Ripped off at Sherwin WIlliams

Page 3 of 6  
In alt.home.repair on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:38:10 GMT snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) posted:

I think in fairness, it was the same point.

Meirman -- If emailing, please let me know whether or not you are posting the same letter. Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

If they're successfully being greedy, how come their stock price doesn't show it. How come YOU haven't bought the stock? Oh, wait, because of your higher moral grounds? Hang on, i'll save a place for your portrait in the Chappaquiddick Museum of Fighting For The People
The people who put their money where their mouth is, apparently feel that the shrinking-package syndrome is just playing catch-up with external costs.

You don't have the balls.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In alt.home.repair on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:57:20 GMT "Doug Kanter"

A private owner can sacrifice profits to do what is right, without anyone to complain about it (except maybe his wife.)
But corporate CEOs and boards are always saying they have a duty to the stockholders to maximize profits. I wonder how true that is, in law and in practice.
This is what little I know about it. The law could be both stricter and/or more lenient than in practice. I think it can both at the same time, but in different ways, of course.
The law might provide exceptions, probably does provide leeway, but that doesn't mean that stockholders were settle for less than the maximum. OTOH, in practice most stockholder pay little attention to what is going on, and only a few big ones do pay attention, most of the time. And very few vote against board nominees, nor do they have much chance of electing an opposition slate except when things are very bad.
Acting the "right" way is good for customer relations, even if it is only done because it is right, so decisions about "truth in packaging" are probably never a violation of the management's duty to maximize profits. OTOH, at the end of the line, stockholders won't care what went wrong if the company is losing money or making a lot less than it did. (How is Sherwin Williams doing financially?) Like owners not caring why a team is losing when he fires the coach. But team owners are different because usually one person makes the decision.
I've been to one corporate annual meeting, a Fortune 500 company but I forget which. All I remember is that the meeting was west of Rutgers University in NJ. (at some big community college or community auditorium iirc.) One dissenter wanted a vote on something, maybe enviornmental although I think it was not that but similar. She didn't even get to make a speech. This is typical iiuc. But they did have a nice buffet in the "lobby?".
Meirman -- If emailing, please let me know whether or not you are posting the same letter. Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
meirman wrote:

It never seems to bother them when their negotiating their own compensation packages. Just this last week there was some media coverage of the former Delta Airlines CEO who managed to get a multi-year multi-million dollar "consulting fee" thaat included clauses to prevent the consultations from being either inconvenient nor taking very much of his time. All it took was a lot of stockholder money.
There ought to be a law mandating the maximum amount of compensation allowed in publicly held corporations directly tied to the income of their average employee. In Japan, the CEOs of the largest corporations make 7-10 times that of their average employee; here it can run 100s of times.
Don't tell me you have to offer 100s of times the average salary to attract the best. I'm sure they're not interested in earning what the average man makes and will accept what you offer on top of that. Even if they wouldn't, what have you lost? Most of these overpaid CEOs seem to be running their companies into the ground. The CEO of Delta didn't set the world on fire with anything except his exit package.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

snipped-for-privacy@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

consumers are worthy of respect than producers

just the other day, a oil producer told me that he's sick and tired of selling the same size barrel of oil to you for $40, when you keep shrinking the value of the dollar by deficit spending
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dances_with snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Why is either one inherently more worthy than the other?

over $60.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are people getting skinny since they now consume less from the smaller packages?
I really really want a 7 Series BMW but it is not in my budget. Do you think they should sell a version with only three wheels so that I can afford it? Or do yo think I should buy another brand that I can afford?

I do. They want to keep the price in line with the competition. They do this by reducing size. I was part of a program years ago to reduce cost on some products. The idea was to make the tubing walls thinner, a few less fasteners, and on and on. It worked for a while, but when customers got PO'd, the company went out of business. The problem with the food industry is that they all do it so they are all equal.
My favorite ice cream did go up $a package, but it is still smaller than the half gallon of decades before. No I only buy it when it is on sale and I stock up. What did they gain?
Evil, I say, evil in the name of market share and profits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Evil? What's the alternative? Slowly go out of business??? And, what's so evil about a company like Breyers shrinking their package a bit, when there's a world full of rocky road/marshmallow addicts who are happy to pay twice as much (unit price) for those little Ben & Jerry's containers?
Your "thinner tube walls" analogy is a bit off, by the way. You reduced the quality. Not the same as a food or paint company reducing the amount per package.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So you are saying that since others are being deceptive it is OK for all to be deceptive?
You are saying since people are willing to pay a lot of money per ounce for B & J is is OK for Breyers to go to a smaller container? It has been a half gallon for 50+ years that I know of and all of a sudden we find that 1.75 quarts is a better size? For who? Certainly not the every day consumer that may not have even notices for a few months
The "owner of the month" of Breyers is whoring the name and reducing quality also. Most of the new proudcts have all sorts of unneeded crap in them that they never needed. Guar gum is cheaper than cream so they came out with a new vanilla. Now it is a crappy as the competition.
Breyers used to be a very good independent in the Philadelphia area but then they were sold to Sealtest, then Kraft, Good Humor, now Unilever. They also had better flavors years ago, like raspberry ice and bananna.

My point was less product for the same or more money. It was not so much the quality but the lesser value that did them in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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

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

As you described it, it pretty clearly *was* the lower quality that did them in.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Greed??? They were getting hammered by local brands and private label, at a time when the price of raw milk rose drastically. What would YOU do? Increase the price beyond a point which, in the minds of consumers, was already a little edgy, in terms of what they think a half gallon of ice cream is worth?
Try this: What would have to happen in order for you to pay $6.75 for a half gallon of ice cream, and to do so 3-4 times a month? If you think that price is too high, then name your limit, and describe how you came up with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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

It works for Ben & Jerry, and Edy...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

And, that leads us right back to the question you snipped, which deals with perception, something you don't want to entertain, and which also drives manufacturer crazy trying to figure out.
Here's the question:
What would have to happen in order for you to pay $6.75 for a half gallon of ice cream, and to do so 3-4 times a month? If you think that price is too high, then name your limit, and describe how you came up with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Irrelevant. Stick to the subject, instead of constantly changing it, or shut up.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Define the subject you think I'm not addressing and we'll continue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

No doubt, but relying on perception is different that giving the real deal. Some are still selling full half gallons, some are going to small containers. The reality is they are relying on the customer not noticing the downsizing when comparison shopping.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

people who homebrew their own ice cream don't have the problem.
people who don't can piss and moan all day long... then buy what's on offer.
"the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:5gKGe.828

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier, which nobody is comfortable answering: If you were informed of the size change, would that have satisfied you? If yes, how would you like to be informed?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, of course not - why would I, or anyone, be satisfied with paying the same price, for 12.5% less product? That's a disguised price increase of over 14%. It's sleazy, but as long as the label accurately describes the contents, it's hardly deceptive.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:5gKGe.828

What? First, you say the change is disguised, and then you say it's hardly deceptive if it's labeled accurately. But, all along, you've been arguing that the situation stinks. So, back to my question: Would it be better if you saw signage in the store announcing the size decrease? Or, temporary packaging with a large banner announcing the change?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.