> You are right, I am disagreeing on the basis of speculation based on my own experiences and preferences. I assumed you were making an argument from the same p

> You are right, I am disagreeing on the basis of speculation based on my own experiences and preferences. I assumed you were making an argument from the same place? Actually, no. I too think I have logical preferences and would prefer the additional information--but I don't think typical shoppers would respond well to it, possibly including myself (because I don't know if I would act in accordance with my estimation of my hypothetical preferences). So I'm making my argument from psychological principles, and in particular by inferring what supermarkets know about the psychology of typical shoppers (because I'm not an expert, but I assume the people the big supermarkets consult to stay competitive are the best in the field). > So, from the place of my personal experience: I am sucker like everyone else, and prefer stores that tell me a per-unit price that I can compare like-to-like brands, often to the point of irrationality. If that's what people actually want, stores have no idea what they're doing. The supermarket where I usually shop uses different units for the "unit prices" of different brands, so if I want to compare unit prices I have to do the math myself. The information they highlight tends to be the "sales", which serve to: convey a feeling of beating the system (even when they're so common, taking the sale obviously just means not paying the sucker price); and constantly invalidate all previous price comparisons for commodities like coffee where in-depth price comparison would otherwise make sense. > I just don't personally believe that drawing attention to price would be a reason for me to stop shopping at a place, although it would (hopefully) alter my buying habits within said store. I wouldn't expect anyone would think they'd be unhappy to have the additional information, because people consistently assume their behavior is logical. Ha.