Bags are no longer 100 but 85gr? Only 15% increase in price?
Loading...
Bags are no longer 100 but 85gr? Only 15% increase in price?
Loading...
Bags are no longer 100 but 85gr? Only 15% increase in price?
Bags are no longer 100 but 85gr? Only 15% increase in price?
Hello battegays, thank you for your inquiry. Yes, the supplier has adjusted the bag size as part of a relaunch, as 100 gram bags often result in food waste. As the raw materials have become massively more expensive, we have been confronted with unavoidable price increases. Kind regards, Alex
Hello battegays, thank you for your inquiry. Yes, the supplier has adjusted the bag size as part of a relaunch, as 100 gram bags often result in food waste. As the raw materials have become massively more expensive, we have been confronted with unavoidable price increases. Kind regards, Alex
I know I shouldn't even write, it's a waste of time anyway. But once again I can't get over it. I don't understand this statement that the manufacturer has reduced the amount in the bag because of food waste? That might be true if a cat only ate 85 grams of wet food a day. That would leave 15 grams in the bag, which could be thrown away. But that would also be nonsensical, because you can keep the open bag until the next day. But: a cat eats 300 grams of wet food per day. Depending on age, outdoor access, etc. So it makes no sense at all to reduce the contents of the bag because of alleged food waste. I simply need more bags, which increases the amount of waste. The fact is: it is simply a price increase and not a measure against food waste.
I know I shouldn't even write, it's a waste of time anyway. But once again I can't get over it. I don't understand this statement that the manufacturer has reduced the amount in the bag because of food waste? That might be true if a cat only ate 85 grams of wet food a day. That would leave 15 grams in the bag, which could be thrown away. But that would also be nonsensical, because you can keep the open bag until the next day. But: a cat eats 300 grams of wet food per day. Depending on age, outdoor access, etc. So it makes no sense at all to reduce the contents of the bag because of alleged food waste. I simply need more bags, which increases the amount of waste. The fact is: it is simply a price increase and not a measure against food waste.
I was thinking the same thing.... I understand that there is inflation, but I think 15% is over the top. And I think the producer has also changed... Consistency is different. Kater still eats it... but is not so convinced... Let's see...
I know I shouldn't even write, it's a waste of time anyway. But once again I can't get over it. I don't understand this statement that the manufacturer has reduced the amount in the bag because of food waste? That might be true if a cat only ate 85 grams of wet food a day. That would leave 15 grams in the bag, which could be thrown away. But that would also be nonsensical, because you can keep the open bag until the next day. But: a cat eats 300 grams of wet food per day. Depending on age, outdoor access, etc. So it makes no sense at all to reduce the contents of the bag because of alleged food waste. I simply need more bags, which increases the amount of waste. The fact is: it is simply a price increase and not a measure against food waste.
Hello Yoliboli, thank you very much for your explanations, which I can well understand. That's why I contacted the relevant specialist department again. The people in charge told me that the adjustment is based on studies by our research center "Waltham Petcare Science Institute". These show that only 4 out of 10 cats consume a 100 g portion bag of wet food at a meal. In addition, it is apparently the case that many cats reject leftover food when they are fed again. Standardizing the filling quantity therefore leads to more clean bowls and less leftover food, i.e. less food waste. I passed on your objection that the opened bag can be stored well in this context. The team will look into the matter as part of the next product revision. I hope this addendum gives you a better understanding of our motives. Kind regards, Tabea
You have an animal research center for that? No, of course not one where they drill electrodes into brains or inject carcinogens, but what?! You have an animal research center???
This is a research center, not an animal testing laboratory. Google it.
A pack (4 bags of 85g) now costs 3.20 instead of the previous 3.00 (4 x 100g). So more expensive and less inside!
A pack (4 bags of 85g) now costs 3.20 instead of the previous 3.00 (4 x 100g). So more expensive and less inside!
We always buy the big packs but I wouldn't be surprised if they opened up too...
You have an animal research center for that? No, of course not one where they drill electrodes into brains or inject carcinogens, but what?! You have an animal research center???
No, that belongs to Mars. "Our animal research center" was therefore a pretension. It was also counterproductive because it was initially claimed that it was the supplier alone who had changed the pack size. But that would hardly have been on the instructions of a Migros company, so it was probably just the same as always: how can we get the price up massively without the customer noticing? It's just stupid that a cat owner has to keep an eye on the daily amount of food (and the dear pet doesn't stop meowing when it gets less) so the annoying Migipedians noticed and - worse - complained. But the question remains open: did the cat food supplier use the trick and keep the price the same or is Migros profiting? Perhaps they are "barking up the wrong tree". The next thing that was reported back was the information that the food could very well be stored in its packaging. The result will be: The packaging is changed, is presumably automatically biodegradable as soon as it is opened and is no longer suitable for storage. Argument off the table. That would be doubly stupid because the cat owner now needs 1 bag plus 15g from the next bag and should keep the remaining 85g.
No, that belongs to Mars. "Our animal research center" was therefore a pretension. It was also counterproductive because it was initially claimed that it was the supplier alone who had changed the pack size. But that would hardly have been on the instructions of a Migros company, so it was probably just the same as always: how can we get the price up massively without the customer noticing? It's just stupid that a cat owner has to keep an eye on the daily amount of food (and the dear pet doesn't stop meowing when it gets less) so the annoying Migipedians noticed and - worse - complained. But the question remains open: did the cat food supplier use the trick and keep the price the same or is Migros profiting? Perhaps they are "barking up the wrong tree". The next thing that was reported back was the information that the food could very well be stored in its packaging. The result will be: The packaging is changed, is presumably automatically biodegradable as soon as it is opened and is no longer suitable for storage. Argument off the table. That would be doubly stupid because the cat owner now needs 1 bag plus 15g from the next bag and should keep the remaining 85g.
Hello curley, thank you for your feedback. Regarding the price increase, cat food in general was affected, including Exelcat (increase in production costs, transportation costs, etc.). In addition, the supplier has relaunched the product and adjusted the amount of food to 85 grams. Most cat food has an average consumption of 85g per portion. The adjustments serve to avoid food waste. Kind regards, Alex
Hello battegays, thank you for your inquiry. Yes, the supplier has adjusted the bag size as part of a relaunch, as 100 gram bags often result in food waste. As the raw materials have become massively more expensive, we have been confronted with unavoidable price increases. Kind regards, Alex
Hello battegays, thank you for your inquiry. Yes, the supplier has adjusted the bag size as part of a relaunch, as 100 gram bags often result in food waste. As the raw materials have become massively more expensive, we have been confronted with unavoidable price increases. Kind regards, Alex
I know I shouldn't even write, it's a waste of time anyway. But once again I can't get over it. I don't understand this statement that the manufacturer has reduced the amount in the bag because of food waste? That might be true if a cat only ate 85 grams of wet food a day. That would leave 15 grams in the bag, which could be thrown away. But that would also be nonsensical, because you can keep the open bag until the next day. But: a cat eats 300 grams of wet food per day. Depending on age, outdoor access, etc. So it makes no sense at all to reduce the contents of the bag because of alleged food waste. I simply need more bags, which increases the amount of waste. The fact is: it is simply a price increase and not a measure against food waste.
I know I shouldn't even write, it's a waste of time anyway. But once again I can't get over it. I don't understand this statement that the manufacturer has reduced the amount in the bag because of food waste? That might be true if a cat only ate 85 grams of wet food a day. That would leave 15 grams in the bag, which could be thrown away. But that would also be nonsensical, because you can keep the open bag until the next day. But: a cat eats 300 grams of wet food per day. Depending on age, outdoor access, etc. So it makes no sense at all to reduce the contents of the bag because of alleged food waste. I simply need more bags, which increases the amount of waste. The fact is: it is simply a price increase and not a measure against food waste.
I was thinking the same thing.... I understand that there is inflation, but I think 15% is over the top. And I think the producer has also changed... Consistency is different. Kater still eats it... but is not so convinced... Let's see...
I know I shouldn't even write, it's a waste of time anyway. But once again I can't get over it. I don't understand this statement that the manufacturer has reduced the amount in the bag because of food waste? That might be true if a cat only ate 85 grams of wet food a day. That would leave 15 grams in the bag, which could be thrown away. But that would also be nonsensical, because you can keep the open bag until the next day. But: a cat eats 300 grams of wet food per day. Depending on age, outdoor access, etc. So it makes no sense at all to reduce the contents of the bag because of alleged food waste. I simply need more bags, which increases the amount of waste. The fact is: it is simply a price increase and not a measure against food waste.
Hello Yoliboli, thank you very much for your explanations, which I can well understand. That's why I contacted the relevant specialist department again. The people in charge told me that the adjustment is based on studies by our research center "Waltham Petcare Science Institute". These show that only 4 out of 10 cats consume a 100 g portion bag of wet food at a meal. In addition, it is apparently the case that many cats reject leftover food when they are fed again. Standardizing the filling quantity therefore leads to more clean bowls and less leftover food, i.e. less food waste. I passed on your objection that the opened bag can be stored well in this context. The team will look into the matter as part of the next product revision. I hope this addendum gives you a better understanding of our motives. Kind regards, Tabea
You have an animal research center for that? No, of course not one where they drill electrodes into brains or inject carcinogens, but what?! You have an animal research center???
This is a research center, not an animal testing laboratory. Google it.
A pack (4 bags of 85g) now costs 3.20 instead of the previous 3.00 (4 x 100g). So more expensive and less inside!
A pack (4 bags of 85g) now costs 3.20 instead of the previous 3.00 (4 x 100g). So more expensive and less inside!
We always buy the big packs but I wouldn't be surprised if they opened up too...
You have an animal research center for that? No, of course not one where they drill electrodes into brains or inject carcinogens, but what?! You have an animal research center???
No, that belongs to Mars. "Our animal research center" was therefore a pretension. It was also counterproductive because it was initially claimed that it was the supplier alone who had changed the pack size. But that would hardly have been on the instructions of a Migros company, so it was probably just the same as always: how can we get the price up massively without the customer noticing? It's just stupid that a cat owner has to keep an eye on the daily amount of food (and the dear pet doesn't stop meowing when it gets less) so the annoying Migipedians noticed and - worse - complained. But the question remains open: did the cat food supplier use the trick and keep the price the same or is Migros profiting? Perhaps they are "barking up the wrong tree". The next thing that was reported back was the information that the food could very well be stored in its packaging. The result will be: The packaging is changed, is presumably automatically biodegradable as soon as it is opened and is no longer suitable for storage. Argument off the table. That would be doubly stupid because the cat owner now needs 1 bag plus 15g from the next bag and should keep the remaining 85g.
No, that belongs to Mars. "Our animal research center" was therefore a pretension. It was also counterproductive because it was initially claimed that it was the supplier alone who had changed the pack size. But that would hardly have been on the instructions of a Migros company, so it was probably just the same as always: how can we get the price up massively without the customer noticing? It's just stupid that a cat owner has to keep an eye on the daily amount of food (and the dear pet doesn't stop meowing when it gets less) so the annoying Migipedians noticed and - worse - complained. But the question remains open: did the cat food supplier use the trick and keep the price the same or is Migros profiting? Perhaps they are "barking up the wrong tree". The next thing that was reported back was the information that the food could very well be stored in its packaging. The result will be: The packaging is changed, is presumably automatically biodegradable as soon as it is opened and is no longer suitable for storage. Argument off the table. That would be doubly stupid because the cat owner now needs 1 bag plus 15g from the next bag and should keep the remaining 85g.
Hello curley, thank you for your feedback. Regarding the price increase, cat food in general was affected, including Exelcat (increase in production costs, transportation costs, etc.). In addition, the supplier has relaunched the product and adjusted the amount of food to 85 grams. Most cat food has an average consumption of 85g per portion. The adjustments serve to avoid food waste. Kind regards, Alex
