« The Information Stream | Main | Giant Blowing Sound» Don Boudreaux
June 06, 2007
Bottle tops
Russell Roberts
I went to the Nationals baseball game last night and was surprised to discover that when you buy a bottle of Pepsi, the concession stand person removes the top before letting you walk away. She was apologetic and I quickly discovered why—it's much harder to carry two sodas, a hot dog and a pretzel when the tops aren't on the bottles. When I asked her why she had to remove the caps, she explained that they don't want people throwing the tops onto the field. I have a different explanation. Can you come up with one?
Posted by Russell Roberts in Everyday Life | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/19099690
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bottle tops:
Comments
To prevent the buyer from selling the drink to another potential buyer?
Posted by: Jack | Jun 6, 2007 1:55:23 PM
Male fans are less prone to using a non-resealable container as a convenient substitute for a crowded restroom?
Posted by: Jeff | Jun 6, 2007 1:56:17 PM
To hope you spill the drink and need to buy another?
Posted by: Dayl | Jun 6, 2007 2:01:37 PM
Well, if it's harder to carry two sodas, two hotdogs, etc. in one trip - perhaps you will make two trips - and end up purchasing even more?
Posted by: Mike | Jun 6, 2007 2:09:48 PM
They're saving up Pepsi Points so they can afford the Harrier Jet. (http://tinyurl.com/2xpg6y)
Posted by: anon | Jun 6, 2007 2:15:06 PM
No, it's to prevent you from using it as a weapon, by throwing a sealed container at someone, or at a player on the field.
When drinks--soda or beer--are served in paper or plastic cups w/lids, there do not make good projectiles, while in a plastic bottle--sealed with a cap--they can be so used.
Granted, an unsealed plastic bottle--even half full--could be effectively thrown a someone.
Posted by: Forbes | Jun 6, 2007 2:19:23 PM
This is simple. They are grinding down the caps and adding them to wheat gluten to boost the protein measurements.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings | Jun 6, 2007 2:37:21 PM
If you had the cap, you'd be better able to moderate your intake. Without a cap, you drink the Pepsi faster and hopefully (from their perspective) buy another one sooner than you otherwise would
Posted by: joe | Jun 6, 2007 2:39:51 PM
I'm sure someone has an argument that it cuts down on global warming.
Posted by: Tim V | Jun 6, 2007 2:41:49 PM
I agree with Forbes: to help prevent it from becoming a weapon when thrown on the field or elsewhere. Not only will the bottle lose some of its contents when thrown, it also won't be pressurized, making it hard as a rock.
Posted by: FBC3 | Jun 6, 2007 2:47:10 PM
They do this a Giants Stadium as well. It is a safe measure for Eli.
Posted by: Dan | Jun 6, 2007 3:18:32 PM
I think there's a market here for sterilized bottle caps.
Are they wearing gloves when they unscrew the cap? I wonder if the local health inspector knows about this little practice?
Posted by: Keith | Jun 6, 2007 3:19:02 PM
The bottle-as-weapon theory is all too real.
Removing the top also distinguishes bottles sold in-stadium from bottles smuggled in contrary to the in-stadium monopoly, but that's lagniappe to the liability concerns behind the bottle-as-weapon.
Posted by: Ted | Jun 6, 2007 3:36:14 PM
At Sea World they also remove the bottle tops on water. I got very annoyed by this and didn't order one because of it. At the time I was sure that it was because they wanted me to consume it or spill it faster so I would need to buy another one. Perhaps it is also to prevent birds from choking on the lids. Whatever the original reason for such behavior, it is clear that it impacts multiple, distinct genres(garbage, safety, consumerism, etc). I can't say which of these reasons keep it going - probably all of them.
Posted by: Python | Jun 6, 2007 3:58:24 PM
I'm actually surprised they don't also put a straw in the bottle to help you drink it faster.
Posted by: Dave | Jun 6, 2007 4:03:22 PM
All of the answers so far are either that it's a form of safety or a form of consumer exploitation.
The safety answer is almost certainly wrong in this particular case--you're allowed to bring your own bottled water into the stadium.
The exploitation answer is unlikely. If true, it lowers the customer's willingness to pay for the soda so it punishes the customer and the vendor. If they let you keep the cap on, they could charge you more for the soda and avoid the kind of negative publicity that people are voicing here.
My answer is different. Keep trying.
Posted by: Russ Roberts | Jun 6, 2007 4:24:23 PM
Safety is the public reason..(Baptists)
But there is economic incentives to increase sales. (Bootleggers)
Open bottles are drunk faster.. as mentioned above..
Also.. If you have a bottle with a top on it...You can be accused of smuggling in one bought at Safeway..
Posted by: Geoffrey Brand | Jun 6, 2007 4:25:01 PM
I believe it's a method of accounting between vendors who are using a common inventory. Their banks should match their cap count -- allowing them to identify a thief.
Posted by: SheetWise | Jun 6, 2007 4:36:42 PM
This is way out there, but could it be as a safety measure for the company? What happens if someone buys a bottle of Pepsi, can't get the cap off, and sues the concession stand? Well, maybe it isn't as far out there anymore.
Posted by: trumpetbob15 | Jun 6, 2007 4:37:32 PM
What happens if someone buys a bottle of Pepsi, can't get the cap off, and sues the concession stand?
The concession stand settles for the price of the Pepsi before the thing makes it to court?
Posted by: Billy | Jun 6, 2007 4:40:25 PM
There are sometimes prizes- like a free Dr. Pepper- under the bottle cap. This way, they don't have give up the free prize.
The winning bottle caps are dangled by evil business people in front of crying orphans.
Since my answer is manifestly correct, my prize is now one free economics course at GMU.
Posted by: Al | Jun 6, 2007 4:47:38 PM
Well, I am fairly certain that in the world of beer sales, an open bottle is considered a bar drink when it comes to the liquor license. A closed bottle is considered packaged liquor and is a different license. That is why when you were in college and you ordered an actual case of beer they opened all the tops.
I am saying that there is either a different license for selling packaged soda or there is a different tax rate for selling packaged soda. (or both)
So I guess I am not in the 'safety or exploitation' camp unless you count a nanny government as exploitation. (which I do)
Just a guess tho...
Posted by: Tim Allen | Jun 6, 2007 5:00:15 PM
The workers union which represents the food service employees came up with some bogus safety concern to create otherwise unnecessary jobs.
Posted by: Nathaniel | Jun 6, 2007 5:05:21 PM
As a conneoisseur of fine, sugary, carbonated sodas, I would think it comes down to a couple of reasons:
I'm a freak for carbonation. Shaking up my 20oz soda bottle is one of my top pet peeves - why? Because the damned thing tastes flat afterwards! I'm anal retentive about my soda carbonation. People often ask me why I have so many 20oz'ers half full in the trash or why i throw away "a perfectly good amount of soda"... mostly because of the carbontation loss. I'd go buy another one before reaching the bottom of my current one.
Now I'll have to set up some scientific tests but something tells me that beverages using CO2 carbonation actually retain their cold'ness better under pressure better than when being open. Having a cap actually would retain some pressure and thus keep more cold CO2 in the bottle longer. But by taking the cap off we have flat, warm pop which tastes about as good as flat, warm beer (which tastes as good going in as it would coming out).
Posted by: colson | Jun 6, 2007 5:08:38 PM
The CO2, being heavier than air, will sink to the field. The Nationals, who are used to breathing air with extra CO2 won't feel any adverse effects, but their opponents will develop mild blood acidosis and won't play as well, thereby allowing the nationals to win more often.
/sarcasm
Posted by: bret | Jun 6, 2007 5:46:17 PM
I like the accounting explanation the best, although they sell a lot more that sodas and they don't clip the ends off of hot dogs... But my second guess is that they want free publicity for the Nationals. Any pub is good pub, right? I had to think for a moment about whether they were hockey or baseball. And then I remembered that our local Ducks are a game away from winning the cup and it was the first I've thought of them all season.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings | Jun 6, 2007 5:55:46 PM
Russ, a question:
You are allowed to bring in a bottle of water but not a bottle of Soda into the stadium?
You second point - that the concession stand will sell more soda with the tops on - implies that the stadium has different rules for water and soda.
Posted by: Methinks | Jun 6, 2007 5:56:17 PM
Maybe they don't let you keep your soda cap so that you can't shake up the bottle and spray soda on everyone around you in the heat of passion during a home run.
Posted by: Methinks | Jun 6, 2007 6:01:41 PM
Al - That's not as hard as you'd think
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/04/get_the_best_ed.html
About the best I can do is a potential lawsuit about contents under pressure - the warning label on the bottle even says that. What I'm leaning towards right now is that perhaps people will be more careful with their drinks if they know they will be uncovered.
Posted by: David | Jun 6, 2007 6:07:57 PM
Of course they may just be more willing to encourage fountain drink sales; those often come with lids (I forget if they do at RFK), and they put ice in them so there isn't nearly as much drink. I would also think that fountain soda is much cheaper than bottled soda.
Posted by: David | Jun 6, 2007 6:14:07 PM
It could just be that bottle caps are cheaper to take off than to clean up.
Posted by: Tim V | Jun 6, 2007 7:24:54 PM
Bottle drinks make the most sense when sold by vendors in the stands, and maybe taking the caps is supposed to remind fans to buy from those guys so they spend more time watching the game.
Posted by: David | Jun 6, 2007 8:12:47 PM
An opened bottle is less likely to be carried back home, you will most likely drink it before the end of the game and then throw away the bottle rather than drink some of it and carry the rest back to your car. Perhaps attendees with their hands free are more likely to venture into the souvenirs shop after the game?
Posted by: Mathieu Bédard | Jun 6, 2007 8:13:21 PM
Bottles are recylcable, bottle tops, however, are not. Recycling centers could be fining the stadium for unawared fans throwing away both caps and bottles into recycling recpiticles.
Posted by: Mike Mead | Jun 6, 2007 9:13:27 PM
They're afraid people will start trying to use the caps as currency?
Only in Washington D.C., right?!
Posted by: Ironman | Jun 6, 2007 10:39:01 PM
Tripping hazard? More difficult to clean up? Choking hazard for children? Not in cleanup crew union contract to pick up caps?
Posted by: Carl Marks | Jun 7, 2007 12:32:54 AM
I like the accounting explanation the best.
Come on Russ, put us out of our misery! (or at least mine...)
Posted by: ben | Jun 7, 2007 6:02:27 AM
Colson, that's a fun question, and it would be a fun science experiment. Do share, if you try it. Here are a few things from theory that are pretty reliable, though. First, the initial temperature will be unaffected by the presence of CO2, because the bottle will always move to the temperature of its surroundings and, given time, reach that temperature. Second, the ability of the bottle to retain temperature is not much affected by CO2, because the mass of the CO2 is vastly less than the whole mass of the bottle and drink.
On the flip side, there are some temperature effects we can imagine due to the CO2. I do not know how large these effects would be. First, de-pressurizing reduces temperature initially, due to the gas laws. So that initial "pfff" when you open a compressed bottle ought to make it a little colder. Second, a open bottle may well warm up faster or slower than a closed bottle -- I have no idea. Third, carbonation might have a subjective temperature effect on humans, making something feel warmer or colder than its actual temperature.
Ironman: that's a funny suggestion, because in fact I was at a "beer festival" in Lausanne a week ago where people were using bottle caps to buy beers. I did not have any bottle caps, but luckily the venders accepted cash as well.
Russell, I don't have a good answer. I bet they eventually back off of it, because I do not see any real business sense. The cleanup issue sounds minor compared to the horrendous cleanup they must already do anyway. The bring-your-own-drink theory seems reasonable, except you say that you are openly allowed to do that. The best I can think of is some sort of botched recycling system, but in that case, how long will it go on once the loophole is noticed?
The conspiracy theories are by far the most fun. So far bret's is the best in my book. It's just yet another sneaky way to give an advantage to the home team.
Posted by: Lex Spoon | Jun 7, 2007 6:23:20 AM
Safety.
I have a friend in the industry who told me that the new generation of plastic beer bottles were developed with widemouths, not to increase consumption, but so that when thrown from the upper decks in sport stadiums, the contents empty before they hit people below.
Posted by: Andy Wagner | Jun 7, 2007 8:02:09 AM
Shoot- this Lex just beat me too it. It was my dad's company - Eastman chemicals - that came up with those bottles, and I've heard him talk about it before. Those were some imaginative conspiracy theories you guys came up with though.
Posted by: Erik H | Jun 7, 2007 9:20:22 AM
I think the real mystery is why anyone would go to a Nationals game ;).
Go Red Sox!
Posted by: God Fearing Atheist | Jun 7, 2007 9:26:01 AM
All of the answers so far are either that it's a form of safety or a form of consumer exploitation.
The safety answer is almost certainly wrong in this particular case--you're allowed to bring your own bottled water into the stadium.
By "safety," Ted means liability. They're not (necessarily) liable if you bring your own bottle in and throw it at someone; they're far more liable if they hand you the weapon you use.
Posted by: David Nieporent | Jun 7, 2007 9:29:11 AM
Lex:
The gas laws in would, if anything, operate to make the gas itself colder, not the remaining liquid. The pressure drops from around 30 psi to atmospheric pressure, around 14.7 psi. Roughly a 2:1 ratio. Of course, the gas expands, too, so that volume change is going to eat up a significant amount of the effect you might expect on temperature.
Given that, and the narrow area of contact between gas and liquid, relative to the amount of liquid, I wouldn't expect any measurable temperature effect on the liquid due to operation of the gas laws.
I'd give the second possibility some credence, mainly because I'm too lazy to look up the thermal conductivity of the bottle material. The higher it is, the less difference the cap makes, since the liquid would be losing most of its heat through the walls of the bottle (far greater surface area than that affected by the cap), as opposed to through the neck.
Posted by: Billy | Jun 7, 2007 10:22:14 AM
I'm a french student, and In france there is an association which collects bottles'tops to sell it to recycling companies. This association uses the money earned to pay wheelchairs to handicapped persons. Probably Pepsi gives these tops to an association like this french one.
An other reason could be that without a top you drink the coke faster.
Finally there is a third possible reason which is that you can't shake the bottle (voluntary or not) and as a consequence there isn't any "accident" in the stand during the play.
Posted by: Hirschman | Jun 7, 2007 10:52:37 AM
There are all kinds of plausible -- and irrational -- reasons that would work. At the zoo where I volunteer straws and covers on iced drinks are verboten -- for animal safety we are told. However, bottled water is not uncapped and you can bring your own, if you are so inclined. That rationale doesn't work so well at a sporting event.
Public safety might be a reason: lots of plastic caps on the walking surfaces make for a slip and trip hazard. It may even be that uhnappy experience with just such an event is what drove the policy of uncapping.
Trying to increase consumption makes less sense as a reson for uncapping. If you're aware of the uncapping policy you buy what you can conveniently handle with the caps off. If you're not aware at the initial purchase you might overload yourself -- but only once. Beside that, I guess they still have vendors walking the stadium tiers selling whatever. Don't they? It's been years since I've been to a sporting event.
Posted by: George | Jun 7, 2007 11:04:34 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
