5 ms·

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 consume

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.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > If Coca-Cola manages to reduce their bottling costs If glass reduces costs the market would likely go in that direction quickly, but we already agreed that glass is more expensive, hence primarily why plastic is preferred by the consumer. They don't actually care how the liquid arrives, they just want it cheaply and conveniently. But let's say, hypothetically speaking, that Coca-Cola wanted to pretend to be more environmentally friendly and started making glass bottles more accessible, but also kept plastic bottles around to satisfy the actual customer demand. What reason is there for us to believe that Coca-Cola would simply eat the cost of glass bottles rather than pass that added cost onto consumers? It's not going to happen. At best you might see a short-term loss leader-type offer as a marketing stunt, but soon glass will cost more. I mean, you suggest yourself that they will put profitability at the forefront of their decision making, profitability that is driven directly by consumer demand, so there is a contradiction here to think that plastic won't be sold for comparatively less. Glass costs more and they will, without question, pass that added cost on. Coca-Cola exists to serve the customer, not to give away things for free. I do, indeed, assume that the added cost of glass will be passed onto the consumer because, well, why wouldn't it be? Coca-Cola isn't a charity and the price conscious consumer will just buy the lower cost plastic bottle anyway, so there is no risk to their market by charging more for the luxury of glass. In fact, it would only serve to harm Coca-Cola and its shareholders if they compelled consumers into choosing glass at the same price as plastic. To think that Coca-Cola would sell glass at the same price as plastic, temporary marketing stunts aside, is even more silly than thinking that consumers would legislate their ability to buy plastic bottles, where they have shown a clear preference towards, away from themselves.
- kayfox 4y ago
  > the only thing proved was that it cost Coca Cola less to produce and ship plastic bottles. It cost them less because it expends less energy to ship them, therefore contributing less to global pollution in that aspect. I find it frustrating that a lot of environmental actions these days only examine one part of the total environmental impact of something and disregard other aspects which may make the proposed solution worse. Paper straws often contain those forever chemicals everyone talks about. Corn based alternatives take more energy to make in some cases. "Recycling" plastic has spectacularly backfired in that we shipped it across the world to be "recycled" and it just ended up being burned or dumped into the rivers feeding the ocean. We could have just tossed it in a landfill and had less impact.

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.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > If Coca-Cola manages to reduce their bottling costs If glass reduces costs the market would likely go in that direction quickly, but we already agreed that glass is more expensive, hence primarily why plastic is preferred by the consumer. They don't actually care how the liquid arrives, they just want it cheaply and conveniently. But let's say, hypothetically speaking, that Coca-Cola wanted to pretend to be more environmentally friendly and started making glass bottles more accessible, but also kept plastic bottles around to satisfy the actual customer demand. What reason is there for us to believe that Coca-Cola would simply eat the cost of glass bottles rather than pass that added cost onto consumers? It's not going to happen. At best you might see a short-term loss leader-type offer as a marketing stunt, but soon glass will cost more. I mean, you suggest yourself that they will put profitability at the forefront of their decision making, profitability that is driven directly by consumer demand, so there is a contradiction here to think that plastic won't be sold for comparatively less. Glass costs more and they will, without question, pass that added cost on. Coca-Cola exists to serve the customer, not to give away things for free. I do, indeed, assume that the added cost of glass will be passed onto the consumer because, well, why wouldn't it be? Coca-Cola isn't a charity and the price conscious consumer will just buy the lower cost plastic bottle anyway, so there is no risk to their market by charging more for the luxury of glass. In fact, it would only serve to harm Coca-Cola and its shareholders if they compelled consumers into choosing glass at the same price as plastic. To think that Coca-Cola would sell glass at the same price as plastic, temporary marketing stunts aside, is even more silly than thinking that consumers would legislate their ability to buy plastic bottles, where they have shown a clear preference towards, away from themselves.
kayfox 4y ago
> the only thing proved was that it cost Coca Cola less to produce and ship plastic bottles. It cost them less because it expends less energy to ship them, therefore contributing less to global pollution in that aspect. I find it frustrating that a lot of environmental actions these days only examine one part of the total environmental impact of something and disregard other aspects which may make the proposed solution worse. Paper straws often contain those forever chemicals everyone talks about. Corn based alternatives take more energy to make in some cases. "Recycling" plastic has spectacularly backfired in that we shipped it across the world to be "recycled" and it just ended up being burned or dumped into the rivers feeding the ocean. We could have just tossed it in a landfill and had less impact.