Lets not overlook the practice of adding a broad yellow band around the top of spray cans that state "BONUS - 10% MORE!!!" The band usually covers the top
20% or more of the can. It is clearly intended to make you think that the yellow band marks the amount of "can and product" that has been added.rusty redcloud
Greed: selling more cans of beans by selling smaller cans at the same price per can, which is of course entirely equivalent to selling the same amount of product at a higher price.
Expanding the business: selling more cans of beans by providing greater value (actual or perceived) through a better product, better advertising, greater variety of choices, etc. -- IOW, selling more product.
Note that the former case is *not* actually expanding the business; it's merely increasing profitability.
If you actually have something in mind, just state it, instead of playing this guessing game.
>
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...
Addressing your comments about "merely increasing profitability" and "guessing game" - here's yet another chance to entertain a new idea. The price of transportation has gone through the roof. Whether a company runs its own trucks, or uses common carriers, there is NO WAY they can control the price of oil. I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.
Transportation takes an enormous bite out of profits in the grocery industry. Exactly how would YOU deal with this, if you did not want to raise prices or shrink sizes?
Not true. Ed's explanation is correct; the amount of shrinkage is measurable, but _nowhere_near_ the 25% that would be required to turn two inches into one and a half.
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.
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.
Here you go again... "Moving Target Kanter" finds the discussion not going the way he wanted it, and so he changes the subject *again*. You haven't addressed my comments at all.
Nope, not me.
Stick to the point, or shut up.
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?
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.
I am sticking to the point. You're talking about "increasing profitability". I'm modifying that slightly - how about restoring lost profitability, which you may need in order to remain in business. In other words, if you made 15% profit for 10 years, and suddenly, something beyond your control causes that to drop significantly, you either find a way to recover the money, or maybe you go out of business.
One factor which affects the bottom line is transportation. How would you address a factor over which you had little or no control? We're talking about fuel costs.
Define the subject you think I'm not addressing and we'll continue.
Partly true. It will shrink a bit as it dries, but then it is planed to a consistent size. It may be possible that some 2 x 4 can be made to 1 5/8 or
1 11/6, but then that would drive everyone crazy.
Right, but the moment I see "made in someplace else" on a container of ice cream, I'm gone. :-)
Those bastards!
I probably snipped because I wanted to focus on fuel. I don't remember. Could've also applied to the price of milk, sugar or vanilla, though.
"things one doesn't want to do" Let's look at the answer our other contestants chose. Mr. Miller says "evil and deception". Sorry...
Bells! Whistles! Balloons! Duane, our contestant from somewhere USA just won the bonus round! Duane, let's watch as Vanna shows you what you've won! :-) A lifetime supply of Molson Brodor, the real stuff, smuggled over the border from Canada!
In other words, NOT sticking to the point.
Bye.
Your fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no contradiction there.
That's silly. Why would that be better?
Of course I am. The point is profitability. Doesn't matter whether you're increasing it, or simply maintaining it in the face of various factors. You seem to be saying that increasing it is a bad thing. Why?
HomeOwnersHub website 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.