Perugina Bittersweet Chocolate Bar 3.5 oz each (1 Item Per Order)

Written 8/20/19. Shame on you, Nestle.With the packaging change to the red glow accents, and the circular logo at the top, came some awful & scammy changes to the Perugina 70% chocolate bar. You might think that the 14% weight reduction with no reduction in price would be the worst of it (3.5oz to 3oz). Nope. You're still being hit for about $3.30 a bar US, and Nestle is pocketing 14% more product on their end, and in my opinion that is not the worst of it. The worst thing in my opinion is their change to new dies that emboss the chocolate into squares. Get this. The old bars used to be divided into 10 squares. The new bars are divided into 8 squares.What does this mean? Of course, people (myself included) use the squares to limit our portion sizes. For example, I eat 2 squares a day. Because they are bigger squares now, Nestle bumped my portion size by nearly 8%. This is how Nestle has decided to treat a customer base which faces a global obesity challenge. Screw you, eat more of our candy.So why did they do it? Are they just mean? Of course not. The point is to get you back to the store more frequently, buying your Perugina.Well, how often? Easy math. To get 40 squares of chocolate, I used to buy 4 bars. Now I buy 5 bars. That's a 25% potential increase in sales per customer, just for changing their molds. Then on top of that, they are withholding 14% of our chocolate. This is a massive move on Perugina chocolate profits by Nestle, entirely paid for by you, and at the expense of your waistline too.What's more, the new molds do not incise the squares as deeply as before. So the chocolate seldom breaks along the lines. It breaks into bigger, odd-shaped pieces. So the new product is more difficult to use.Nestle, this is the worst kind of corporate bullying. Perugina 70% is delicious chocolate-- perfect with almonds for a reasonably healthy treat. And now you go and turn it into a symbol of your money-grabbing, screw-the-consumer type greed. Poor form. Some of the poorest I've seen for quite a while.