Reimbursement/discount for oil component of Soylent


#1

I just received a shipment notification for a month supply of Soylent which omits the oil blend. Contained in the message were helpful notes about the components necessary to complete the nutritional content with links to source the materials (canola/olive oil and an omega-3 supplement).

It seems that the oil blend component will cost about $20/30-day supply in addition to the cost of Soylent ($255/30-day). I would appreciate a provision be made to discount or reimburse the cost of the components which are not included in this version of Soylent.

-r

(I’m trying very hard to avoid describing this as the vegan version because of all the {misplaced} backlash at the term ‘vegan’ with Soylent’s initial shipping decisions.)


#3

This message is tagged as Feedback for the Soylent team.

I made an informed purchasing decision long before they announced their shipping plans and they are not under any obligation to refund a portion of that. However, now that it’s apparent I’ll need to purchase an additional $20 of ingredients for items that are not included in this version of Soylent I’m asking them to consider adjusting the cost accordingly moving forward.

It’s a request or a suggestion that they are perfectly welcome to ignore.

-r


#4

Is it really worth the hassle to get credited for $0.66/day? Wouldn’t be to me but I suppose to each their own…


#6

I read the intent as being that the exact cost to make up the oil was not immediately apparent, and wasn’t realized in this particular instance until now.

This doesn’t seem like a demand to me, and rather has been explicitly clarified as just an opinion - seems like a perfectly rational thing to post, and a perfectly rational place to post it.


#8

I think they should consider offering a different price point for the vegan recipe to pass on the cost savings, however I don’t think those that have been “backers” of this development should be reimbursed since I think you knew what you were getting. Once they turn this into a routine ship to order business then I think that would be a good thing to offer.


#9

The guy makes a valid point. I don’t know though. They might not want people getting Vegan just to cheap out, and then they’ll get sick from lack of oils, then it’s a big thing on the news.

Something to consider!


#10

Yes, this is my point. I’m not asking for “something for nothing”. Rather, I’m suggesting that the vegan orders not pay for materials they do not receive.

-r

To be clear @anonynamja (because you seem to have taken this very personally: https://xkcd.com/386/), I’m not expecting @JulioMiles to sweep in here and state that they will refund me for my personal order of this initial order of vegan Soylent.


#11

i have a non vegan order…but im FOR the vegans (sorry…the non oil customers) receiving compensation for the missing ingrets…even if they got an extra pitcher or a tshirt or something…i wouldn’t be pissed. not a hoodie though…if they get hoodies ill rage :smile:


#12

I think its a valid point. They paid the same amount for the same product minus some materials.


#13

Well, that’s about $240/year…almost an entire month’s supply.


#14

Think about it this way, the real cost is in infrastructure and manpower. Having a no-oil option costs them money just by virtue of being an additional option. Is the amount of money they save from material cost sufficient? I don’t know, but it’s not as simple as, ‘less $20 of materials means the option costs the company $20 less’.

From a business perspective, it might make sense to arrange the cost this way and have the oil option consumers subsidize the cost. But that’s a choice they will have to make.

With that said, a 30-day supply of omega’s and olive oil shouldn’t cost you $20 a month? I can do it easily for $10 a month without buying in bulk.


#15

@addy, that’s likely. However, I’m using prices for the items that were linked to by the Soylent shipment message.


#16

I wouldn’t be surprised if product endorsements was part of their revenue stream which would mean to me that it is probably not the best. (But as a whole, I’m skeptical of all companies.) It would explain why those Eco bottles are recommended but not Hydro Flasks. It’s all a part of lowering cost of their product to consumers.


#17

While I wouldn’t support a reimbursement for already-ordered Soylent, a discount in the future seems like a reasonable thing for them to offer, for people who opt not to use the oil. In lieu of the oil, each box could contain a warning that the product is not nutritionally complete without oil.

(Though didn’t I read that they planned to replace the fish oil with something vegan, in the future, anyway? That would solve the problem, too.)

Along those lines, as half of a couple trying Soylent together, I have been wondering: when (in the future, after they have all of their production in order and can do so) they offer different sized packages for men and for women (the last I heard, the plan was to make packages of 1800 calories for the ladies), will they charge women proportionally less? Like charging less for leaving the oil out (again, in the future, not now), this seems like a fair and reasonable approach, right?


#18

I think (I hope) the plan in the future is to just completely forgo the oil and those nutrients will be sourced in another form that will be integrated into the powder and will be vegan for ALL.

I’m not vegan myself but I wouldn’t care if my Soylent was vegan provided it was complete, especially since Soylent is supposed to be about the ultimate in food convenience and the oil bottle isn’t that.


#19

I can agree with that. As long as it doesnt cost me one more red cent I would be all for it. lol