this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
618 points (99.0% liked)

People Twitter

7459 readers
1278 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] callyral@pawb.social 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

would anyone actually like that? how am i supposed to know anything about a product if it's just called "chips"?? what's the flavor, texture, what does it look like?

maybe partially transparent packaging would be nice, though

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 36 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah, no one could like that. Not like there is a whole set of us that basically live off the stuff or anything.......

[–] JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I am unreasonably upset by the chips bag having a picture and a splash of non-yellow on it.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 5 points 1 day ago

Yeah, that one is odd. Some have a band of colour though. I think its when there are flavours.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The US doesn't seem to do this much to my irritation when I visited but pretty much every other country the crisps are colour-coded for flavour although there seems to be no international consistency on this.

For example at least in the UK blue means cheese and onion (and therefore disgusting), red means salt, green means salt and vinegar, and pink means prawn cocktail.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Australia has black & gold but it is a generic brand, mixed in with all the others.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We former colonies know how to make a sexy looking store brand.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I like the Canadian one better. If its going to be simple then be simple.
I'm assuming the contents are all unremarkable commodities.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Interestingly I (and many others) have noticed that the no name (and other store brands) are often better then the "name" brand stuff.

For example I would say KD is worse then store brand, and the store brand crackers are waaaay better then the name brand now (they seem to now over toast them).

[–] prex@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Perhaps they're not as up to date with their enshitification.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

Maybe, I also talked years ago to some people higher up at loblaws (at their regional HQ for work) and asked about no name and presidents choice and I was lead to believe a lot of work goes into making the product good. They also talked about how they make more on the store brand and see this as an opportunity to push more people to their stuff. I don't think anyone really likes the big brands these days.

[–] pineapplepizza@lemm.ee 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Australia used to have a store called no frills

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 6 points 1 day ago

Hmmm, I would buy the shit out of that aesthetic.

[–] Welt@lazysoci.al 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was called Franklins, No Frills was their home brand

[–] pineapplepizza@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago

True, thanks for the correction.