4 ms·

> Why is there no regulation to force non-plastic packaging when a viable alternative packing exists? Because, at least in the non-dictatorial world, regulatio

> Why is there no regulation to force non-plastic packaging when a viable alternative packing exists? Because, at least in the non-dictatorial world, regulation comes only as a result of the mass population recognizing a need to clean up the outliers who aren't comforting with the wishes of the masses. When a population is consuming 110 billion PET bottles per year that represents the masses. They are not going to enact legislation to clean up themselves. There would be no reason to since voluntarily stopping the practice of consuming said bottles would achieve the same effect.

uoaei 4y ago
This argument only makes sense when consumers are free to choose comparable alternatives without the plastic packaging. But realistically, consumers are typically severely limited in their selection of products. Picking the best of a bad lot doesn't mean people prefer bad things, if their selection is extremely constrained.
- randomdata 4y ago
  It used to be you could only buy Coke in glass bottles. The mass market proved it didn't like glass bottles, so the vendors moved away from them. If the consumer preferred glass bottles it would be the plastic bottle that is hard to come by today, but in reality the consumer prefers the plastic bottle. They are much cheaper and more convenient than the glass bottle. Let's not downplay how much power the consumer actually has. A business like Coca-Cola would end up bankrupt in a matter of days if it didn't listen closely to what consumers are willing to buy. It, again, delivers plastic because that's exactly what the masses want. Business is tightly bound the whims of the consumer. Business only exists to serve the consumer. That doesn't mean people prefer bad things. The plastic bottle is clearly superior in many ways, even if has some negative externalities. There is good reason why the masses don't want to move away from it, even amid the good reasons to stop their production.
  - GrinningFool 4y ago
    The mass market didn't prove this - the only thing proved was that it cost Coca Cola less to produce and ship plastic bottles. If Coca Cola switched to glass-only again, they wouldn't lose very many customers. People want the Coke. They might have feelings about the bottle it's sold in, but they're generally not going to stop buying the Coke because the bottle changes to one that they like less. Nor, for the most part, because the price increases slightly to make up the cost difference. Whether the plastic is superior in many ways is not, in this case, indicative that the masses don't want to move away from it - the masses just want their Coke.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > the only thing proved was that it cost Coca Cola less to produce and ship plastic bottles. Which too is the most important consideration to the consumer. Coke could be served in a Yeti bottle at $50 a pop, but who wants to pay for that? Nobody. Coke is merely delivering what the consumer wants: Coke, served as cheaply and most conveniently as possible. > If Coca Cola switched to glass-only again, they wouldn't lose very many customers Ultimately not, but they also wouldn't make the customer happy in doing so. Given that business exists only to serve customers, why would you go out of your way to make your customers unhappy to risk rocking the boat? Even a few lost customers is lost revenue, and long term negative sentiment is never good. Individual unhappiness is unavoidable, of course, but leaving the masses unhappy over something arbitrary like this even if you won't lose their business is pointless. That is not how business works. > the masses just want their Coke. ...served as cheaply and most conveniently as possible, which is where plastic wins. For better or worse, the masses have made their decision. They don't want to pay for glass and they most certainly will not put in extra effort to legislate that they must pay for glass just to get a Coke. It is flabbergasting that the original comment in this thread even thought for a minute that they would.
      - uoaei 4y ago
        You're making a huge assumption throughout the analysis that you fail to acknowledge -- you assume that cost savings are passed on to the consumer, ie, that there is a signal being communicated from consumer to producer on the basis of rising or falling prices. I don't believe that is a valid assumption in this scenario. If Coca-Cola manages to reduce their bottling costs, they pass on those extra profits to their stockholders, not their consumers. The behemoth that is Coca-Cola production cannot slow down or speed up fast enough to respond to actual consumer demands: they must plan ahead to anticipate them. This is more easily done by influencing consumer demand via promotional deals, advertising, and market capture. They operate in a meta-stable fashion, constantly producing at a roughly constant (if always slightly rising) rate, and using influence over the market -- prices, exclusive contracts, quasi-monopoly, promotions, advertising -- to control how quickly it gets consumed to keep sales up and inventory costs low. In reality, consumers can't choose what's not in front of them. If Coca-Cola wants to use only plastic bottles because they're easier to manufacture and transport, that's what governs their use of plastic bottles. Any price difference seen as a result of that will not be due to cost savings, but rather in response to the change in production processes that affects the market supply.

uoaei 4y ago

This argument only makes sense when consumers are free to choose comparable alternatives without the plastic packaging. But realistically, consumers are typically severely limited in their selection of products. Picking the best of a bad lot doesn't mean people prefer bad things, if their selection is extremely constrained.

randomdata 4y ago
It used to be you could only buy Coke in glass bottles. The mass market proved it didn't like glass bottles, so the vendors moved away from them. If the consumer preferred glass bottles it would be the plastic bottle that is hard to come by today, but in reality the consumer prefers the plastic bottle. They are much cheaper and more convenient than the glass bottle. Let's not downplay how much power the consumer actually has. A business like Coca-Cola would end up bankrupt in a matter of days if it didn't listen closely to what consumers are willing to buy. It, again, delivers plastic because that's exactly what the masses want. Business is tightly bound the whims of the consumer. Business only exists to serve the consumer. That doesn't mean people prefer bad things. The plastic bottle is clearly superior in many ways, even if has some negative externalities. There is good reason why the masses don't want to move away from it, even amid the good reasons to stop their production.
- GrinningFool 4y ago
  The mass market didn't prove this - the only thing proved was that it cost Coca Cola less to produce and ship plastic bottles. If Coca Cola switched to glass-only again, they wouldn't lose very many customers. People want the Coke. They might have feelings about the bottle it's sold in, but they're generally not going to stop buying the Coke because the bottle changes to one that they like less. Nor, for the most part, because the price increases slightly to make up the cost difference. Whether the plastic is superior in many ways is not, in this case, indicative that the masses don't want to move away from it - the masses just want their Coke.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > the only thing proved was that it cost Coca Cola less to produce and ship plastic bottles. Which too is the most important consideration to the consumer. Coke could be served in a Yeti bottle at $50 a pop, but who wants to pay for that? Nobody. Coke is merely delivering what the consumer wants: Coke, served as cheaply and most conveniently as possible. > If Coca Cola switched to glass-only again, they wouldn't lose very many customers Ultimately not, but they also wouldn't make the customer happy in doing so. Given that business exists only to serve customers, why would you go out of your way to make your customers unhappy to risk rocking the boat? Even a few lost customers is lost revenue, and long term negative sentiment is never good. Individual unhappiness is unavoidable, of course, but leaving the masses unhappy over something arbitrary like this even if you won't lose their business is pointless. That is not how business works. > the masses just want their Coke. ...served as cheaply and most conveniently as possible, which is where plastic wins. For better or worse, the masses have made their decision. They don't want to pay for glass and they most certainly will not put in extra effort to legislate that they must pay for glass just to get a Coke. It is flabbergasting that the original comment in this thread even thought for a minute that they would.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      You're making a huge assumption throughout the analysis that you fail to acknowledge -- you assume that cost savings are passed on to the consumer, ie, that there is a signal being communicated from consumer to producer on the basis of rising or falling prices. I don't believe that is a valid assumption in this scenario. If Coca-Cola manages to reduce their bottling costs, they pass on those extra profits to their stockholders, not their consumers. The behemoth that is Coca-Cola production cannot slow down or speed up fast enough to respond to actual consumer demands: they must plan ahead to anticipate them. This is more easily done by influencing consumer demand via promotional deals, advertising, and market capture. They operate in a meta-stable fashion, constantly producing at a roughly constant (if always slightly rising) rate, and using influence over the market -- prices, exclusive contracts, quasi-monopoly, promotions, advertising -- to control how quickly it gets consumed to keep sales up and inventory costs low. In reality, consumers can't choose what's not in front of them. If Coca-Cola wants to use only plastic bottles because they're easier to manufacture and transport, that's what governs their use of plastic bottles. Any price difference seen as a result of that will not be due to cost savings, but rather in response to the change in production processes that affects the market supply.