Thread: Grocery Items: Same Price, Smaller Size

On Jul 11, 8:48*am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
> * * *Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
> and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to Campbell's
> soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last night and thought I
> would pass it on....
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936

I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
way I figured it. Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
frequently." And they're probably right; you can't go broke
underestimating the consumer. -aem

aem wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:48 am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
>> and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to Campbell's
>> soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last night and thought I
>> would pass it on....
>>
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936
>
> I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
> 30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
> way I figured it. Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
> price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
> reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
> frequently." And they're probably right; you can't go broke
> underestimating the consumer. -aem

A sad point, but a good one..

George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming
> smaller and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference
> to Campbell's soups).

Cambell's soup is not food. duh

Sheldon wrote:
> George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>> Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming
>> smaller and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference
>> to Campbell's soups).
>
> Cambell's soup is not food. duh

Whatever, Sheldon, whatever...

On Jul 11, 12:03�pm, aem <aem_ag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:48�am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > � � �Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
> > and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to Campbell's
> > soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last night and thought I
> > would pass it on....
>
> >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936
>
> I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
> 30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. �A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce,the
> way I figured it. �Manufacturers seem to think that if they raisethe
> price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
> reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
> frequently." �And they're probably right; you can't go broke
> underestimating the consumer. � -aem

Nothing new... the Canucks etal. have been selling petrol by the liter
for like forever.

"aem" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 11, 8:48 am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
> Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
> and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to Campbell's
> soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last night and thought I
> would pass it on....
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936

I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
way I figured it. Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
frequently." And they're probably right; you can't go broke
underestimating the consumer. -aem

Ice Cream has gone from 1/2 gallon (64 OZ) to 1.75 quarts or 48 ounces a
decrease of 25%

Rat Bastards!

Screw them make your own ice cream.


--
Old Scoundrel

(AKA Dimitri)

Sheldon wrote:
> On Jul 11, 12:03�pm, aem <aem_ag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 8:48�am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> � � �Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
>>> and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to Campbell's
>>> soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last night and thought I
>>> would pass it on....
>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936
>> I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
>> 30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. �A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
>> way I figured it. �Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
>> price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
>> reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
>> frequently." �And they're probably right; you can't go broke
>> underestimating the consumer. � -aem
>
> Nothing new... the Canucks etal. have been selling petrol by the liter
> for like forever.

Being on the metric system is one thing... Selling 900ml and calling it
a liter is something else... Not that any of the manufactures are trying
to call 7.5 oz a 1/2 pound, but you get the idea...

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:03:01 -0700 (PDT), aem <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Jul 11, 8:48*am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> * * *Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
>> and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to Campbell's
>> soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last night and thought I
>> would pass it on....
>>
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936
>
>I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
>30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
>way I figured it. Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
>price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
>reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
>frequently." And they're probably right; you can't go broke
>underestimating the consumer. -aem

So, what's the alternative? How do we fight it?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Sheldon wrote:
> On Jul 11, 12:03�pm, aem <aem_ag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 8:48�am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> � � �Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
>>> and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to Campbell's
>>> soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last night and thought I
>>> would pass it on....
>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936
>> I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
>> 30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. �A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
>> way I figured it. �Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
>> price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
>> reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
>> frequently." �And they're probably right; you can't go broke
>> underestimating the consumer. � -aem
>
> Nothing new... the Canucks etal. have been selling petrol by the liter
> for like forever.

But wouldn't that be exactly the opposite of this thread and like saying
mayonnaise has come in 32 oz jars forever? For it to be similar the
Canadians would have to start using the dishonest techniques used for
food such as: "new and improved, 873ml now the same as 1l".

"aem" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 11, 8:48 am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
> Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
> and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to Campbell's
> soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last night and thought I
> would pass it on....
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936

I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
way I figured it. Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
frequently." And they're probably right; you can't go broke
underestimating the consumer. -aem


You just now noticed it? It's been going on for years and years with all
sorts of products. Mayo is just the latest in a very long line of products
to be reduced in size but not price.

Ms P

"aem" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 11, 8:48 am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
> Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
> and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to Campbell's
> soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last night and thought I
> would pass it on....
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936

I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
way I figured it. Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
frequently." And they're probably right; you can't go broke
underestimating the consumer. -aem

---------------------------------------------------------

It won't last, aem. There have been (and this is for the OP too) MSNBC
articles about it with links right on the home page. People are now wise to
it and I, for one, am offended. Raising prices is one thing, but playing me
for stupid is different. Although if every manufacturer and packager starts
doing it, the only protest we'll be able to make is starvation.

The UnInmate <[email protected]> wrote:
> "aem" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 11, 8:48 am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
> > and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to
> > Campbell's soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last
> > night and thought I would pass it on....
> >
> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936
>
> I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
> 30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
> way I figured it. Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
> price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
> reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
> frequently." And they're probably right; you can't go broke
> underestimating the consumer. -aem
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> It won't last, aem. There have been (and this is for the OP too) MSNBC
> articles about it with links right on the home page. People are now
> wise to it and I, for one, am offended. Raising prices is one thing,
> but playing me for stupid is different. Although if every
> manufacturer and packager starts doing it, the only protest we'll be
> able to make is starvation.

You (and the OP) act like downsizing product packaging is new. Sorry, it's
been going on for years. They count on us not to notice. Sometimes the
packaging will change shapes and be touted as "new" so if you don't pay
attention you don't notice the contents by weight have also shrunk.

It's nothing new. Been going on with things like coffee and canned goods
for years.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> The UnInmate <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "aem" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jul 11, 8:48 am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
>> > and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to
>> > Campbell's soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last
>> > night and thought I would pass it on....
>> >
>> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936
>>
>> I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
>> 30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
>> way I figured it. Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
>> price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
>> reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
>> frequently." And they're probably right; you can't go broke
>> underestimating the consumer. -aem
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> It won't last, aem. There have been (and this is for the OP too) MSNBC
>> articles about it with links right on the home page. People are now
>> wise to it and I, for one, am offended. Raising prices is one thing,
>> but playing me for stupid is different. Although if every
>> manufacturer and packager starts doing it, the only protest we'll be
>> able to make is starvation.
>
> You (and the OP) act like downsizing product packaging is new. Sorry,
> it's been going on for years. They count on us not to notice.
> Sometimes the packaging will change shapes and be touted as "new" so if
> you don't pay attention you don't notice the contents by weight have
> also shrunk.
>
> It's nothing new. Been going on with things like coffee and canned
> goods for years.
>
> Jill
Nooo, I've noticed this for a while also. Which is pretty much why
I don;t buy, downsized products when it is at all possible. I guess that
I found it interesting that a main stream media outlet picked up the
story. Nice to see that the great unwashed masses are finally starting
to notice the ripoff.
Geo

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:42:01 -0400, George Cebulka <[email protected]>
wrote:

>jmcquown wrote:

>>
>> You (and the OP) act like downsizing product packaging is new. Sorry,
>> it's been going on for years. They count on us not to notice.
>> Sometimes the packaging will change shapes and be touted as "new" so if
>> you don't pay attention you don't notice the contents by weight have
>> also shrunk.
>>
>> It's nothing new. Been going on with things like coffee and canned
>> goods for years.
>>
>> Jill
> Nooo, I've noticed this for a while also. Which is pretty much why
>I don;t buy, downsized products when it is at all possible. I guess that
>I found it interesting that a main stream media outlet picked up the
>story. Nice to see that the great unwashed masses are finally starting
>to notice the ripoff.

It is nothing new here. This was discussed last year in this forum in a
thread titled "Best Foods - Hellmans Mayo" by Dimitri on May 21, 2007.

Also, this has be going on since people started paying for food - "Give
5 cents of flour please". For the classic American example of that look
at the history of the Hershey bar. It stayed a nickel from 1921 to
1968. As the price of chocolate and other costs changed, the weight
varied, up and down, from 2 oz down to 3/4 oz.

The UnInmate wrote:

>
> It won't last, aem. There have been (and this is for the OP too) MSNBC
> articles about it with links right on the home page. People are now wise to
> it and I, for one, am offended. Raising prices is one thing, but playing me
> for stupid is different. Although if every manufacturer and packager starts
> doing it, the only protest we'll be able to make is starvation.
>
>


In either case, the store is raising the price-per-volume but in the
short run cutting the size means the buyer pays the same for a little
less product. For some people this is preferable to paying more when
their budgets are strained by gas price increases and other inflationary
rises.

I don't believe the stores or manufacturers are trying to fool anyone
because they state the weight/volume on the package.

If you need coffee at home and have budgeted $5, would you rather go to
the store and find out that coffee now comes on 12 oz. packages for $5
or that the 16 oz. package price has been increased to $6.75?
Six of one, half-dozen of another as my dad used to say.

gloria p

Robert Klute wrote:
>
> Also, this has be going on since people started paying for food - "Give
> 5 cents of flour please". For the classic American example of that look
> at the history of the Hershey bar. It stayed a nickel from 1921 to
> 1968. As the price of chocolate and other costs changed, the weight
> varied, up and down, from 2 oz down to 3/4 oz.

Or gumballs. The outer dimensions have to remain
constant to work in the machines, but there's a
bubble in the center of the gumball, and the size
of that bubble increases when they want to reduce
the amount of gum you get.

On Jul 11, 12:23Â*pm, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 12:03�pm, aem <aem_ag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 11, 8:48�am, George Cebulka <g...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> Hello,
> >>> � � �Somebody posted a while back about food portions becoming smaller
> >>> and ingredient quality going down (This was in reference to Campbell's
> >>> soups). I heard the following interview on NPR last night and thoughtI
> >>> would pass it on....
> >>>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92426936
> >> I first noticed it some months ago when Best Foods mayo switched to a
> >> 30 ounce jar from 32 ounces. �A 6 2/3 percent increase per ounce, the
> >> way I figured it. �Manufacturers seem to think that if they raise the
> >> price shoppers may think, "is there an alternative?" whereas if they
> >> reduce the size shoppers only think, "I may have to buy it more
> >> frequently." �And they're probably right; you can't go broke
> >> underestimating the consumer. � -aem
>
> > Nothing new... the Canucks etal. have been selling petrol by the liter
> > for like forever.
>
> Being on the metric system is one thing... Selling 900ml and calling it
> a liter is something else... Not that any of the manufactures are trying
> to call 7.5 oz a 1/2 pound, but you get the idea.

It's psychologically misleading, the entire metric pricing system is,
selling a smaller quantity (like a full liter) allows for presenting a
smaller price but setting a higher price per volume without it
offending like if in big font they posted the price per Imperial
gallon. Same as selling meat by the gram instead of the kilo... they
raise the price per gram so that 100 grams costs more than folks would
find acceptable if priced per Kilo... but folks don't really
internalize it when presented that way... how things are priced is a
very suggestive marketing ploy. The US system of pricing meat by the
pound is more honest than if priced by the ounce, they could price a
few cents more per ounce and get away with it becasue it will seem so
little money but hardly anyone will realize because hardly anyone is
going to multiply by sixteen. And it's the same with petrol, pricing
by the liter is psychologically misleading the same as if in the US
gasolene was sold today for $1.30/qt, psychologically it would appear
a bargain, not.

On Fri 11 Jul 2008 04:11:53p, Mark Thorson told us...

> Robert Klute wrote:
>>
>> Also, this has be going on since people started paying for food - "Give
>> 5 cents of flour please". For the classic American example of that look
>> at the history of the Hershey bar. It stayed a nickel from 1921 to
>> 1968. As the price of chocolate and other costs changed, the weight
>> varied, up and down, from 2 oz down to 3/4 oz.
>
> Or gumballs. The outer dimensions have to remain
> constant to work in the machines, but there's a
> bubble in the center of the gumball, and the size
> of that bubble increases when they want to reduce
> the amount of gum you get.
>

Now that's really low!

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Friday, 07(VII)/11(XI)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Put on your seatbelt. I wanna try
something.
-------------------------------------------

Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Robert Klute wrote:
>
> > Also, this has be going on since people started paying for food - "Give
> > 5 cents of flour please". �For the classic American example of that look
> > at the history of the Hershey bar. �It stayed a nickel from 1921 to
> > 1968. �As the price of chocolate and other costs changed, the weight
> > varied, up and down, from 2 oz down to 3/4 oz.
>
> Or gumballs. �The outer dimensions have to remain
> constant to work in the machines, but there's a
> bubble in the center of the gumball, and the size
> of that bubble increases when they want to reduce
> the amount of gum you get.

Hmmm, so Thorazine's brain is a gumball.