you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -38 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    You are assuming both options were on the market for consumers to choose from.

    These are unilateral decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Y'all go live in made-up land, I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent