h a l f b a k e r yI think, therefore I am thinking.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
|
Baked. I have one of these at home, i'll try to find a link. |
|
|
Convenience stores already sell Coke in large, oversize and gargantuan. Given the price of Coke, what further increments are needed? |
|
|
Problem from retailer's standpoint:
|
|
|
Most of what a person is paying for upon intitial purchase *is* the cup, lid and straw, not the soda, as the soda is actually quite inexpensive. Nevertheless, the initial purchase also offsets the cost of refills. So the cups are priced accordingly - large cups mean more money extracted from customers pocket, and into cash register. If a customer comes in, and would *like* to get a small soda in a refillable cup, but the transition from one size for one type of consumer meant deleting the standard inventory of cups, lids, straws, etc. in order to facilitate the move to one-size-fits-all containers, then the store would lose a significant client base, in order to satisfy the caffeine addicts. Why? Because without a doubt, the special expandable one-size-fits-all cup would be far more expensive at Point-Of-Sale, and that customer who only wants small drinks would balk not only at that price, but would go elsewhere to satisfy their fountain drink cravings, thereby depriving the store of not only of (repeat) fountain sales, but additional sales on other non/perishable convenience items. Because they don't feel like subsidizing the overly caffeinated. Next. |
|
|
I was once going to post something similar to this: a collabsible soda bottle. With large bottles that are consumed over a period of days, the soda loses its fizz. With this bottle, you can collapse it in increments, so that there will be less space for the CO2 to escape into. |
|
|
Now that's a fine idea - there's no subsidizing for someone else supersizing involved. |
|
| |