Regulations requiring rational packaging would go a long way toward ending the practice of manufacturers disguising price increases by instead downsizing the product. They would have to be upfront and honest about it.
...
There will be the argument of course that the goverment is "telling us what to do". I don't consider this particularly onerous because it is a benefit to the consumer.
The presumption that rational package sizes are "a benefit to the consumer" is highly suspect.
On the one hand, I agree the SOME consumers may benefit when it is easier to compare prices -- those who bother to do so. Brand managers can tell you what a small portion of the population that is.
On the other hand, you are presuming that whoever writes the regulations understands the best and most appropriate sizes for several million consumer products, and that those sizes just happen to end up being rational. Highly doubtful.
Rational package sizes would guarantee both increase consumer waste (having to buy too much of something because the required "rational" size is either too small or too large), waste consumer's money (again, paying for something you don't need), and increase the cost of products by increasing the government regulatory and tax burden on companies (someone has to pay for writing, promulgating and enforcing those regulations).
I believe we already have the appropriate amount of regulatory control over consumer packaging, in the requirement that they be ACCURATELY labeled for net contents.
For those who want rational package sizes, I suggest you have a long ways to go to demonstrate any net benefit to them.
Electrical Engineer
Industrial manufacturing manager
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
www.qsicorp.com
