deleted by creator
Because people shouldn’t have to choose between great taste and staying within their budget.
Thankfully that doesn’t apply to PepsiCo, because 90% of their snacks are the most mid shit on that shelf coasting off brand recognition and shelf space. If I want cheap, I get generic; if I want great taste, I get some other brand. If I want somewhere in the middle, I get Utz. If I want medium–high cost for medium–low-quality flavor and texture, I buy a PepsiCo product. And if I want to make the right choice, I don’t get any of those.
The only thing keeping them afloat is pure market penetration- it’s hard to not maintain volume when you’re the only one on the shelf of every mini mart.
Heh penetration
My favorite chips are store brand. Whatever store. They taste better and are cheaper. This started with Blue Bell BBQ chips. Long gone, but so good.
that was some salty snack of a roller-coaster.
Great taste? Lol. K.
oh, no! looks like all that greedy shrinkflation blew up in your greedy faces! boohoo!
Every time I get in my hands a bag of 110g Doritos, I simply laugh and put it back.
Like if I’m going to pay $9 Canadian for my chips anyway, I might as well buy the locally made brand or other premium chip.
If you’ve found one, do you have any leads on a Canadian brand that makes good All-Dressed chips? I’d definitely pick them on my next trip north.
My rec is Hardbite Chips.
*But honestly try any Canadian product you see available.
I don’t think Old Dutch is a Canadian brand. Their headquarters are in MN.
Oh yeah you may be right. They have a way larger presence here so my impression was it’s Canadian, let me fix that.
Minnesotans are as about as close as you can get to a Canadian so…
My rec is Hardbite Chips.
Awesome! These look like they’re available local to me only a couple miles away here on the wrong side of the border.
Hardbite is the best option in Canada, no contest. The prices are quite fair too given the current market.
I love a good news day.
When I initially readthe headline I was very confused because I hadn’t been aware Pepisco had become a semiconductor manufacturer.
See! Everyone has been saying AI is inflating chip prices! Not so!
/wait, what?
The best flavors are made in Taiwan
Using Extreme Ultraviolet lithography!
Oh no poor people are our biggest market. How else will people in food deserts get their calories.
Artificial movement on the supply or demand curves will typically work back toward equilibrium…
Look who found the near side of the total cost curve.
The CEO talks about their products like the McDonalds CEO.
holds bag of Doritos I just want you to know, I will be having this for my snack.
To be fair, it’s more accurate to call chips product
My local grocery store brand has a similar or better alternative anyway, and always cheaper.
Too bad. I’ve learned my lesson and won’t be giving you business my money again.
Yup quit buying their stuff a while back. Insane prices and less product. Only a clueless idiot would think that would attract customers.
Watching the prices go up and up while bags got smaller and smaller and smaller was infuriating.
‘Normal’ sized bags now are almost all under 200g now.
‘Family size’ are smaller than the old Normal sized bags
I mostly buy store brand chips which remained reasonably priced now.
I didn’t want to believe it but the SNAP cuts really seemed to have a positive effect on prices. SNAP should be a tax break, not literally money in peoples pockets.
I don’t think this has anything to do with snap. Folks on snap don’t have a blank check and are still cost conscious. If anything more so. Thats why the article is about how they saw a tipping point where a massive amount of consumers stopped buying their name brands and generics saw a big uptick.
The problem with that is, if it isn’t required to go to food, it often won’t. That doesn’t just impact the parents. It also impacts the kids.
Except that’s absurd.
A lot of people without income don’t actually file taxes.
Your proposal just means the people who need it most would get jack squat and the people who itemize(who tend to have the most) would get the vast majority of the benefits.
Do you even understand taxes? Why would a person who earns enough money qualify for snap? When you inject money into the economy it creates inflation which is why a bag of Fritos was over $7. My example was one of countless ways to make sure the people who need snap get benefits. There is more than one way to skin a cat and don’t claim to have all the answers but to act like the way snap benefits were dispersed didnt have adverse effects on the economy is delusional at this point.
You aren’t wrong that putting money into the economy raises inflation. However, the inflation from SNAP disbursements is inconsequential compared to stuff like putting tariffs on everything or allowing corpos to raise prices out of pure greed. There’s really no point in examining SNAP’s effect on inflation when there are much more consequential concerns to focus on.
That’s absolutely true. Im not insinuating that snap was the reason inflation was high. However the cuts to snap absolutely had an affect on the prices of certain things. Soda and chips were the most obvious. I don’t have a problem with snap as an idea. However the way it’s implemented is stupid. Not to mention it does nothing the solve the issue. Instead of giving money to corporations (which is basically what snap does) the government should be forcing them to pay livable wages or be creating affordable housing so people don’t need to choose between food and rent.
Someone has never gone hungry or skipped a meal to feed a child…
I’ve been on snap before. I’ve also skipped many meals. It is a shit program that is poorly distributed and disproportionately benefits people that abuse it.
If it even helped one person than that’s great but all you sjw’s that want to defend the honor of SNAP is insane.
It is a shit program that is poorly distributed and disproportionately benefits people that abuse it.
I’d rather my tax dollars go to food that is being “abused” than whatever the fuck else the government is spending money on.
Nah, UBI should be given to everybody. It would boost the economy and allow people to buy basic things without worrying about starving to death.
I’ve got the solution! Smaller chips, more air in the bag.
The ceo grudgingly agreed to hold off on his 15 million dollar bonus for a few years so that they can lower the prices.
Unrealistic fiction. You have to make your characters more believable. Ex: The ceo begrudgingly thought about someone besides a shareholder for approximately 3 seconds, farted, then signed an agreement to kill another grandmother.
I used to only buy name brand snacks. I like the consistency, and I can afford it, so I’d spend the extra few cents. And honestly I just didn’t even pay attention to the price.
But $6 for a bag of Cheetos? I can still afford that, but I won’t because fuck them. I’m buying store brand for life now. If they put the price lower than it was before and fire someone for being so disrespectful to their customers, I’ll give them another shot, but that’s not going to happen.
I’ve not yet found a single good store brand here in Estonia.
I have however resorted to eating significantly less of that shit and preferring Taffel (Finnish), Estrella (part of German company Intersnack) or Balsnack (Estonian) when I do.
I enjoy a ball snack once in a while myself.
Can’t even count to ten without kaks teist…
I swear to God that I had originally read that as “Ballsack”, and I was all geared up to write a response about “Eating Ballsack”.
The article doesn’t mention it, but at least here in Europe, one big issue is that they changed all their products to be tasteless.
Because of the ‘healthy foods’ grading we have here, they took out a lot of what made their chips tasty. Resulting in very bland products. We personally haven’t bought any of those brands for a few years now because of it. Because I don’t want a ‘healthy’ chip - I want a tasty snack.
It’s definitely noticeable in Dutch supermarkets that many people are ditching those brands because of the lack of taste. And the price increases just accelerate that.
Can you mention specific regulation? I’m not sure what you’re saying is correct
In the Netherlands and a few other countries we have the Nutri-Score
https://www.rivm.nl/en/food-and-nutrition/nutri-score
This ranks a food from A (best) to E (worst) based on how well it fits into the dietary guidelines.
Important thing to note: it’s a ranking that compares foods in that same group. So it’s not ‘vegetables are A, pizza is E’, but rather ‘this Doritos has less salt than this bag of Lay’s’.
Now, this effectively caused companies to make their products blander in order to avoid a worse score. It also happened to save them money - you use fewer ingredients.
End result: chips now appear healthier because they have a better score… while also tasting like cardboard.
And how did that go over with consumers? See article. And you can read numerous complain about it on social media.
Ironically, this also means that the Nutri-Score sorta works. Why eat chips when they are tasteless? 😂
I remember one chef giving the very specific critique that America doesn’t add nearly enough salt to its foods. Seems that’s a very tense cultural thing.
I think that chef might have had a sodium deficiency
Alright, I thought you were saying evil EU laws make our food suck but it’s actually good old corporate decisions to maximize profit. I’m Dutch as well so I know about nutriscore. I don’t see that clear line between an advisory traffic light system on packaging and Lay’s making potato chips worse than they already were. It’s up to Lay’s, don’t blame the nutriscore.
I bet it will become like the Parental Guidance symbol. People will buy products with a low Nutri-Score because that (for junk food) symbolises quality.
Attempts to win back consumers through smaller package sizes and promotional deals went nowhere.
What kind of consumer would be won over by smaller sizes? Savvy consumers know the best deals usually come from the larger sizes, which tend to have a lower price by weight. Or are they seriously trying to frame shrinkflation as somehow being for a customer’s benefit?
are they seriously trying to frame shrinkflation as somehow being for a customer’s benefit?
In the age of MBAs, I would bet on that 9 times out of 10.
Yeah they are attempting to frame it that way. Here’d the logic in their muddled heads.
“We’ve increased the price of a 250g pack to £2 and people have stopped buying, so we’ll reduce the price to £1.50”
“Yeah but you reduced the size to 100g”
“But the price !!!” Waves hands confusedly.
“Well, at least you’ll have a side dish to eat shit with”
