Why must some companies make price increases that are sneaky--not straightforward?

[carolina73]

Actually, I did. I wrote the Smith's Dairy Corporate Office in Orrville, Ohio, and complained.

Attachment 31010

What did they do? Send you a coupon or did they decline to answer?

[pjohns]

I used to sell a product. This was years ago.

You could but the product made in our European factory for $18 each
You could but the USA made product for $25 each
You could buy the same product as the Engineered product for $35 each

I set the line up in Europe with the same materials to make sure that it was the same. It was a global Fortune 500 company. It was the same product.

We had people buy mostly the cheaper product with the blue label
We sold a very large number of the USA made "same product" with a yellow label at the medium price.
We sold still a very significant number of the Engineered product at the highest price. Made at the same time with a different label applied.
We sold the same product under the Sears marketing style of Good-Better-Best even though they were all the same and it more accurately described the price instead of the product.

When I was about 18 or so--this was considerably over 50 years ago--I worked as temporary labor (for Manpower, I think); and one place I was sent manufactured peanut butter.

It came out under 36 different labels.

But does that mean that there were 36 different types of peanut butter?

Well, no. Not exactly.

After we finished one batch, someone simply changed the labels on the machine--and then ran another batch.

Note: The one actual difference was between the "creamy" batch and the "chunky" batch.

[carolina73]

When I was about 18 or so--this was considerably over 50 years ago--I worked as temporary labor (for Manpower, I think); and one place I was sent manufactured peanut butter.

It came out under 36 different labels.

But does that mean that there were 36 different types of peanut butter?

Well, no. Not exactly.

After we finished one batch, someone simply changed the labels on the machine--and then ran another batch.

Note: The one actual difference was between the "creamy" batch and the "chunky" batch.

That's the way it works most of the time. Look at the food recalls that had 20 or 30 brands attached to them.

I'll bet customers all over the US were saying they liked one of those labels better than the other labeled peanut butter and swore they could taste the difference.

[pjohns]

I thought, for a moment, that I might owe an apology to the company in question. After all, its product is a store brand; and I thought that the product that it mimics might have downsized also, thereby prompting this action.

Alas, I have just found that the national brand remains 23.6 ounces.

[Reason10]

One practice that I simply despise is downsizing.

I do understand that inflation is a reality; and that companies must, therefore, periodically pass along those higher costs--including wholesale costs of the product itself; labor costs; rent on the building (if it is not owned outright); and any other costs associated with the production of goods.

But a straightforward price increase is certainly an honorable way to achieve that.

Downsizing, on the other hand--in the apparent hope that many people will just not notice the slightly smaller package--is not really honorable.

For instance, the 23.6-ounce container of body wash that I regularly purchase is now just 22.0 ounces. (The container it comes in is of an irregular shape--so I really cannot describe it by the typical geometric terms--but the new bottle is designed just like the old bottle.)

If the company had simply increased its wholesale price by less than seven percent, so that its retail outlets might increase their own price from an even $3.00 to $3.26, it could have achieved the same end--but without any deception.

I suppose that I just do not like deception in marketing.

Correction: I know that I do not like deception in marketing.

Accountants do that. Their job is to squeeze every penny they can for their CEO, who basically has a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders.

[pjohns]

Accountants do that. Their job is to squeeze every penny they can for their CEO, who basically has a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders.

That would make sense--except that it assumes that consumers will not notice the difference (as has surely been planned).

But is that a safe assumption?

[pjohns]

Oh, another of my pet peeves (although this is not anything new): Sugar has been downsized from the original five pounds to just four pounds.

I would much prefer to pay 25 percent more than to get 20 percent less. (The 25 percent more is in comparison to the number four, whereas the 20 percent less is in comparison to the number five.)

[stephenpe]

Pissess me off too. I used to use zest soap forever. Now the bars about 1/3 the size and dont think the even use the old formula. And carton of OJ that were always 1/2 gallon. Now much less. Coffee can be 13 or 12 or even 11 oz. packages that all look the same. And im sure that cereal boxes hold much less (the normal sized ones) than they did 30 yrs ago.

I bet if a company if came out and said they would give you your money's worth with the old amounts they would get some business. If the quality was the same.

[Cotton1]

One practice that I simply despise is downsizing.

I do understand that inflation is a reality; and that companies must, therefore, periodically pass along those higher costs--including wholesale costs of the product itself; labor costs; rent on the building (if it is not owned outright); and any other costs associated with the production of goods.

But a straightforward price increase is certainly an honorable way to achieve that.

Downsizing, on the other hand--in the apparent hope that many people will just not notice the slightly smaller package--is not really honorable.

For instance, the 23.6-ounce container of body wash that I regularly purchase is now just 22.0 ounces. (The container it comes in is of an irregular shape--so I really cannot describe it by the typical geometric terms--but the new bottle is designed just like the old bottle.)

If the company had simply increased its wholesale price by less than seven percent, so that its retail outlets might increase their own price from an even $3.00 to $3.26, it could have achieved the same end--but without any deception.

I suppose that I just do not like deception in marketing.

Correction: I know that I do not like deception in marketing.

Can you keep a secret?

Profit

Thats what companies are designed to do

Dont tell.

[The Booman]

Can you keep a secret?

Profit

Thats what companies are designed to do

Dont tell.

This seems to confuse them. No one goes into business to not make money. if they did the unemployment rate would be at 50 percent minimum.