In this case you are probably right. I've not run into the metric
You do bring up an interesting point. It has to cost a bundles to
change from a 32 oz to 30 oz between tooling for the glass,
recalibrating filling machines, changing case sizes. All cost that is
passed on to the consumer.
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:41:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Here we go again with the same ridiculous assertion that consumers are bein
g 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 p
rice fits this definition.
- (of a person) cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typi
cally 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.
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 10:51:55 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
being deceived by smaller packages. I'll make this easy for you.
us how a clearly marking a container with the weight of the contents and t
he price fits this definition.
typically in order to gain some personal advantage.
only on the "deception" aspect.
How I wish you were kidding me, but I'm pretty sure you are not, and that i
They "hope" the customer does not notice?
How long as this practice been going on? How many articles, TV stories, int
ernet blogs, usenet groups, etc. have covered this issue? Do you honestly t
hink that the companies marketing the smaller packages are sitting around "
hoping" the consumer doesn't notice?
I can just picture those board room strategy meetings. "Shh...don't tell a
nybody, but we're going to reduce the mayonnaise package size again, label
it correctly but not lower the price. Those idiot shoppers will never notic
e. Heck they haven't noticed it yet. We haven't heard a word about it, so w
e're good to go. 30 oz this week, 28 oz next week. Eventually, all we'll ev
er need to ship is those little squeeze packages. Gawd, those consumers are
The "intention" may be to make more money but it is not to *deceive* the bu
ying public. I don't know how many different ways it can be said, but if a
consumer is "deceived" by a clearly labeled package, then they are the ones
at fault, not the company selling the product.
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 1:02:02 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
at is sad.
internet blogs, usenet groups, etc. have covered this issue? Do you honest
ly think that the companies marketing the smaller packages are sitting arou
nd "hoping" the consumer doesn't notice?
Wait...I'm confused. Are you no longer saying that the companies are trying
to deceive us?
As of about 2 hours ago your claim was "The intent is to reduce the package
size and hope the customer does not notice we are making more money."
Have you now backed away from that assertion?
They are still trying, but many (not all) have caught on. There are
still some getting deceived, as was the original intent. They are not
suddenly going back to the old size though. You wont' see "Now 32
ounces, yeah, you caught us" .
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.
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 2:23:00 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
Wait...in your response to Mike you said "I wouldn't exactly call it "decep
tion"" and "Deception, no; sneaky, you bet".
Are you now saying "Deception, yes" because you feel it fits that definiti
Changing your mind is OK. :-) I'm just trying trying to make sure I know w
here you stand on this issue. I may not agree with you, but I can't say tha
t until I know which side you're on. ;-)
We can argue definitions for weeks. The intent is to make more money
and have the customer not notice. Sleazy at least, IMO, the intention
is to deceive. Your option to agree or not. The want the customer to
think it is business as usual.
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.