pegged, yet very firm ideas of what they're willing to pay for
non-necessities.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
t...

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

I've said it before and I'll repeat it here in case it was missed:

If you shop by unit pricing, it doesn't matter if the package is 28 oz
or 32 oz. You're paying for what you're getting - no one cheated, no
one lied. They simply raised the price by charging you the same amount
for less product - but they clearly informed you of the price increase
by posting the unit price on the shelf right next to the product.

********************
It is your attitude that allows the marketers to get away with sleaze.
For decades, ice cream came in half gallons, sugar in five pound bags,
coffee in one pound containers. Why, suddenly, do theyhave to be made
smaller? Only to give the perception to the consumer that they are
getting the same product at the same price.

If you think this is OK, it will not be long before new cars are delivered
with three tires, flags with 47 stars, and coming next month, two leafed
clovers. At least crayons still have the 7 primary colors.



10 out of 50 things on your grocery list go up by $1.00, and now maybe
you're $10 over your budget. Some fat slobs will forgo vegetables and keep
the ice cream in the shopping cart, but normal people will focus on the
essentials.

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

I've said it before and I'll repeat it here in case it was missed:

If you shop by unit pricing, it doesn't matter if the package is 28 oz
or 32 oz. You're paying for what you're getting - no one cheated, no
one lied. They simply raised the price by charging you the same amount
for less product - but they clearly informed you of the price increase
by posting the unit price on the shelf right next to the product.

********************
It is your attitude that allows the marketers to get away with sleaze. For
decades, ice cream came in half gallons, sugar in five pound bags, coffee in
one pound containers. Why, suddenly, do theyhave to be made smaller? Only
to give the perception to the consumer that they are getting the same
product at the same price.

If you think this is OK, it will not be long before new cars are delivered
with three tires, flags with 47 stars, and coming next month, two leafed
clovers. At least crayons still have the 7 primary colors.

It is possible to shop by unit pricing. But shopping for staples should
not have to involve so much thought. I do not like shopping, so I don't
want to spend a bunch of time in there, reading and comparing. I just
want to grab my gallon of paint and my gallon of milk and go home. I can
grab familiar brands off the shelf "on the fly" and be done and out.

"Those guys" ought to leave the package sizes alone. If I was the CEO of
Breyer's, when others shrank their boxes, I'd keep selling ice cream by
the honest half gallon, and I'd make it the central theme of my
advertising campaign, ridiculing the diminutive packaging of the
competition, and boasting about "tradition" and "good old American
values."

"Which would you rather have at the end of a long day: 42 cents, or
another bowl of ice cream? Breyers. We don't cheat you."

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

I've said it before and I'll repeat it here in case it was missed:

If you shop by unit pricing, it doesn't matter if the package is 28 oz
or 32 oz. You're paying for what you're getting - no one cheated, no
one lied. They simply raised the price by charging you the same amount
for less product - but they clearly informed you of the price increase
by posting the unit price on the shelf right next to the product.

********************
It is your attitude that allows the marketers to get away with sleaze.
For
decades, ice cream came in half gallons, sugar in five pound bags, coffee
in
one pound containers. Why, suddenly, do theyhave to be made smaller?
Only
to give the perception to the consumer that they are getting the same
product at the same price.

If you think this is OK, it will not be long before new cars are
delivered
with three tires, flags with 47 stars, and coming next month, two leafed
clovers. At least crayons still have the 7 primary colors.

It is possible to shop by unit pricing. But shopping for staples should
not have to involve so much thought. I do not like shopping, so I don't
want to spend a bunch of time in there, reading and comparing. I just
want to grab my gallon of paint and my gallon of milk and go home. I can
grab familiar brands off the shelf "on the fly" and be done and out.

"Those guys" ought to leave the package sizes alone. If I was the CEO of
Breyer's, when others shrank their boxes, I'd keep selling ice cream by
the honest half gallon, and I'd make it the central theme of my
advertising campaign, ridiculing the diminutive packaging of the
competition, and boasting about "tradition" and "good old American
values."

"Which would you rather have at the end of a long day: 42 cents, or
another bowl of ice cream? Breyers. We don't cheat you."


But, they're not cheating you, unless you're an illiterate sack of ****. The
size is clearly printed on the container, as required by law. If you can't
read, it's your parents' fault, not Breyers'.

On Feb 29, 10:39*pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

I've said it before and I'll repeat it here in case it was missed:

If you shop by unit pricing, it doesn't matter if the package is 28 oz
or 32 oz. You're paying for what you're getting - no one cheated, no
one lied. They simply raised the price by charging you the same amount
for less product - but they clearly informed you of the price increase
by posting the unit price on the shelf right next to the product.

********************
It is your attitude that allows the marketers to get away with sleaze. *For
decades, ice cream came in half gallons, sugar in five pound bags, coffee in
one pound containers. *Why, suddenly, do theyhave to be made smaller? *Only
to give the perception to the consumer that they are getting the same
product at the same price.

If you think this is OK, it will not be long before new cars are delivered
with three tires, flags with 47 stars, and coming next month, two leafed
clovers. *At least crayons still have the 7 primary colors.

Only to give the perception to the consumer that they are getting
the same product at the same price.

Well, technically, they are getting the same product at the same
price. They're just getting less of it. g And I pray for the
consumer who is fooled (or even upset) by this gimic.

At least crayons still have the 7 primary colors

But how much more are you paying for them than you used to?

If you think this is OK...

... it will not be long before new cars are delivered with three
tires,

Nope, gotta have 4 tires - but without raising the price they will
give me a half-sized spare, barely room for 4 passengers, rotors that
don't last 20K and tires that don't last 10. In other words, a lot
less car for the same money. How is that different from less ice cream
for the same money?

... flags with 47 stars

Which states do you suggest we eliminate? I've got a couple in mind.

... and coming next month, two leafed clovers.

I don't buy clover - it grows in my yard for free.

Fine, you are right. I give up. Let's get the masses together and
refuse to buy Ice Cream until they put it back in 64 oz containers. Of
course, we can't complain about the resulting 14.3% price increase,
'cuz it's one or the other. Pick your poison. I guess that'll show
those sleazy marketers not to mess with us.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message


According to the grocery purchasing agents I deal with, the sale of
Breyers 1/2 gallons slowed to a crawl when it was priced over $4.00.
Stores and the manufacturer know that raising the price cut too much into
their volume. There's a definite limit to how much prices can be raised.
Customers have arbitrarily pegged, yet very firm ideas of what they're
willing to pay for non-necessities.

The price is now $5.49 locally. At 64 ounces it would be $6.29. They
passed the $4 mark and are still selling. The only time I'll buy it now is
when on sale every few weeks. I get a few and keep them in the freezer. Sale
price is up to $2.74 last week. Rather than run sales on rotation, just
sell at a fair price every day. Since they cut the package size, I've not
bought any at full price. Screw them.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

If you think this is OK, it will not be long before new cars are delivered
with three tires

Or mini spares that are only good for 50mph and a couple thousand miles tread
wear. Oh wait, they already do...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
t...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message


According to the grocery purchasing agents I deal with, the sale of
Breyers 1/2 gallons slowed to a crawl when it was priced over $4.00.
Stores and the manufacturer know that raising the price cut too much into
their volume. There's a definite limit to how much prices can be raised.
Customers have arbitrarily pegged, yet very firm ideas of what they're
willing to pay for non-necessities.

The price is now $5.49 locally. At 64 ounces it would be $6.29. They
passed the $4 mark and are still selling. The only time I'll buy it now
is when on sale every few weeks. I get a few and keep them in the freezer.
Sale price is up to $2.74 last week. Rather than run sales on rotation,
just sell at a fair price every day. Since they cut the package size,
I've not bought any at full price. Screw them.


Most sales are initiated by the stores, not the manufacturers. At the
moment, most stores are paying between $3.28 and $3.96 per container for the
product.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

They sold cigarettes in vending machines for 23¢. Put a quarter in and the
pack of smokes had two pennies on the side for your change. Free pack of
matches was dispensed also.

Not sure why the difference, but non-gumball candy machines in the US rarely
accepted or offered pennies...

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message

Consider the vending machines that would only accept silver coins when
candy
bars cost a nickle. When the time came that a price increase was
necessary, all
they could do would be to double the product price to go to the next coin
increment. As that would have been unacceptable, they did price increases
by
reducing the candy weight.

They sold cigarettes in vending machines for 23¢. Put a quarter in and the
pack of smokes had two pennies on the side for your change. Free pack of
matches was dispensed also.

That is cool. I never heard that before. I guess cigarettes were more
than a quarter by the time I started smoking... but I do remember
thinking they were getting a bit pricey when they went to fifty cents.

Hey, maybe the tobacco companies should cut down to sixteen cigarettes
per pack, to keep the price down.

Rick Blaine wrote:


They sold cigarettes in vending machines for 23¢. Put a quarter in and the
pack of smokes had two pennies on the side for your change. Free pack of
matches was dispensed also.

Not sure why the difference, but non-gumball candy machines in the US rarely
accepted or offered pennies...


Come to think of it, I don't think you could put pennies into those machines -
they just stocked them with pennies for change. Still don't know why it was cost
effective to build those machines for cigs and not for candy or soda though...

On Feb 29, 11:40*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message

Consider the vending machines that would only accept silver coins when
candy
bars cost a nickle. When the time came that a price increase was
necessary, all
they could do would be to double the product price to go to the next coin
increment. As that would have been unacceptable, they did price increases
by
reducing the candy weight.

They sold cigarettes in vending machines for 23¢. *Put a quarter in and the
pack of smokes had two pennies on the side for your change. *Free pack of
matches was dispensed also.

That is cool. I never heard that before. I guess cigarettes were more
than a quarter by the time I started smoking... but I do remember
thinking they were getting a bit pricey when they went to fifty cents.

Hey, maybe the tobacco companies should cut down to sixteen
cigarettes per pack, to keep the price down.

I don't think would be allowed to, unless things have changed:

https://njcourts.judiciary.state.nj....pl2004_c96.pdf

"The new law, which amends and supplements the "Cigarette Tax Act,"
P.L.1948,c.65 (N.J.S.A. 54:40A-1 et seq.), provides that a person
shall not sell, offer for sale, give away or deliver single cigarettes
or cigarettes in packs of less than 20 cigarettes from a vending
machine or in a retail establishment."

My guess is that fewer smokes means less taxes. Yes, one might say
that if you sold smaller packs, people would buy more packs, but I'm
guessing that studies have shown that total sales would go down, which
would mean less tax collected. Like I said...just a guess.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

I don't think would be allowed to, unless things have changed:

https://njcourts.judiciary.state.nj....pl2004_c96.pdf

"The new law, which amends and supplements the "Cigarette Tax Act,"
P.L.1948,c.65 (N.J.S.A. 54:40A-1 et seq.), provides that a person
shall not sell, offer for sale, give away or deliver single cigarettes
or cigarettes in packs of less than 20 cigarettes from a vending
machine or in a retail establishment."

My guess is that fewer smokes means less taxes. Yes, one might say
that if you sold smaller packs, people would buy more packs, but I'm
guessing that studies have shown that total sales would go down, which
would mean less tax collected. Like I said...just a guess.
*************************

Used to be the cig companies would hand out samples in a four pack. Could
be the law was to discourage that to keep kids from getting hooked from the
freebies. It is over 40 years since I've seen them do that.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
Fine, you are right. I give up. Let's get the masses together and
refuse to buy Ice Cream until they put it back in 64 oz containers. Of
course, we can't complain about the resulting 14.3% price increase,
'cuz it's one or the other. Pick your poison. I guess that'll show
those sleazy marketers not to mess with us.

*******************

See, they beat you too. It would still be a 14.3% increase in the smaller
package, just a smaller cash outlay at the time of purchase as they "hide"
the increase. .

On Mar 1, 12:03*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

Fine, you are right. I give up. Let's get the masses together and
refuse to buy Ice Cream until they put it back in 64 oz containers. Of
course, we can't complain about the resulting 14.3% price increase,
'cuz it's one or the other. Pick your poison. I guess that'll show
those sleazy marketers not to mess with us.

*******************

See, they beat you too. *It would still be a 14.3% increase in the smaller
package, just a smaller cash outlay at the time of purchase as they "hide"
the increase. *.

Was that a serious response? All you did was reword the exact point I
was making.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
. Of
course, we can't complain about the resulting 14.3% price increase,
'cuz it's one or the other. Pick your poison.

*******************

See, they beat you too. It would still be a 14.3% increase in the smaller
package, just a smaller cash outlay at the time of purchase as they "hide"
the increase. .

Was that a serious response? All you did was reword the exact point I
was making.

**************

Read what you wrote. " 'cuz it's one or the other."

Could be interpreted as the choice is a smaller package or a price increase.

George wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , franz
fripplfrappl wrote:
Take a walk down the aisles in a grocery store sometime. A pound of
coffee is about 9 ounces. 5# of sugar is 4#. Prices are more or
less the same.

Utter nonsense. A pound is sixteen ounces. Five pounds is five
pounds, not four. If you buy a bag of sugar that is _plainly_marked_ "4
pounds"
thinking it is five, you need to be looking in the mirror for the source
of
that problem.

It is still dishonest no matter how you look at it. I am quite capable
of reading labels. A short quantity non-standard packaging is simply
wrong. A quart should be a quart. Not 28 oz "at everyday low prices".
Ironically it is everybody's friend the big box store (they tell us
that frequently so it must be true) that is behind this.

My buddy works for a company that manufactures packaging equipment.
One of their customers asked to have a "4 up" line installed. Usual
packaging for their product is "6 up" or a six pack. The reason was
because walmart had decided they could screw their customers thinking
that people wouldn't notice that the canned items were in a 4 pack and
think their buddy walmart was helping them with "low everyday prices".
It didn't work and the supplier took a serious hit because of the
money they had to spend on the line.

You know, you are probably more right that not but;

1) Why complain here? Complain to WalMart
2) I do have some sympathy for the suppliers who feel forced to kowtow to
WalMart's demands but maybe it's time to tell them to go to hell. Perhaps
the manufacturer shoulkd be the one who sets quality and other issues.
Perhaps it is time that the consumer says to hell with cheap crap and
demands fair value for decent quality stuff.

OH! I gues I'm dreaming.

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:35:14 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

If you think this is OK, it will not be long before new cars are delivered
with three tires

Or mini spares that are only good for 50mph and a couple thousand miles tread
wear. Oh wait, they already do...

Fortunately, flat tires are so damn rare, that spending another $200
for a real spare tire and rim is a complete waste of money.

The days of having 2 flat tires and a blowout on a 2500 mile road trip are
gone.

George wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Feb 29, 2:37 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message



The next morning you are driving through "Smithville" and are
pulled over for speeding. The officer points out the new signs
and then issues a ticket. Would you accept the ticket, plead
guilty and pay the fine or protest it because of lack of notice?
Damned sure I'll protest. Good chance I'll beat it also based on
historic renderings of most traffic courts.
.

No argument there, but please explain how this has anything to do
with the fact that Ice Cream no longer comes in 64 oz containers.

Just reread what I wrote. You seem to be really missing the idea that
people get used to things and it isn't fair if you a just change stuff
without notice.

Gosh, where I come from I am not sure that it ever came in 64 oz containers.

Of course back in the day my Gallon was 160 oz so my quart would have ben 40
oz etc.

And of course no one here (that I have seen) has addressed the issue of how
much air might be incorporated in the ice cream, fat content etc.

So, while this is all fun and gams to discuss it really can not and will not
settle anything.

No, it's the schools fault. Parents are not responsible for their childs
upbringing anymore.

s


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
If you can't
read, it's your parents' fault, not Breyers'.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:55 pm, George wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Feb 29, 10:45 am, George wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Feb 29, 8:27 am, George wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , franz fripplfrappl wrote:
Take a walk down the aisles in a grocery store sometime. A pound of
coffee is about 9 ounces. 5# of sugar is 4#. Prices are more or less
the same.
Utter nonsense. A pound is sixteen ounces. Five pounds is five pounds, not
four. If you buy a bag of sugar that is _plainly_marked_ "4 pounds" thinking
it is five, you need to be looking in the mirror for the source of that
problem.
It is still dishonest no matter how you look at it. I am quite capable
of reading labels. A short quantity non-standard packaging is simply
wrong. A quart should be a quart. Not 28 oz "at everyday low prices".
Ironically it is everybody's friend the big box store (they tell us
that frequently so it must be true) that is behind this.
My buddy works for a company that manufactures packaging equipment. One
of their customers asked to have a "4 up" line installed. Usual
packaging for their product is "6 up" or a six pack. The reason was
because walmart had decided they could screw their customers thinking
that people wouldn't notice that the canned items were in a 4 pack and
think their buddy walmart was helping them with "low everyday prices".
It didn't work and the supplier took a serious hit because of the
money they had to spend on the line.
It is still dishonest no matter how you look at it.
How is it *dishonest* if the package is correctly marked as to the
amount of product it contains?
Because it deviates from normally accepted standards/practices.
Lets say that you have been driving through "Smithville" every day
forever. One night "Smithville" changes all of the speed signs to
reflect a speed which is now 20 MPH lower.
The next morning you are driving through "Smithville" and are pulled
over for speeding. The officer points out the new signs and then issues
a ticket. Would you accept the ticket, plead guilty and pay the fine or
protest it because of lack of notice?
Or lets say that you have been parking in "Brownville" forever to do
errands etc on your way home. The "Brownville" parking rules have been
free parking after 6PM forever. They change the rules without any
announcement and you find a $45 ticket on your car. Would you pay it?
I am quite capable of reading labels.
Then what's the issue? You read the label, you know how much is in the
package and how much it costs, you make a decision as to whether to
buy it or not. Next!
A short quantity non-standard packaging is simply wrong.
What's the standard? If you are referring to the de facto standard
that certain products have always been packaged in certain amounts,
then look up the definition of de facto. It's an agreed upon standard,
not anything legal. If everyone packages ice cream in 56 oz packages
from now on, that will eventually become the de facto standard.
A quart should be a quart
A quart is a quart. 28 oz is 28 oz. Please give us an example of a
product that is labeled as quart but only contains 28 oz.
I've said it before and I'll repeat it here in case it was missed:
If you shop by unit pricing, it doesn't matter if the package is 28 oz
or 32 oz. You're paying for what you're getting - no one cheated, no
one lied. They simply raised the price by charging you the same amount
for less product - but they clearly informed you of the price increase
by posting the unit price on the shelf right next to the product.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Are you really expecting an answer to those questions?
If I must...
To keep it simple, here's a short program I wrote:
PSL = Posted Speed Limit
DS = Driver's Speed
IF DS PSL Then Driver Guilty of Speeding
How would you like it to read?
PSL = Posted Speed Limit
DS = Driver's Speed
IF DS PSL Then
If Driver has been driving the route every day forever then
Driver Not Guilty of Speeding
Else Driver Guilty of Speeding
Gimme a break. The town has no *obligation* to inform drivers of a
change in the speed limit or of the parking rules. Would it be nice if
they did? Sure. Do they try to do it in most cases? Sure. However,
it's the obligation of the person driving the route or parking his car
to read the signs and follow the rules or risk paying the
consequences. Just like it's the obligation of the shopper to read the
labels and determine for themselves how much they're getting and how
much they're paying for it.
Tell that to the local "Smithville" that installed lower speed limit
signs and didn't follow the state's required procedure that requires
that a flasher be attached to the signs for so many days to call
attention to the change. All of the speeding tickets that were issued in
the reduced speed area were invalidated.



Ya know, by your logic, we shouldn't have to pay the same price for
the smaller package because they didn't tell us beforehand. Let me
know how that works out for you.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything nonsensical
like that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I stand corrected on the speed limit issue, as least as far as
"Smithville" is concerned.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything
nonsensical like that

Then what was your point in bringing up the speed limit and parking
issues? I'll trust your assertion that there is a state required
procedure related to traffic law, but as far as I know there is no
such procedure governing the size of an ice cream container.

You gave 2 examples of changes that came without notification and
asked if I would pay the fines. If you're not implying that I should
also not have to pay for the smaller packages because I wasn't
notified, how are those examples related to this discussion?

I gave those as examples of human nature. Your claim was that it wasn't
dishonest to shrink packages because people could read the labels. Once
people have learned something we don't examine the minutia each time and
just go on with life. So when we buy the "gallon" ice cream we reach for
the package that has always represented a gallon.

Just like when you twist a light bulb to the left to remove it without
lifting up the lamp to read the instructions. Or you put food in a
microwave and don't pour over the manual for 5 minutes because you
"know" what to do. Or you know that the pedal on the right is the
throttle (in left side operator cars) without needing to look for
instructions when you get in a car and when they drive through an area
that has the same posted speed forever we proceed as normal unless there
is something to call our attention to the change.

Doug Brown wrote:
George wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , franz
fripplfrappl wrote:
Take a walk down the aisles in a grocery store sometime. A pound of
coffee is about 9 ounces. 5# of sugar is 4#. Prices are more or
less the same.
Utter nonsense. A pound is sixteen ounces. Five pounds is five
pounds, not four. If you buy a bag of sugar that is _plainly_marked_ "4
pounds"
thinking it is five, you need to be looking in the mirror for the source
of
that problem.
It is still dishonest no matter how you look at it. I am quite capable
of reading labels. A short quantity non-standard packaging is simply
wrong. A quart should be a quart. Not 28 oz "at everyday low prices".
Ironically it is everybody's friend the big box store (they tell us
that frequently so it must be true) that is behind this.

My buddy works for a company that manufactures packaging equipment.
One of their customers asked to have a "4 up" line installed. Usual
packaging for their product is "6 up" or a six pack. The reason was
because walmart had decided they could screw their customers thinking
that people wouldn't notice that the canned items were in a 4 pack and
think their buddy walmart was helping them with "low everyday prices".
It didn't work and the supplier took a serious hit because of the
money they had to spend on the line.

You know, you are probably more right that not but;

1) Why complain here? Complain to WalMart

Not a complaint, just an example of how big box stores operate and quite
pertinent to this thread.

2) I do have some sympathy for the suppliers who feel forced to kowtow to
WalMart's demands but maybe it's time to tell them to go to hell. Perhaps
the manufacturer shoulkd be the one who sets quality and other issues.
Perhaps it is time that the consumer says to hell with cheap crap and
demands fair value for decent quality stuff.

OH! I gues I'm dreaming.


It won't happen as long as big box has the war chests they have which
gives them the ability to buy mindshare through marketing.