As a manufacturer, if the cost to produce something is higher than what customers are willing to pay, then you simply don’t sell it.

There are commodities where this doesn’t apply as much because there’s enough competition keeping downward pressure on the price so it floats just above the actual raw materials price, but other than that, this concept applies to most products.

The only real alternative is not to stock it (or only stock the plastic bottle ones that don't have the price on the labeling). But if they do that, their customers might shop elsewhere next time. I'm guessing that Arizona knows this, and they want to hold onto this "retailer shares the reduced margin" advantage for as long as they can.

I kind of wish they would bite the bullet and make a can $1.99 and bring back the full flavor 90s version.

This brand offers frequent discounts ... I've seen them discounted to 75 cents at the local CVS, but that was during the early part of COVID when sales tanked.

All because they had vending machines based on taking a nickel.

What happens when you sell more package and less of the actual product, so people need 3 cans instead of 1 for the same effect, but you just produced 2-3x the trash?

1) Boil water. Pour into cup with tea bag.

2) Walk away and totally forget all about the tea for a few hours.

3) Walk back into the kitchen for something else, realize you now have a glass of cold black liquid that is undrinkable.

4) Remove teabag and pour the black ooze into a liter container, fill with cold water and sugar to taste and maybe half a lemon from a nearby tree if you have one.

Made the most smooth, delicious iced tea I've ever had.

[1]: https://drinkarizona.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/150000325...

Arizona iced tea being a prime example. They should just call it diabetes in a can.

Others are the Mickey D's cheese burger or the taco bell tacos.

It's so tasty and addictive but so bad for you. I'm not surprised it still costs the same.

It’s 2.25 for a tall Arizona Ice Tea at 7-11, Malibu.

Integrity like this is rare in the American business landscape. His successor most likely won't feel this way though.

While other drinks may have hiked prices over the years, I haven't noticed spikes in the price of other soft-drinks over the past few months. Their costs are rising too. I think most companies don't want to alienate their fans over what they're hoping will be transitory cost increases. If Coke hikes prices and people start trying Pepsi, will they come back? If Arizona hikes prices, do they lose the "just a buck" cliff that makes them seem a lot cheaper than anything more than a dollar? Does $1.50 look a lot closer to $2.50 than $1 does to $2? Do people buy a $1.79 Snapple or $1.99 Gold Leaf if Arizona is $1.29 (even if it is still both cheaper and larger)?

Given that they're a private company and the owners are multi-billionaires, it seems reasonably wise to eat some margin over the short-term. It's not like they're struggling and it's not like they have lots of shareholders to appease on a quarter-by-quarter basis. I don't think people expect the cost of aluminum to stay at double long-term and if the Ukraine/Russia war ends, it seems like fuel prices will likely ease (and long-term it seems likely that Europe now has very strong incentive to reduce its dependence on Russian fuel). If costs remain high, they can re-evaluate this decision in 6-18 months while potentially missing out on a small amount of profits.

$43M in increased aluminum costs over a year doesn't seem that much compared to a $4B net worth - especially if you're still making money, just $43M less. If I were them, I'd weigh it out: raise prices and potentially damage the brand long-term and risk a good bit of what the family has built over decades; or keep prices steady, potentially lose out on profits that would make us 1-2% richer, and still be able to re-evaluate this decision in a year. If I had $4B, I'd much rather keep consumer sentiment thinking that I'm the small quirky outsider offering them great value.

The cynic in me says this is just paid advertising for Arizona Iced Tea. Every time there is a hike in inflation, we get a story about the 99 cent iced tea. Or maybe they keep it at 99 cents for the free publicity.

I guess one could take an arizona tea from today and find one from 5 years ago and send it to the lab for easy analysis. But I'm too lazy for that and so is the journalist apparently.

At some point between 2010 and now, shops in my area (southern Ontario, Canada) basically ditched following this.

I haven't paid $1.13 for a can of AriZona for years now...