My post count: 43 JoneeEarthquake post count: 529 Finding out jonee is a major idiot without a clue....
Dude, smell what you're shoveling here. :$ You're making it seem like they dropped the quantity so that they could afford to leave the price the same, so that we wouldn't have to have the extra cost of making ice cream "passed on to us." But we still are paying for the increase in production cost. It's just that with chicanery they make it seem like the price per given quantity of ice cream has not changed. If they make the quantity less and leave the price the same, that is not any different from leaving the quantity the same and upping the price! Duh! So, Widgets cost $10.00 for a pack of 100. The cost of widgets goes up appreciably, so rather than charging us $12.00 for a pack of 100, the Widget Mfg. Inc. drops the price down to $9.00 but gives us only 80 Widgets in a pack. Now instead of costing $.10 per Widget, they cost $.1125. Tell me again how that saves the customer the increased production cost? That's not doing business ethically. Ethically would have been to simply let us know clearly how much more we have to pay, by raising the price on a quantity we were already used to. Are you really saying that they protected us from paying more by dropping the quantity down disproportionately much compared to how much they dropped the price? If you want to make fun of other posters as "classic consumers" or whatnot, at least you should make sure you yourself understand the concepts. Any person who believes that a manufacturer is going to eat the cost of a production cost increase rather than work that increase into the price of his product is a fool. -Jeffrey
.... you want ethical businesses? There's no way in hell they can survive in the economies that we've built, the capitalist take-advantage-of-as-many-people-as-you-can system we set up. There are a few that are slightly more ethical than some of the major corporations (ie any business that has unions is, IMHO, slightly more ethical than Walmart), but none that are truly ethical.
No, It is different. (Random numbers and situation) Instead of paying $3.50 you would of had to pay $4.00. Let's say $4 is not in the budget for ice cream. Now you can't buy it at all. You don't have the choice to only buy the amount you can afford. However, what really happend is the price was the left the same and it still remains within the budget of those who have been buying it all this time. So it is different and in a very significant way. I did not say the consumer isn't paying for the difference, there is no way around that. However, they won't see a direct hit to their budget and they can still afford ice cream. And what I meant by classic consumer is that you focus in on the negatives and ignore any possible positives.
Damnation. How many Times is this Thread gonna go full circle? Stick a fork in the ice cream - it's done.
The gripe here was that Bryers made the box look the same, which was underhanded. At least one other supplier is making the box different so that consumers know. Breyer's now has the proud distinction of having "Fuck You, Breyer's" show up on the google search engine. Breyer's did gain a temporary profit advantage over their competitors, because some consumers thought they were getting a better price not realizing the box was only 1.75 qts. They made the box smaller partly because it's getting embarassing selling a box that costs over $6. It's even worse with breakfast cereals, like oat bran selling for 6 bucks a box. That stuff is raw grain worth about ten cents a bushel. The Congress started investingating the breakfast cereal market a few years ago. And you know what? The three major cereal companies immediately dropped the price per box by a dollar. You know they were making at least a dollar profit per box. So, what next? Make the ice cream box 1.5 quarts when the price for a 1.75 qt hits $8 ? Actually, it saves the consumer money to put things in larger packages. There is less packaging cost per item (more volume per surface area) and less packaging waste to go into the environment, which also costs tax payer money to clean up. Anyone can afford the old box. If the price is higher, you just don't buy it as often. .
If Breyer's truly had the interest of the consumer in their hearts, they should have added a label saying "NEW SMALLER SIZE SO YOU CAN AFFORD A BOX!"
Underhanded? or just less expensive? Retooling is expensive as hell. As I said before, most box stamping machines are easily adjustable by a few turns of wrench to create different sizes and thus no expense. Making a new image to add the words "Reduced to 1.75 quarts" in big bold letters is just stupid and not in the best interest of the company. Everyone take an honest look (like this will happen) as though you were selling something. Would you make a billboard and also add to the box in big letters "Reduction in quantity"? Hell no you wouldn't and don't even say you would because it would be a lie. Underhanded? you wouldn't think so if it was your money at stake. You would be just like all the other companies and do whats legal and leave it at that.
LOL!! You are absolutely right, but it seems to me that MHR is just being an apologist for the company, and coming up with reallllly specious crap rationalizations. Like you said, if affording ice cream at $5 a half gallon is such an issue, people are really just waiting for the company to drop the price to $4 and drop the volume? Puhlease. Like you said, if you can't afford it this week because it's a dollar more than you "can afford," you simply buy it less often. It's not like milk or diapers that you have to buy regularly. -Jeffrey
Well, here you go pretty much admitting that this was NOT a move to help out consumers at all, but to maximize their profits. First you were saying that the dropping the quantity was done to help consumers who would not have been able to afford the original half-gallon quantity when the price went up. If that was the case, they would have had no reason to be sneaky and concealing about what they were up to. Now you're saying that of course they would not want to broadcast the change in quantity: but if it was really done to help the consumers, why not? Answer: it was not done to accomplish anything but higher profit margins. -Jeffrey
Two seperate issues! Bzzzzzzz The downsizing was to help the consumer avoid a price increase. Because, advertising less quantity is just stupid marketing no matter what the intentions were. Bzzzzzzzz It was done to maintain existing profits. The price of ingredients has increased. They either pass this cost as a price increase or a quantity decrease. As I agreed earlier, consumers will pay for the extra production cost, no way around this. However, paying the same vs paying more is a far better choice for everyone even if you get a tad less. You are just having a hard time seperating the difference between smart marketing and stupid marketing. No company is going to advertise anything negative, that's just ridiculous of you to think they should. Any increase in price or decrease in quantity is a negative. However, to try and put a positive spin on this bad situation, they opted to at least maintain the same pricing which is in the best interest of everyone.
Now there's somethin' I'd like to talk to you about at this particular moment, and that's about the one thing that we won't be able to do together. Unless we all become as one. And if we all become as one, then we can walk thru it together. Now I ain't walked thru it all the way yet. But there was a time I walked into it, and I had to go into it alone, that's this place called the Halls of Karma. Now when you go into the Halls of Karma the way I did, I don't know, it might have been hallucination, but I think it was real. You see I felt the presence of the two energies; the positive and the negative; of God and the Devil, however you want it. And they were pullin' and decidin' and wondering what to do with my soul, and I couldn't take this at this moment 'cause I had to come back to be with you people to do a thing and I proved to 'em, in bargainin' with 'em that I had a thing to do for the good of all of us. Out of this bargain, the devil, he got my body for the good in his needs while I'm here on earth and the Lord, he's got my mind for the good of the universe and for the good of man. And they both got me in between 'cause they both got my soul. So the next time I come up, I want the Lord to, Please have Mercy, On My Soul -BOA
What Breyers did was sneaky. It's as simple as that. It was a poor judgment on their part. Anyway, this is a consumer advocacy forum, not a business apologetics forum. The purpose of this forum is to call out businesses when they do something sneaky, as Breyers did. I noticed this past week that one of the supermarkets I visit narrowed down the generic ice cream brand shelf space considerably. The whole aisle is almost all Edy's and Breyers. There's a tiny sliver of space at the end of the aisle now where I buy generic ice cream. Edys and Breyers must be giving store managers free vacations in Florida in return for the shelf space. It reminds me of when I was running a thermocouple business and tried to buy thermocouple wire from a major manufacturer. They kept telling me that they were out of stock. It turned out that one of my competitors was also buying from that manufacturer and found out about me. He convinced the supplier to not sell to me. He was a larger company and probably offered the supplier manager a freebie, such as a free vacation or something. I ended up getting a collegue of mine to order the wire for me. The supplier had it in stock all along. .
We've already been through this. At least one other manufacturer let the consumer know about the size change. They could have said something like 'New Economical Size' or something. It's simple. There's nothing like perceptive consumers to frustrate the hell out of businesses that try to slip something past them. .
Anyone want to wager if MHR is an employee of Breyers? I've never heard anyone come up with so many apologetic excuses for a company. Hey Andcrs2, that's three for me!