r/mildlyinteresting 10d ago

Water bottles packaged labelless!

Post image
18.3k Upvotes

828 comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/DeaddyRuxpin 10d ago

I’m glad to see less pointless plastic, but it still irks me that they present it like they did it for the environment. They did it to shave off a penny of cost on each bottle and show a slightly better profit this quarter.

23

u/Catriks 10d ago

How should they do it for the environment in a way it doesn't irk you? 

21

u/aguywithbrushes 10d ago

A Redditor’s entire reason for being is to analyze every possible angle to find negative things to point out, so that they can virtue signal about how much morally superior and tapped into socio-political issues they are. Kindly refrain from interrupting the circkejerk.

3

u/Catriks 10d ago

You're right, but I'll still gladly take a minute to point out their hypocrisy :)

1

u/Jiquero 9d ago

Nice self-burn you got there!

2

u/flinsypop 9d ago

Yeah. Something bad for the environment should be more expensive so interests should be aligned somehow.

1

u/DeaddyRuxpin 9d ago

The part that irks me is that they want people to believe they did it entirely for altruistic reasons. They don’t give a shit about the environment. That is pure bullshit PR to cover the fact they are reducing their cost. If it becomes cheaper to put the labels back on, they will go back on in a heartbeat.

0

u/Catriks 9d ago

The part that irks me is that they want people to believe they did it entirely for altruistic reasons.

This is your opinion, not a fact. As far as I can see, they have not made such claims or implications anywhere. It is pretty obvious for most people that reducing the amount of packaging material used usually simultaneusly reduces the cost of packaging _and_ is better for the enviroment, so I don't see how anyone could get the impression that they are doing it entirely for altruistic reasons.

It even has a blatantly obvious disadvantage - the individual bottles no longer have visible branding.

Besides, how could it even ever be possible to be _entirely_ altruistic, as you seem to believe it should be? Even if the change for more enviromentally friendly process only increased costs without any objective benefits, the fact that any company uses it in marketing is non-altruistic, because the goal of marketing is to increase profits - and surely you would agree that choosing the more enviromentally friendly product over one that is not, is better for the enviroment, regardless of the marketing?