pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @brunenzio 11 Aug \ on: Shapeflation econ
That's a very interesting take and choice of term for a phenomenon that I guess all of us have experience (more or less knowingly).
What would make sense to understand is how much shapeflation actually cost to be implemented. Creating a box that "tricks" the buyer, change the pipeline to adapt to the new box, and all other logistic details do cost.
I like how you think. I've got to think the economics makes sense, that the company gains more by switching over to changing the shape of the container. Else, why would they do it? I have no doubt that the price of inputs has gone up for the supplier, they've gone up for everyone in everything. The only options to keep margins from shrinking away, would then be to either increase the price (which they don't want to do), buy cheaper bread/cheese/meat (reduce quality), or reduce the size. In this case, reduce the size seems to be the route chosen. To be honest, maybe they didn't reduce the size at all, maybe it has always been whatever it was when I got it. Maybe they just psyop'ed me by making it look bigger than it is.
reply
I agree the economics must make sense for the producers, I also agree that an increase in the price of inputs must be taken into account by producers, and that is why I am curious about the overall procedure.
The curious thing is that I am inclined to believe that a complete restructuring of packages and pipeline is something producers would immediately consider for profit, but not for reducing pollution.
reply