I added the “content” part as a personal note.
Another example - restaurants have already started offering half portion (Friday’s, IIRC) because the larger salads stopped selling. The half-sized salads aren’t 1/2 the cost, but they’re pulling customers from the full-sized salad.
What more proof do you need?
The economic theory holds true and I’ve provided two examples where people stopped buying huge items and the items were either removed or substituted with smaller and cheaper items.
Surely, you have a point?
Now you’re getting closer. Well done.
However, you have more work to do. What proof do you have that Fridays began offering the smaller salads because the larger ones were not selling?
I could sooner believe that customers began ordering the smaller salads instead of the larger ones. IOW, the smaller salads were offered as an alternative (with the larger salads remaining on the menu) BEFORE the customers stopped ordering the larger ones.
But until I see the proof that lays out the events in chronological order, we can’t know the difference between cause and effect.
Also, there are the factors of perceived value, and substitute items ordered. You need to rule those factors out before you can determine if customers rejected the larger portion size FIRST simply because of the portion size. That was your original point, if you’ll recall.
But you’re on the right track now, I think.