15-2 Nice to get something free (“free” or equivalent specifically stated) (do not double check with −4). Nice to get premium free; get something for nothing; get something free when you buy this way; used product and received gift without spending extra money; like to open package and get a free gift; you get two things for one. 15-3 Nice to receive gift ("free" or equivalent not stated). Very nice to receive gifts; get an extra gift; buy a product as needed and gift sometime is nice addition; like to receive my premium when I buy item; like the gift in the box; like to open box and get a gift, this appeals to me. 15-4 Premium makes purchase a bargain (do not double check with -2). Premium makes it more attractive; get your money's worth; get better bargains; sure of getting a good bargain; like to get premium with product, I know I have gotten a bargain (do not double check with −1). 15-5 Like surprise of gift ("surprise," "curiosity," or equivalent specifically stated). Most of the time I'm curious about what the premium is; like to get a gift I guess, a surprise. 15-6 Know (see) what you are getting. Know what you're getting right away; you know what you are going to get; like to see what I'm getting; get something you can see right away; if you see what you are getting you save that way (double check with -9); you see what you're getting. 15-7 You get it right away Get something right away; it's something in my brand right now. 15-8 More convenient, simpler. It's easier; more convenient to get saving this way (do not double check with -9); you don't have to save tops; get what you pay for and don't have to send away; don't have any trouble getting gift. 15-9 You save (more) this way. I think I save this way; (best way to save); (premium worth more than other offers) (Code "More convenient to save this way" in -8); if you see what you're getting you save that way (double check with -6). 15-0 I chose the product with premiums. Will buy any product I use extra gifts with them; (look for products with premiums); (I like to buy products with premiums); (that's the way I shop). Other answers. 15-X 15-Y Don't know. QUESTION 3. WHY PREMIUMS LIKED LEAST (CODE 14-3) 18-1 Premiums are poor quality. What you get is not any good; gifts don't amount to much and it's usually something you never use hardly (do not double check with -2); usually inferior products; mostly cheap stuff; you could get the gift at a dime a dozen. 18-2 Don't want (need) type of premium offered (poor quality not specifically stated). Never anything you really want; usually don't need premium, or I wouldn't want them anyhow; dislike most of premiums offered; don't care for items usually; usually useless item; usually something you don't want. 18-3 You get less of product in package (to offset premium cost). You pay for this because you get less of product; think you get less in package; you get so much less of product. 18-4 Price of product marked up (to offset premium cost). They have already marked price up and you aren't getting a bargain. 18-5 Quality of product is lower (offsetting premium cost). Don't get such a good product when you get a gift; anything you have to give gift with is probably not good. 18-6 Hard to get complete premium sets. Never buy enough to match things up. QUESTION 2. WHY CONTESTS LIKED BEST (CODE 11-1) 15-1 Enjoy contests. (No expectation of winning stated.) I never win but it is fun to try; enjoy it (contests are fun whether you win or not). 15-2 Like to try to win. I like to try my luck to win things; like to enter contests to see if I can win anything. 15-3 Contests are educational. Contests are educational (you can learn something). 154 Just like contests, prefer over other offers. QUESTION 8. WHY CONTESTS LIKED LEAST (CODE 14-1) 18-1 Too much trouble (expense not stated). Too much trouble to mail stuff in; it's a lot of confusion; don't have time for it; sometimes I never bother to send in the box top; it's a nuisance; too much trouble to mail something; there's always something more you have to (do), who has time for it? 18-2 Never won a contest, too little chance of winning. Never won contest in my life; used to join in this and that contest, slim chance will ever win and stopped trying; never win anything-so never bother to enter anymore; don't win; too little chance of winning. 18-3 Not interested in contests. Never enter contests; never have been interested; not a contest enterer. 18-4 Distrust contests, no one wins. Don't think anybody ever wins; don't feel it's legitimate-believe contests are fixed; no one ever wins them contests; distrust of contests since the TV fixes. 18-5 Costs money to enter. Costs too much money to send stuff away; have to send money. 18-6 Don't know what you will win. Don't know what prize you will win. 18-7 Have to buy what you don't want. I only buy what I have to have (would have to buy something I didn't want). 18-8 Don't understand contests. 18-X Other answers. 18-Y Don't know. QUESTION 5. WHY CONGRESS SHOULD NOT PASS LAW (CODE 21-2) 22-1 Manufacturers have right to price as they please. Manufacturer should decide about price to charge for his products; manufacturer knows if he can cut price or has to raise it; up to manufacturer to decide on any price; up to manufacturer to decide; everyone should be allowed to price as they please; if they can afford to mark down, let them do it; should be law of supply and demand; price fixing-stablization. 22-2 Would interfere with private enterprise. Just another effort to interfere with private enterprise; interferes with private business; should allow a manufacturer free enterprise without so much regulation; business isn't free anymore-sounds like Russia. 22-3 Doesn't seem fair, right to do away with cents-off. (do not double check with -0) Can't see why they will determine it illegal for manufacturer to price his product; why should they have law like this doesn't make sense; it's not right; don't think it is right; why are they against savings? 22-4 Shouldn't be concern of Congress. No concern of Congress; think Congress could be doing better things with their time; not for any Congress to say; Congress busy enough without this; they have enough to do without this law; not Congress business; they shouldn't have anything to say about it. 22-5 Any savings helps family budget (because of high price). Groceries are high enough—if you can get a few cents off, it adds up; be help to me to get the saving; people should have savings; money is limited, and it's good idea when we get to save something; if I can save a penny or two it's OK; the salary I make needs it. 22-6 Helps promote product, stimulate sales. Can raise sales that way; might increase sales; just draws trade, might as well let them put price in; good way for manufacturer to sell more; should be able to; better for company concerned; helps introduce new products. 22-7 Makes it possible for me to afford product. Sometimes only some can afford brand; I can't afford it. 22-8 Like bargains. Like to be able to get bargains. 22-9 Like cents-off method. Likes to see saving shown on package. 22-0 Don't think it's constitutional (do not double check with 22–3) 22-X Other answers. Convenient; helps small storekeeper. 23-3 Good products don't need cents off. 23-4 Benefits consumer (no reference to saving or bargain). 23-5 Too many laws now. 23-6 22-1 Grocer should be allowed to set own price (no mention of manufacturer). QUESTION 5. WHY CONGRESS SHOULD PASS LAW (CODE 21-1) You don't really get (full) savings. Do not believe grocery store give you the cents off; if we get savings OK— if not pass this law; if grocer does not give cents off-think they should do away with it; I actually don't think you get the money off; I think the mark down doesn't mean anything; it's not a bargain-don't fool public. 22-2 Original price was raised. Never sure what original price-usually jacked up at the start; should stick to original price and not fool the people by raising it in first place; think it is deceptive pricing. 22-3 Price is raised later. Just to get you into store-afterward the price is the same; when product comes out they give lower price then jack it up-it's just a come-on. 22-4 Prefer single price (no reference to lower price without offer). Think one price is the fair thing; would keep prices the same; keep prices stable, uniform; saves price confusion. 22-5 Price might be less. Maybe the prices wouldn't go up any more; would be less expensive for housewives with law. 22-6 Price should be lower to begin with. Should have lower price to begin with. 22-7 Just don't like it, prefer other offer. Don't care for this myself; foreign to our economic system. 22-8 Manufacturers take advantage of public. 22-X Other answers. They should advertise in different way. 22-Y Don't know. STATEMENT BY JEROME GREENE OF ALFRED POLITZ RESEARCH, INC. My name is Jerome D. Greene. I am a vice president and project director of Alfred Politz Research, Inc., 527 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. I have been employed by my firm since 1947, the year in which it was incorporated, in the State of New York. Alfred Politz Research is an independent firm in the field of market research, specializing in consumer and industrial surveys, typically for manufacturing companies. Among other things, our surveys concern product usage and attitude, reactions to new product features and advertising sales points, and testing of new products and advertisements. Among business clients we currently serve are: Anheuser-Busch, Inc.; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.; the Coca-Cola Co.; Edward Dalton Co.; Mobil Oil Co.; S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.; Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Inc. Among associations we have served are: American Bankers Association, American Dairy Association, and the Automobile Manufacturers Association. Federal Government agencies we have served are: Department of the Interior; Bureau of the Census; and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Alfred Politz, president of our firm, introduced probability sampling into commercial market research. This is the type of sampling used by the Bureau of the Census in its sample surveys, and is the only type of sampling which permits valid and precise estimation from the sample to the population from which the sample was drawn, within known margins of sampling variation. In February 1963, the Association of National Advertisers, Inc., commissioned our firm to conduct a national survey of women shoppers' preferences among four kinds of special offer made by manufacturers-cents-off sales, coupons, premiums, and contests; also, of women shoppers' opinions about a law which would make cents-off sales illegal. ANA set the objectives of the survey, and my firm is responsible for the specific questions asked, the sample, the interviewing, the tabulating, and the reporting of results. One thousand four hundred personal interviews were made in early March of this year, with a national probability sample of women who are the principal grocery shoppers for their households. The survey methods and its detailed findings are given in the attached research report. Let me summarize just a few of the survey findings. I will report each finding to the tenth of a percentage point because that is the precise value found in the sample and our closest estimate of the value among all U.S. women shoppers. I should note, however, that these findings are subject to margins of sampling variation plus or minus, which are given in our research report. For instance, the odds are 19 to 1 that a sample finding of 60 percent differs from the population value by no more than 4.5 percentage points. Sixty-one and three-tenths percent of women shoppers like cents-off sales best, among the four special offers studied. No other offer was liked best by more than 19.3 percent of women shoppers. Thus, cents-off sales were overwhelmingly preferred. Two and eight-tenths percent of women shoppers liked cents-off sales least, among these four offers. Among this small group, 1.4 percent disliked cents-off sales because they believe they do not get as much off the price as indicated or they believe the offer is not true. Sixty-three and eight-tenths percent of women shoppers thought Congress should not pass a law making cents-off sales illegal; 8.9 percent thought Congress should pass such a law, while 27.1 percent expressed no opinion. Of the group expressing no opinion on the legislative matter, the majority still preferred cents-off sales to the other offers. Of the minority of women shoppers who preferred another offer to cents-off sales, most of those expressing an opinion still wished Congress would not make cents-off sales illegal. I thank you for the opportunity of submitting this statement, and will be glad to answer questions about our survey. I ask your permission to identify the research report on our study and enter it in the record with this statement. (See report on p. 768.) BRAND NAMES FOUNDATION, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Brand Names Foundation, Inc., an organization comprised of consumer-goods manufacturers, advertising agencies, and media, has a considerable and continuing interest in S. 985, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, now pending before your committee. We believe that many of the provisions embodied in this legislation could have a seriously harmful economie impact, and urgently recommend that S. 985 not be adopted, at least in its present form. We believe that far from protecting the consumer, many of the provisions contained therein would unduly restrict freedom of choice, result in price increases to the consumer, and deprive him of immediate cash savings in purchase of many products, and insofar as it reduced the incentives to innovate or improve goods would materially reduce the possibility of making the consumer's future life easier and more pleasant. Beyond that, in a consumeristic society such as ours, we strongly feel that the provisions outlined in S. 985 would impede consumer confidence, and could have a detrimental effect on the present economy as well as hampering future economic growth. As described, the purpose of S. 985 is to prohibit unfair and deceptive packaging and labeling. We believe the enactment of this bill, in its present form, would not accomplish any such purpose. In common with all responsible manufacturers and association groups, the foundation is vigorously opposed to any deceptive packaging and labeling practices. We believe, however, that an examination by your committee of existing laws and regulations would disclose to its satisfaction that the provisions of S. 985 that deal with deception are duplicatory. The Food and Drug Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, if rigorously enforced, are ample to curb abuses that may exist. The provisions of S. 985 go well beyond unfair and deceptive packaging and labeling. They prohibit honest practices as well. Section (a) (5) of S. 985 prohibits, without regard to fairness or deception, all promotions and merchandising practices in which a price saving is offered to the consumer, when that price saving is stated or implied on the label or any printed matter. We object to this provision on the following grounds: 1. Present merchandising practice offers the consumer real, present savings. This provision in the proposed law does not attempt to correct any abuses that may exist; rather, it bans the honest along with the dishonest. The loser is the customer. This is also true in a longer range view. The last 20 years have been characterized by vast improvements in variety and choice of products, as well as significant innovations in products not previously available. Each of these, to survive, has had to be tested in the crucible of consumer trial and acceptance. |