There are other, higher quality products, so of course we can choose.
They are more expensive, though.
And Huel has made some serious downgrades in quality to avoid a price increase that they eventually have to implement nonetheless. Others have improved their quality, but also raised their prices, so the difference is no longer as huge as it used to be.
The market is dynamic.
No, there are not, that is my unfortunate point. Not yet at least, I hope some competitor comes along soon, with a product that’s basically Huel powder ingredients, but a different name, and no focus on environment/charity/clothes/snacks/…
If you’re gluten tolerant there are better companies and products. I could name them if I was allowed to. Even a domestic (that is, German) company. Unfortunately I have gluten-intolerance. Otherwise I would prefer other products.
Is a neutral taste important to you, or is flavour not of any interest to you?
Flavor is of zero interest to me, and unfortunately most companies are trying to balance flavor and nutrition, instead of focusing on nutrition-only. Huel used to be about nutrition, now it’s more and more about flavor and other irrelevant things (like environment or charity).
Having a flavour does not mean that they don’t care about nutrition. HIgh quality nutrition sometimes comes with a bitter flavour, and masking it with a standard flavour addition is not bad. Such companies offer no more than 2-4 flavours.
But if you’re flavour indifferent it should not be important whether something comes with a completely neutral or slightly sweet flavour.
Huel was the best in the past - but with every “update” of the formula the quality was downgraded. But they introduced more and more products, and now no other companies offers that many products. Yes, now Huel is more about flavour than quality, that is the new trend, which seems to be a successful approach (otherwise they would not do it).
Others have taken a different approach - still only very few flavours, no new products or flavours for years, but lots of improvements to their formula. And much less investments in stuff like marketing.
The market has changed.
If you’re gluten intolerant like me, yfood and Huel are the only alternatives. If you don’t have problems with gluten, other options are better - at least in 2023.
I don’t like sweet taste, it’s a typical symptom of trying to hide bad quality. Add enough sugar or sweet taste and customers will keep buying it, irrelevant of what it is. All companies focus on sweet taste except for Huel Unflavored. So no competitors.
No other company has introduced that many new sweet flavours and other products. So the shift of focus seems to be clear. If a company invests in research on better quality instead of launching new products it should not be a problem if they add sweetener. If a good product tastes earthy or slightly bitter, which is unavoidable for some ingredients like pea protein, it is not a sign of bad quality, quite the contrary. The sweetener helps people who are more sensitive to flavour. And it does not do any harm (at least there is no hard evidence on that).
But the thread was about the discount structure, so back to topic.
It is really disappointing that they can’t be honest about the effective price increase for the large majority of customers.
Who has the data on this? I’m guessing it’s Huel.
Who is having interest in convincing customers that it would benefit them? I’m guessing it’s Huel.
Of course! Emphasise the benefits. That’s a no-brainer isn’t it?
We are sorry that the new structure does mean an increase in some orders, however there are ways to work around this. For example, if you change the delivery frequency and split the order in half this will cut the cost for you.
It all depends on what you usually order.
That means ordering less bags, but more often will decrease the price? What about sustainability and environmental issues - topics you claim to take very serious?
To clear things up (I apologize for the confusing last message on my part!)
The reason for the new system, allows Hueligans to get discounts across the range, which is something that wasn’t possible before.
With the old system, every subsequent bag of the same product was cheaper than before, with the new system the discount is based on overall spending (across products) not the volume of the same product.
Also with the old system, the cheapest price per bag on a single product was achieved at the top quantity (e.g. 16 for powder). However, with the new system, the cheapest price per bag on a single product is achieved sooner (e.g. around bags 10-11 for BE).
But, the key takeaway’s are (using Black Edition for example) buying 3 bags in the new system is cheaper than it was before, which will actually benefit a large majority of our customers.
Buying medium volumes of multiple products will now result in a bigger discount than it would have done before, so our customers can still benefit from ordering high volumes, but across our product range, which we believe more and more of our users are doing.
I hope that makes the discount structure a bit clearer, @mbs Can I ask what sustainability concerns you have/ what your usual order with us is?
Why are you still unable to admit that it is a price increase?
State the cost of 16 bags before.
State the cost of 16 bags now.
State whether it is a price increase or not.
If you are unable to do this, you should not be interacting with customers.
I’m in no way denying the price has increased for a 16-bag order, for customers who purchase 16 pouches each time they order the price will increase.
But this isn’t the case for everyone’s order, and I wanted to explain that. In the example I used above if you usually purchase 3 pouches of Black Edition powder, it will be cheaper than before.
This is also true!
The discount structure used to be every subsequent bag of the same product was cheaper than before and the discount structure is based on overall spending (across products) not the volume of the same product.
If the price of a bag hasn’t changed then it seems unfair that orders of 16 bags or more (which I’ve done before) get caught as collateral damage to the new discount structure and their order value goes up. 16 bags of the same product on the same order should result in the lowest cost (still) per bag.
Maybe large orders (over 8 bags?) need their own pricing structure separate from the main structure.
With the calculations I made ( on the beginning of this thread) and for the US market, most of bags purchases of Huel White got a price increase, a price change! Exception, 2 and 4 bags purchases. All other quantities saw a price rise. The most penalized are buyers of 8, 9 and 10 bags, whose rise varies between 10.66% and 12.13%.
So it seems one part of the range is supporting for newer products adherence.
Based on that, this pricing structure makes no sense. I appreciate the intention is to broaden the discount structure so it works on total order value instead but ordering more bags and paying more for each bag makes no sense.
Just done calculations for my normal order and it’s looking like a slight price increase, but that’s only because I’ve been sticking to large orders of one product to maximise the discount.
That actually felt a bit frustrating at times. This new scheme would allow for buying a range of products whilst still getting a good discount. So a bit more money but a lot more choice - is how it seems to me.
Plus, does the new scheme mean that discount will be applied to Essential too? If so, that’s a bonus.