<![CDATA[Consumerist: general mills]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: general mills]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/general mills http://consumerist.com/tag/general mills <![CDATA[ "Holistic Margin Management": What General Mills Calls Grocery Shrink Ray ]]> Guess what they call the Grocery Shrink Ray at General Mills? "Holistic Margin Management." I thinks that's also what they call it in 1984. Another interesting fact from a StarTribune article looking at shrinking packages: customers are more likely to notice a change in the height rather than the width of a box. But does anyone really care?

While we've done many shrink ray posts, I've wondered how much the non-Consumerist-reading population has noticed. Well, an October '07 survey found 47% of consumers said they noticed packages were becoming more diminuative. Since the pace, and the coverage, of shrinking packages has greatly increased since then, that number surely must be higher. Don't forget to compare unit prices!

Freshly squeezed: The ever-shrinking box and carton [StarTribune] (Thanks to al koholic!) (Photo: Mykl Roventine)

]]>
Consumerist-5100974 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:39:44 EST Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5100974&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Is Target Intentionally Using Its "Special Deals" To Screw Over Customers? ]]> Dan can do math in his head, which is a great skill these days when you're checking out the n objects for x price! specials at Target. In this case, Dan notes that the "temporary price cut" is so temporary that it doesn't even exist: you'll pay 13 cents more per box if you buy three of them. This is the third Target "special" we've seen this month that screws the consumer. Are we seeing a new trend? Is it legal to call it a price cut if it's not?

Update: here's a better photo of the sign, as requested by EtoilePB:

]]>
Consumerist-5028989 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:17:01 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5028989&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The 10 Most Reputable Companies In The U.S. ]]> The Research Institute has compiled a list of the most reputable companies in the U.S., "calculated by averaging perceptions of trust, esteem, admiration, and good feeling obtained from a representative sample of 100 local respondents who were familiar with the company." (Then they do some statistical stuff to it.) Coming in at #1 is Google, which we think is remarkable considering how much data the company has managed to collect over the past several years, and continues to collect with new record-keeping initiatives like Google Health.

Below is the top 10 list, but check out the full list of 75 companies for some interesting surprises, like Hewlett Packard coming in at #18 (right behind Apple!) despite the horror stories we've seen from Consumerist readers.

Global Pulse Score
Company 2008 Rank 2008 2007 Change
Google 1 85.23 New N/A
Johnson & Johnson 2 83.48 78.80 4.68
Kraft Foods Inc. 3 82.79 81.07 1.72
General Mills 4 81.34 New 0.00
Walt Disney 5 81.22 78.37 2.85
United Parcel Service 6 81.05 80.06 1.00
3M 7 79.79 75.06 4.73
Xerox 8 78.44 New N/A
Colgate-Palmolive 9 78.04 New N/A
Texas Instruments 10 77.22 New N/A
 
 

"The 75 Most Reputable Companies in the U.S." [Forbes] (Thanks to Rick!)

RELATED
"RI Hall of Fame" [Research Institute]
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-5017756 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:47:19 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5017756&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ New, Taller Honey Nut Cheerios Box Is 1.5 Oz Lighter ]]> Frugal Frugalson over at Picking up Nickles made a side-by-side comparison of General Mills' newer "Right Size, Right Price" cereal boxes. Apparently, the right size is 1.5 oz less, and the right price is about 9% more.

Donning my detective's cap, I found that the 14oz box of General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios at my local market had been replaced by a 12.5oz box for the same $2.99 price. That works out to a 8.9% price increase, which is a bit larger than the average price increase of 2.9% claimed in this New York Times article.

To add insult to injury, General Mills designed the 12.5oz box so that it appears to be larger on the shelf than the old 14oz box since the new packaging is taller and thinner than its predecessor.

We have seen this shadow inflation before with Cadbury eggs and Charmin Ultra Big Rolls. One way to fight back: buy a year's worth of cereal at once. Thanks to our February trip to Rite Aid, we're still rolling in 14 oz boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios.

Grocery price inflation update [Picking up Nickles]
PREVIOUSLY: General Mills Will Decrease The Size Of Cereal Boxes, Raise Prices

]]>
Consumerist-310538 Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:20:15 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=310538&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ U.S. Companies Start Testing, Screening Chinese Products ]]> U.S. companies are developing new safety measures in response to the continued rumbling of the Chinese Poison Train. The measures, along with renewed federal interest in food safety, suggest that we may be in the midst of a food safety revolution similar to the one that reformed the meatpacking industry after the publication of Upton Sinclaire's "The Jungle."

For the companies, the problem is two-fold: figuring out exactly what to test for and maintaining control over their network of suppliers, even as they turn to China for vast quantities of imports at lower prices.
Three companies are trying three different strategies to cope with the uncertain quality of China's exports:

Testing: General Mills has started testing for contaminants. Which contaminants? They aren't saying.
Supplier Screening: Kellogg has begun screening suppliers and is lining up alternates in case of an incident.
Product Safety Executives: Toys "R" Us has hired two new fall guys executives to oversee procurement and product safety.

Though we applaud any effort that improves the safety of our food, catching contaminants before they arrive on American shelves is the lesser half of the battle. Removing the economic incentives that encourage Chinese companies to substitute inexpensive poisons for specified ingredients is the real challenge, and not one that we believe can be addressed by new executives or random testing. What steps do American companies need to take to allay your concerns about Chinese products? Tell us in the comments.

Companies in U.S. Increase Testing of Chinese Goods
(Photo: showbizsuperstar)

]]>
Consumerist-274066 Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:54:30 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=274066&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ General Mills Will Decrease The Size Of Cereal Boxes, Raise Prices ]]> Get ready to pay the more money for fewer Cheerios, starting June 25. General Mills has announced that they will be decreasing the size of their popular cereal boxes as a cost cutting measure, as well as raising the prices. From the Wall Street Journal:

The company also hopes its "Right Size, Right Price" initiative will boost margins — something all food companies are trying to do as they get squeezed by lower-cost, private-label goods and more-expensive fresh and organic food.
Less Cheerios for more money! Yay! Wait. —MEGHANN MARCO

General Mills Raises Price On Line of 'Big G' Cereals [Wall Street Journal]
(Photo: iwantamonkey)

]]>
Consumerist-266840 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:59:18 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=266840&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Fruity Cheerios, Sugar Sellout ]]> General Mills venerable bee evidently hasn't been busy enough, forcing the cereal making whore itself in back alleys and dimly lit parks, in the form of new FRUITY CHEERIOS.While consumers report it "tastes just like Fruit Loops," the box boasts it contains 25% less sugars than the leading fruity cereals (10g vs 14g of sugar). In fact, roughly 1/7 of the box space seems devoted to extolling the product's health benefits. Wethinks the cereal doth protest too much.

]]>
Consumerist-203922 Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:55:26 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=203922&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ They Come to Praise General Mills, Not Eat Their Cereal ]]> cocoapuffs-sticker.jpgA generation from now, the phrase "Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" may have no meaning. "Magically delicious" may go the way of the Corvair.

General Mills has announced it is changing the way it markets its high-sugar cereals. There will be "no TV ads targeted at children, no movie tie-ins, no Internet marketing and no licensing of popular cartoon characters." The Parents Television Council, ever the self-proclaimed masters of what is Good and Right on the boob tube, was quick to praise the move, but had nothing to say about the nutritional value of the cereals themselves.

What are the marketing alternatives? Will General Mills start advertising to adults instead? And will the slogans change? Will we see green clover and blue diamond marshmallows on the pages of the Economist, or advertised on "Meet the Press" on Sunday mornings?

If the cerealmaker is serious about not marketing to children, they might change the boxes, too. All the sweet cereals somehow have cartoon characters on the front. Shocking.

If children get fat, parents can no longer blame General Mills' advertisements on Nickelodeon. But they can still blame the undeniable temptation of a cartoon-covered cereal box.

Consumer group praises General Mills [Pioneer Press]

]]>
Consumerist-203451 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:07:18 EDT consumerist.com http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=203451&view=rss&microfeed=true