# When a gallon is not a gallon

A pound of gold has only 12 ounces.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Feb 28, 12:02 pm, snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry W) wrote:

That's already been pointed out...and replied to.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Gold is measured in Troy and is 12 Troy ounces.
The lb we know and love is measured in Avoirdupois. 1 Troy pound = 13.1..... Avoirdupois
Dick
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
"Blattus Slafaly £ ¥ 0/00 :)" wrote:

Yeah, I just bought a salami at Sam's. If was labeled "Yard of Beef," but was only 18" long!
When I pointed this out to the check-out person, he said: "It's a short three feet."
I think that was a line from the movie: "The Night They Invented Burlesque."
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Maybe its to leave room so they can add tint? Was it flat white or Base?
Rich
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
greg2468 writes:

Here the 1-pound can of coffee has been 13 oz for some time.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:49:39 -0800 (PST), greg2468

I don't follow the other products mentioned, but candy bars get smaller and smaller and then they get bigger in one big jump and the price goes up.
Then they start getting smaller again.
AIUI most economists think that mild inflation is good for the economy because it encourages businesses and people do things now, but the cost of the war will imo cause greater than mild inflation for quite a few years.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:49:39 -0800, greg2468 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.
It's a way to trick consumers into thinking the economy is hunky-dory and that inflation is in check. We're so used to buying containers that we forget to read what's actually in them. By downsizing containers and quantities, we are actually paying a higher percentage for goods than we were 5 or 10 years ago.
Next time I paint a wall, I'm going to paint only 80% of it and charge the full amount. Same effect. I'll just have to convince customer that the 20% unpainted looks great and is part of the decor.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Another bullshit answer from someone who thinks products reach the stores by growing wings and flying there for free.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:42:53 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

It's more than transportation costs. If a supplier were to raise prices 20%, the consumer may not buy the product but go to a competitor. Keep the packing the same in looks but smaller in size and keep prices close to what they are, the consumer will grab the package without thinking of increased cost. The vendor wins. The consumer thinks he/she is getting the same goods at the same price.
Now that fuel costs are rising, we'll see more price increases, but the smaller packages have little to do with it..
It's a marketing and a way to increase profits.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Now that they're rising? I deal with trucking groceries all day long. Freight costs began rising 4 years ago. I'm surprised that price increases have lagged so far behind. It had to happen eventually.

The OP describes it as an attempt to fool people. That's bullshit. What kind of work do you do? Do you expect to get salary increases from time to time?
This reminds me of a long debate in a cooking newsgroup, in which whiners were complaining that Breyers had shrunk their 64 oz ice cream package. This was portrayed as evil. Some of the idiots seemed to expect Breyer's to send a post card to every household in America, informing them of the change.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:48:04 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Packaging: Already done. The new size is printed on the labels.
Advertising: You think manufacturers should pay for ads informing customers of shrinking sizes?
By the way, does paint depend on any petroleum-based raw materials?
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

I don't begrudge a price increase when needed. The reason for the change was profit by deception.
Breyers (and others) took a deceptive way out of raising prices. Ice cream has been in 64 ounce containers for 60 years that I'm aware of and prices have risen as cost have risen. It worked that way for a long time. Suddenly the marketers found they could scam a lot of people into thinking they are getting the same product for the same price. No matter how you look at it, the purpose was to raise prices, not help the consumer. Egg cartons, thankfully, still have 12 eggs in them.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
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.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

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.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
wrote in message

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.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

The price is now \$5.49 locally. At 64 ounces it would be \$6.29. They passed the \$4 mark and are still selling. The only time I'll buy it now is when on sale every few weeks. I get a few and keep them in the freezer. Sale price is up to \$2.74 last week. Rather than run sales on rotation, just sell at a fair price every day. Since they cut the package size, I've not bought any at full price. Screw them.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
wrote in message

Most sales are initiated by the stores, not the manufacturers. At the moment, most stores are paying between \$3.28 and \$3.96 per container for the product.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

## Site Timeline

• ### Kitchen faucet chatter

• - next thread in Home Repair
• ### Concept in concrete

• - previous thread in Home Repair

• ### Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

• Share To

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.