You can buy a 20 ounce Coke or Pepsi for less money than you can buy a 20 ounce Dasani(bottled water from Coca Cola) or Aquafina(bottled water from Pepsi). Why does the bottled water cost more? I would think it should cost less since it has less ingredients and requires less processing than the soda.
Prices are determined by the interaction between supply and demand, not by the cost of production.
Coca Cola and Pepsi charge more for bottled water than sode simply because they can: consumers are willing to pay more for water than carbonated drinks.
Because people are ‘Evian’ spelled backwards.
Then do what I do. Refill the water bottles from the tap six or seven times. It is a pretty good price for a convenient bottle.
And gasoline costs less than soda (in the US).
I Agree with Narrad^^^^^,but I also believe that it cost more because the facilities for bottling and labeling water are fewer than that of soda ,less production capacity=more cost.
Re: supply and demand. I’ve done a bit of travelling, and bottled water is much cheaper in some countries. In Egypt, for instance, the domestic water supply is not drinking quality, and everyone relies on bottled mineral water for their drinking water. You can get large bottles of water for less than one egyptian pound, which is equivalent to about 16 American cents, and you can buy them in almost every type of shop.
I think its down to overheads. In Ney York, there isn’t that large a market for bottled water, compared to Egypt. It might cost, say, $100 to make a delivery of water. In New York, there might be a market of 200 bottles, so thats 50 cents per bottle. In Egypt, there might be a market of 10,000 bottles, so its only 1 cent per bottle. (I’m just using these figures as an example, I don’t know the actual cost).
In America there is a much larger market for soda than water, so the overheads per item are much smaller.
Supply and demand isn’t such a simple thing after all. Marketing and demand push the price up, but the price still has to remain low enough to move a significant volume. Because when it comes to a consumable, if you don’t move any of it, you lose prestige as well as market share. Your product has to be in the hands of people on the street.
Supply and demand and good marketing.
About supply and demand, the difference in the Egyptian market is that it’s a commondity product from a utility. They could charge 50 cents per bottle, but there would be riots and running street battles from thirsty people.
Compare this to US/UK/Aus/NZ bottled water, which the company can charge however much they like and the poor people drink tap water (I’ve heard about the poor water quality in LA, but bear with me). They could charge lower, but then it begins to lose its exclusiveness and some of its snob factor (eg Perrier [sp?]). The input costs to ‘produce’ bottled water is ridiculously low and the transportation costs are the same as any other beverage company. Yeap, the bottling companies are making megabucks. :smack:
I worked very closely with Poland Spring in Maine, around 1995-1997. They made mega-expansion over the few years I was there. I didn’t get into their financial knickers, but their profit margin was VERY healthy.
Yes, supply and demand. Todays public is plain stupid. Simple as that.
Everyone thinks drinking tap water will poison you. The public has been brain washed on pollution and environmental issues.
Most bottled water comes from municipal tap water supplies. They charge as much for it as they do because people are silly enough to buy it instead of drinking tap water.
New York City, for as dirty as its reputation is, has some of the best tap water on the planet, so I’m happy to drink that.
Decidedly not true. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Co. use the excess capacity in their bottling plants to produce AquaFina and Dasani. Both start with the same purified tap water that they use in their soft drinks.
Citeroo? I’m unaware that “most” bottled water is sourced from tap water supplies.
FTR, people are “silly” enough to buy it because often when one is out and about, the choice is between paying for (a) sugary carbonated crap; (b) sweetened reconsitututed fruit juice; or © bottled water. Tap water is not always available.
Myself, I choose © because I’d prefer paying for a healthy re-hydrating drink than some diluted sugar concentrate I don’t even like the taste of. Water bottles can also be washed and reused.
Call it naive, but many people consider the manufacturer’s cost of production quite irrelevant when they are purchasing goods or services.
Production cost is unimportant; consumer utility and price are all.
I re-use my water bottles for months on end, which no ill-effects. Once a week I just fill it with a bleach solution for a few hours, then thoroughly rinse it out.
I re-fill it using a Brita filter-pitcher. 25cents per gallon beats 25 cents per ounce, or whatever the current overcharge for bottled water is. And the Brita water even tastes better and has less micro-organisms, lead, and other impurities!
New York City’s Tap water consistantly beats bottled water in taste tests, sorry no cites.
Ha, marketing creates demand. Look at our consumer culture.
If the bottling plants use the same water for the sodas and the bottled water, perchance do they have to treat the bottled water more to get the clean taste? The carbonation, sugar, and flavorings in soda could hide some pretty blah water. So the same plant could have more costs for the water for removing stuff, than the costs for the soda for adding stuff.
But I agree, it’s the market forces that sets the prices.
From The NRDC, which is usually fairly good about such things:
Furthermore, FDA-regulated bottled water is subject to far inferior safety and contaminate regulations, compared to EPA-regulated municipal water supplies.
While Aquafina and Dasani are as expensive as Coca-Cola here, I can also get a gallon of water at the supermarket for half the price of a 20-oz. Coke. It’s not “natural” or anything, but it’s markedly potable.
When people refer to “bottled water” are they including this stuff?