JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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.


But certainly unless it was a huge increase the sales slowdown is just a
momentary thing.

If it wasn't the case soda sales should have ceased when they went from
$0.02 to $0.03 a bottle and the same for everything you can thing of.

The problem today is that there are few real managers who truly
understand what they are doing. Most just live by computer printouts
that describe the moment without seeing the big picture.

On Mar 1, 12:32*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"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."

Read what you wrote.

Understand what I wrote.

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

Sure, if you ignore the context of everything else we've said in this
discussion.

You started this part of the discussion by saying that my attitude
(shop by unit pricing and ignore the size of the package) was letting
them get away with "sleaze". I gave in - I said don't buy ice cream
until they go back to 64 oz. I also added that when it does, we would
have no right to complain when the price jumped by 14.3% because when
viewed from a unit price perspective it's the same thing.

"One or the other" is a choice between 56 oz for $5.49 or 64 oz $6.29.
I'll let you do the math to determine the unit price. I believe you'll
find very little difference, which is why I say "Who gives a crap what
size package anything comes in?"

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.

"Cleaning bus station bathrooms?" Where'd you get the idea I'm employed in
that area?

And thanks for offering to provide for my family in the event of my demise.
That's not only neighborly, but it's the right thing to do.

I've made a note to include your email address in the next revision of my
will. Don't be surprised if you get a polite note sometime in the
(hopefully) distant future.

Thanks in advance for your compassion. You are such a nice person.

Love,

HeyBub

"George" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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.
But certainly unless it was a huge increase the sales slowdown is just a
momentary thing.

If it wasn't the case soda sales should have ceased when they went from
$0.02 to $0.03 a bottle and the same for everything you can thing of.

The problem today is that there are few real managers who truly understand
what they are doing. Most just live by computer printouts that describe
the moment without seeing the big picture.


Actually, above a certain price point, the movement of so-called "premium"
ice cream gets slow and stays slow. Not momentary. Around here, $4-something
is the so-called "normal" price - that's where volume shrinks. Every product
is viewed differently by customers, insofar as whether they're necessities
you'll pay anything for. If you need eggs, you buy eggs, even if the store
isn't pricing them at loss-leader level at the moment. Ice cream's not like
that. Soda's a different story. For many people, that's considered a staple
item - there's always an opened liter in their refrigerators.

In article , George wrote:

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

That one, at least, is a bad choice of example when trying to illustrate your
point: left pedal brake, right pedal throttle is a requirement of Federal law,
and has been for many years. It's not something that manufacturers could
suddenly change on a whim.

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

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

"Doug Brown" wrote in message
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.



I have NO sympathy for suppliers to Wal Mart. The want the volume and they
willingly take a lot of crap from them. Thee is no obligation to sell to
any of the big tyrant stores. Do a Google search on Vlasic pickles+WalMart
and see how they were forced into bankruptcy because they had no balls. The
do a search on Snapper Mowers+WalMart and see how a company can tell them to
****off and still be successful.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...n_snapper.html

My company faced a similar situation. We supplied parts to a major
manufacturer of room air conditioners. They were our largest customer for a
few years. Tough to deal with, we still made a fair profit and they always
tried to squeeze us for more. Before the start of a season, they sent us
(and all their suppliers) a letter thanking us for past performance. They
then said for the next year they wanted a 25% price reduction for the same
parts. Then, if we agreed to that, they wanted a 6% rebate on the past years
sales to them.

We declined and asked where they wanted the tooling shipped. It went to a
hungry competitor that cheerfully took the business away from us. Two years
later, we had new and profitable customers, they had a bankruptcy filing and
the customer moved to Mexico and found new cheaper suppliers there.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Doug Brown" wrote in message
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.



I have NO sympathy for suppliers to Wal Mart. The want the volume and they
willingly take a lot of crap from them. Thee is no obligation to sell to
any of the big tyrant stores. Do a Google search on Vlasic
pickles+WalMart and see how they were forced into bankruptcy because they
had no balls. The do a search on Snapper Mowers+WalMart and see how a
company can tell them to ****off and still be successful.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...n_snapper.html

My company faced a similar situation. We supplied parts to a major
manufacturer of room air conditioners. They were our largest customer for
a few years. Tough to deal with, we still made a fair profit and they
always tried to squeeze us for more. Before the start of a season, they
sent us (and all their suppliers) a letter thanking us for past
performance. They then said for the next year they wanted a 25% price
reduction for the same parts. Then, if we agreed to that, they wanted a 6%
rebate on the past years sales to them.

We declined and asked where they wanted the tooling shipped. It went to a
hungry competitor that cheerfully took the business away from us. Two
years later, we had new and profitable customers, they had a bankruptcy
filing and the customer moved to Mexico and found new cheaper suppliers
there.



Snapper (lawnmower mfr) made a similar decision. Interesting article:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...n_snapper.html

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
(snip)

My company faced a similar situation. We supplied parts to a major
manufacturer of room air conditioners. They were our largest customer for a
few years. Tough to deal with, we still made a fair profit and they always
tried to squeeze us for more. Before the start of a season, they sent us
(and all their suppliers) a letter thanking us for past performance. They
then said for the next year they wanted a 25% price reduction for the same
parts. Then, if we agreed to that, they wanted a 6% rebate on the past years
sales to them.

We declined and asked where they wanted the tooling shipped. It went to a
hungry competitor that cheerfully took the business away from us. Two years
later, we had new and profitable customers, they had a bankruptcy filing and
the customer moved to Mexico and found new cheaper suppliers there.

Good for your company. I wish more manufacturers had the balls to do the
same. Every time I have to replace a tool or piece of hardware with
moving parts, I am astounded at how cheaply the modern items are made.
I'm a cheap SOB, but I am willing to pay extra for quality, within
limits. Initial cost is only one factor in cost of ownership. If I have
to replace something in half or 2/3 the time span the previous item
lasted, but the price is only slightly lower, I haven't saved a thing.
And that doesn't even count the value of the time I have to waste
chasing a replacement sooner than I should have.


aem sends...

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

I have NO sympathy for suppliers to Wal Mart. The want the volume and
they willingly take a lot of crap from them. Thee is no obligation
to sell to any of the big tyrant stores. Do a Google search on
Vlasic pickles+WalMart and see how they were forced into bankruptcy
because they had no balls. The do a search on Snapper Mowers+WalMart
and see how a company can tell them to ****off and still be
successful. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...n_snapper.html

For every supplier such as Snapper, there are 10,000 WalMart suppliers who
have listened to the experts from WalMart on issues such as packaging,
material sourcing, paperwork reduction, automation, improved technology, and
the like. The insistence, for example, by WalMart on RFID tags will drag
many suppliers into the modern age, just like supermarket chains did with
barcodes.

With sufficient RFIDs, you can bypass the time-consuming check out line. As
you leave Walmart, a sensor will scan all the stuff in your basket and read
the credit card numbers in your wallet.

That's efficiency.




My company faced a similar situation. We supplied parts to a major
manufacturer of room air conditioners. They were our largest
customer for a few years. Tough to deal with, we still made a fair
profit and they always tried to squeeze us for more. Before the
start of a season, they sent us (and all their suppliers) a letter
thanking us for past performance. They then said for the next year
they wanted a 25% price reduction for the same parts. Then, if we
agreed to that, they wanted a 6% rebate on the past years sales to
them.
We declined and asked where they wanted the tooling shipped. It went
to a hungry competitor that cheerfully took the business away from
us. Two years later, we had new and profitable customers, they had a
bankruptcy filing and the customer moved to Mexico and found new
cheaper suppliers there.

On Mar 1, 6:55*am, George wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your claim was that it wasn't dishonest to shrink packages because
people could read the labels

And I will continue to claim it isn't dishonest. What isn't true? Is
the container labled with a weight that differs from the actual
weight? Does it ring up at the register differently than the price on
the sign? Does it not contain the product that it says it does?
Where's the lie?

Deviation from the norm is not dishonest. Deviation from the norm is
called change - sometimes for the better, sometimes not, and sometimes
it really makes no difference at all.

It was once the norm that women and certain minorities could not vote.
Then we "deviated" and things got better.

It was once the norm that teachers could take certain actions when a
student disrupted the class enough that the other students couldn't
learn. Then we "deviated" and things got wor - errrr - things changed.
(I'll leave that discussion for another thread.)

Once people have learned something we don't examine the minutia
each time and just go on with life.

Being observant is not the same things as examining the minutia. What
I get for my hard earned money is very important to me, so while I'm
pretty sure that the power level of my microwave isn't going to change
each time I use it, I can't be as confident about the price and/or
quality of my purchases. Therefore I stay observant when I shop. I
compare the unit prices, I carefully examine any package that says
"new and improved" - basically I'm careful that I don't get "fooled"
by gimicky marketing strategies.

So when we buy the "gallon" ice cream we reach for the package
that has always represented a gallon.

Pop quiz: What company registered the slogan "An educated consumer is
our best customer"?

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
Pop quiz: What company registered the slogan "An educated consumer is
our best customer"?

Syms used that line.

While making packages smaller is perfectly legal, the purpose behind it is
still to deceive the customer rather than raise prices.

On Mar 1, 10:15*pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

Pop quiz: What company registered the slogan "An educated consumer is
our best customer"?

Syms used that line.

While making packages smaller is perfectly legal, the purpose behind it is
still to deceive the customer rather than raise prices.

Syms used that line.

Still does. http://www.syms.com/

While making packages smaller is perfectly legal, the purpose
behind it is still to deceive the customer...

I guess companies that do that don't believe that "An educated
consumer is our best customer". Pop Quiz II: Name 2 ways to keep from
being deceived. Hint: Look between the quotes for one answer.

...rather than raise prices.

But they did raise prices - they raised the unit prices - which is the
only way to compare prices between otherwise similiar products.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...rather than raise prices.

But they did raise prices - they raised the unit prices - which is the
only way to compare prices between otherwise similiar products.

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

That should have been followed with "on the standard sized package"

If a half gallon container was good for 90 years or so, there is no logical
reason that changing the size is better. Certain commodities in the store
have been sold by the pint, quart, pound, dozen, for ages and fluffing up
products in the same sized can at lower count is a marketing ploy

There are countless people that make bad assumptions. Such as Home Depot has
the best prices on home repair products. Or that they have a large
selection. Of that Best Buy is a great place to buy an appliance. At one
time, there was some truth to that. I'd drive 30 miles to a big box store
or discounter and save $100 over the local guy. The local guy got smart and
figured out how to sell at the same price and offer better service.

Today, my wife want to go to Lumber Liquidators to look at flooring. Her
perception was that they would have good flooring at cheap prices. They
don't. Instead, I went to a local store less than a half mile from my
house and got a deal that no big box store or internet sell could match. .

On Mar 2, 12:07*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...rather than raise prices.

But they did raise prices - they raised the unit prices - which is the
only way to compare prices between otherwise similiar products.

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

That should have been followed with "on the standard sized package"

If a half gallon container was good for 90 years or so, there is no logical
reason that changing the size is better. *Certain commodities in the store
have been sold by the pint, quart, pound, dozen, for ages and fluffing up
products *in the same sized can at lower count is a marketing ploy

There are countless people that make bad assumptions. Such as Home Depot has
the best prices on home repair products. *Or that they have a large
selection. *Of that Best Buy is a great place to buy an appliance. *At one
time, there was some truth to that. *I'd drive 30 miles to a big box store
or discounter and save $100 over the local guy. *The local guy got smart and
figured out how to sell at the same price and offer better service.

Today, my wife want to go to Lumber Liquidators to look at flooring. Her
perception was that they would have good flooring at cheap prices. *They
don't. * Instead, I went to a local store less than a half mile from my
house and got a deal that no big box store or internet sell could match. *.

That should have been followed with "on the standard sized
package"

What? You really gotta explain that one. I'm not even going to hazard
a guess as to what you are trying to say.

If a half gallon container was good for 90 years or so, there is
no logical reason that changing the size is better.

Where in the previous 138 messages in this thread has anybody said it
was "better"?

(changing sizes) "is a marketing ploy"

I think we've all agreed to that...numerous times.

Home Depot, Best Buy, local retailers and Lumber Liquidators

Nice stories. Thanks for sharing. What have they got to do with
companies trying to hide price increases by making the package
smaller? My God...they haven't shortened the 8 foot 2 x 4, have they?

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 10:15 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

Pop quiz: What company registered the slogan "An educated consumer is
our best customer"?

Syms used that line.

While making packages smaller is perfectly legal, the purpose behind it is
still to deceive the customer rather than raise prices.

Syms used that line.

Still does. http://www.syms.com/

While making packages smaller is perfectly legal, the purpose
behind it is still to deceive the customer...

I guess companies that do that don't believe that "An educated
consumer is our best customer". Pop Quiz II: Name 2 ways to keep from
being deceived. Hint: Look between the quotes for one answer.

...rather than raise prices.

But they did raise prices - they raised the unit prices - which is the
only way to compare prices between otherwise similiar products.

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


Back to the original subject: I was at Home Depot yesterday because the
local hardware store was out of the fluorescent bulbs I needed. I took a
look at the Behr paints. They're 126 oz. Not a pint short. I wonder which
brand the OP was talking about.

On Mar 2, 9:50 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

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

Back to the original subject: I was at Home Depot yesterday because the
local hardware store was out of the fluorescent bulbs I needed. I took a
look at the Behr paints. They're 126 oz. Not a pint short. I wonder which
brand the OP was talking about.

I also wonder if the 3 7/8 gallons referred to somewhere above hasn't
got a metric equivalent, such as 4 liters....well, it least in the
fourth decimal.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

While making packages smaller is perfectly legal, the purpose behind
it is still to deceive the customer rather than raise prices.

Not always. WalMart rags on its suppliers to reduce package size, thereby
reducing shipping and stocking costs. Walmart also complains about items
that are double or triple wrapped when single wrapping would do.

For example, we've all seen boxes labeled "Box may not be full due to
settling in shipment." Walmart, and others, say " 'Settle' the stuff before
you package it and use a smaller box."

cavedweller wrote:

I also wonder if the 3 7/8 gallons referred to somewhere above hasn't
got a metric equivalent, such as 4 liters....well, it least in the
fourth decimal.

The containers that are just a fraction short of a gallon tend to be tint bases
or paint colors that can be used as a base. Tint bases come in different flavors
depending on what the final color will be. The bases used for darker colors (ie
that need more tint) tend to be well under a gallon, with the lighter tint bases
being closer to a gallon.

In , JoeSpareBedroom wrote in part:

Back to the original subject: I was at Home Depot yesterday because the
local hardware store was out of the fluorescent bulbs I needed. I took a
look at the Behr paints. They're 126 oz. Not a pint short. I wonder which
brand the OP was talking about.

126 ounces is short of a gallon, though not by a pint.

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
cavedweller wrote: (Previously quoted material snipped)

I also wonder if the 3 7/8 gallons referred to somewhere above hasn't
got a metric equivalent, such as 4 liters....well, it least in the
fourth decimal.

4 liters is more than a gallon, not less.

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In , JoeSpareBedroom wrote in part:

Back to the original subject: I was at Home Depot yesterday because the
local hardware store was out of the fluorescent bulbs I needed. I took a
look at the Behr paints. They're 126 oz. Not a pint short. I wonder which
brand the OP was talking about.

126 ounces is short of a gallon, though not by a pint.


Ya think?

In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In , JoeSpareBedroom wrote in part:

Back to the original subject: I was at Home Depot yesterday because the
local hardware store was out of the fluorescent bulbs I needed. I took a
look at the Behr paints. They're 126 oz. Not a pint short. I wonder which
brand the OP was talking about.

126 ounces is short of a gallon, though not by a pint.

Ya think?

I know for sure! And I am not talking about imperial gallons or
anything like that.

Makes me want to start paying attention to milk bottles to make sure I
am not being cheated! ...
The one in my fridge says: "1 gallon, 3.78 l". That is more than
126 US fluid ounces.

- Don Klipstein )

On Mar 2, 6:19 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,

cavedweller wrote: (Previously quoted material snipped)

I also wonder if the 3 7/8 gallons referred to somewhere above hasn't
got a metric equivalent, such as 4 liters....well, it least in the
fourth decimal.

4 liters is more than a gallon, not less.

- Don Klipstein )

Of course. Silly me and my brain fart.

On Feb 29, 11:53*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

course, law of unintended consequences, free market, dysfunctionality
of prohibition, etc.... many small stores and markets in the inner
cities sell individual cigarettes "under the table". some are careful
not to sell them to kids, some aren't.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

SNIP


Nice stories. Thanks for sharing. What have they got to do with
companies trying to hide price increases by making the package
smaller? My God...they haven't shortened the 8 foot 2 x 4, have they?


Actually, funny you should mention it, they have. Many lumber mills and
home centers are selling 8 foot 2x4's that are only 93" long, so that
you won't have to cut them for your 8 foot wall. And although we call
them 2x4's, they haven't been 2x4 for about 65 years. Now the ones in my
house are 2" x 4", and it is a pain in the a** to do any remodeling. You
either replace the whole wall, or you cut down 2x6's to match.

Sadly though, some companies, like some people, never learn. Snapper,
now owned by Simplicity, a division of Briggs and Stratton Corp., who
also owns the bankrupt remains of Murray, will be selling Murray based
products labeled with the Snapper name through Sears ( KMart ) this
year. They are also offering this crap to their dealers, for about the
same price that KMart will be selling it. (Remember, though the took on
the Sears name, KMart bought Sears, not vice versa.)

Personally, I hope it costs Briggs a bundle.

And anyone who bought a Toro in the last year who didn't get one of the
last "Wheel Horse Classic" tractors, got a relabeled MTD. Much like
anyone who bought a Troybilt the last few years before they went
bankrupt and were bought outright by MTD.

All these companies want is to line the pockets of the upper management
and make enough profits to keep their stock price climbing so the
shareholders won't catch on to how they and their customers are being
ripped off.


Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

I have NO sympathy for suppliers to Wal Mart. The want the volume and they
willingly take a lot of crap from them. Thee is no obligation to sell to
any of the big tyrant stores. Do a Google search on Vlasic pickles+WalMart
and see how they were forced into bankruptcy because they had no balls. The
do a search on Snapper Mowers+WalMart and see how a company can tell them to
****off and still be successful.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...n_snapper.html

My company faced a similar situation. We supplied parts to a major
manufacturer of room air conditioners. They were our largest customer for a
few years. Tough to deal with, we still made a fair profit and they always
tried to squeeze us for more. Before the start of a season, they sent us
(and all their suppliers) a letter thanking us for past performance. They
then said for the next year they wanted a 25% price reduction for the same
parts. Then, if we agreed to that, they wanted a 6% rebate on the past years
sales to them.

We declined and asked where they wanted the tooling shipped. It went to a
hungry competitor that cheerfully took the business away from us. Two years
later, we had new and profitable customers, they had a bankruptcy filing and
the customer moved to Mexico and found new cheaper suppliers there.

On 03/13/08 12:13 am Husky wrote:

Nice stories. Thanks for sharing. What have they got to do with
companies trying to hide price increases by making the package
smaller? My God...they haven't shortened the 8 foot 2 x 4, have they?

Actually, funny you should mention it, they have. Many lumber mills and
home centers are selling 8 foot 2x4's that are only 93" long, so that
you won't have to cut them for your 8 foot wall. And although we call
them 2x4's, they haven't been 2x4 for about 65 years. Now the ones in my
house are 2" x 4", and it is a pain in the a** to do any remodeling. You
either replace the whole wall, or you cut down 2x6's to match.


I've certainly seen the 92 5/8" (I don't think they're even a full 93")
studs, but I've never seen them labeled as 8' -- simply the length they
are. The 96" ones are available too, but I don't see the store confusing
them.

As for "2x4"s not being 2" x 4" ... AIUI, finished lumber was described
by the pre-finished size, and everybody knew that -- and not just in
USA. I don't see the justification for mislabeling unfinished lumber. I
don't know what they do in other countries now.

Perce

Husky wrote:

All these companies want is to line the pockets of the upper
management and make enough profits to keep their stock price climbing
so the shareholders won't catch on to how they and their customers
are being ripped off.


Not that there's anything wrong with that.

See, if you owned stock in the company, you could afford to buy a better
product with the dividends.