feels bad :(
The 1/3 pounder failed in the US because people are stupid
Dupeflation. I also consider people that buy 12 back over 2 liters to be duped but people could want the cana
Biggest thing with cans is portion control vs having a 2 liter just waiting nearby to pour another glass
That and to prevent the whole thing going stale.
Look at you sharing with other people. Put your name on that 2 liter and drink straight from the bottle
As a wanter of cans I appreciate aluminum + cardboard for their recyclability (aluminum is highly economical to recycle and you can just bury cardboard and it will be dirt within a year (assuming sufficiently wet climate)) in comparison to PET plastic two liter bottles with their almost entirely unrecycleable labels and caps.
Though with the ways inflation has been impacting soda i just about only get it at restaurants now.
In case you didn’t know aluminum cans are lined with plastic, still more recyclable than a plastic bottle but plastic is still used in manufacturing and gets burned of when it gets melted back down for recycling.
Pretty soon they’ll be sold like this:
And it bounces around in every single cup holder now.
12 Florida Ounces
Is it weird that my nearly 50 yr old ass knows they are the same but reads the taller one as the smaller of the 2
No, because the squat one has a bigger volume. Half the squat one almost entirely filled the tall one.
edit you were talking about the real cans and not the comparison images weren’t you 🤔
Yep cans stamped 330ml but both shapes
Nope same
Honestly, same. For some reason it always feels like I drink the tall, skinny cans faster. No idea why though.
I love the tall skinny cans… I couldn’t tell you why, but I do.
its like holding a portable penis 😍
Smh
same they’re very gamer
That kid is a politician now.
I hate tall skinny cans. Too precarious.
And too much surface area
Kind of fun that the shorter version is result of an optimisation that minimise the tin area for that volume considering the processing, etc. That is, they become less efficient because they compensate all the extra cost with human flaws…
Is the shorter one more optimised?
The areas which requires the most aluminium are the relatively thick base and top, the walls can be much thinner.
Okay, did some actual reading:
There’s also a business incentive for skinny designs.
Brands can squeeze more 12 oz. skinny cans on store shelves, warehouse pallets and trucks than wider cans, said Dave Fedewa, a partner at McKinsey who consults for retail and consumer packaged goods companies. That means higher sales and cost savings.
But the key, Fedewa said, is that skinny cans catch the eye: “It’s funny how much growth that can drive in retail.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/30/business/soda-cans-slim-aluminum/
“We have moved to a sleek can and a completely new visual identity, with the aim to delight consumers by offering a more premium and more sustainable drinking experience,” the brand replied on Twitter.
The new shape is meant to visually communicate that the drink inside, which has been reformulated to eliminate artificial colors and sweeteners, is healthier than the typical fizzy beverage, said Thomas Conquet, marketing director of Sanpellegrino in the U.S.
“Consumers feel it’s a bit more elegant, a bit more upscale, a bit more adult when they have this can in their hands,” he said, citing testing conducted by the brand.
That last quote… yuck.
This was a nice addition. Regarding the surface vs volume optimisation I remember it was a high school mathematics problem but after review it this proportion is a height twice the radius of the cilinder, the standard/classic proportion deviates to a ~2.2 value considering many other factors like manufacturing limitations, etc. In any case the classic is closer to reduce the waste, etc than the slender one, the standard has like a 1.5% larger surface than the ideal, but the slim goes up to a ~10%
It’s not just about surface area, though, but also material thickness. The bottom and top are thicker and therefore use more material.
The first thing I tried to find was the weight of the empty cans to see which actually used more material, but I didn’t get very far. I probably could’ve tried harder, but I considered I wanted to find out the real reason so I started looking for other kinds of articles.
Neither of the two articles I linked mention anything about the material cost, only about being able to pack the tall cans tighter during shipping and on shelves. So I figured material cost wasn’t particularly relevant/negligible as to why companies made the switch.
Crazy to me since normally monster cans are 16oz
16oz were sold out at my grocery store
I should be grateful because the caffeine puts me at risk for heart attacks lol
They could also put a big bottle and fill 20% way.
All this time, we’ve been fooled into thinking that just because one product is bigger than another, it contains more. They actually have the same amount—the company just wants to take our money and leave us worse off.
To me the shorter one looks bigger but the slimmer one looks more elegant. The better looks make the drink taste a little better, so I prefer the slim and tall form of can.
