Comment on Mars Bar from the 1990s found during house clearance - shrinkflation in action
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
… 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.
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 and sell it alongside that one for even more.
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.
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!”
If people weren’t buying more of them, they wouldn’t’ve changed the size.
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.
You are assuming both options were on the market for consumers to choose from.
These are unilateral decisions.
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
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.
I’m sure your customers have been demanding smaller bars that cost more.
Well, their customers have kept on buying their products so clearly they don’t care too much.
There was a dollarstore knock off mars bar we bought for a while 50¢ each
They customers would take bars that cost the same and are imperceptibly smaller. At least, better than a price hike, I’d expect. Then the Karens come out.
Translation:
we have made a number of updates to our bar sizes and pack formats to reflect consumer demand
People don’t by Mars because it’s Gucci.
alongside considering wider external factors such as manufacturing costs and the price of cocoa
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”.
Airfried@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
“We didn’t only shrink the size, we also lowered the quality of ingredients to maximize profits!”
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The only people who enjoy Mars bars are shareholders