3 ms·

The price comes down with bulk and subscription (save 20% on sub). you cited "$6/meal per now" and I believe that was a mistake. If a week (7 days) supply is

by Vraxx 12y ago

The price comes down with bulk and subscription (save 20% on sub). you cited "$6/meal per now" and I believe that was a mistake. If a week (7 days) supply is $85, you have $12.14 per day and about $4.05 per meal, which hits your target of "closer to $4/meal". On a separate note if you buy a months supply (don't have to eat it in one month) that is $300 for 28 days (84 meals) it comes to roughly $3.57/meal. I do agree that the manufacturing delay was easily the worst part of the experience, but other than that I'm loving the product. I hope that many more people trying it will lower the price more because this has done a dent on my daily food bill, and it'd be great to see it come down more through widespread use.

Someone1234 12y ago
> If a week (7 days) supply is $85, you have $12.14 per day and about $4.05 per meal, which hits your target of "closer to $4/meal". Many people don't spend $6 or even $4 on three meals a day. They buy lunch and dinner, both costing around $6 if they eat out or around $3 if they make a packed lunch (more for dinner). There might be someone somewhere who buys a premium breakfast for $4 a day and then spends $4-6 at lunch and dinner, but those people are a rare exception. Most people are going to compare it to the meals they actually have now and what they spend. It doesn't become cheaper just because they recommend you have it for breakfast too. Breakfast is dead for the vast majority of the adult population (unless coffee counts?). > On a separate note if you buy a months supply (don't have to eat it in one month) that is $300 for 28 days (84 meals) it comes to roughly $3.57/meal That's irrelevant because the issue is getting people into the product who think it is too expensive. Suggesting they spend $300 as a buy in is not only unhelpful but also makes them much less likely to want to try it. Also that's only $1.50 cheaper per day than the base price. Hardly a saving. Still costs above $10/day. Adding breakfast doesn't save any money, it is just a way to make it seem cheaper than it actually is...
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  > Most people are going to compare it to the meals they actually have now and what they spend. Fair enough. Before switching to Soylent, I was regularly (meaning "nearly every work day") spending $8-$12 a day just for lunch. What I was spending on lunch for just one day is enough to fund several days of Soylent lunch. Or, during times when I am on a 100% Soylent diet, enough to fund more than an entire day's worth of meals. (I never could drink an entire pouch in one day.) So Soylent is very much saving me money. YMMV. I would hazard a guess that a majority of people that realize a significant savings in Soylent live in places where things run a bit more expensive. I'm in Berkeley. Sure I can get a lunch for $5 but it won't be a quality lunch. And dinner? I can't think of any place where I can touch dinner for <$10 (unless I'm going to the same places I can get a $5 lunch). Granted, we usually cook dinner at home. And Honestly, I have no idea how much dinners cost at home. There are 5 of us. I buy food. We eat food. I assume it is cheaper than going out. But I can state with near certainty, it is more expensive (per person) than Soylent. It is funny when people talk about how they could never drink the joyless slop when they can cook fabulous meals at home for $3/meal... and then go on to describe meals that probably do only cost $3 but seems just as joyless as Soylent. Side note: I've lost ~20 lbs over the last 4-5 months that I will attribute 80% of to Soylent. Even if some of that is just psychological, it is still working for me. Again, YMMV.

by Vraxx 12y ago

Someone1234 12y ago

> If a week (7 days) supply is $85, you have $12.14 per day and about $4.05 per meal, which hits your target of "closer to $4/meal". Many people don't spend $6 or even $4 on three meals a day. They buy lunch and dinner, both costing around $6 if they eat out or around $3 if they make a packed lunch (more for dinner). There might be someone somewhere who buys a premium breakfast for $4 a day and then spends $4-6 at lunch and dinner, but those people are a rare exception. Most people are going to compare it to the meals they actually have now and what they spend. It doesn't become cheaper just because they recommend you have it for breakfast too. Breakfast is dead for the vast majority of the adult population (unless coffee counts?). > On a separate note if you buy a months supply (don't have to eat it in one month) that is $300 for 28 days (84 meals) it comes to roughly $3.57/meal That's irrelevant because the issue is getting people into the product who think it is too expensive. Suggesting they spend $300 as a buy in is not only unhelpful but also makes them much less likely to want to try it. Also that's only $1.50 cheaper per day than the base price. Hardly a saving. Still costs above $10/day. Adding breakfast doesn't save any money, it is just a way to make it seem cheaper than it actually is...

jack-r-abbit 12y ago
> Most people are going to compare it to the meals they actually have now and what they spend. Fair enough. Before switching to Soylent, I was regularly (meaning "nearly every work day") spending $8-$12 a day just for lunch. What I was spending on lunch for just one day is enough to fund several days of Soylent lunch. Or, during times when I am on a 100% Soylent diet, enough to fund more than an entire day's worth of meals. (I never could drink an entire pouch in one day.) So Soylent is very much saving me money. YMMV. I would hazard a guess that a majority of people that realize a significant savings in Soylent live in places where things run a bit more expensive. I'm in Berkeley. Sure I can get a lunch for $5 but it won't be a quality lunch. And dinner? I can't think of any place where I can touch dinner for <$10 (unless I'm going to the same places I can get a $5 lunch). Granted, we usually cook dinner at home. And Honestly, I have no idea how much dinners cost at home. There are 5 of us. I buy food. We eat food. I assume it is cheaper than going out. But I can state with near certainty, it is more expensive (per person) than Soylent. It is funny when people talk about how they could never drink the joyless slop when they can cook fabulous meals at home for $3/meal... and then go on to describe meals that probably do only cost $3 but seems just as joyless as Soylent. Side note: I've lost ~20 lbs over the last 4-5 months that I will attribute 80% of to Soylent. Even if some of that is just psychological, it is still working for me. Again, YMMV.