|
Lambert posted:New Coke wasn't a total loss. They never actually went back to the previous formula, after all Assuming that I live somewhere that makes coke with sugar instead of corn syrup (so most of the world), is this still true?
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Computer viking posted:Assuming that I live somewhere that makes coke with sugar instead of corn syrup (so most of the world), is this still true? Yes, it's all "Classic" regardless of whether it's sugar or corn syrup
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Yes, but isn't the big/only difference between "classic" and classic in the US the sugar/HFC thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Now explain the difference, if any, between Coke Zero and Coke Zero Sugar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Now explain the difference, if any, between Coke Zero and Coke Zero Sugar. There isn't, is there? I thought Zero Sugar was just a weird rebrand of Zero
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Endymion FRS MK1 posted:There isn't, is there? I thought Zero Sugar was just a weird rebrand of Zero I looked it up and they claim they changed the recipe for the flavorings to make it taste more like regular coke. Might be true, but now it and coke zero cherry are the only colas I like because everything else tastes weird to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:Yes, but isn't the big/only difference between "classic" and classic in the US the sugar/HFC thing? No, they had already moved away from sugar before New Coke came out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:Yes, but isn't the big/only difference between "classic" and classic in the US the sugar/HFC thing? I wasn't around for that but iirc New Coke was an actual change in the formula, not just switching sweeteners. Think about it, Coke Classic contains HFCS so you're saying that they switched to Sugar for New Coke and that caused people to say that it tastes bad, so they switched back to HFCS? That makes no sense. e: iirc there's also the conspiracy theory that they wanted to switch from sugar to hfcs, so they made a bad-tasting New Coke and then when they switched over to Coke Classic with HFCS no one noticed the difference. But as usual reality doesn't jive with the conspiracy theory because old coke already used HFCS QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Feb 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
It was mostly a change because Coca-Cola was getting beaten by Pepsi, and market research showed people preferred the sweeter taste of Pepsi. So Coke tried to reformulate to something that tasted sweeter, which actually focus grouped well... and was panned to hell in the South, where drinking Coke was a shibboleth for their cultural identity. Funny thing was that in the end it worked, and despite rolling back to the old formula within a couple months, it put Coke's sales over Pepsi by end of '85 due to the controversy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 09:59
|
|
|
The cola wars are something that seem central to the retail and marketing conflicts of the century and beyond. I loosely remember this TV interview on some show where they talk about Coca-Cola's history of advertising, the host jokes that it sounds like Coke is having an identity crisis, and the guest says that's exactly right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 10:21
|
|
|
From several pages ago, so apologies, but...Hungry posted:What the gently caress is going on with eyeglasses in the USA? A little while back, I needed some fake glasses for a character for some web series a friend was doing. I called up a costume/prop store and this is how the conversation went: Me: Hi, do you sell fake glasses? Rep: Yes we do. Me: Sweet. How much? Rep: Well that depends. You have two options, rent or buy. Me: Well we might need these a while so how much to buy? Rep: To buy, it's generally around $300. Me: I'm sorry, I think there was some distortion. How much was it? Rep: $300 Me: I'm...I'm sorry, You said, THREE HUNDRED? Rep: That's right. Me: Okay, to be clear, you realize I'm asking for prop glasses right? As in, fake? As in, they don't work? As in, they're literally just for looks. Rep: Yes, I understand that, but that's how much they are, even if they're props. Me:  How the gently caress is this a thing? It's already criminal for people who need legitimate glasses to be charged that much. But what kind of sadistic lowlives charge that make for glasses that don't do anything?!?! And this wasn't some unfortunate occurance on my part. I called up three other stores that had similar pricing as well. WHAT.THE.gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 10:55
|
|
|
Aren't frames an actual monopoly?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 11:05
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:From several pages ago, so apologies, but... That's weird, just looking online they cost anywhere from $6 to $70 depending on style and materials. Did you call actual eyeglass stores or all prop/costume? Republicans fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Feb 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 11:35
|
|
|
Republicans posted:That's weird, just looking online they cost anywhere from $6 to $70 depending on style and materials. Fake ones? quote:Did you call actual eyeglass stores or all prop/costume? Yeah, it was both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 11:43
|
|
|
You can buy fake glasses from Halloween supply sites for like $8 a pair and buy actual quality ones off of Etsy for like $50 so I dunno how you got quoted $300. efb I'm not entirely surprised though. My limited experience with costume stuff is that once you get beyond mass-produced low-quality seasonal crap, you're basically buying small-batch or tailored designer clothes and you can expect the prices to reflect that. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Feb 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 11:49
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:You can buy fake glasses from Halloween supply sites for like $8 a pair and buy actual quality ones off of Etsy for like $50 so I dunno how you got quoted $300. Is this something that's specific to costume/prop brick and mortar stores? Cause again, I must have the worst luck in the world or all the reps were loving with me
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:From several pages ago, so apologies, but... As a follow up to my original post there, I ended up getting brand new frames and lenses, shipped from loving Europe, for under $100.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 12:26
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How the gently caress is this a thing? It's already criminal for people who need legitimate glasses to be charged that much. But what kind of sadistic lowlives charge that make for glasses that don't do anything?!?! When I got new glasses I bought them online at Zenni and my parents were straight up shocked they were 30 bucks. First thing my dad, who loses his glasses regularly, did was order three pairs. They might not be beautiful designer frames or anything but this is the first time in my life I have considered buying a pair just for the look and not raw functionally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Is this something that's specific to costume/prop brick and mortar stores? You can order frames with optical clear lenses off Zenni for ~30. The price they quoted you was because people have gotten wise to the racket and started buying frames and having lenses made to fit overseas for 30 bucks, so b&m have jumped their prices to encourage just buying the whole thing there as they throw in the lenses for 'free'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Aren't frames an actual monopoly? No, but there is a single company (Luxottica) that owns a ton of different well-known brands (Oakley, Ray-Ban, etc), the eyewear license for every big-name designer you've ever heard of, and a bunch of retail stores including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sunglass Hut, and Target's optical department. You can definitely buy non-Luxottica glasses, but it's also possible to wander into a store, look at 500 different pairs of frames from 50 different "manufacturers," check out the "competition" with similar products, and not realize that it's all from a single vertically integrated company that owns something like 80% of the market. As for the fake glasses thing - yes, they're as expensive as single-vision glasses, because that's what they are. The frames are the same, and zero power lenses still have to be ground and treated with all the same coatings so you don't end up with lenses that are like looking through saran wrap. $300 is too much, but they're not going to be any cheaper than "real" glasses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Is this something that's specific to costume/prop brick and mortar stores? http://www.thedarkstore.com/en/gothic-jackets-and-coats/1894-lestat-punk-rave-men-s-cloak.html ... and wound up buying something from this manufacturer: http://www.darkincloset.com/5_devil-fashion At that point, you're not buying a "costume," you're buying designer clothes. I don't know for sure if the same applies to glasses, but if they're selling you something that would cost $300 with corrective lenses in it, there's not much reason to think they'd charge any less for it with non-corrective lenses because there really isn't any difference in the manufacturing process. You're buying glasses. The only reason I'd expect a price difference is that corrective lenses can be priced to gobble up insurance company money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
Like Space Gopher says, it's really no less effort for them to make clear lenses than any single prescription lens. They still need all the same coatings and use the same machines to grind them to size, so they're going to cost about the same. Which for my last pair of nice titanium frames with anti-glare and oil-resistant lenses from Zenni was $52.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
And given fashion has no upper limit on price, I'm quite sure there's a big market in selling cosmetic glasses to people with too much money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 10:43
|
|
|
If one does need glasses just to put on for costume, why not buy the cheap reading glasses? Around here you see them at druggists and major travel points like airports and big train stations, they come in a few standard very low magnify power, and price is rarely over 10 euro a pair. They should be available elsewhere too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
They’re also really cheap I’m assuming they are more designer than a cheap reading pair at a pharmacy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:No, but there is a single company (Luxottica) that owns a ton of different well-known brands (Oakley, Ray-Ban, etc), the eyewear license for every big-name designer you've ever heard of, and a bunch of retail stores including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sunglass Hut, and Target's optical department. What you're describing is a monopoly. It's not about there being no competitors, it's about whether the competition is substantial enough to matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:If one does need glasses just to put on for costume, why not buy the cheap reading glasses? Around here you see them at druggists and major travel points like airports and big train stations, they come in a few standard very low magnify power, and price is rarely over 10 euro a pair. They should be available elsewhere too. Because you don't want to wear glasses without the proper kinds of lenses for people with normal vision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Because you don't want to wear glasses without the proper kinds of lenses for people with normal vision. That's doesn't matter for purposes of a costume, you will be fine with the weakest of off-shelf reading lenses. They have very minor effect besides slight magnify, unlike other people's glasses who would have differing prescriptions and curves for people's eyes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:That's doesn't matter for purposes of a costume, you will be fine with the weakest of off-shelf reading lenses. They have very minor effect besides slight magnify, unlike other people's glasses who would have differing prescriptions and curves for people's eyes. Yeah, that's enough to give you splitting migraines after extended wear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I wasn't around for that but iirc New Coke was an actual change in the formula, not just switching sweeteners. Think about it, Coke Classic contains HFCS so you're saying that they switched to Sugar for New Coke and that caused people to say that it tastes bad, so they switched back to HFCS? That makes no sense. So the timeline is something like this? 1) classic sugar coke 2) classic but with HFCS 3) new coke (which was genuinely different) And then they went back to 2? I had the impression that the order was 1,3,2 - but if that's not the case, I really don't get the post about "they never changed back to the original". Or is there a fourth post-new-coke modification of 2? Anyway, this is a weird derail. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:So the timeline is something like this? For me, it was in reference to this. Coca derivatives were removed, not sugar: quote:It provided cover for the final removal of all coca derivatives from the product to placate the Drug Enforcement Administration, which was trying to eradicate the plant worldwide to combat an increase in cocaine trafficking and consumption. While Coke's executives were indeed relieved the new formula contained no coca and concerned about the long-term future of the Peruvian government-owned coca fields that supplied it in the face of increasing DEA pressure to end cultivation of the crop, according to author Mark Pendergrast there was no direct pressure from the DEA on Coca-Cola to do so.[8] This theory was endorsed in a Time magazine article, as well as by historian Bartow Elmore, who claims the reformulation was made in response to the escalating War on Drugs by the Reagan Administration.[28] Also, I assume they just made the best out of the situation (Coca Cola was hoping to introduce a new and better-selling product, but settled for making Coke "Classic" cheaper instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
A-ha, that makes sense. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
Diet Coke is based off the New Coke formula, that's why they have both Diet Coke and Coke Zero which is a sugar-free version of the original.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
less than three posted:Diet Coke is based off the New Coke formula, that's why they have both Diet Coke and Coke Zero which is a sugar-free version of the original. You mean the other way around, New Coke formula was made from changing Diet Coke of several years earlier to have sugar syrup. Diet Coke also did not attempt to replicate regular Coke taste too closely in first place, as executives had fear that doing so might make people angry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 06:59
|
|
|
My favorite soda history thing is that tab clear was bad and coke knew it was bad and the whole point of it was to ruin crystal pepsi by trying to equate crystal clear with being some bad tasting health drink for girly girls. And also coming only in cans so you couldn't even see if the tab was actually clear or not to like, torpedo anyone talking about crystal pepsi as anything but "these clear sodas are really stupid"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:My favorite soda history thing is that tab clear was bad and coke knew it was bad and the whole point of it was to ruin crystal pepsi by trying to equate crystal clear with being some bad tasting health drink for girly girls. And also coming only in cans so you couldn't even see if the tab was actually clear or not to like, torpedo anyone talking about crystal pepsi as anything but "these clear sodas are really stupid" Crystal Pepsi did it all on its own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Crystal Pepsi did it all on its own. I was stunned to see a few bottles of that recently at remote shops. I had a bit and it wasn't bad, I was just gobsmacked to still see it. Then again, I used to really enjoy Mango Pepsi Next and they stopped making that after a few years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Haha get hosed Amazon.Amazon posted:After much thought and deliberation, we’ve decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for Amazon in Long Island City, Queens. For Amazon, the commitment to build a new headquarters requires positive, collaborative relationships with state and local elected officials who will be supportive over the long-term. While polls show that 70% of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Big Mad Drongo posted:Haha get hosed Amazon. I'm guessing that the state expected them to pay some tax?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I was stunned to see a few bottles of that recently at remote shops. I had a bit and it wasn't bad, I was just gobsmacked to still see it. They actually did a rerelease last year. I ran out and bought some and it was okay I guess but not enough for me to waste insulin on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 18:02
|
|
