feels bad :(

  • Cattail@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    Dupeflation. I also consider people that buy 12 back over 2 liters to be duped but people could want the cana

    • HoopyFrood@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      As a wanter of cans I appreciate aluminum + cardboard for their recyclability (aluminum is highly economical to recycle and you can just bury cardboard and it will be dirt within a year (assuming sufficiently wet climate)) in comparison to PET plastic two liter bottles with their almost entirely unrecycleable labels and caps.

      Though with the ways inflation has been impacting soda i just about only get it at restaurants now.

      • AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        In case you didn’t know aluminum cans are lined with plastic, still more recyclable than a plastic bottle but plastic is still used in manufacturing and gets burned of when it gets melted back down for recycling.

  • Z3k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    Is it weird that my nearly 50 yr old ass knows they are the same but reads the taller one as the smaller of the 2

  • sircac@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Kind of fun that the shorter version is result of an optimisation that minimise the tin area for that volume considering the processing, etc. That is, they become less efficient because they compensate all the extra cost with human flaws…

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Is the shorter one more optimised?

      The areas which requires the most aluminium are the relatively thick base and top, the walls can be much thinner.

      • tb_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Okay, did some actual reading:

        There’s also a business incentive for skinny designs.

        Brands can squeeze more 12 oz. skinny cans on store shelves, warehouse pallets and trucks than wider cans, said Dave Fedewa, a partner at McKinsey who consults for retail and consumer packaged goods companies. That means higher sales and cost savings.

        But the key, Fedewa said, is that skinny cans catch the eye: “It’s funny how much growth that can drive in retail.”

        https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/30/business/soda-cans-slim-aluminum/

        “We have moved to a sleek can and a completely new visual identity, with the aim to delight consumers by offering a more premium and more sustainable drinking experience,” the brand replied on Twitter.

        The new shape is meant to visually communicate that the drink inside, which has been reformulated to eliminate artificial colors and sweeteners, is healthier than the typical fizzy beverage, said Thomas Conquet, marketing director of Sanpellegrino in the U.S.

        “Consumers feel it’s a bit more elegant, a bit more upscale, a bit more adult when they have this can in their hands,” he said, citing testing conducted by the brand.

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/slim-beverage-cans-gain-ground-against-their-squatter-cousins-11657136431

        That last quote… yuck.

        • sircac@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          This was a nice addition. Regarding the surface vs volume optimisation I remember it was a high school mathematics problem but after review it this proportion is a height twice the radius of the cilinder, the standard/classic proportion deviates to a ~2.2 value considering many other factors like manufacturing limitations, etc. In any case the classic is closer to reduce the waste, etc than the slender one, the standard has like a 1.5% larger surface than the ideal, but the slim goes up to a ~10%

          • tb_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            It’s not just about surface area, though, but also material thickness. The bottom and top are thicker and therefore use more material.

            The first thing I tried to find was the weight of the empty cans to see which actually used more material, but I didn’t get very far. I probably could’ve tried harder, but I considered I wanted to find out the real reason so I started looking for other kinds of articles.

            Neither of the two articles I linked mention anything about the material cost, only about being able to pack the tall cans tighter during shipping and on shelves. So I figured material cost wasn’t particularly relevant/negligible as to why companies made the switch.

    • rounding_error@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      16oz were sold out at my grocery store

      I should be grateful because the caffeine puts me at risk for heart attacks lol

  • ᴋɪᴋɪ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    All this time, we’ve been fooled into thinking that just because one product is bigger than another, it contains more. They actually have the same amount—the company just wants to take our money and leave us worse off.

  • Linda R@nord.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    To me the shorter one looks bigger but the slimmer one looks more elegant. The better looks make the drink taste a little better, so I prefer the slim and tall form of can.