Calling canned water "Liquid Death" and shoving it out there for edgy teens to slurp up is 'comic book villain' levels of foreshadowing that they're going to try to pull off something comically shady, either in marketing or practice.
I accidentally bought some thinking it was seltzer like LaCroix, ended up being caffeinated and fake sweetened, tasted like absolute ass. I very much believe this dipshit that his company still hasn't made a profit after many years because the shit is disgusting.
Monster gave out a generic "diversity and inclusion" statement in 2020, only to get hammered for not saying BLM/Floyd/police brutality by name. As far as I know, they left it at that and didn't further ingratiate themselves.
Given how hard I see that shit shilled across half the grocery stores in my area, 300 million does not sound like much. They cost about four bucks a can so that's about 75 million sales in a year.
That'd be a lot if you were a local brand but it's not much for a company that immediately tried to go national. I'd wager given how this shit popped up overnight that they have a chunky marketing budget too.
It makes some sense that they wouldn't be showing a profit. This is not a comment on their ridiculous product or it's idiotic packaging.
Given how hard I see that shit shilled across half the grocery stores in my area, 300 million does not sound like much.
Little-known fact: Grocery stores rent out their shelf space to vendors, with prime end caps and floor space costing more.
Imagine how much they would have to pay to outbid the likes of Coca-Cola or Mondelez, especially in the middle of October where every snack product has a limited-time Halloween gimmick that they want to get out.
Is it zero because the founders get millions and that counts as operating cost in their books?
If the owner(s) of the company is getting a paycheck, that is profit in my book, if you wanna be pedantic about it, subtract around 75k, then 10% the rest.
fun fact, most charities only donate 20% or less of their income to the cause they claim to represent, most of it is eaten up by advertising so they get more money and management who shocking decide they should be paid more
if you ever see a charity advertising outside of a shop with some guy talking to the old people getting them to sign up for something or other, that person is not a volunteer, they get paid and often get paid a commission too, i fucking hate them, they always target the elderly
I initially liked them, their carbonated lime water was especially good and actually had flavor, unlike LaCroix. but then they switched to using stevia for their carbonated drinks. The taste soured and I got a headache after drinking it. going to their social media, they pulled the classic "you are not our audience" to everyone who complained about the change.
yep, I'm convinced sugar substitute is as poisonous as excess sugar is, it's just bad for different reasons. I got no data behind this, but my observation is that it tricks the brain into thinking it has consumed sugar, making the body react in weird ways. a lot of people in my life who consume a lot of """diet""" products also have neurological issues, ranging from seizures to early parkinson's.
when it comes to the sugar question, my conclusion is that you should not consume added sugar, and you should not consume sugar substitutes. the sugar content should be whatever naturally occurs in whatever you are eating.
a lot of people in my life who consume a lot of """diet""" products also have neurological issues
Donald Trump has entered the chat.
Still the funniest two tweets in his existence, and the fact that they had to be archived in the Library of Congress is proof god loves us.
But to be serious, fake sugars spend most of their time just trying to "taste close enough" to sugar that they stop caring about anything else, including the rest of the effects they have on the body. This is especially bad because anyone who thinks "I should switch to Diet X" is someone consuming way too much of X to begin with and no alternative will be healthy for them poison or not.
This was pre-Presidential, 2012 Trump. So you missed it a long time ago. Basic gist was:
You never see a thin person drinking Diet Coke
Coke is really mad at me for my last tweet, that's okay I'll keep drinking their garbage
Made extra funny by the fact that Trump was/is basically never seen without a Diet Coke nearby, so it was completely self deprecating on top of it. He literally had a "summon diet coke" button installed on his desk in his first presidency and reportedly drinks like 12 of them per day.
And because it actually humanizes him in a really funny way, the media never jumps on it despite it being way more of a story than "two scoops!" about both his physical health and flaws.
I don't know about the neurological stuff, but I can definitely anecdotally confirm the "tricks the brain into thinking it has consumed sugar" part. Studies can say all they want about how sweeteners have no influence over blood sugar and insulin levels, but I swear, after a can of that shit, I get so fucking hungry, it's unreal.
That's how these businesses always go. Its easy to promise a bunch to charity when you are starting out, trying to market people in, and might have genuine intentions.
Its much harder when you are raking in cash, have a new rich lifestyle, and have shareholders breathing down your neck. Then its pretty easy to say fuck it and start messing with numbers to keep you and your board happy.
However, to give them some benefit of the doubt, sales are not profit. I see these cans literally everywhere, which means a high production budget. 300 million in sales is quite low for how widespread they are, so they might literally not be making a real profit after accounting for how hard they pushed themselves into every available market with only their "edgy name" as a gimmick.
They are almost certainly still fudging numbers to give themselves high salaries to get out of it, but they might still be massively underperforming.
Unless the financial statements are public, I'd simply assume that "CEO/Executive pay" is a variable amount that ate up all the "profits", and is given to the owner, and therefore, there were no profits.
Honestly though you shouldn’t buy products with the expectation money will get donated. Buy the product you want and then donate money if it’s important to you
Most people will only pay the "premium" price because they can justify it to themselves that part of that might go to helping someone. That's the marketing psychology behind it.
Reminder that the donnor can get tax-deductions for charity donations up to 60% of its adjusted gross income, and there is no way the company's accountant didn't file for these tax deductions.
Oh and if the total in one year exceeds the %, it carries-over for following years.
Most charities are borderline tax scams. Most of the money ( a near-totality, usually ) goes to ''adminitrative costs'' like salaries and sollicitation.
They originally said "10% of profits," but weren't profitable. So they gave to charity anyway and changed it to, "portions of the proceeds."
I'm not seeing the problem here? Their original statement set the floor at $0. They donated more and made the statement more accurate.
Product is shit and charity is a scam, but why is Tim Pool, best known for taking a stance on nothing, making a big deal out of this absolutely nothing issue? Only people who have a case for being annoyed are the shareholders because a company who isn't even profitable is giving away their money.
Calling canned water "Liquid Death" and shoving it out there for edgy teens to slurp up is 'comic book villain' levels of foreshadowing that they're going to try to pull off something comically shady, either in marketing or practice.
Canned caffeinated water is the gayest thing you can put in your mouth, up to and including another man’s cock. Just have a Diet Monster you pussies!
I accidentally bought some thinking it was seltzer like LaCroix, ended up being caffeinated and fake sweetened, tasted like absolute ass. I very much believe this dipshit that his company still hasn't made a profit after many years because the shit is disgusting.
Isn't Monster a woke company too? Wasn't it Red Bull against faggotry and DEI shit?
IDK Red Bull just seems like the most 90s company ever signing kids doing rad and dangerous shit.
I thought the Thai Monarchy was the majority shareholder and they're pretty based imo.
Monster gave out a generic "diversity and inclusion" statement in 2020, only to get hammered for not saying BLM/Floyd/police brutality by name. As far as I know, they left it at that and didn't further ingratiate themselves.
I'd rather they not even bothered to begin with. Although Dunkin and Chick-fil-A tried that and later cucked out.
Given how hard I see that shit shilled across half the grocery stores in my area, 300 million does not sound like much. They cost about four bucks a can so that's about 75 million sales in a year.
That'd be a lot if you were a local brand but it's not much for a company that immediately tried to go national. I'd wager given how this shit popped up overnight that they have a chunky marketing budget too.
It makes some sense that they wouldn't be showing a profit. This is not a comment on their ridiculous product or it's idiotic packaging.
Little-known fact: Grocery stores rent out their shelf space to vendors, with prime end caps and floor space costing more.
Imagine how much they would have to pay to outbid the likes of Coca-Cola or Mondelez, especially in the middle of October where every snack product has a limited-time Halloween gimmick that they want to get out.
Hell, I’ve seen ads for them on LINKEDIN
Is it zero because the founders get millions and that counts as operating cost in their books?
If the owner(s) of the company is getting a paycheck, that is profit in my book, if you wanna be pedantic about it, subtract around 75k, then 10% the rest.
fun fact, most charities only donate 20% or less of their income to the cause they claim to represent, most of it is eaten up by advertising so they get more money and management who shocking decide they should be paid more
if you ever see a charity advertising outside of a shop with some guy talking to the old people getting them to sign up for something or other, that person is not a volunteer, they get paid and often get paid a commission too, i fucking hate them, they always target the elderly
It's closer to 5% or less.
I used to do the pat and gesture, no cash
then I started doing the "Oh, I already donated" but I don't like telling lies
now I just walk past them while they greet me, like they don't exist. That one feels the best.
I initially liked them, their carbonated lime water was especially good and actually had flavor, unlike LaCroix. but then they switched to using stevia for their carbonated drinks. The taste soured and I got a headache after drinking it. going to their social media, they pulled the classic "you are not our audience" to everyone who complained about the change.
fuck 'em
Dude, stevia is fuckin poison and I cannot be convinced otherwise. Far as I'm concerned every sugar substitute is.
yep, I'm convinced sugar substitute is as poisonous as excess sugar is, it's just bad for different reasons. I got no data behind this, but my observation is that it tricks the brain into thinking it has consumed sugar, making the body react in weird ways. a lot of people in my life who consume a lot of """diet""" products also have neurological issues, ranging from seizures to early parkinson's.
when it comes to the sugar question, my conclusion is that you should not consume added sugar, and you should not consume sugar substitutes. the sugar content should be whatever naturally occurs in whatever you are eating.
Donald Trump has entered the chat.
Still the funniest two tweets in his existence, and the fact that they had to be archived in the Library of Congress is proof god loves us.
But to be serious, fake sugars spend most of their time just trying to "taste close enough" to sugar that they stop caring about anything else, including the rest of the effects they have on the body. This is especially bad because anyone who thinks "I should switch to Diet X" is someone consuming way too much of X to begin with and no alternative will be healthy for them poison or not.
which tweets? sounds like I missed something hilarious
This was pre-Presidential, 2012 Trump. So you missed it a long time ago. Basic gist was:
Made extra funny by the fact that Trump was/is basically never seen without a Diet Coke nearby, so it was completely self deprecating on top of it. He literally had a "summon diet coke" button installed on his desk in his first presidency and reportedly drinks like 12 of them per day.
And because it actually humanizes him in a really funny way, the media never jumps on it despite it being way more of a story than "two scoops!" about both his physical health and flaws.
I don't know about the neurological stuff, but I can definitely anecdotally confirm the "tricks the brain into thinking it has consumed sugar" part. Studies can say all they want about how sweeteners have no influence over blood sugar and insulin levels, but I swear, after a can of that shit, I get so fucking hungry, it's unreal.
They pulled that Disney maneuver of "paying customers are not our priority"?
Fuck them and every other "customer is always wrong" 5d chess playing retard in marketing
Those fags sell a fucking can of water for $3
Water infused with artificial bullshit.
That's how these businesses always go. Its easy to promise a bunch to charity when you are starting out, trying to market people in, and might have genuine intentions.
Its much harder when you are raking in cash, have a new rich lifestyle, and have shareholders breathing down your neck. Then its pretty easy to say fuck it and start messing with numbers to keep you and your board happy.
However, to give them some benefit of the doubt, sales are not profit. I see these cans literally everywhere, which means a high production budget. 300 million in sales is quite low for how widespread they are, so they might literally not be making a real profit after accounting for how hard they pushed themselves into every available market with only their "edgy name" as a gimmick.
They are almost certainly still fudging numbers to give themselves high salaries to get out of it, but they might still be massively underperforming.
I associate Liquid Death with Theo Von's podcast.
Maybe their balance sheet is a mess because of a frivolous marketing budget.
Unless the financial statements are public, I'd simply assume that "CEO/Executive pay" is a variable amount that ate up all the "profits", and is given to the owner, and therefore, there were no profits.
I agree, they’re probably spending a boatload on marketing. Kind of have to when your product is the gimmick.
Their entire company is "frivolous marketing" personified. Fuck that retarded California company.
Honestly though you shouldn’t buy products with the expectation money will get donated. Buy the product you want and then donate money if it’s important to you
Most people will only pay the "premium" price because they can justify it to themselves that part of that might go to helping someone. That's the marketing psychology behind it.
There was a company that took over 20 years to turn its first profit
It was called Toyota
Were they virtue-signaling about donating 10% of their profits to charities during these 20 years?
Amazon too.
Lying to & being a douche to your customers? Who do they think they are? A fortunre 500 company?
Reminder that the donnor can get tax-deductions for charity donations up to 60% of its adjusted gross income, and there is no way the company's accountant didn't file for these tax deductions.
Oh and if the total in one year exceeds the %, it carries-over for following years.
Most charities are borderline tax scams. Most of the money ( a near-totality, usually ) goes to ''adminitrative costs'' like salaries and sollicitation.
This company will be forgotten in a few years but the founder will have made a sweet penny or two.
I haven't bought Bubbly or other sparkling waters in months or years probably I still have a few cans left I'm still slowly rationing on
They originally said "10% of profits," but weren't profitable. So they gave to charity anyway and changed it to, "portions of the proceeds."
I'm not seeing the problem here? Their original statement set the floor at $0. They donated more and made the statement more accurate.
Product is shit and charity is a scam, but why is Tim Pool, best known for taking a stance on nothing, making a big deal out of this absolutely nothing issue? Only people who have a case for being annoyed are the shareholders because a company who isn't even profitable is giving away their money.
Better known for their other product, liquid ass.