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?
You owe me a buck. It is made about 40 miles from me. It may be a metric bottle though.
I've not take the time to check, but in the past, imported beer was in
12 ounce bottles sold in the US. Could have changed as I don't buy that much beer, I do buy one from Canada and it is 12 ounces.
Yep. In this case the product specific coupon was much less than the sale price and a 20% coupon. It was even a little lower than the sale price and a rarer 25% coupon.
Steal them from the fast food places. While you are there, fill up on catsup and mustard. And next time you eat out, don't forget the crackers :)
I wouldn't exactly call it "deception", more like "they won't notice a slightly smaller jar so we can give them less for the same $$". Sure, people can check the unit price but most people would never do that for an item they buy regularly. IOW, the sellers are hoping their customers won't notice a slightly smaller package. Deception, no; sneaky, you bet.
At least the potato chip folks have the "Contents may settle" admonition on their mostly air filled packages.
That doesn't fit, how? A slightly smaller container certainly gives a mistaken impression.
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" .
Which brings the total for minimum wage and subsidies pretty much in line with what you earned in 1963. You seemed to do OK, so why all the hullabaloo among the minimum wage earners for more money? They going to give up the subsidies (yeah, sure)?
ME..ME. I do. But what does that have do do with anything? I bought and paid for those. Against my will though. If I'd had my druthers, I'd rather have eschewed SS and taken care of myself; I did anyway but could have done WAY better if I'd been able to use the SS tax that the feds forced upon me.
Ditto medical for most of the time. Now, not so much, costs have just gotten way out of hand.
What is it about big government that you find so endearing?
"dadiOH" wrote in news:mgovk8$f6c$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight not so good. Plus SSI was there for you had you needed it all your working years - investments not so much.
Looks like a good beer! Instead of a buck, how about I buy you one of those if we ever meet up?
My point in all this is that the 11.2oz bottle isn't, nor has it ever been, a technique used to deceive the consumer. It's simply the "metric system" in action.
How do you explain those evil cola companies giving away an extra 3-1/2 ounces in every 1/2 gallon of soda!? :-p
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 on?
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. ;-)
I say if people are too stupid no notice and so naive as to "fall for it," then that's just Darwinism in action. While we're at it, let's get an entire segment of the population so hooked on mayonnaise and all this other fattening stuff that we create an evolutionary change in their DNA that makes them so obese the entire sub-species goes extinct from heart failure.
We're half way down that path already. If this natural selection also weeds out the people who have so little stress in their lives that they see this "deception" as an actual problem that needs to be dealt with, that's icing on the increasingly smaller portions of cake. :-D
Not when it's clearly labeled as being smaller.
s, internet blogs, usenet groups, etc. have covered this issue? Do you hone stly think that the companies marketing the smaller packages are sitting ar ound "hoping" the consumer doesn't notice?
ying to deceive us?
kage size and hope the customer does not notice we are making more money."
You'll just never get it will you?
Nor would I expect them to, but if they did, I would expect a higher price and I would not feel deceived. It's really a very simple concept.
Bottles of beer here in Canada have been 341 ml for a long time, if you do the conversion that is 11.5 US Fluid ounces, or 12 UK Fluid ounces. Go figure.
Yet the cans are 355 ml, or 12 US Fluid ounces
The question I have is: Why is 12 oz common for both cans and bottles in the US, yet cans and bottles in Canada are different sizes?
--------------------------------------- Helps if your eyeballs are calibrated to read barcode.
Lew
No flipping clue, and those extra 14ml, cost a mint, I buy bottles for a reason. :-)
Actually my best guess would be the cans are made in the US, and bottles are made in Canada. Then they are sort of both 12oz, depending on US or UK ounces.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required