|
I just joined this thread in midstream, and I agree
that the number of people who do price comparisons and study unit prices is
small. Sometimes I feel like doing it, and sometimes I don't, and my ambivalence
is due to my understanding that the consumer marketplace is more of a shell game
now than it was in Barnum's time. But also, because I'm in such a hurry and am
not interested in nickeling & diming.
Actually, now that we bring up this subject, it may
be that the metric system in the hands of a metric-savvy public would TEND
to increase the number of consumers who would see through the packaging
chicanery that goes on. Candy bars labeled to the nearest gram, and only the
nearest gram, MIGHT tend to be more telling than the jumble of ounces and
fractions and grams and fractions. Consumers will look at the number
and see that it has gone from 60 g to 55 g for the same price or more. Consumers
are in a rush, and will make decisions in a rush. Jim is right; the student
consumers are few and far between. The best rational packaging, IMHO, comes from
the best system of measurement.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:09
AM
Subject: [USMA:26230] Re: Kraft plans to
cut snack sizes
At 02 07 03, 07:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Jim Elwell, CAMS
Electrical Engineer
Industrial
manufacturing manager
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
www.qsicorp.com
|
