Our shrinking products

Posted Thursday, February 3, 2011, at 10:38 AM
Comments
View 3 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • The worst part of all that shaving is the consumer price index will remain the same as the previous years. The years just prior to when our food products started being downsized. Therefore the CPI will not show inflation and people on Social Security will go another year or more without a cost of living raise. The same will be for workers in the factories and all blue collar workers. No inflation, no increase in CPI and no increases in wages. But the cost of living will increase because consumers will have to replaced those products more often.

    That makes me wonder if the Federal government didn't have an influential hand in helping producers make the decision to downsize packaging. I can't believe the cost of packaging material, fuel, energy, ingredients, etc. in most cases have much of an impact on production and transporting products.

    It cost the same to transport 40,000 pounds of sugar no matter if its packed in 4 pound bags or 5 pound bags. It takes the same amount of energy to produce

    40,000 pounds of coffee no matter the size of the packaging. Actually, the bigger the packaging of the coffee, the less the cost of energy to produce and package the coffee. Buying in bulk quantity is how a lot of consumers save on their grocery bill.

    Roger Riney

    -- Posted by Roger Riney on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 1:14 AM
  • My name is Sylvie. I work for Reader's Digest in Customer Care and I just came across your Blog post.

    I would like to address your comment about us publishing double issues for Reader's Digest. I can assure you that this is not something we have done up to now. We did reduce the frequency from 12 issues to 10 issues per year in 2009. While the cover price has not changed at newsstands, the subscription rate has been reduced to reflect fewer issues within a one year period.

    As for the page count, it does vary from issue to issue. This is true of all magazines.

    I hope this will not affect your enjoyment of our magazine.

    Sylvie Robert

    E-Care Coordinator

    -- Posted by SylvieRD on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 12:38 PM
  • Dear Sylvie,

    Your comment certainly does not affect my enjoyment of Reader's Digest. I have been reading the magazine for half a century. However, I have noticed in recent years that the magazine is slimmer, thinner than it was in past years, with fewer pages. Up until 2009 the frequency of 12 issues per year did not change. However, as you stated, the magazine now publishes 10 issues per year. That was pointed out to me by my son who ordered a subscription for me and other family members last year. My DEC.2010/JAN.2011 issue was combined. I am pleased you read my blog. PJ

    -- Posted by billy066@centurytel.net on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 2:29 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: