• trolololol@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I would like that… Saving on a smaller package for chips and cereal sounds great, most of it is air anyways.

    • Breezy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      No you dont. I have worked in 2 groceries stores, the bags with less air get way more crushed and broken while stocking. Having bigger bags with a lot of air keeps the chips integrity in tact.

        • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          What is the company’s incentive to make the package bigger than it needs to be?

          Shipping costs come two fold… Weight and number of pallets. Weight change is negligible here, but the amount of air they need to ship will increase. They are incentivized to reduce it to a minimum to save on shelf, storage, and distribution costs.

          • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            They’re also incentivized to keep the same size packaging (both for logistical and public perveption reasons) and ship less product in those packages. People are willing to pay $6 for a big bag of chips, despite the big bag weighing 150g less than the normal bag 5 years ago.

            They don’t get paid by the gram, they get paid by the bag. A bigger bag looks more impressive, and thus can be sold for more. Same for those tall skinny beverage cans. They look bigger than the regular cans, but are actually 25ml smaller, and yet go for a similar price.

            This will continue until the price per gram is what people look for (emphasis on this at the point of sale would help), or the mass of each product is standardized. 50g, 100g, 200g, 350g, 500g, 750g, and whole kg sizes only, none of this 489g nonsense.