• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

pjohns

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
179
Reaction score
23
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
Yes, very sneaky. Package size no longer represents contents. They use filler pieces of packaging so what is in the package is a fraction of what is inside. I saw that with a pack of chocolate mints. They used cardboard inserts to replace about 25% of the candy - while retaining the same size packaging.

A candy bar that used to cost 25 cents is now $2 and 1/3rd smaller.

They also are increasing how much water injected into meat to run up the weight - generally destroying the quality of the meat by doing so as well.
 
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.

Their job is to sell product. If they think they will sell more product in 22oz containers at $2.99 than they would of 23.6oz containers at $3.26 then that's what they will do. I think companies are much more familiar with consumer trends and psychology and they know that pricing an object at $2.99 and at $3.10 is really pretty insignificant in terms of cost for consumer, but some consumers only see the 2 and the 3 and it makes it seem like a larger difference than it really is, so they don't buy, or they buy 1 instead of 2, or they buy the store brand etc. As long as the container is accurately labeled and the price is clearly displayed, I'm not sure I see a problem or even really any dishonesty.
 
Their job is to sell product. If they think they will sell more product in 22oz containers at $2.99 than they would of 23.6oz containers at $3.26 then that's what they will do. I think companies are much more familiar with consumer trends and psychology and they know that pricing an object at $2.99 and at $3.10 is really pretty insignificant in terms of cost for consumer, but some consumers only see the 2 and the 3 and it makes it seem like a larger difference than it really is, so they don't buy, or they buy 1 instead of 2, or they buy the store brand etc. As long as the container is accurately labeled and the price is clearly displayed, I'm not sure I see a problem or even really any dishonesty.

(1) It is not really incorrect to declare that their job "is to sell the product." But it is highly cynical (and even amoral) to decide that it may reasonably be done by any means necessary--just so long as it does not run afoul of the law. (I simply refuse to see consumers and product-suppliers as opponents; rather, I see them as different sides of the same coin.)

(2) This place never sold the product for $2.99, but for an even $3.00. (It evidently disdains the 99-cent form of pricing; so it sells all goods for an even amount.)

(3) I often purchase the store brand. That is because in many cases, it is just as good as the national brand--it is surely manufactured by a major wholesaler--and yet it costs less. (It is my understanding that stores would really rather that one should purchase their store-brand products, as they make more money on those purchases--even though the retail price is less.)
 
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.



They know for fact by doing so they will more likely maintain necessary revenue while controlling cost for whatever is their reasoning. They've got the consumer psychology DOWN.
 
They know for fact by doing so they will more likely maintain necessary revenue while controlling cost for whatever is their reasoning. They've got the consumer psychology DOWN.

I think that most of us realize that we are not actually saving any money by participating in this deceptive practice.
 
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.

They did that with the dog food I buy. It used to be 12 dollars for a 25 pound bag. Then 12 dollars for a 22 pound bag, then 12 dollars for an 18 pound bag. This over a 10 year or so period. I think the dog food company did this so they wouldn't have to raise their price. They kept the same price, you just got less dog food.

At first I didn't notice, not much difference between 25 pounds and 22 pounds. Bags are about the same size. Then I noticed the bags were getting smaller, then again smaller. I just looked, still 12 dollars, but now I'm getting 15.9 pounds. I can't even find a 25 pound bag anymore. 50 pounds yes, not 25.
 
(1) It is not really incorrect to declare that their job "is to sell the product." But it is highly cynical (and even amoral) to decide that it may reasonably be done by any means necessary--just so long as it does not run afoul of the law. (I simply refuse to see consumers and product-suppliers as opponents; rather, I see them as different sides of the same coin.)

(2) This place never sold the product for $2.99, but for an even $3.00. (It evidently disdains the 99-cent form of pricing; so it sells all goods for an even amount.)

(3) I often purchase the store brand. That is because in many cases, it is just as good as the national brand--it is surely manufactured by a major wholesaler--and yet it costs less. (It is my understanding that stores would really rather that one should purchase their store-brand products, as they make more money on those purchases--even though the retail price is less.)

1. I never said "by any means necessary". I just don't see this method as dishonest in any way. The price and size are clearly labeled.

2. Understood. In my experience, nearly every store uses the 99-cent or 49-cent form of pricing, so I assumed this.
 
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.

Another example that i find annoying is the loyalty card. A card that is specific to one company and offers discounts if used. If i buy something using it then when i next go on facebook or similar there is a add for that product i just bought.
The bastards are tracking my movements.
 
Whenever a company gives more of its product to customers (in a special), it blares, in large letters: "25 Percent More!"

But I have never yet seen a can (or a bottle) declaring, "25 Percent Less!"

Just an observation...
 
Anybody remember when ice cream came in 1/2 gallon sizes. True, a few do (Blue Bunny??) The pissy thing is now if I have 5-7 people over I have to buy 2-3 containers instead of one.
Not that big a deal but I do wish they would have just ADDED the smaller size and kept the 1/2 gallon going..
 
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.

Because when it comes to marketing you are trying to keep customers not loose them. If you raise the price it's an immediate reaction and that reaction may be to purchase a lower priced product. Some people will notice the size of the packaging and some will not but most will just purchase the product the trust and are used too.
 
Oh, one other matter:

I recently noticed that the kitchen trash bags that I use have been downsized from 45 to 40. That is an 11.1 percent reduction. (The product is now eight-ninths of its previous size.)

A 12.5 percent price increase--nine-eights, or 112.5 percent--is all that would be necessary to equal that.
 
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.

Simple. Free Market economy.
 
1. I never said "by any means necessary". I just don't see this method as dishonest in any way. The price and size are clearly labeled.

No, you did not say, precisely, "by any means necessary." But that appears to be just what you meant--"just so long as it does not run afoul of the law," as I further wrote.

2. Understood. In my experience, nearly every store uses the 99-cent or 49-cent form of pricing, so I assumed this.

Most do.

But this one does not.
 
The ultimate example of unjustified price gouging occurs at American universities! These places are bastions of capitalism-hating progressivism, yet their greed is unmatched by ANY other industry! They raise tuition costs well above the rate of inflation, they charge insane prices for on-campus housing, not to mention mind bogglingly high prices for books!

Then, AFTER you've graduated and moved on with your life and career, they have the unmitigated audacity to call you EVERY YEAR, begging for freaking handouts! They take ENORMOUS donations from the wealthy, then name buildings after them(and accept their spoiled kids, even when they don't qualify)!

Next, they make crazy profits off of their sports programs, while implementing laws that allow these greedy lowlifes to NOT PAY THEIR ATHLETES A FREAKING DIME!!

Then there's the govt grants they receive! Then there's the corporate collusion, where they make bank by doing overpriced research. Worse yet, they've LONG been guilty of aiding the military and CIA with the development of all sorts of inhumane weaponry, chemical and biological weapons, drugs and electronic mind control technology, etc.

All the while, these universities sit on HUGE endowments, which generate tens of millions of dollars in interest, just by sitting in banks, and they rarely use that money! In the meantime, they rail about the greed if corporations(who actually look like saints in comparison)! White privilege may be grossly exaggerated, but "university privilege" certainly ISN'T!!
 
Back
Top Bottom