Good so if every junk food gets downsized, maybe we'll eat less? I think it won't be long before the companies market this as a health campaign.
I find this annoying
- Thread starter Surefire
- Start date
Soda is one of those things with an absurdly high margin. They are just trying to make up for slowing sales by cutting package sizes, pilfering an extra 20% or so from the people still buying.
OMG...you are SO frugal, my dad would have been prouder to call you "son" than he was ME!
I probably wouldda just yanked up your shorts, threw you to the curb and taken your lunch money.
It's that kind of miserly attention to detail that funds my otherwise lavish lifestyle. Suits don't grow on trees; they made from the dregs of Coke cans.
Oh, I know. I never really buy pop anyway. I work at a restaurant, so I can get my fill there if I really want some. I almost never drink it at home, unless it's being mixed with alcohol, and if that's the case, I always have someone else drinking it with me, so the 2 Liter works.
Unless you live in Columbia...where they're made from the work of the Coke GROWERS!
For the first time in years I bought some pop these holidays. I got a variety of six 2 liter bottles, but as of now, two weeks after purchase, I have only supped half of one bottle.
I just don't seem to have the taste for it as I did when I was little. I'm happier with a mug of earl grey.
I just don't seem to have the taste for it as I did when I was little. I'm happier with a mug of earl grey.
Everything has been decreasing at a faster rate as of late. Pringles, Doritos, gummie bears, so forth.
I annoys me so much when companies do that. That's not how the invisible hand is supposed to work. Aren't they are supposed to cut prices to attract back customers until they reach equilibrium?
There's a commercial equivalent to the Laffer curve.
Total profit = total sales * profit per item
Businesses are not foolish, they charge as much as they can to maximise profit. Increasing costs does mean less customers, but also increases profit from each individual sale.
Increasing costs is obvious to the consumer, it hurts sales. Decreasing pack size is less obvious, it hurts sales less.
Obfuscating the price hike by adjusting several variables at once is effective too: reduce cost of pack, decrease number of cans in pack, decrease contents of each can. The average customer isn't going to stand in the supermarket and do the math. They just think "well the pack is smaller but I'm paying less, so it's ok. I'll buy it."
Total profit = total sales * profit per item
Businesses are not foolish, they charge as much as they can to maximise profit. Increasing costs does mean less customers, but also increases profit from each individual sale.
Increasing costs is obvious to the consumer, it hurts sales. Decreasing pack size is less obvious, it hurts sales less.
Obfuscating the price hike by adjusting several variables at once is effective too: reduce cost of pack, decrease number of cans in pack, decrease contents of each can. The average customer isn't going to stand in the supermarket and do the math. They just think "well the pack is smaller but I'm paying less, so it's ok. I'll buy it."
^ quite right, only misers like me check the maths.
(As an aside, you can see the flip side of these calculations in the current large-scale January sales - massive reductions in profit margins, to increase total sales & so mitigate the impact on the bottom line (it won't work I think, because too many people are on a buyer's strike, but the concept is sound).)
Back OT, Coke & Pepsi have the advantage of being an effective duopoly, which alters how the model works. If Coke respond to Pepsi & follow suit in their packaging, they together control a sufficient market share (& have sufficiently strong branding) to prevent a large decline in sales due to small price hikes (whether visible or relatively invisible) - consumers feel they have no other choice other than to continue buying. Logically they should switch to a 3rd party soda or turn away from soda completely, but Coke & Pepsi have powerful enough branding to overcome that.
(As an aside, you can see the flip side of these calculations in the current large-scale January sales - massive reductions in profit margins, to increase total sales & so mitigate the impact on the bottom line (it won't work I think, because too many people are on a buyer's strike, but the concept is sound).)
Back OT, Coke & Pepsi have the advantage of being an effective duopoly, which alters how the model works. If Coke respond to Pepsi & follow suit in their packaging, they together control a sufficient market share (& have sufficiently strong branding) to prevent a large decline in sales due to small price hikes (whether visible or relatively invisible) - consumers feel they have no other choice other than to continue buying. Logically they should switch to a 3rd party soda or turn away from soda completely, but Coke & Pepsi have powerful enough branding to overcome that.
Similar threads
