4 ms·

> 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 g

> 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.

uoaei 4y ago
I don't think you understood my point at all, but I suppose I must take responsibility for unclear communication.
- randomdata 4y ago
  Could be, but assuming it was on-topic then I've already covered why the consumer price of plastic would ultimately have to be cheaper than the price of glass. It's not just an assumption, but a mathematical certainty. If they were the same price, consumers could equally choose glass, and that would hurt Coca-Cola's bottom line. I mean, think about it. For argument's sake, assume a Coke sells for $1.00 and the net profit on plastic is 50¢ and the net profit on glass is 25¢. Every time a consumer chooses glass, Coca-Cola loses 25¢. Therefore, there would be incredible incentive to charge $1.25 for glass in this example to at least reach parity with plastic, and a company like Coca-Cola beholden to shareholder profit motive will have to comply, which means that the price has to diverge and the price conscious consumer will stick to plastic. Which is effectively what has happened in reality. I don't know about you, but I'm old enough to remember when glass and plastic were sold side-by-side on the regular. The consumer absolutely could have kept on buying glass bottles. They were both readily available for quite a while to keep old glass customers happy, and if that's all anyone bought Coca-Cola would have had little choice but to keep producing them. But the mass consumer soon moved towards plastic because it was better in a lot of ways. Not better in every way, of course. There are clear problems with plastic. As with everything in life there are tradeoffs that need to be made. But a winner emerged and until something changes about what the mass consumer wants to buy, nothing is going to change. The mass consumer is known to change its habits so this isn't necessarily a lost cause. They've done it many times before. But change won't come from regulation as the mass consumer is responsible for that very regulation! The mass consumer has to already move away from plastic bottles before regulation to clean up the outliers still trying to buy plastic is tenable.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    > I've already covered why the consumer price of plastic would ultimately have to be cheaper than the price of glass That's not the point I'm challenging, though. I agree that it gives Coca-Cola the option to reduce consumer prices further than some competitors. I'm saying that the causation is likely not as you describe -- any reduction in consumer prices is the result of CC's intention to sell more stuff in a particular location or another, and cheaper production means they have more room to manipulate the market via a wider range of prices they can accommodate. All else equal, they will still charge just as much as they can. The company is not some benevolent force bestowing savings on the people who drink Coke. I don't know if/where you work but clearly you have not seen the inside of a company that moves massive volumes of physical goods. The "let's just assume I'm right and move on" approach you have is pretty annoying. I don't think you have taken the time to consider anything I've said. We're not in high school debate club.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > That's not the point I'm challenging, though. It is recognized that you invented a fake point and are trying to challenge something that doesn't have any relevance. My previous response was pointing out your error and attempted to salvage the train wreck that you created. Curious how that went unnoticed. > I'm saying that the causation is likely not as you describe -- any reduction in consumer prices What are you talking about? There has been no description of any reduction in consumer prices. Why would Coca-Cola charge less than the market has already shown it is willing to pay just fine? This doesn't make any sense or have any connection to the discussion taking place. > The "let's just assume I'm right and move on" approach you have is pretty annoying. I can assure you that the "I won't bother to read your comments but will reply anyway" is far more annoying. Logically, if something doesn't seem right, thus implying a misinterpretation, one would ask questions to find clarification rather than doubling down on the misinterpretation. What is to be gained from this bad faith approach we are witnessing here? > We're not in high school debate club. Clearly. High school debaters have sensibilities.

uoaei 4y ago

I don't think you understood my point at all, but I suppose I must take responsibility for unclear communication.

randomdata 4y ago
Could be, but assuming it was on-topic then I've already covered why the consumer price of plastic would ultimately have to be cheaper than the price of glass. It's not just an assumption, but a mathematical certainty. If they were the same price, consumers could equally choose glass, and that would hurt Coca-Cola's bottom line. I mean, think about it. For argument's sake, assume a Coke sells for $1.00 and the net profit on plastic is 50¢ and the net profit on glass is 25¢. Every time a consumer chooses glass, Coca-Cola loses 25¢. Therefore, there would be incredible incentive to charge $1.25 for glass in this example to at least reach parity with plastic, and a company like Coca-Cola beholden to shareholder profit motive will have to comply, which means that the price has to diverge and the price conscious consumer will stick to plastic. Which is effectively what has happened in reality. I don't know about you, but I'm old enough to remember when glass and plastic were sold side-by-side on the regular. The consumer absolutely could have kept on buying glass bottles. They were both readily available for quite a while to keep old glass customers happy, and if that's all anyone bought Coca-Cola would have had little choice but to keep producing them. But the mass consumer soon moved towards plastic because it was better in a lot of ways. Not better in every way, of course. There are clear problems with plastic. As with everything in life there are tradeoffs that need to be made. But a winner emerged and until something changes about what the mass consumer wants to buy, nothing is going to change. The mass consumer is known to change its habits so this isn't necessarily a lost cause. They've done it many times before. But change won't come from regulation as the mass consumer is responsible for that very regulation! The mass consumer has to already move away from plastic bottles before regulation to clean up the outliers still trying to buy plastic is tenable.
- uoaei 4y ago
  > I've already covered why the consumer price of plastic would ultimately have to be cheaper than the price of glass That's not the point I'm challenging, though. I agree that it gives Coca-Cola the option to reduce consumer prices further than some competitors. I'm saying that the causation is likely not as you describe -- any reduction in consumer prices is the result of CC's intention to sell more stuff in a particular location or another, and cheaper production means they have more room to manipulate the market via a wider range of prices they can accommodate. All else equal, they will still charge just as much as they can. The company is not some benevolent force bestowing savings on the people who drink Coke. I don't know if/where you work but clearly you have not seen the inside of a company that moves massive volumes of physical goods. The "let's just assume I'm right and move on" approach you have is pretty annoying. I don't think you have taken the time to consider anything I've said. We're not in high school debate club.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > That's not the point I'm challenging, though. It is recognized that you invented a fake point and are trying to challenge something that doesn't have any relevance. My previous response was pointing out your error and attempted to salvage the train wreck that you created. Curious how that went unnoticed. > I'm saying that the causation is likely not as you describe -- any reduction in consumer prices What are you talking about? There has been no description of any reduction in consumer prices. Why would Coca-Cola charge less than the market has already shown it is willing to pay just fine? This doesn't make any sense or have any connection to the discussion taking place. > The "let's just assume I'm right and move on" approach you have is pretty annoying. I can assure you that the "I won't bother to read your comments but will reply anyway" is far more annoying. Logically, if something doesn't seem right, thus implying a misinterpretation, one would ask questions to find clarification rather than doubling down on the misinterpretation. What is to be gained from this bad faith approach we are witnessing here? > We're not in high school debate club. Clearly. High school debaters have sensibilities.