this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025

6 points (56.2% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

38027 readers

1087 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.

Rules:

1. Be Respectful

Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...

2. No Illegal Content

Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...

3. No Spam

Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...

4. No Porn/Explicit

Content

-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...

5. No Enciting Harassment,

Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts

-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...

6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

7. Content should match the theme of this community.

-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...

8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.

-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense

Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world

LillianVS@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

I'm sure people fall for this type of greenwashing all the time... (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Showroom7561@lemmy.ca to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"45% less plastic and 75% less water!"

But the product they are comparing it to has 90% more detergent...

EDIT: Thank you for pointing the error of my ways, guys.

This article cleared up some misconceptions I had. TIL, there's way more water in liquid detergent than you'd think!

all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] CyberSeeker@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Explain your thought process here, how did you arrive at the larger bottle being 90% more detergent? It’s EXPLICITLY clear that the concentration is higher in the smaller bottle.

You could complain about the form factor or lack of precision in dosing loads using the higher concentration, but “detergent” is mostly water, which they clearly said they reduced by 75% (same solute, with less water/solvent = higher concentration).

Quick search and going by what it says on the label, the cost per load has not significantly changed, a little more than half a penny’s difference:

Ultra Concentrated (left) $15/60 loads = $0.25/load https://mrsmeyers.com/collections/laundry/products/ultra-concentrated-laundry-detergent-rain-water?variant=50673207640338

Standard (right) $18/74 loads = $0.2432/load https://mrsmeyers.com/collections/laundry/products/ultra-concentrated-laundry-detergent-rain-water?variant=50673207640338

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

how did you arrive at the larger bottle being 90% more detergent?

24.3 oz vs 64oz. When I say "detergent", I'm talking about the product itself, not the specific ingredient, which isn't listed by a means from which to compare them by.

It’s EXPLICITLY clear that the concentration is higher in the smaller bottle.

Explicitly??? You'd only know because you can compare the two bottles. But someone shopping would see the same brand, same coloured bottle, same label, but smaller size (at nearly the same price). The marketing only focused on plastic and water, which to me, seem to benefit the manufacturer more than the consumer (lower shipping costs while selling at the same price per load).

Why not match the load amount per bottle if you are marketing this as a better replacement from what they offered before?

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Is the text "ULTRA CONCENTRATED" not clear?

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've already corrected my OP and admitted to my overreaction.

But...

Is the text “ULTRA CONCENTRATED” not clear?

No, it's not. That's a marketing buzzword.

"Ultra concentrated" means absolutely nothing to a consumer without knowing more, like how is concentration level determined in this product? How does it compare with other liquid laundry detergents? And how does it compare to their 64oz version?

Whirlpool says that most brands list the concentration level on the bottles in the form of 1x, 2x, 3x, etc., but that's not on the bottles in the OP.

All we know that we get less volume, fewer loads, and a slightly higher price per load.

Less plastic? Sure, but with fewer loads in the bottle, it's not an equal comparison from the start.

That's like saying, "our 'ultra compact' size 8 shoes use less rubber compared to our size 11 shoes!". 🤔

[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Does it have less detergent? The company we used to use, before switching to powder, did this. But it was the same amount of detergent, less water. They updated the amount you should use per load with the change.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, the smaller bottle uses about 50% less volume per load.

[+] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If it does, they really need to make that more obvious! The smaller one is "ultra concentrated", but is it more expensive per load? Is the assumption that someone who used to buy the larger bottle would even know that the smaller one is "better"?

[–] Devadander@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s very clearly printed on there, 60 loads vs 74.

[+] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you were using the larger bottle, would you know that the smaller one had more loads? You'd only know that it uses "less plastic" (per load, not per volume).

[–] Devadander@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yes of course, why wouldn’t you? Again, it is clearly printed on the label, next to the name. You’re trying very hard to make this an issue but it’s really not.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You’re trying very hard to make this an issue but it’s really not.

Probably.

I was viewing this in the context of shrinkflation with food items.

For example, if you're used to buying 900g of pasta, because that's what feeds your family out of a single package, does it really matter if the replacement 750g size uses less plastic and packaging? Because now you need to buy two packages instead of one, which creates more plastic/packaging waste than before.

So... seeing that you get less loads per bottle vs the larger one, it reminded me of the pasta scenario. Probably flawed logic. 😬LOL

[–] Fluffy_Ruffs@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

lol this thinking right here contributes to the problem. "The bigger bottle HAS to be better, right?".

If people would stop and read to see what they're spending their money on, we wouldn't be buying larger quantities of mostly water-based products in favor of more concentrated versions.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago

See my reply to the other guy above. I was applying the logic (possibly flawed) to how food is sold: 900g of pasta is more food than 750g of pasta, regardless of the difference in packaging. If you need 900g, then you'd need to buy two of the 750g, which is even more wasteful.

But I guess my problem is that they are comparing two different products, in two different quantities (loads per bottle), but linked together with how much plastic and water they use.

They didn't make the same product with less plastic or water, it's a new product with the same label.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean it sounds to me more like they are admitting they were intentionally stupidly inefficient originally. IE the one they are comparing it to has 94% more detergent, but only does 14 more loads. (74 vs 60).

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wait until they hear how little water and packaging detergent strips use! (which is what I usually buy... this liquid just came up in the search).

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Detergent sheets rock! I've been traveling and need hypoallergenic detergent. I've carried 24 loads worth with practically no added weight to my suitcase and it won't leak everywhere if it gets hit.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, game changer for sure!

Less weight.
No plastic waste and the packages are nearly always 100% recyclable.
They take up next to no space.
They are often safe enough to work well with handwashing clothes.
They still clean clothes!
Generally made from better ingredients.
I find that many brands are also from smaller companies who haven't been corrupted by greedy multinationals, so that's a bonus. LOL

[–] Fluffy_Ruffs@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

60 loads for the 24.3oz or 72 loads for 64oz..what am I missing here?

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 day ago

It's not the same product being sold, despite the labels looking the same... these are two different products being compared as if they were equal.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

74 loads versus 60, bruh

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 0 points 22 hours ago

"Our small t-shirts use less fabric than our large t-shirts!" 🤔