|
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:24:49 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/15/2015 3:05 PM, Leon wrote: Well that is how you and I think but is a sad statement that most people pay for their fun before their necessities. Many years ago I worked for a company that made hobby products (mostly doe model airplanes) When the economy went bad and unemployment went up, so did out sales. No work time, so, more time for hobby. Well, when I was out of a job, my Home Depot budget went through the roof. ;-) Just because you're not working doesn't mean you're broke. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:24:29 -0400, Bill
wrote: Leon wrote: On 4/15/2015 8:00 AM, Mike Marlow wrote: Mr.E wrote: Look at the mayonnaise jars- now 30 oz. instead of 32 oz. Sauers just succumbed to this and I am looking at other brands for the first time in years. I quit Unilever over their "Just Mayonnaise" fiasco. No more Lipton,Knorr or other Unilever for me. If enough of us over react, this bs will not be acceptable. That's the principle behind consumer driven markets but the problem is that seldom (to the point of almsot never...) do consumers band together to create enough of a force to drive things like this. As long as consumers don't get into money used for entertainment and sports they are not likely to worry about a few extra dollars for the same product. That's funny! I assume you mean to include beer too (as part of entertainment). Oh, hell no. That comes before food, in the bill hierarchy. ;-) |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:26:57 -0400, Bill
wrote: -MIKE- wrote: On 4/14/15 11:45 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: "Bill" wrote: Went to Lowes the other day to buy another box of Hefty 39-gallon 1.3 mil "Steel-Sak" garbage bags. From my records, I have observed these price increases: 2009, $9.99 2010, $10.98 2011, $11.99 2015, $12.99 The price increase didn't bug me that much this year. What bugged me was when I got home I found out there are now only 28 bags in the box instead of 30! Along with the price increase, it bugged me...lol There are cheaper options, and will be choosing one of them. My new choice is unlikely to involve either Lowes or Hefty. ---------------------------------------------------------- Been to the supermarket lately. The favorite way for retail consumer products to get a price increase is to maintain the package size while reducing the quantity of the product in the package. As examples a half gallon size (64 oz) box of ice cream is now 56 oz, and a 5 oz box of Irish Spring bath soap is now 3.75 oz but the box sizes for these items have remained constant. Lew Aren't these things clearly marked on the packaging? You guys are acting like they're trying to pull on over on you. You can see the price and the quantity or weight or volume clearly marked on the labels. You're not stupid cows sauntering over to a feed trough ever day gulping down whatever was shoveled into it. They didn't go "out of their way" to note that the product was changed (similar to Turbo Tax Deluxe, this year). I know you have a hardon for Intuit (I'll not be using them next year, either) but there is a comparison of the various software levels on the package. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 23:04:33 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote: Doug Winterburn wrote in eb.com: On 04/15/2015 11:41 AM, Richard wrote: On 4/14/2015 9:46 PM, Bill wrote: Went to Lowes the other day to buy another box of Hefty 39-gallon 1.3 mil "Steel-Sak" garbage bags. From my records, I have observed these price increases: 2009, $9.99 2010, $10.98 2011, $11.99 2015, $12.99 The price increase didn't bug me that much this year. What bugged me was when I got home I found out there are now only 28 bags in the box instead of 30! Along with the price increase, it bugged me...lol There are cheaper options, and will be choosing one of them. My new choice is unlikely to involve either Lowes or Hefty. Guys, this is NOT price increases. This is inflation at work. And it's about to skyrocket! Who among us really believes or government can spend trillions of tax dollars without this happening? You mean trillions of borrowed dollars. Raising the minimum wage would save billions in subsidies to McDonalds and Walmart (etc) employees. Absurd. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On 4/15/2015 8:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 4/15/2015 5:46 PM, John McCoy wrote: Ed Pawlowski wrote in : What does that have to do with quality? They downgraded the features, but that does not mean the quality of the product is affected at all. You have the terms confused. Quality has to do with tolerances, grades of material, proper assembly. In some contexts, "quality" means "fitness for a certain purpose". In this case the older product was more fit for Bill's purpose, and thus the newer is of lower quality. John A quality item (an item that has quality) has the ability to perform satisfactorily in service and is suitable for its intended purpose. It may not suite Bill's need, but if the new design performs to the now intended purpose, it is of equal quality. If it was of equal quality, why would Bill prefer the old box? He wants added features. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On 4/15/2015 9:13 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 4/15/15 6:56 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 4/15/2015 11:37 AM, -MIKE- wrote: As examples a half gallon size (64 oz) box of ice cream is now 56 oz, and a 5 oz box of Irish Spring bath soap is now 3.75 oz but the box sizes for these items have remained constant. Lew Aren't these things clearly marked on the packaging? You guys are acting like they're trying to pull on over on you. You can see the price and the quantity or weight or volume clearly marked on the labels. You're not stupid cows sauntering over to a feed trough ever day gulping down whatever was shoveled into it. Sure, we can read and that is why we are bitching about it. I'd rather pay the higher price and get the former half gallon of ice cream instead of buying 1 1/2 quarts. In a year's time I have to buy 16 packages instead of 12 to get the same amount of product. It is a waste of packaging material too. Try putting a quart of home made soup in a 30 ounce mayo jar. The manufacturer is attempting to deceive. Deceiving you buy clearly labeling the product with the amount and a price. Make perfect sense. Every village needs idiots. When people have been buying quart bottles of mayo for 50 years, most don't look at the jar size every time they buy. Then it becomes 30 ounces for the same retail price. The purpose it to raise revenue and hope the customer does not notice. It is called deception. Perfectly legal. Many people have not notices until they got home. Sleazy way of doing business, IMO. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:17:10 -0400, krw wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:23:57 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 4/15/2015 11:40 AM, krw wrote: On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:40:02 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 4/15/2015 10:20 AM, Electric Comet wrote: On 15 Apr 2015 15:08:01 GMT Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: is cheaper and sometimes it's not. The only way to know for sure is to pull out the calculator and crunch some numbers. good stores show cost/ounce right there i have asked several times at one store why they have no cost/unit shrugged me off we don't care, we don't have to This is true but they could also "not post the correct calculation per oz or lb. to steer you towards what they want you to buy. I have seen that. If it really matters to you it is best to make the calculations yourself. "They" can also be on the receiving end of huge fines. Yet I have never ever heard of this happening. I have heard of problems where the price label does not match the register receipt but never where the cost per oz. or lb. are incorrect. Most people simply look at the total price and that is the price that has to be correct. It happens all the time in NY. I don't know if they still have the law, but at one time if the unit price label was wrong, the item was free. It was known as an "incentive" to get it right. ;-) Don't know about unit pricing laws, but stores thad adhere to the "scanning code of practice" give you $10 off the proper price if the scanned price is higher than the marked price. Under $10 it is FREE. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:22:35 -0400, krw wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:12:43 -0400, "dadiOH" wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: wrote: snip Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum wage employees. snip ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it done. Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for some pocket money. Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the $7.50/hr federal minimum wage. If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be asked to pay for it. Lew, if raising the minimum wage would enable all to enjoy a better standard of living (except for the 1% of course :) then why haven't the two dozen + raises in it over the last 70 years accomplished that end? The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices. ...and decrease employment. A "living wage" would increase business, because more people would be able to afford to buy products. $7.50 is NOT a living wage. Nor is $12.00. It would increase prices somewhat, for sure - but overall it WOULD improve the economy. I KNOW it will never happen in the "greatest country on earth" because it's not "the american way" |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On 04/15/2015 06:56 PM, Richard wrote:
Nothing borrowed here. It's "taken" in the form of taxes What's YOUR share of the US debt? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...cmp=latestnews http://www.foxnews.com/tax-calculato...t-federal-debt For now, about 40% of spending is covered by borrowing, but the debt (as a result of that borrowing) will result in taxes in the future when the bill comes due. -- "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" -Winston Churchill |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On 4/15/2015 10:05 PM, krw wrote:
Raising the minimum wage would save billions in subsidies to McDonalds and Walmart (etc) employees. Absurd. I'm not sure Back a couple of centuries ago (1963) I had a minimum wage job and was able to support myself, pay for college and buy a 2 year old car. Today, many minimum wage workers are getting subsidized healthcare and food stamps. What is different? See my other post bout inflation and comparitive value. My $1.55 per hour then is equal to $11.89 today. Minimum wage has not kept up. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:59:08 -0400, krw wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:24:49 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 4/15/2015 3:05 PM, Leon wrote: Well that is how you and I think but is a sad statement that most people pay for their fun before their necessities. Many years ago I worked for a company that made hobby products (mostly doe model airplanes) When the economy went bad and unemployment went up, so did out sales. No work time, so, more time for hobby. Well, when I was out of a job, my Home Depot budget went through the roof. ;-) Just because you're not working doesn't mean you're broke. It sure does if you've never made more than minimum wage, or never made a "living wage" A large percentage of North American families are one paycheck away from "broke". And a large percentage of them are hard working folks who try, but will never get ahead. There are enough of them looking for work with a "living wage" that an employer does not need to hire someone who is not worth their wages. Yes, that will leave the unemployable unemployed. There will need to be programs to give those who CAN NOT do the jobs that pay a living wage. Likely need to be programs for those who won't work as well - like wellfare - which we already have. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
Can you still lift a 40# bag?
|
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
|
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On 4/15/2015 9:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
When people have been buying quart bottles of mayo for 50 years, most don't look at the jar size every time they buy. Then it becomes 30 ounces for the same retail price. The purpose it to raise revenue and hope the customer does not notice. It is called deception. Perfectly legal. Many people have not notices until they got home. Sleazy way of doing business, IMO. It's either hit the shrink ray (the popular term used) or increase prices. Which would YOU prefer? |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
"Richard" wrote: It's either hit the shrink ray (the popular term used) or increase prices. Which would YOU prefer? --------------------------------------- My customers as well as myself prefer being straight up front about it and increase the price, but we are in the industrial side not the sleazy retail side. Lew |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On 4/15/15 9:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/15/2015 9:13 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 4/15/15 6:56 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 4/15/2015 11:37 AM, -MIKE- wrote: As examples a half gallon size (64 oz) box of ice cream is now 56 oz, and a 5 oz box of Irish Spring bath soap is now 3.75 oz but the box sizes for these items have remained constant. Lew Aren't these things clearly marked on the packaging? You guys are acting like they're trying to pull on over on you. You can see the price and the quantity or weight or volume clearly marked on the labels. You're not stupid cows sauntering over to a feed trough ever day gulping down whatever was shoveled into it. Sure, we can read and that is why we are bitching about it. I'd rather pay the higher price and get the former half gallon of ice cream instead of buying 1 1/2 quarts. In a year's time I have to buy 16 packages instead of 12 to get the same amount of product. It is a waste of packaging material too. Try putting a quart of home made soup in a 30 ounce mayo jar. The manufacturer is attempting to deceive. Deceiving you buy clearly labeling the product with the amount and a price. Make perfect sense. Every village needs idiots. When people have been buying quart bottles of mayo for 50 years, most don't look at the jar size every time they buy. Then it becomes 30 ounces for the same retail price. The purpose it to raise revenue and hope the customer does not notice. It is called deception. Perfectly legal. Many people have not notices until they got home. Sleazy way of doing business, IMO. I can assure you is wasn't the same price for 50 years. If they are guilty of taking advantage of idiots, it's the idiots' fault. If people are too stupid to see the volume or weight CLEARLY written on the package and then blame the company for ripping them off, then *that's* the problem with our society, not the size of the mayo jar. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
-MIKE- wrote:
I can assure you is wasn't the same price for 50 years. If they are guilty of taking advantage of idiots, it's the idiots' fault. I can't advocate for taking advantage of idiots. If people are too stupid to see the volume or weight CLEARLY written on the package and then blame the company for ripping them off, then *that's* the problem with our society, not the size of the mayo jar Maybe the right question is to ask whether the mayo jar was changed with the intent "to deceive". Our society leaves a lot of room for angle-shooters (too)--look what is spent on getting ahead via the law. Ask Intuit who successfully lobbies against a simplied tax system. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
Baxter wrote:
Raising the minimum wage would save billions in subsidies to McDonalds and Walmart (etc) employees. That's a ray of light..."Sorry, m'am, you now make too much to qualify for Section 8" :) -- dadiOH ____________________________ Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race? Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/15/2015 10:05 PM, krw wrote: Raising the minimum wage would save billions in subsidies to McDonalds and Walmart (etc) employees. Absurd. I'm not sure Back a couple of centuries ago (1963) I had a minimum wage job and was able to support myself, pay for college and buy a 2 year old car. Today, many minimum wage workers are getting subsidized healthcare and food stamps. What is different? See my other post bout inflation and comparitive value. My $1.55 per hour then is equal to $11.89 today. Minimum wage has not kept up. How much per hour are the subsidies worth? -- dadiOH ____________________________ Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race? Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
Bill wrote:
2009, $9.99 2010, $10.98 2011, $11.99 2015, $12.99 Since there was so much interest, I did the calculation just for fun. This years increase represents a 16.1% price increase, in the price of each bag, before sales tax. Feel free to double-check Are you saying that an increase of $1.00 on $11.99 is 16.1%? If so, YOU need to doublecheck. -- dadiOH ____________________________ Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race? Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
dadiOH wrote:
Bill wrote: 2009, $9.99 2010, $10.98 2011, $11.99 2015, $12.99 Since there was so much interest, I did the calculation just for fun. This years increase represents a 16.1% price increase, in the price of each bag, before sales tax. Feel free to double-check Are you saying that an increase of $1.00 on $11.99 is 16.1%? If so, YOU need to doublecheck. You forgot that you only got 28 bags this time instead of 30. I computed the change in the price per bag (not the change in the price per box), which is what we mostly care about. Feel free to double check. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:56:11 -0500, Richard
wrote: Nothing borrowed here. It's "taken" in the form of taxes What's YOUR share of the US debt? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...cmp=latestnews http://www.foxnews.com/tax-calculato...t-federal-debt Yeah but Fox News is a religion. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
Leon wrote:
FWIW I controlled pricing my entire management career whether that was retail or wholesale. I was always in a situation where the store was very successful, so we were tweaking all prices. We, 25+ years ago, based our pricing on some items as to whether they was easily handled in all aspects. And that was long before computers were really being used much to track those aspects of particular parts. While this very well may not be the situation of the dog food package size, more and more stores encourage you to get an employee to help lift those items and often it is 2 employees that do this. That costs more. Retail as we have been discussing it in this thread, meaning HD, Lowe's, etc. don't worry about that.aspect of things. As far as special purchasing incentives go that was on going for us and that was seldom passed on the customer. It was more of an incentive to help the manufacturer to lower his stock levels. If we, especially in the automotive business, lowered pricing it was difficult to raise the prices back up. So we simply slowed our inventory turns by stocking up and increasing our gross profit. I vividly recall buying freon for 38 cents per pound in one pound containers back in the early 80's. Bought straight from GM it was $1.50 something and doubled that for retail pricing. Going from 38 cents to $3.00 something a pound was a wonderful profit item. I typically ordered 2400 one pound cans each spring to get us through the summer. The larger bottles were available but they were heavy and not priced as well. That makes sense but in the retail we're talking about, Special Purchases are a common thing. You've seen them, I'm sure any time you've been in HD. Those are usually driven by sales incentives offered by the manufacturer. Those cost savings are indeed passed on to the customer. An example would be a 4 foot step ladder I purchased at HD - normally priced at $54. They had a Special Purchase stack just as you walked in the Contractor's Entrance - $39. Same ladder. There are commonly other Special Purchases also, that are similar to normal stock items, but are not in fact, normal stock items. -- -Mike- |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
Leon wrote:
If you are looking on line there could be several factors added. If the product is shipped direct from the the company warehouse vs. shipped to the store and stocked the pricing may make more sense. The on line store is not handling the product as much as if you go to the store to buy it so more for less makes sense. Yeah - but that seldom works into the unit pricing. -- -Mike- |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:41:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/15/2015 9:13 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 4/15/15 6:56 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 4/15/2015 11:37 AM, -MIKE- wrote: As examples a half gallon size (64 oz) box of ice cream is now 56 oz, and a 5 oz box of Irish Spring bath soap is now 3.75 oz but the box sizes for these items have remained constant. Lew Aren't these things clearly marked on the packaging? You guys are acting like they're trying to pull on over on you. You can see the price and the quantity or weight or volume clearly marked on the labels. You're not stupid cows sauntering over to a feed trough ever day gulping down whatever was shoveled into it. Sure, we can read and that is why we are bitching about it. I'd rather pay the higher price and get the former half gallon of ice cream instead of buying 1 1/2 quarts. In a year's time I have to buy 16 packages instead of 12 to get the same amount of product. It is a waste of packaging material too. Try putting a quart of home made soup in a 30 ounce mayo jar. The manufacturer is attempting to deceive. Deceiving you buy clearly labeling the product with the amount and a price. Make perfect sense. Every village needs idiots. When people have been buying quart bottles of mayo for 50 years, most don't look at the jar size every time they buy. Then it becomes 30 ounces for the same retail price. The purpose it to raise revenue and hope the customer does not notice. It is called deception. Perfectly legal. Many people have not notices until they got home. Sleazy way of doing business, IMO. Here we go again with the same ridiculous assertion that consumers are being deceived by smaller packages. I'll make this easy for you. Here's is the definition of "deceive". Do us all a favor and explain to us how a clearly marking a container with the weight of the contents and the price fits this definition. de·ceive dəˈsēv/ verb - (of a person) cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage. - (of a thing) give a mistaken impression. Don't talk about the legality or the sleaziness of the practice, focus only on the "deception" aspect. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:46:01 AM UTC-4, John Grossbohlin wrote: Up to a point this is true. However, stores like Home Depot, Lowes, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and other high volume stores often have products packaged to their specs and labeling. In some cases items sold at those stores vary slightly from what is available elsewhere and carry different SKU numbers. The latter eliminates the problem of them having to price match other stores as nobody else has that exact product and SKU. That's shocking! I can't believe that any reputable company would play such games. Home Depot: http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/pro...58d6b3_400.jpg Lowes: http://images.lowes.com/product/conv...0375000419.jpg I'm going to take advantage of this post to step back a bit from some of my earlier comments. Somehow, I had gotten it into my head that some of the earlier assertions were that large retailers were spec'ing products with minor difference which made it impossible to really compare like products, etc. That used to be commonplace with things like household appliances - clothes washers, etc. K-Mart was well know for doing that with Whirlpool products. That practice has fairly well gone by the wayside now because it just does not pay off. I do agree that labeling can be unique, and that may result in a unique model number by the manufacturer, but in cases like that it is quite easy to compare product specs to match up competing offerings from say HD and Lowe's. Competitors like that will typically price match based on those specs, even though it is not an exact same item. The company policy is that it must be the same product, but in reality, in the interest of getting the sale, most competitors will price match what is in reality, the same item, regardless that it may have a different model number. Many times - they will price match for a product that is "close enough" to what they are selling. So - I do agree that labeling can often be unique to a retailer while the product itself is not. Packaging can be also but it is not as common because there is a cost to packaging, so they don't play that game as much as labeling. Sorry that I somehow took the original comments the wrong way, and went off in a wrong direction... -- -Mike- |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
krw wrote:
It happens all the time in NY. I don't know if they still have the law, but at one time if the unit price label was wrong, the item was free. It was known as an "incentive" to get it right. ;-) I've never heard of it being free, but if the retailer does not update their shelf pricing and it's labeled at a lower price than what they are currently trying to sell for, you get the lower price. -- -Mike- |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
"Bill" wrote in message ...
dadiOH wrote: Bill wrote: 2009, $9.99 2010, $10.98 2011, $11.99 2015, $12.99 Since there was so much interest, I did the calculation just for fun. This years increase represents a 16.1% price increase, in the price of each bag, before sales tax. Feel free to double-check Are you saying that an increase of $1.00 on $11.99 is 16.1%? If so, YOU need to doublecheck. You forgot that you only got 28 bags this time instead of 30. I computed the change in the price per bag (not the change in the price per box), which is what we mostly care about. Feel free to double check. The other things that confounds the comparisons is that there are often production methodology changes, or subtle changes to the products that may or may not be noticeable but that do impact the production costs that are reflected in prices being held the same for longer periods of time. Regarding trash bags, for example, that might include a different composition to the material or different features on the bags such as shorter tying ears. We also cannot ignore price changes by competitors, the cost of suitable substitutes, and simple supply and demand (the latter which may be influenced by the product's image as compared to other similar products) as factors too! Yup... its easy to compare! John |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
John Grossbohlin wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message ... dadiOH wrote: Bill wrote: 2009, $9.99 2010, $10.98 2011, $11.99 2015, $12.99 Since there was so much interest, I did the calculation just for fun. This years increase represents a 16.1% price increase, in the price of each bag, before sales tax. Feel free to double-check Are you saying that an increase of $1.00 on $11.99 is 16.1%? If so, YOU need to doublecheck. You forgot that you only got 28 bags this time instead of 30. I computed the change in the price per bag (not the change in the price per box), which is what we mostly care about. Feel free to double check. The other things that confounds the comparisons is that there are often production methodology changes, or subtle changes to the products that may or may not be noticeable but that do impact the production costs that are reflected in prices being held the same for longer periods of time. Regarding trash bags, for example, that might include a different composition to the material or different features on the bags such as shorter tying ears. We also cannot ignore price changes by competitors, the cost of suitable substitutes, and simple supply and demand (the latter which may be influenced by the product's image as compared to other similar products) as factors too! Yup... its easy to compare! John I'm sure any gains achieved by the changes to procedures will be passed along to the consumer too. Thanks! Maybe we should compare the relative EPS? |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 8:45:49 AM UTC-4, Mike Marlow wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote: On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:46:01 AM UTC-4, John Grossbohlin wrote: Up to a point this is true. However, stores like Home Depot, Lowes, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and other high volume stores often have products packaged to their specs and labeling. In some cases items sold at those stores vary slightly from what is available elsewhere and carry different SKU numbers. The latter eliminates the problem of them having to price match other stores as nobody else has that exact product and SKU. That's shocking! I can't believe that any reputable company would play such games. Home Depot: http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/pro...58d6b3_400.jpg Lowes: http://images.lowes.com/product/conv...0375000419.jpg I'm going to take advantage of this post to step back a bit from some of my earlier comments. Somehow, I had gotten it into my head that some of the earlier assertions were that large retailers were spec'ing products with minor difference which made it impossible to really compare like products, etc. That used to be commonplace with things like household appliances - clothes washers, etc. K-Mart was well know for doing that with Whirlpool products. That practice has fairly well gone by the wayside now because it just does not pay off. Thank you for your "honesty". Staying with the InSinkErator situation, if I recall correctly Home Depot and Lowes used to do exactly what you are referring to. I can't remember how many years ago I bought my current garbage disposal, but I recall that it went *something* like this: HD carried 5/8 HP and 7/8 HP models. Lowes carried 1/2 HP and 1 HP models. You couldn't compare specs or get a price match because they were totally different models. Now it seems to be nothing more than a labeling difference (Badger 1 vs. Badger 100) although I suspect that it has always been that way. I would not be surprised to learn that e.g. the 1/2 and 5/8 models were actually the same unit, just labeled differently. I can't imagine that InSinkErator actually built units with a 1/8 HP difference for Lowes vs HD. Perhaps it was "legally" pointed out to them that that practice was bordering on fraud since they were...I mean...may have been...not putting the correct specs in their description. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
Ed Pawlowski wrote in
: On 4/15/2015 5:46 PM, John McCoy wrote: In some contexts, "quality" means "fitness for a certain purpose". In this case the older product was more fit for Bill's purpose, and thus the newer is of lower quality. A quality item (an item that has quality) has the ability to perform satisfactorily in service and is suitable for its intended purpose. It may not suite Bill's need, but if the new design performs to the now intended purpose, it is of equal quality. Quality is a subjective term - what one person perceives is not what another would. For instance, Bill would probably perceive my prior post as low-quality, because I typed "Bill" where I should have typed "Bob". You might consider it to be of adequate quality, because it conveyed the information it was intended to, irrespective of the name used. Apropos of the drill press, it's fair for Bob to say it's of lower quality, because it's less fit for his purposes. It's not capable of performing with an accessory that's commonly used with a drill press (to wit, anything with a morse taper). Someone else who doesn't use such accessories would likely say the drill press has adequate quality. John |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
Bill wrote in
: John Grossbohlin wrote: Home Depot and Lowe's have got to be making a killing on fasteners! I think they offer them more as a "convenience" than as a profit center. Like a "loss leader". Considering the manpower required to keep the shelves stocked with all those little bags and boxes, and the losses from the parts thrown on the floor by people frustrated at finding them in the wrong bins, they probably do take a loss on them. I suspect that's part of the reason my local HD replaced an aisle of hinges, latches, and similar hardware with motor oil and windshield wipers. Bigger packages, thus less labor to keep stocked. (that, and random addle-headed thinking by management - with an auto parts store on the other side of the intersection, who's going to go to HD for auto parts?) John |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On 4/15/2015 11:34 PM, Richard wrote:
On 4/15/2015 9:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: When people have been buying quart bottles of mayo for 50 years, most don't look at the jar size every time they buy. Then it becomes 30 ounces for the same retail price. The purpose it to raise revenue and hope the customer does not notice. It is called deception. Perfectly legal. Many people have not notices until they got home. Sleazy way of doing business, IMO. It's either hit the shrink ray (the popular term used) or increase prices. Which would YOU prefer? Either way, the price is raised. Am I going to use less mayo on a sandwich? No, at the end of the year I'm going to buy the same quantity be it in 4 big bottles or 5 smaller ones. I'm also being forced to pay for that extra package so it is even worse. How often do you downsize rather than increase the price. Next year it will be 28 ounce jars, then 26, 24, 22 ----soon they will be selling mayo in half ounce packets. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
|
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On 4/16/2015 12:15 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
The manufacturer is attempting to deceive. Deceiving you buy clearly labeling the product with the amount and a price. Make perfect sense. Every village needs idiots. When people have been buying quart bottles of mayo for 50 years, most don't look at the jar size every time they buy. Then it becomes 30 ounces for the same retail price. The purpose it to raise revenue and hope the customer does not notice. It is called deception. Perfectly legal. Many people have not notices until they got home. Sleazy way of doing business, IMO. I can assure you is wasn't the same price for 50 years. If they are guilty of taking advantage of idiots, it's the idiots' fault. If people are too stupid to see the volume or weight CLEARLY written on the package and then blame the company for ripping them off, then *that's* the problem with our society, not the size of the mayo jar. Of course it wasn't the same price. I don't have a problem with that. Everything has gone up, including my wages. Yes, the weight is clearly on the package, but the purpose of the change is to deceive. You did not answer my question. Do you check every container every time you buy groceries? Every bottle of ketchup, can of soup, jar of mayo? Sure, you will catch it at some point, but it is easy to get snookered one time. I bought a 6 pack (bottles) of a particular beer I wanted to try. Picked up the carrier, paid, took it home. At the dinner table I took a look and the bottle is only 11.2 ounces. Honestly, would you have thought to check? Beer has been in 12 ounce bottles since I was a kid and now it is 11.2. Sleazy, IMO. No, I did not buy any more of it. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On 4/16/2015 8:39 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Here we go again with the same ridiculous assertion that consumers are being deceived by smaller packages. I'll make this easy for you. Here's is the definition of "deceive". Do us all a favor and explain to us how a clearly marking a container with the weight of the contents and the price fits this definition. de·ceive dəˈsēv/ verb - (of a person) cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage. - (of a thing) give a mistaken impression. Don't talk about the legality or the sleaziness of the practice, focus only on the "deception" aspect. What do you call it? The intent is to reduce the package size and hope the customer does not notice we are making more money. Use all the fancy word you want, but that is the intention. |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
|
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
DerbyDad03 wrote in
: On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:41:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote: When people have been buying quart bottles of mayo for 50 years, most don't look at the jar size every time they buy. Then it becomes 30 ounces for the same retail price. The purpose it to raise revenue and hope the customer does not notice. - (of a thing) give a mistaken impression. Don't talk about the legality or the sleaziness of the practice, focus only on the "deception" aspect. Seems to clearly fall under that definition. Changing the size from one that's commonly used, and hoping the purchaser doesn't notice. Yes, that's a mistake on the purchaser's part, but that mistake is clearly the intent of the vendor. John |
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again
On 4/16/2015 6:42 AM, dadiOH wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 4/15/2015 10:05 PM, krw wrote: Raising the minimum wage would save billions in subsidies to McDonalds and Walmart (etc) employees. Absurd. I'm not sure Back a couple of centuries ago (1963) I had a minimum wage job and was able to support myself, pay for college and buy a 2 year old car. Today, many minimum wage workers are getting subsidized healthcare and food stamps. What is different? See my other post bout inflation and comparitive value. My $1.55 per hour then is equal to $11.89 today. Minimum wage has not kept up. How much per hour are the subsidies worth? Food stamps, (SNAP) is $180/month, healthcare is about $500+ based on local plans here for a single. That works out to about $4.37 per hour for 40 hours, 4 weeks. Comes out of our taxes. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter