Yorkies now girl sized

Orion

Just got a Yorkie out of a vending machine - as soon as I picked it up I noticed a size difference. It's down to 44g now. it's about 60% of the size it was 2 years ago. Price is the same of course. Robbing ba$tards Nestle. That's the last yorkie I'm buying.

What other bars have shrunk this year?

Akrasia

44gs of chocolate should be enough for anyone

won't someone please think of the children!

All of them have, haven't they??
Even toffypops

NomadicGray

This 9 bar I bought is missing at least an ounce

podgemonster

Orion wrote: »

Just got a Yorkie out of a vending machine - as soon as I picked it up I noticed a size difference. It's down to 44g now. it's about 60% of the size it was 2 years ago. Price is the same of course. Robbing ba$tards Nestle. That's the last yorkie I'm buying.

What other bars have shrunk this year?

I used to think the same was happening with Cornettos but then I realised I was just growing up and my hands had just gotten bigger.

Frynge

NomadicGray wrote: »

This 9 bar I bought is missing at least an ounce

That's what happened when you buy 9 bars at 8 bar prices.

fastrac

Lidly/Aldi for the chocolate

Grayson

Orion wrote: »

Just got a Yorkie out of a vending machine - as soon as I picked it up I noticed a size difference. It's down to 44g now. it's about 60% of the size it was 2 years ago. Price is the same of course. Robbing ba$tards Nestle. That's the last yorkie I'm buying.

What other bars have shrunk this year?

Girl sized? Obviously you're misogynistic. Girls can take as much in their mouth as men can

To the twitter storm!




(and this has been happening for ages. Sorry about the DM link)

anncoates

Nobody can convince me that Twix and Mars bars are not smaller these days.

kowloon

bluewolf wrote: »

All of them have, haven't they??
Even toffypops

That's that wound reopened.

jimgoose

Do you know what gets properly up my left nostril? Do you?? Well then I shall tell you. When you buy a four-pack of, say, Twirl, and you open it up later-on to have one with your tea, and you find that they're about two-thirds the size of regular single bars. What in the almighty tangential fuck is that about? Are ye selling multipacks of the bar or not? Don't piss on my back and then send me a bill on Irish Water headed paper!! :mad:

the evasion_kid

Most bars are definitely smaller,cadbury and nestle are claiming its to combat obesity

Augmerson

Orion wrote: »

Just got a Yorkie out of a vending machine - as soon as I picked it up I noticed a size difference. It's down to 44g now. it's about 60% of the size it was 2 years ago. Price is the same of course. Robbing ba$tards Nestle. That's the last yorkie I'm buying.

What other bars have shrunk this year?

There's your problem chief.

King size twix is the way to go

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Are you sure you aren't just getting larger?

blackwhite

I was reading something about this recently.

The price of cocoa has been steadily increasing over the past few years, so the costs to produce chocolate bars has been going up.

The confectionery companies are afraid of increasing prices, because they think it'll deter customers, so instead they are making the bars smaller - in the belief that customers won't notice this change as quickly as they'd notice a change in price.

Eutow

jimgoose wrote: »

Do you know what gets properly up my left nostril? Do you?? Well then I shall tell you. When you buy a four-pack of, say, Twirl, and you open it up later-on to have one with your tea, and you find that they're about two-thirds the size of regular single bars. What in the almighty tangential fuck is that about? Are ye selling multipacks of the bar or not? Don't piss on my back and then send me a bill on Irish Water headed paper!! :mad:

Same with multi-pack crisps, always smaller. We are being robbed.

bluewolf wrote: »

King size twix is the way to go

They are now the same size as a regular Twix was years ago. Remember how big King Size Mars and Marathon bars were years ago.

DoYouEvenLift

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Most bars are definitely smaller,cadbury and nestle are claiming its to combat obesity

Lmfao, yet they don't reduce the price to go with the changes. Education on correct nutrition and exercise habits combat obesity, if they're going to try to play that card then I hope they're also contributing to education in some way.

blackwhite wrote: »

I was reading something about this recently.

The price of cocoa has been steadily increasing over the past few years, so the costs to produce chocolate bars has been going up.

The confectionery companies are afraid of increasing prices, because they think it'll deter customers, so instead they are making the bars smaller - in the belief that customers won't notice this change as quickly as they'd notice a change in price.

My freddos, nooo!!!

Misty Moon

Only we do notice. I remember years ago when Yorkie started being advertised as having even bigger chunks. Well, that was true, but they'd done it by reducing the number of chunks. I used to have a nice little routine breaking it all up into individual chunks (I am a girl, after all) before settling down with a cup of tea to enjoy it. Sad though it may be, it bothered me so much to get to the end of breaking it into pieces before my hands felt like they were finished, I actually wrote to them to complain. Astonishingly, they didn't care much. :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kylith

blackwhite wrote: »

I was reading something about this recently.

The price of cocoa has been steadily increasing over the past few years, so the costs to produce chocolate bars has been going up.

The confectionery companies are afraid of increasing prices, because they think it'll deter customers, so instead they are making the bars smaller - in the belief that customers won't notice this change as quickly as they'd notice a change in price.

Yep. Before long chocolate will be the preserve of the wealthy.

Orion

Grayson wrote: »

Girl sized? Obviously you're misogynistic. Girls can take as much in their mouth as men can

To the twitter storm!

That was deliberate based on their "Not for Girls" slogan

Orion

Elijah Slow Poetry wrote: »

Are you sure you aren't just getting larger?

My hands aren't. The rest of me might be

Eutow

I'm just waiting for the sad day when Twix will be just one piece instead of two, and Yorkie to be two small chunks of chocolate.

They have peanut yorkies now.

I didn't have the balls to buy one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blackwhite

kylith wrote: »

Yep. Before long chocolate will be the preserve of the wealthy.

From what I read, there's issues regarding the profitability of cocoa for farmers (meaning a lot are changing to farming rubber instead), and the susceptibility of the crop to disease that are putting massive constraints on the supply of cocoa.

There's a lot of specialists in crop genetics working on a more disease resistant strain of the plant, which would also be more attractive to farmers.
Unless there's some success in the field then prices are going to continue to rise and rise.


The recent Ebola outbreak caused a massive spike in cocoa prices, due to West Africa producing a significant proportion of the world's cocoa.

verywell

Deleted User wrote: »

They have peanut yorkies now.

I didn't have the balls to buy one.

:eek: Need this in my life!

well probably not really but hay hoo

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

I was reading something about this recently.

The price of cocoa has been steadily increasing over the past few years, so the costs to produce chocolate bars has been going up.

The confectionery companies are afraid of increasing prices, because they think it'll deter customers, so instead they are making the bars smaller - in the belief that customers won't notice this change as quickly as they'd notice a change in price.

When in a typical convenience shop it's over a quid for a bar I think most people have noticed the prices going up.

jimgoose

Deleted User wrote: »

They have peanut yorkies now...

I think this calls for a quick Tim Allen-esque Ugh Ugh Uuuugghhh...

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

When in a typical convenience shop it's over a quid for a bar I think most people have noticed the prices going up.

True - but not enough of an increase to have any sort of impact on demand.

If prices had increased in line with the increases in the price of cocoa they'd have gone up an awful lot more.

The companies involved can do one of four things:

- increase prices in line with inflation, decrease product size, and maintain their margins. Hope that customers accept the inflation-linked price and that size decrease doesn't impact on demand

- increase prices in line with cocoa prices (which are significantly ahead of inflation), maintain product size and maintain margins. Hope that customers are willing to pay the significantly higher price and that demand doesn't fall.

- increase prices in line with inflation and maintain product size. Margins are decreased, and company profits fall away. Eventually company will become loss-making if cocoa prices continue to rise.

- freeze prices and maintain product size. Margins disappear and company eventually starts to make a loss on products sold as production costs continue to increase.

Option three and four are not viable for any company. Ignoring inflation (at the very least) means that the company will eventually be losing money on everything it sells.

From the market analysis that I read, the data shows that the confectioners have generally decided to keep their prices roughly in line with inflation, whilst decreasing the product size so that their cost per product (and thus their margins) remain in line with the selling price.



EDIT:

Just looking online - the price of cocoa has increased by over 100% in the last 10 years

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/cocoa.aspx?timeframe=10y

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

If prices had increased in line with the increases in the price of cocoa they'd have gone up an awful lot more.

The companies involved can do one of four things:

- increase prices in line with inflation, decrease product size, and maintain their margins. Hope that customers accept the inflation-linked price and that size decrease doesn't impact on demand

- increase prices in line with cocoa prices (which are significantly ahead of inflation), maintain product size and maintain margins. Hope that customers are willing to pay the significantly higher price and that demand doesn't fall.

- increase prices in line with inflation and maintain product size. Margins are decreased, and company profits fall away. Eventually company will become loss-making if cocoa prices continue to rise.

- freeze prices and maintain product size. Margins disappear and company eventually starts to make a loss on products sold as production costs continue to increase.

Option three and four are not viable for any company. Ignoring inflation (at the very least) means that the company will eventually be losing money on everything it sells.

From the market analysis that I read, the data shows that the confectioners have generally decided to keep their prices roughly in line with inflation, whilst decreasing the product size so that their cost per product (and thus their margins) remain in line with the selling price.



EDIT:

Just looking online - the price of cocoa has increased by over 100% in the last 10 years

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/cocoa.aspx?timeframe=10y

How much in the 10 years before that? 10% in 10 years is 7% per year which is apparently exceptional, so what was the increase before then?

The price of individual bars has very, very little to do with the price of cocoa rather than what they can get away with paying with. Multi-packs are an awful lot cheaper and I can buy an 85% cocoa chocolate bar (100g) for the same price as a twix.

I wouldn't be into a peanut yorkie- I love the purple ones the best.
Peanut butter mnms aren't bad

Gyalist

Ivoirean Cocoa farmers taste chocolate for the first time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEN4hcZutO0

corblimey

In college waaaay back (ie before cocoa started going up in price), we learned in marketing that all chocolate companies do this, they make the bars smaller and smaller each year, and then come out with a king sized bar at a 'special price' or do a '20% extra free' special offer which is nearly the same as you were getting before. Then the king size bars go up in price, and the 20% free offer goes away, and you don't realise you're paying the same as before for less bar.

But then I only eat chocolate when it comes in selection boxes, so I don't know

whisky_galore

Grayson wrote: »

Girl sized? Obviously you're misogynistic. Girls can take as much in their mouth as men can

*sniggers*

Miss Lizzie Jones

Grayson wrote: »

Girls can take as much in their mouth as men can

Even more considering the size of some of the penis' we have to suck.

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

How much in the 10 years before that? 10% in 10 years is 7% per year which is apparently exceptional, so what was the increase before then?

The price of individual bars has very, very little to do with the price of cocoa rather than what they can get away with paying with. Multi-packs are an awful lot cheaper and I can buy an 85% cocoa chocolate bar (100g) for the same price as a twix.

I'm not saying it's morally correct, I'm just explaining what the business reasoning is, as set out in the market analysis that I read and my conclusions from it.
I don't particularly care one way or another - I just like to understand the reasoning behind why things happen. Other people clearly are more interested in getting outraged or having a rant - and if that's what they like to do then I don't particularly care, so ling as they aren't determined to try and make me the target for it :P

Anyway - the price of individual bars is determined (as is the same with every product) by:
- the cost of the inputs (cocoa being a significant one for chocolate)
- the cost of packaging
- the cost of manufacture
- the cost of distribution
- the "price point" that the producer is targeting (i.e. what margin they think they can make based on the quality and market image of the product)
- the margin that the retailer will try to add.

Trying to say that products will be priced as high as the producer thinks they can "get away with" is a gross over-simplification - and betrays either a lack of understanding of how businesses operate, or a willful ignorance to facilitate having a rant.

Miss Lizzie Jones

Miss Lizzie Jones wrote: »

Even more considering the size of some of the penis' we have to suck.

"Have to"? I'd be getting to the Gardai

blackwhite wrote: »

I'm not saying it's morally correct, I'm just explaining what the business reasoning is, as set out in the market analysis that I read and my conclusions from it.
I don't particularly care one way or another - I just like to understand the reasoning behind why things happen. Other people clearly are more interested in getting outraged or having a rant - and if that's what they like to do then I don't particularly care, so ling as they aren't determined to try and make me the target for it :P

Anyway - the price of individual bars is determined (as is the same with every product) by:
- the cost of the inputs (cocoa being a significant one for chocolate)
- the cost of packaging
- the cost of manufacture
- the cost of distribution
- the "price point" that the producer is targeting (i.e. what margin they think they can make based on the quality and market image of the product)
- the margin that the retailer will try to add.

Trying to say that products will be priced as high as the producer thinks they can "get away with" is a gross over-simplification - and betrays either a lack of understanding of how businesses operate, or a willful ignorance to facilitate having a rant.

The point of the business is to maximise profits, hence charging as much as they can get away with.

A twix is likely under 15% cocoa. The price of cocoa is a tiny part of the final price of a "chocolate bar" and it doubling over the course of ten years doesn't explain the price differences. The availability of multi-pack bars shows how little the materials cost has to do with a bar at a til in a petrol station.

SEPT 23 1989

Was there a yellow yorkie with bits of crunchie bar bits in it out years ago?

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

"Have to"? I'd be getting to the Gardai

The point of the business is to maximise profits, hence charging as much as they can get away with.

A twix is likely under 15% cocoa. The price of cocoa is a tiny part of the final price of a "chocolate bar" and it doubling over the course of ten years doesn't explain the price differences. The availability of multi-pack bars shows how little the materials cost has to do with a bar at a til in a petrol station.

I think you are getting a bit confused.
The cost of materials is only one of the considerations when initially setting the price of a product.

When analysing the MOVEMENT in a product's price over time (which is the point of this thread), then the primary driver is the cost of the inputs - being materials/ingredients, production costs and logistics/transport costs.

With regard to multi-packs, they are targeted at a much lower margin level than single products. It's a decision to sacrifice margin % in an effort to go after the "bargain shopper" and make higher volumes.
The point still stands, that if the cost of the components increases, then the price of both the multipack and the single item products will increase, or else the company loses margin.

Deleted User wrote: »

The point of the business is to maximise profits, hence charging as much as they can get away with.

Again - this is a gross over-simplification. Pricing strategies tend to be a lot more complex than this. Companies often try to be seen to be the "best value" by pricing at a few cent lower than competitors, even though they could probably price at a marginally higher price with no material volume impact. It often happens as part of a strategy to build a certain brand perception, which would potentially lead to higher volumes in future.

Generic Dreadhead

If you don't like it, don't buy them simple as that.
Noone is forcing you to buy them

animaal

Deleted User wrote: »

A twix is likely under 15% cocoa.

Definitely.

Apparently, 35% of a Twix is milk chocolate.

I don't have figures, but I'd assume that the chocolate in a Twix contains no more cocoa solids than a Cadbury Dairy Milk (25%)

That would mean that a under 9% of a Twix consists of cocoa solids.

wilhelm roentgen

Cormac... wrote: »

If you don't like it, don't buy them simple as that.
Noone is forcing you to buy them

Calm down! Don't get your snickers in a twix

Candy_Girl

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Was there a yellow yorkie with bits of crunchie bar bits in it out years ago?

Yep honeycomb.

ScumLord

bluewolf wrote: »

All of them have, haven't they??
Even toffypops

Didn't we even have a thread on this not so long ago? This forum seems to have the most forgetful posters, no wonder the same threads come up over and over again.

Deleted User wrote: »

They have peanut yorkies now.

I didn't have the balls to buy one.

I love peanut butter things. Peanut chunky kit kats and peanut lion bars are amazing. They're somewhat rare around these parts too so I turn into a little girl at a boyband concert when I see them.

cloud493

Yorkie's are rank, so theres your problem.

Fuzzytrooper

I was hoping for girl sized Yorkies. What is the average size of a girl anyhoo?

phasers

Does the peanut yorkie have whole peanuts in it or peanut butter? Peanut butter Kit Kats are amazing

smash

Useless trivia time: They used to say YORKIE on the bar, one letter on each block. They 'redesigned' it and it now says YORKIE on each block because they removed one and couldn't sell them as YORKI.

WoollyRedHat

Kinder Bueno is the nicest chocolate bar by a country mile. Problem is, they're never big enough.