this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
742 points (97.6% liked)
memes
10405 readers
1778 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I just can't figure out why top opening or pump based soaps can't just have a bottom opening spout instead. simple design issue resolves waste, good for everyone involved.
Flip the bottle upside down in the shower caddy.
I do, but even then if you've got a pump bodywash you have to deal with unscrewing the shit and waiting. it's a shit design.
If this doesn't work. Close the lid, and throw it at the ground but don't let go.
All the liquid will "throw" itself at the cap inside the bottle. Works for everything thinner than toothpaste.
Get a decent refillable pump and buy soap refills instead of dispensers. Problem solved
Because that would mean less money for the brand
I once read (ages ago, can't find the source now) that it is deliberate - because with mass produced consumer goods such as shower gel or body lotion etc. if you throw away the last 2-3 uses because they are too hard to get out of the bottle, you will buy earlier and hence more of their product. They give you effectively less than you pay for, and it adds up for them. And they get away with it because it's your choice to rather buy a new bottle for convenience. So of course, it's again because corporations are only interested in cutting corners to give you the minimum viable product possible.
Aesthetics I guess
lol no, those decisions are 100% profit driven.
Yep
Tbf, it's entirely possible you're both right and the reason is "this bottle sells better because it looks nice"
right, but "looks nice" only becomes a consideration when you're trying to sell a brand, rather then provide a good product. If they were trying to sell a good product, they would definitely put a pump at the bottom so that you can get all of the product out with ease to use the example from th thread, but they don't not because of how it looks (even if it was a barrier, they would just engineer it to look more "appealing" like they do everything else), but because they want it to be hard to get all of the product out, so that you buy a new one without having used it all. Because profit.
Ding, ding and another ding. I am shocked that people give corps still the benefit of doubt, and assume it's because of "nicer looks".
The point I was trying to make was "because profit". I was just trying to say it was plausible that some asshat in marketing said that design would sell better for appearance reasons as well. That's not benefit of the doubt, that's just a different way of being profit over product.
Edit - top opening bottles tend to be taller and thinner than bottom opening for balance reasons. A certain subset of consumers are gonna assume taller bottle means more product and buy it. So there you go-a possible profit driven aesthetic reason. There was literally a post here the other day with Coke cans doing essentially the same fucking thing.