• @ooterness
    link
    English
    602 months ago

    …facilitate a sale process for the business in order to protect its iconic brand and further advance Tupperware’s transformation into a digital-first, technology-led company.

    Wait, what?

    • @EvacuateSoul
      link
      English
      482 months ago

      Haven’t you heard of containerization?

    • Ghostalmedia
      link
      English
      472 months ago

      Tupperware is a weird ass company and for the longest time you couldn’t buy their products in a store or online. You had to go to a “Tupperware party” and buy them from a local rep.

      Eventually they started to sell in select stores and eventually online.

      By “digital first, technology led,” they basically mean they’re playing catchup with e-commerce basics.

  • Ghostalmedia
    link
    English
    432 months ago

    IMHO, they had a weird ass business model that was about selling direct to consumers through local reps and “Tupperware parties.”

    Their competitors sold comparable products in stores and online waaaay before Tupperware woke up. And by the time they woke up, people had already had moved on to other brands.

    They’re paying the price for dumb decisions made years ago. They basically handed their food container market dominance over to other companies.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      282 months ago

      Well, originally, they started in shops but it was failing miserably so they came up with the pyramid scheme Tupperware ambassadors.

      But yeah it was a long time ago and they didn’t think of changing the model until recently.

    • @Zess
      link
      English
      72 months ago

      Rubbermaid makes better tupperware than Tupperware does.

    • @jpreston2005
      link
      English
      42 months ago

      Since PFAS and PFOS is basically in all food container packaging these days, I’ve switched to using glass containers for everything I can. Pyrex if I can manage it.

  • @CyberDine
    link
    English
    132 months ago

    Another victim of Boston Consulting Group

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      Is this late-state enshittification? Didn’t they super cheap-out on some/all of their products to appeal to the ‘single’ use crowd?

      • @Cort
        link
        English
        32 months ago

        the ‘single’ use crowd

        Oil and plastic producers?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      Oh is that what they do? I had no idea. They used to be a customer at the last company I worked at. I always wondered what, exactly, they consulted.

    • @Coreidan
      link
      English
      22 months ago

      Gonna need RC here to save them. BCG is cancer.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    132 months ago

    On some level their product is too good–sell it once, and that’s it. You own it, and it lasts forever.

    • snooggums
      link
      English
      362 months ago

      Products can break, people are born and grow up an eventually need to buy that kind of thing. Some of it can break or wear out even if most of it last decades.

      The problem is expecting never ending exponential growth because of the pressures of capitalism instead of finding a stable level of production and making that profitable. Especially with buy it for life products.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        162 months ago

        This makes room in the market for a company that makes subscription-based plastic containers that steal your data.

        • chingadera
          link
          English
          52 months ago

          That’s a weird way to spell innovation

        • snooggums
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          So does trying for exponential growth, or really selling anything at all.

    • Ghostalmedia
      link
      English
      172 months ago

      IMHO, the bigger issue is that they refused to sell their stuff in stores and on the internet for a long long time. You had to buy from select retailers or a local rep that threw “tupper ware parties.”

      A lot of use just moved to other brands that were easier to find, and when we wanted to replace stuff that never got returned by a neighbor, we bought more of the same stuff.

    • HorseChandelier
      link
      English
      82 months ago

      The products also have/had a lifetime guarantee - providing you could find a rep and they still made the product… Got a jug replaced after 40 years of hard service.

      It’s also why the party model failed them - MLM for a product that never broke or wore out.

      Newer tupperware was microwave safe.

      Reps got a cut of party sales and if they made enough each month the could get other benefits as well (a company car, for example).

    • @Xeroxchasechase
      link
      English
      52 months ago

      You’ve just realized why companies love planned obsolescence.

  • @Treczoks
    link
    English
    72 months ago

    Well, their business model of selling their stuff with “Tupperware Parties” was en vogue in the 70s, 80s. The world of businesses has changed since then. Tupperware has not. Go figure.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      Were tupperware parties actually a thing?! I always figured it was a cover for selling sex toys

      • @scutiger
        link
        English
        22 months ago

        Nah, the sex toy parties were their own thing.