565
1/3 full brand new deodorant
(lemmy.world)
Shhhh! It’s a secret!
ok, I snorted.... well played.
Shrinkflation at its finest.
No, this is just the dollar store travel version and they didn't want to resize the bottle. Normal deodorant is more like 3 oz. My spray sure deodorant is 6 oz
That being said it's still a rip off
This makes the most sense actually.
Totally misleading due to the bottle size. I've purchased travel overpriced deodorant and it was a half stick anyway.
But the point of a travel size isn’t the amount of product, but the size of the container. This is beyond stupid, before we even get into the unnecessary plastic waste
I bought a 2 pack of Gel Deodorant recently before flying, put them in my carry on with whatever else I brought. TSA didn't care to check the sizes as it went through the scanner. It might not matter as much as we are told.
I mean... it's not a liquid...
I always do solid deodorant. Never thought about that...
Gel is a liquid.
Gel is a thick liquid.
Gel is a thiquid.
Dayum girl you Thiquid.
Last I saw dynamite was made in gel form. Seems more pertinent than liquid in a way. I actually was going to leave them, my mother convinced me to leave their place and fly home with them. Said to myself I will just chuck them in the trash if they had a problem with it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Greedflation
I cant decide if this is mildly infuriating or very infuriating. Wow, the fact someone thought this was a good idea. No, fill the goddamn thing. Nobody needs a quarter amount of deodorant. What a waste of packaging.
I was trying to think of an ergonomic justification, but probably they want to sell x amount of deodorant paste at $y price and to fill the thing and still charge that much would make the stick more expensive than they wanted.
Shitty, thanks capitalism.
Yeah, don't get caught in the trap of trying to defend them lol, it's a waste of time
I hate to spoil a good consciousness raising party but it’s still useful to understand why companies do this stuff:
-
raising prices leads to more backlash than anything else
-
when costs go up, wholesale prices (per unit of product) must go up to match or the product becomes unprofitable
-
redesigning the package to fit the smaller amount of product requires very expensive retooling whereas dialing down the amount of product is basically free
You might say “why do they have to be profitable at all?” But then why would they even bother making the product if they weren’t?
load more comments
(1 replies)
You can see the design they used is the maximum the plunger will go down without changing what might be a patented shape or making the whole thing larger or the top area smaller to shrink the plunger. It's still wasteful and deceptive though.
And possibly trying not to bear the price of retooling the packaging. Was it ever sold in this packaging completely full?
It's known as shrinkflation. Companies want to make more money. Simply asking the customer for more money is hard because we're all well aware of the price we've been paying for something, plus they have to sit on a shelf next to a competitor who might not have raised their price. So instead most products will reduce what you get instead.
The fact that someone thought this was a good idea is not the problem.
If someone else bought this more than once, and also didn't bother to call the company seven shades of utter cunts on social media, they're the problem
it's a lot easier for a company to change their behavior than it is to get everyone buying deodorant to be on the same page. this is why things like the FDA exist, for example
load more comments
(1 replies)
You get 45 grams according to the package. It's more cost effective for them to just put it in the same packaging as the regular sized and just change the label rather than shut down and change the production line to accommodate the smaller size.
I get that, but from an environmental point of view, this is an absolute travesty.
load more comments
(5 replies)
And of course the fact this obviously creates the illusion there's more product and therefore can trick customers it's just a happy accident, right?
load more comments
(1 replies)
That doesn't change the fact its misleading. Not everyone walks around with a god damn scale, knows the average weights of deodorant off the top of their head. The average person is going to look at this and assume its full and that's how the manufacturer wants it.
ackshually if you get out your scales and do a little homework..
no. fuck you.
So you, I dunno, read the label where it shows the net weight, and compare it to other similar products nearby on the same shelf? Hell, most store shelf pricing has price per unit on it now, so you can compare prices pretty directly. Yeah, I get that it's not completely consistent where that's implemented, but it's far and away better than the days of "price gun sticker on item and that's it."
Which boils down to 'make sure you look hard to see how they are trying to trick you'
And, in that scenario...you blame the people who don't catch the trick as opposed to the corporation trying to trick people.
I certainly do not do that. Who has time to inspect every item they buy nowadays? Ridiculous.
Could also be a function thing too. My travel deodorant has an amount that is 3 times smaller and it kinda sucks to hold.
Yes they even have to consider things like accessibility for disabled. It's not all trickery. Not to say shrinkflation isn't a problem I don't want to ruin the circle jerk but not everything fits.
They still have to ship the empty packaging. You have to wonder if it’s really worth it to the company to package and ship air. The missing deodorant gel probably costs pennies to manufacture.
Looks like the amount you get from buying it at a Dollar Store. I've had a similar issue when I forgot deodorant on vacations in the past.
Real asshole design would have been to use an opaque container so you couldn't see that you were being ripped off.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Secret's small enough for a 3-1-1 bag but made to rip you off through shrinkflation.
that's terrible
It's cheaper to put less product in the same packaging than it is to put less product in different packaging. You are paying for the product, and I believe there is a "net wt" shown. That's (supposed to be) for the product alone without the packaging. If you were to buy a greater amount of product in the same packaging, it would cost more, and you would complain about that instead.
Same with chips (crisps if you're outside of FreedomLand). The extra space in the bag is to prevent crushing, and is often filled with nitrogen or some other relatively inert gas to extend freshness. The product is sold by weight of the product.
In this case, it's deceptive. If the packaging used to contain more product, you could reasonably assume the same package would contain the same amount of product. This is shrinkflation. If you're going to raise prices, just do it. Don't try and trick people, because many will notice and get pissed off.
Are you seriously implying that you check the net weight of every single product you ever purchase, especially ones You've purchased regularly in the past?
load more comments
(1 replies)
I get the sense that a LOT of people are idiots and just make the observation that “big bag, lot product” instead of simply looking at the net weight… it’s on EVERY label ffs!
Yea these poor companies artificially inflating their product containers to provide a sense of more product within while stating the actual product amount in 6 pt font at the bottom of the packaging are getting a bad wrap! Sure the net weight is provided and without comparison to another package it's difficult to ascertain exactly what that weight equates to but that should be on the consumer and not the poor company trying to deceive you into thinking you're getting more than you paid for!
When will the consumer finally accept how dumb they are and apologize to these conglomerates?!
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Get salt sticks. They last for years.
My ex gave me a Norwex deodorant stick years ago. It works pretty dang good.
I use crystal deodorant, and I'm nearing the "end" of what I can actually use, but there's probably another 9 months worth of actual deodorant left (this stuff lasts YEARS).
There's no way to actually remove the last half of it without breaking the dispenser.
Like with yours, they put this in a clear container, so it bothers me every time I use it.
I tried crystal, but even after my body got used to it I still smelled super bad. Now I've been using Native and it works well for me but it's pricey. Everyone's body is different I guess.
The crystal stuff helps me to sweat less, but it did very little for the odour (which is surprising because it's the opposite of what it claims to do)
My routine now is to use the crystal, then put a drop of diluted (skin safe) tea tree oil on a cloth and rub that on my pits.
At first the tea tree oil was just to disguises the odour, but after a few weeks even if I forgot the tea tree one day the odour was much improved. My theory is that the antimicrobial properties of tea tree combined with the crystal have worked together to prevent the bacteria and yeasts that make odour worse.
I like the crystal because I have circulation issues and it causes hyperhidrosis in my peripheries, so I've been able to use it on my hands and feet too. I don't want my hands to smell like deodorant but I do want them to be less wet. It doesn't help the numbness, coldness and blue skin, but it's less embarrassing to just have zombie hands than to have soggy zombie hands.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Well they are sold by weight so you know what you're getting if you pay attention.
I've switched to spray deodorant, which I'm sure hides just as much shrinkflation but seems more efficient.
The ones I see online are 73 grams in the same container. Where was this purchased? And yes of course they ought to have put it in a squatty travel sized container. But this one is not the standard amount.
The great irony is putting it in a squatty travel sized container is probably more expensive, and doesn't save nearly as much plastic as you would think.
Having to set up an entirely new production line just to make smaller containers, or retooling your existing production, would likely incur a significant cost.
On the plastic front, the overwhelming majority of plastic in something like that deodorant is in the base, lid, and "pusher" system. Making it shorter only removes a small section of the least-plastic-dense portion of the whole thing.
They could make a smaller one, but the only real benefit would be show & portability, and it would probably come at a premium per ounce
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
565 points (100.0% liked)
AssholeDesign
7544 readers
1 users here now
This is a community for designs specifically crafted to make the experience worse for the user. This can be due to greed, apathy, laziness or just downright scumbaggery.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS