They've Ruined Tropicana Orange Juice (Again)

Qs Laptop

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
4,326
My favorite orange juice is Tropicana Pure Premium (not from concentrate) no pulp. I love, love, love it. But they've changed it again.

Several years ago they downsized from a 64 oz. bottle to a 52 oz. bottle. I didn't like it but I adapted. A couple of months ago they changed the bottle size from 52 oz. down to 46 oz. They changed the iconic carafe shape of the bottle to a generic rectangular shape. Worse, from what I can see, they haven't changed the pricing.

When I go to the store I see this smaller bottle of Tropicana orange juice and the same price and I move on to a different brand. It's a shame because I'm conditioned to think that Tropicana is what orange juice tastes like so anything else seems off to me.

For weeks I just assumed there was a supply problem getting the 52 oz. bottle, but no, the change to a smaller bottle appears to be permanent.

New YorkCNN —
Tropicana customers are in revolt over an orange juice bottle redesign. Again.


 
I hate them making packages smaller to pretend the price is the same. It’s especially bad for recipes. It calls for a 16 oz can of whatever but now the cans are 14.5 oz so you need to open 2 cans to get the right amount and may or may not be able to use the rest.
 
Last edited:
There should be a law: if you want to reduce the amount in your existing packaging (not by introducing an additional smaller package), you should have to do it by only partially filling the existing package for a period of one year, and you should have to put a label on it: "Contents reduced from (old) to (new)."
 
Can you say "Concentrate"?

Actually, I stopped drinking OJ quite some time ago. Too expensive AND too high a glycemic index.

Shrinkflation is here to stay, unfortunately. Thanks for sharing.
 
It's amazing how these packages keep getting smaller while the price stays the same. And if they ever make it bigger, they put a big "new larger size" label on it and double the price.
 
"Ruining" to me means an unwelcome change in the product itself not a different price for it. With inflation, the unit price of everything increases.

Yes, "ruining" might be a bit harsh to describe what they've done. However, they replaced an easy to use, stylish, easy to pour container with a generic looking nothing container. Plus, the downsized container means I can't get through a week without running out of OJ.
 
I think I saw the old style bottle at our Costco. The bottles you describe are at our local Kroger. I agree with you. They should just change the price rather than shrink the packaging.
 
Exactly. It messes with your shopping schedule.

Just keep the package the same and raise the price.

Yep.

I was accustomed to paying $3.68 for a 59 oz. bottle at Walmart. Now that size is gone and they don't have the 46 oz. size there.

There used to be a larger size jug, I think it was 84 ounces, that was about $6.79, but that's no longer available in my usual store(s) that I shop. I would gladly start buying that if I could get it.

[edited to add: jug is 89 ounces.]
 
There used to be a larger size jug, I think it was 84 ounces, that was about $6.79, but that's no longer available in my usual store(s) that I shop. I would gladly start buying that if I could get it.

[edited to add: jug is 89 ounces.]
And that used to be 96 ounces.
 
I've been getting Minute Maid at Grocery Outlet for 52 oz I think. $3.49, way cheaper than Vons.
 
I think I saw the old style bottle at our Costco. The bottles you describe are at our local Kroger. I agree with you. They should just change the price rather than shrink the packaging.
A marketing major earning his pay.
 
^^^
A lot of canned stuff has too much salt anyway.
Very true.

Years ago I told dear wife I was OFF of table salt. I was getting plenty in food already. She was skeptical but agreed to join me. After a week "suddenly" (and that's the right word) we both agreed that we did NOT miss the added salt. We don't even have a salt shaker any more.
 
...Several years ago they downsized from a 64 oz. bottle to a 52 oz. bottle. I didn't like it but I adapted...
... Which makes you part of the problem. They make these changes because they can get away with it. It worked once. Maybe it'll work again. (Although I hope the headline of that linked article is correct.)

Too many people I know, and especially too many people here, seem to tolerate dishonesty like this.

If it costs more, put the price up. Fair enough. I will very likely still buy the product, if it's something I like from a seller I can trust.

But try to fool me, or take advantage of me, and you've lost me as a customer. I do everything I can to avoid dealing with dishonest people and companies. Unfortunately this doesn't work if I'm the only one. C'mon people. Help me out here!
 
... Which makes you part of the problem. They make these changes because they can get away with it. It worked once. Maybe it'll work again. (Although I hope the headline of that linked article is correct.)

Too many people I know, and especially too many people here, seem to tolerate dishonesty like this.

If it costs more, put the price up. Fair enough. I will very likely still buy the product, if it's something I like from a seller I can trust.

But try to fool me, or take advantage of me, and you've lost me as a customer. I do everything I can to avoid dealing with dishonest people and companies. Unfortunately this doesn't work if I'm the only one. C'mon people. Help me out here!
I read an interview about this not long ago and the exec from whichever company (one of the candy companies) said that it just doesn’t work in practice. Lots of consumers have a mental limit on what they’ll pay for a product. Maybe that’s $1 for a chocolate bar. They would rather have that chocolate bar shrink and still be a dollar. If the price went up to $1.25, they’d stop buying it. The company is stuck. If they exceed that mental price limit, sales plummet, but if they maintain the price and shrink the product, sales keep rolling along.

I agree with raising the price and maintaining the size but most of us here are not representative of the typical consumer.
 
I read an interview about this not long ago and the exec from whichever company (one of the candy companies) said that it just doesn’t work in practice. Lots of consumers have a mental limit on what they’ll pay for a product. Maybe that’s $1 for a chocolate bar. They would rather have that chocolate bar shrink and still be a dollar. If the price went up to $1.25, they’d stop buying it. The company is stuck. If they exceed that mental price limit, sales plummet, but if they maintain the price and shrink the product, sales keep rolling along.

I don't like it but think this is correct. Soon your $1 Hershey bar will weight less than 1 ounce. :angel:
 
If DW buys the low sodium, I have to add salt to make it palatable - and I NEVER salt anything.

Very true.

Years ago I told dear wife I was OFF of table salt. I was getting plenty in food already. She was skeptical but agreed to join me. After a week "suddenly" (and that's the right word) we both agreed that we did NOT miss the added salt. We don't even have a salt shaker any more.
These two statements seem to contradict each other..

I'm thinking even if you don't have a salt shaker at the table, the cook is putting in a LOT of salt when cooking.

I've cut down on the salt added to food when cooking, so we think the regular v-8 is awfully salty.
 
Back
Top Bottom