It’s 2 for the price of 3 - 50% increase
$3.33 to $5 is 50%
Comment on Shrinkflation is out of control
ChrislyBear@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The old fish costs $3.92 per 100g, the new fish $5. That’s a price increase of (255/200 - 1) = 27.5%. The difference per gram (which isn’t of interest to anybody) is 5-3.92, i.e. ¢1.08. Which also equates to a (5/3.92 - 1) = 27.5% increase.
Not sure what you were calculating, but every result was wrong.
triclops6@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
ChrislyBear@lemmy.world 10 months ago
In pieces, sure. But the old pack contained 255g of fish and the new one contains 200g ;)
triclops6@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
My bad thanks
Inky@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Cost per gram is the only sensible measurement
Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com 10 months ago
and yet every single online grocery shopping I’ve been on refuses to have a filter or sort by price per weight option. It’s even more incredibly infuriating when you have to click into an item’s description or calculate it yourself, extra bonus hell points to the sites that change the weight metric so it’s an extra step to figure out what the actual comparison is (probably more a US problem with ounce/pound conversion).
dan@upvote.au 10 months ago
I just wish the weights were consistent across similar products. I’ve seen some supermarkets where one brand uses cost per gram while another brand uses cost per 100 grams. Some toilet papers are cost per sheet, some are cost per 100 sheets, some are cost per roll. In the USA, one item might use price per ounce while the product next to it uses price per pound. Drives me crazy.
SoleInvictus@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is as designed. It’s like shopping for mattresses, they don’t want you to comparison shop.
mlong99@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Price per roll has to be the worst seeing how rolls are different thicknesses