You're looking at the cost of production, and then the price and assuming that all of the space between the two is profit, and seem to be implying that somehow it is a ripoff.
What you're not considering is the value to the customer.
The incremental cost of a copy of Microsoft Office (with electronic delivery they cut out virtually all of their manufacturing cost) is close to zero. Probably 12p as well.
Yet Microsoft sells that Office Suite for $99 or much much more.
If the value of one copy of that office suite to a company is $10,000 in improved efficiency (eg: salaries saved by not having to pay overtime or hire as many people-- remember when spreadsheets were physical sheets of paper and companies had staffs of dozens of women whose sole job was to type up correspondence on typewriters?) then they are "profiting" even more than Microsoft is because the spread is wider.
Further, manufacturing costs are only one part of the costs of a product. Yes there's marketing, and advertising which you may hate, but there's also the offices that house the workers that run the company, the royalties paid to people who generate formulations, the taxes paid to the government, the manifold fees, costs, and expenses involved in running a business. All of these raise the actual "cost" from above the 12p manufacturing (and delivery costs I assume you included.)
For me, the value of buying a brand that has reliable quality control is often pretty high.
If a high quality bottle of ketchup elevates the satisfaction of an inexpensive meal (say fish & chips) to the point where it is on par with a much more expensive meal, like those workers using office, I may be getting more "profit" out of the transaction than the company.
This is how I use ketchup. It means I eat out less, and spend less on food and have a higher quality of life.