… posted a photo on social media of the 62.5g bar alongside one of today’s Mars Bars, which is 40g.
“Over the last 35 years, we have made a number of updates to our bar sizes and pack formats to reflect consumer demand, alongside considering wider external factors such as manufacturing costs and the price of cocoa.”
I’m sure your customers have been demanding smaller bars that cost more.
Their customers would take bars that cost the same and are imperceptibly smaller. Or, at least, would take it better than a price hike, I’d expect. Then, the Karens would come out.
There’s a large number of people talking glp-1s (ozempic et. al) and they actually are looking for smaller portion sizes, which is driving a huge trend in grocery now of boxing up larger quantities of smaller items.
Of course the industry has used this to their advantage. Instead of just offering a 4-pack of frozen dairy treats at 2 oz each, they can offer an 8-pack at .8 oz each (less total product) and sell it alongside that one for even more, and they actually will sell more of the 8-pack.
The only thing that we can say for sure is that the companies benefit from shrinkflation in some way otherwise they wouldn’t do it.
Nitpick, even though I agree with you: companies believe they will benefit. We can’t rule out how fucking stupid a lot of management types are. Like whatever company fired people for AI and then had to retire them, plus eat the lost potential from fucking around with AI for months.
And even when the individuals aren’t stupid, the incentives are fucked. Google kills products because of internal fighting for promotions and recognition, not anything that’s good for users or the companies.
You “make no such assumptions” of whether both sizes were available in 1991, but you do assume that the user has no idea how businesses operate. You’re not speaking in reality at all, you’re just arguing nonsensically
If people weren’t buying more of them, they wouldn’t’ve changed the size
That’s what you said. If a business is already making sales and profit, why would they decrease the size? You think they were selling the candy at a loss or something, and had to slowly increase revenue?
It’s the definition of “shrinkflation” and it’s anti-consumerism because they aren’t making it obvious that they’re increasing the cost of the product
What kind of ignorant are you, that you can’t wrap your head around that? Go spout your elitist, anti-intellectualism elsewhere, cause ain’t nobody here buying it
And if you truly believe in what you’re saying, good luck my dude, and may god have mercy on your soul
I’m sure your customers have been demanding smaller bars that cost more.
Translation:
People don’t by Mars because it’s a top-tier, gucci product.
And if we stayed the same size, it’d be really expensive, because among other things the global climate no longer supports chocolate production.
TBF none of it is a lie. That’s as close as corporate-speak comes to “yup we did that”.
Well, their customers have kept on buying their products so clearly they don’t care too much.
Their customers would take bars that cost the same and are imperceptibly smaller. Or, at least, would take it better than a price hike, I’d expect. Then, the Karens would come out.
There was a dollarstore knock off mars bar we bought for a while 50¢ each
“We didn’t only shrink the size, we also lowered the quality of ingredients to maximize profits!”
The only people who enjoy Mars bars are shareholders
There’s a large number of people talking glp-1s (ozempic et. al) and they actually are looking for smaller portion sizes, which is driving a huge trend in grocery now of boxing up larger quantities of smaller items.
Of course the industry has used this to their advantage. Instead of just offering a 4-pack of frozen dairy treats at 2 oz each, they can offer an 8-pack at .8 oz each (less total product) and sell it alongside that one for even more, and they actually will sell more of the 8-pack.
Yes, because shrinkflation wasn’t a thing until Ozempic arrived.
Also, the % of the population taking Ozempic is what, a rounding error?
If people weren’t buying more of them, they wouldn’t’ve changed the size.
What people say they want and what they actually purchase are often different.
edit: Yet again, Lemmy proves ignorance is rampant and people have absolutely no concept of the real world.
Companies have been trying to cheap out in manufacturing costd since manufacturing was invented.
Don’t blame the consumer when the candy bar cartel shrinks their shit then lies about it.
Me: doesn’t buy them
Candy: shrinks anyway
Me: “but the internet says that won’t happen!”
That’s not a valid conclusion.
The only thing that we can say for sure is that the companies benefit from shrinkflation in some way otherwise they wouldn’t do it.
If sales drop due to the smaller sizes but they still make more profit overall then you can be sure that we’d be getting smaller bars.
Nitpick, even though I agree with you: companies believe they will benefit. We can’t rule out how fucking stupid a lot of management types are. Like whatever company fired people for AI and then had to retire them, plus eat the lost potential from fucking around with AI for months.
And even when the individuals aren’t stupid, the incentives are fucked. Google kills products because of internal fighting for promotions and recognition, not anything that’s good for users or the companies.
You are assuming both options were on the market for consumers to choose from.
These are unilateral decisions.
I always skip the smaller bags of chips in favor of the biggest ones available. Same goes for Little Debbie’s offerings.
I am making no such assumption, and you clearly do not know how businesses operate.
I’m not fond of much of what they do, but I’m speaking in realities, not idealations.
You “make no such assumptions” of whether both sizes were available in 1991, but you do assume that the user has no idea how businesses operate. You’re not speaking in reality at all, you’re just arguing nonsensically
Y’all go live in made-up land, I guess.
That’s what you said. If a business is already making sales and profit, why would they decrease the size? You think they were selling the candy at a loss or something, and had to slowly increase revenue?
It’s the definition of “shrinkflation” and it’s anti-consumerism because they aren’t making it obvious that they’re increasing the cost of the product
What kind of ignorant are you, that you can’t wrap your head around that? Go spout your elitist, anti-intellectualism elsewhere, cause ain’t nobody here buying it
And if you truly believe in what you’re saying, good luck my dude, and may god have mercy on your soul
Are you 15? Or do you just lack all common sense and ability to understand the universe around you?
I’m serious. What you’ve written is so far from reality that I feel compelled to make sure you’re OK and not like, IDK, stroking out somewhere.