BJ Novak from The Office with his startling discovery.



  1. John Paradox says:

    I think they use ‘weight’ to determine size.

    J/P=?

  2. Stuart says:

    So you’re saying that they are using heavier chocolate and filling?

  3. sdf says:

    funny how american fat-assery continues amid higher prices and quiet downsizing of products.

  4. ECA says:

    Smaller amounts, MORE money…
    And to Think that SUGAR has no FAT.
    The only CREAM in that thing is SUGAR…

    Whose old enough to remember,
    $0.25 Candy bars, that were 2 times Larger.
    Chocolate candy that Tasted like Chocolate, and NOT sugar.
    and they SAY…That the price of Choclate is going up, and the price od Sugar is going up…. AND guess what I find at the Discount food store??
    Lyndt Chocolate 90% Cocoa…For $3…NOT $7 as in other stores.
    I wonder what THEIR profit margin is…

  5. joshua says:

    #4…ECA…..My dad said to tell you that when he was a kid (late1950’s) candy bars were $0.05 cents each and were bigger than they are now.
    The only bars that cost $.10 cents were the Mounds bar, the Almond Joy bar and the Mar’s bar. Who says it wasn’t the “good ole days”.

  6. YeahRight says:

    #4 and #5 : and how much money did your parents make in a day, week ? how much disposable income they had for chocolate bars ?

  7. Fred Flint says:

    Every time I go shopping I find items that are “new” and “improved”, smaller and they cost more.

    We’re all supposed to be too stupid to notice we’re getting ripped off or too complacent to complain.

    This is one of those brilliant innovations that supposedly makes CEOs worth $28 million for a few months work.

  8. RTaylor says:

    In the 50’s people bought less candy, they were occasional treats, not daily faire. It’s not what’s in this junk, it the quantity consumed. The cheapest I can remember this stuff was you could take $.25 and buy a candy bar and a 10 oz soft drink. A Baby Ruth and a Coke, the combo makes me feel ill today thinking about it.

  9. Gregory says:

    Get this – Cadbury actually didn’t change the size – Hersheys did!

    Hersheys licensed the rights to a bunch of Cadbury things, and the first thing they did was reduce the size from 1.4oz to 1.2oz. So that’s why it only showed up in this years eggs.

    How lame can you get? Hersheys sucks.

  10. Jägermeister says:

    #9

    Gregory is right… Hershey is the manufacturer.

  11. ECA says:

    6…
    so what…we make 5 times MORE then the 50’s…And we have a candy bar that is 1/2 the size and cost 10+ times as much.
    I want you to Look something up…
    Did you know that Manufactouring Costs are ALMOST equal to those of 20+ years ago??
    Dont matter what you look at, from metal to Candy…
    Innovation and mechanization have made things CHEAPER to make.
    So, why is the PRICe so high…Find me a GOOD reason, Besides PROFIT for the top of a corp, that just sit on their Butts, or play Golf, or Go yachting…And I will admit I am wrong.

  12. michael says:

    This is an outrage.

  13. mike cannali says:

    The most egregious example of all is the mutilation of Coca Cola. 30 years ago, it used to be made from sugar, but now HFCS – High Frutose Corn Syrup is much cheaper and Coke tastes like crap. Perhaps because sugar is where they start to make TNT, that is what has pushed up the price of the real thing in modern times.

  14. Noname says:

    Refreshing, very refreshing!

    I wish more celibs would point out the “not so obvoius” given that not many people saved their eggs.

    If celibs could be counted on for the truth or something maybe we would listen when they try and sell us life insurance or something.

    I bet it took a focus group poll to try and slip this one pass the public.
    “Cadbury Eggs Have not Gotten Smaller, You Have Gotten Bigger…”

    Next Easter the Eggs will probably be 1.0oz and pleasingly labelled healthier then before and “egg lite”. And the mom’s will love it.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 6619 access attempts in the last 7 days.