Ripped off at Sherwin WIlliams

[Chris]

I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think) or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! I expected I was buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that reasonable expectation. Yes, I know that the container is accurately labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading. The container doesn't even have an integral, normal number of metric units. I'd actually appreciate it if they sold 1 liter and 4 liter containers (6% more paint than a quart or a gallon) and I'd even live with that at

7-8% above the qt/gal price. They could market it as giving you a little more so you don't run out with 1sq ft on a job.

[Chris]

No.

[SQLit]

And you thought that the cute marketing and packaging was to your benefit. wrong again melon head. ( humor is intended )

I have gotten so that I read the packaging on everything before I buy. Products change so fast it is harder and harder to maintain the "informed consumer" status.

[TURTLE]

This is Turtle.

You should call them back up and have them give a answer to this so we can get both sides of the story. i tried calling the Sherwin Williams store in my area and ask about it and the fellow who was talking to said this. I said i think the gallion of paint you sell is short just a little bit of 1 gallion size. He said awwww let me see how many qt.s are in a gallion ? I said 4 . He said well let me call the area manager and I will get back with you. i told him Never mine I will call back later.

See if you can get a better answer !

TURTLE

[barry]

Excuse me, but do you work for one of these marketeers? IMHO, that's the most transparent, nonsensical, rationalization one could respond with.

If there's a recognized, or informal, standard unit of measure involved in some trade, that should not be putzed about with. Good thing such crooks can't transform the magnitude of a pound, gallon, dozen, whatever for bulk products.

People in D.C. also should learn that what matters is the TRUTH. Tell it. Charge accordingly. Let people make their own decisions as to tradeoffs, and don't manipulate.

TTFN, J

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 07/29/05 11:19 am Doug Kanter tossed the following ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

Yes, so are the 56oz. "half gallon" (NOT) ice cream packs "clearly marked" -- but many people aren't going to read the markings on the package every time, especially if it's a brand that they've been buying for years.

And the "unit pricing" labels in the grocer store don't always help, because the label for one brand may give the price in cents/oz. while the label for another brand may be in $/lb.

Perce

[Duane Bozarth]

Doug Kanter wrote: ....

Unequivocally, would either find a way to cut production costs or reluctantly raise prices. I would under any circumstances choose of my own volition the "under-size the container" solution.

And, btw, I think the undersized ply is an abomination too (and always will no matter long they label it 23/32".

[nobody]

My first guess is that the contents of the can are deliberately kept a bit "short" of a gallon to allow for a typical addition of tint. Remember, most paint color is blended in the store and some of the tones require a lot of added pigment.

Nobody

[Duane Bozarth]

Where did I say they weren't? What about did you not understand?

....

The point is, either way you paying the higher volume price...just one way it's clear while the other way it's not (and a deliberate attempt to pull a "fast one" over on the consumer, imo)...

[3rd eye]

Did they add any colorant?

[Doug Kanter]

Admittedly, it's annoying when package sizes change (as they do constantly with groceries), but I think "preyed on me" is not accurate. As you said, the container was clearly marked.

[meirman]

In alt.home.repair on 29 Jul 2005 06:23:38 -0700 "Chris" posted:

In addition, I would suspect (but don't know) that it's going to screw up experienced painters who know how much they can paint with a gallon.

Meirman

-- If emailing, please let me know whether or not you are posting the same letter. Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

[Duane Bozarth]

Doug Kanter wrote: ....

Again, no one else has said it was "evil" although I do believe it verges on unethical (although I'm sure those who choose to do so can convince themselves that it's ok because, after all, the label says what is in the container).

Actually, the reasons are quite simple--

1. People price-conscious...see the "99 cent" pricing syndrome.

1. People conditioned to expect certain things to be in certain size packages--coffee in 1-lb tins, for example. People tend to actively scan similar-sized containers for the actual label, so it is possible to "get by with" a price increase, on the whole, w/o actually acknowledging it. This is, of course, the previous argument against the practice, but it is a real factor in the pricing and purchasing mentality.

So it boils down to an argument in psychology and the marketeers and advertisers have determined they optimize their overall return by using the subterfuge of raising prices by lowering quantity as opposed to raising prices on fixed quantities.

[Doug Kanter]

Well, what's the company supposed to do? Using your ice cream example: You know the price of dairy products has gone up, right? Now, Breyers has a choice. They can raise the price, or shrink the package. The first option's a little dicey. Breyers knows EXACTLY what price range is acceptable to customers, and what price will make sales drop off by a huge percentage. They get this information from the stores, obviously. Second option - shrink the package. This has kept Breyers closer to the acceptable price range. In a way, it's necessary because many shoppers think the cheap crap ice cream is an identical replacement for Breyers, so if the price of Breyers is too high, they'll make nothing. Lots of shoppers will opt for the lesser brand.

But meanwhile, Breyers pisses off customers by shrinking the package. What's the alternative? Put up big signs pointing out that the package size has been reduced? For how many months or years should these signs be displayed? Maybe design some temporary packaging with a big reminder on the front? That's expensive. Guess who's going to pay for that? And, how long should that temporary packaging be used?

Wal Mart's famous for that nonsense. For that, you should scream at the store manager, and also go past him/her and call the home office. In some place, it's illegal, too. Call your county's department of weights & measures.

Back to the paint: If you were responsible for cost control at Sherwin-Williams, and because of some REAL factor (raw materials, labor, etc), you absolutely had to maintain a certain profit margin, how would you handle it?

[Doug Kanter]

Some production costs are beyond your control. For instance, is latex paint in ANY way dependent on the cost of petroleum? And, what about transportation? Two years ago, I could ship groceries by truck for $1.50 a mile. Now, it's between $1.90 and $2.25, depending on location. Pretty hefty price hike. Would you be OK with paying $25 for a gallon of paint instead of $19?

[Doug Kanter]

Why not call a few manufacturers and see what their logic was. Start with Sherwin-Williams. Continue with General Mills, Kraft. Del Monte etc etc etc. Maybe they found out from focus groups that the smaller package was a better idea. There might be a reason for this. Think about it. Let's say you have a fairly strict food budget. $100 a week, to pick a number. Now, your favorite ice cream goes up $1.00 in price. 5 cans of beans go up a quarter each. Your detergent does the same, along with paper goods. Add it all up and perhaps your bill is now $120.00. You may say you can adjust to that, but a whole lot of people can't. So, who should the manufacturers cater to?

I'm not saying you're wrong to be outraged by a size change, but I don't think the motives behind it are pure evil, as some people suggest.

[Doug Kanter]

Who? Me? No.

Do you know the precise reason for the size change?

[Doug Miller]

What part of "getting less for your money" are you having such a hard time understanding? The alternatives are pretty clear: spend more to buy the same, or spend the same to buy less. Neither one is at all desirable from the consumer's POV.

Suppose five cans of beans go up a quarter each (while the size stays the same) and you can't afford the increase, so you buy only four.

Alternatively, suppose that the amount of product in the can is cut by twenty percent while the price stays the same. You buy five cans, just like you always have, but now you're getting only as much beans as you used to get with four.

Either way, you spent the same amount of money buying four cans' worth of beans that *used* to buy you five cans' worth.

[Doug Kanter]

Thanks for the math lesson. Let's eliminate one possible reason for such changes, even though it's equally likely to BE the reason. Here it is:

A bunch of suits sit around a conference table discussing how they all want to dump their company's stock, which has been flat for 3 years. So, they MUST increase profits. They can either cook the books, or they can actually raise profits. They decide to do it by screwing the consumer.

Keep in mind that I said this ***** IS ***** a possible reason.

Now that we've eliminated evil as a motive, what's left? As a person who understands business, what OTHER reasons can you come up with? There HAVE to be reasons. What are they?

[Doug Miller]

Nonsense - you haven't eliminated it, you've *dismissed* it.

Greed is, of course, the most obvious explanation. Did you have something else in mind?