I had an astounding conversation with some folks in my office a few weeks ago about inflation rates as the Bank of England was banging on about inflation dropping to 6% from 12% or something along...
Shrinkflation is a massive issue, and most people don't even "get it". I remember a few weeks ago there was someone on tildes who posted a thread claiming "unpopular opinion: I prefer shrinking packet sizes over price increases".
The discussion was absolutely ridiculous, and I feel whoever sympathized with that opinion is totally missing how shrinking a packet size just a little bit has a huge impact on the price per unit. The linked article by OP shows this excellently:
I had an astounding conversation with some folks in my office a few weeks ago about inflation rates as the Bank of England was banging on about inflation dropping to 6% from 12% or something along those lines. So many people didn't realise that didn't mean "Things will get cheaper", it simply means "They'll get more expensive, just half as quick (as before)." Some really bright people lacking fundamental critical thinking and statistical knowledge really brought home just how little some folks critically analyse how they see the world.
1.25 litres and 1.5 litres sound rightly the same, and even more dangerously, also can feel quite the same because FMCG companies like PepsiCo and Nestlé redo their packages in very subtle but smart ways.
The 1.5 is straight, the 1.25 is curved ever so slightly at the top and bottom. You don't notice it... but that's almost a whole can less per bottle. It's ridiculous.
What matters in the end in the price per unit.
Which sometimes is bloody hard to fathom when you're shopping!
8 x Pepsi Max cans of 330ml? £5
What does the sign say? £1 per 528ml! So you sit there trying to do maths and just give up because you're exhausted from the days work.
I've started grabbing goods like this at bulk buy places, just because I can sit at home... do the maths... order... collect and not have to contemplate how fucked I'm getting by these big firms.
That, and it's not even discussing added waste. If they shrink the quantity of a thing I buy weekly by 20% while keeping the package the same size, every month I have to buy an entire extra box...
That, and it's not even discussing added waste.
If they shrink the quantity of a thing I buy weekly by 20% while keeping the package the same size, every month I have to buy an entire extra box worth product that I wouldn't have needed to. That box is pure waste.
If half the USA does this for one boxed good, like a box of cereal, that's 150 million boxes a month, which usually has the cardboard and single use plastic. If the plastic is 2 grams and the cardboard is 10 (arbitrary guess), that's 150,000 kg of cardboard and 30,000 kg of single use plastic that was thrown away for absolutely no good reason.
I think this is a more compelling arguement against this practice than any other.
It was hypothetical. But that's still endlessly bloody infurating. It'll be some weird unit, litre or £x per 100ml. It can be frustrating to sit there having to math constantly when you're at stores.
It was hypothetical. But that's still endlessly bloody infurating.
It'll be some weird unit, litre or £x per 100ml. It can be frustrating to sit there having to math constantly when you're at stores.
Yeah, here in the States brands are listed like $x per unit (ie. can) while another is $.xx per ounce while a yet another is $x per package (ie. full price). Annoyed is the last thing I need to be...
Yeah, here in the States brands are listed like $x per unit (ie. can) while another is $.xx per ounce while a yet another is $x per package (ie. full price).
Annoyed is the last thing I need to be while grocery shopping..
It is, but look e.g. here https://wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/71ab5458bca46180ae5cc3ba07b69fb84e7885d0610cbd62487dd20d00afdef1,w800.jpg?author=Valorcrest&auth=f5075c1bcee705619f4c8c72ab63d3a1 Look at...
In Czech Republic (and probably whole EU) there must be a price per unit under the regular price per bottle/pack/whatever. That way you can very easily spot difference between different sized...
In Czech Republic (and probably whole EU) there must be a price per unit under the regular price per bottle/pack/whatever. That way you can very easily spot difference between different sized packages.
This doesn't save you from shrinkflation, but at least you can see the difference in price between various products.
Yeah, it's the same in the UK. But the units don't often correspond properly these days. Like when you see "x grams of sugar per 100g, but recommended serving is 30g" so the two are just...
Yeah, it's the same in the UK. But the units don't often correspond properly these days.
Like when you see "x grams of sugar per 100g, but recommended serving is 30g" so the two are just frustrating numbers out of context when you've had an already busy and complicated day.
I’m really not a fan of this post, it’s quite toxic to be dunking on community members over a weeks old thread and giving them no way to defend themselves.
I’m really not a fan of this post, it’s quite toxic to be dunking on community members over a weeks old thread and giving them no way to defend themselves.
Meta: Eh, we do this a lot. We link related older discussions, which I think avoids retreading the same ground a bit. That said, I said in a sibling post to yours that shrinkflation is...
Meta: Eh, we do this a lot.
We link related older discussions, which I think avoids retreading the same ground a bit.
That said, I said in a sibling post to yours that shrinkflation is indefensible on grounds of waste packaging alone, unless they also reduce the quantity of material packaging by the same or larger percentage.
And that runs into physics problems. If you take a 30x30 cm cube, and change it to be 9 equally sized, but smaller cubes, you're using a lot more material. You might be able to get away with making walls thinner, but single use plastics and packaging cardboard is already pretty close to those physical limits without making them useless.
Depends on your reference, percent change is usually calculated as (new price - old price)/(old price) which in this case would be 0.25/1.5 which would be about a 17% decrease. If you use the new...
Depends on your reference, percent change is usually calculated as (new price - old price)/(old price) which in this case would be 0.25/1.5 which would be about a 17% decrease. If you use the new price as the reference then you're right, it'd be 20%. The 40% figure above is exaggerated for sure. Still, essentially a 17-20% markup is pretty rediculous all the same.
I don’t recall the earlier conversation, but Inwould certainly be a proponent of smaller sizes on certain goods if I must choose between a smaller size or higher price, so long as packaging is...
I don’t recall the earlier conversation, but Inwould certainly be a proponent of smaller sizes on certain goods if I must choose between a smaller size or higher price, so long as packaging is also accordingly resized.
True standardized unit cost labelling helps a little I suppose in any direction. An interesting experiment would be to require unit cost trend labelling.
Regardless, in today’s world we’re pretty powereless. Most essentials are controlled oligopolistically, and they set whatever price at whatever volume their AI model tells them will maximize profit.
I prefer shrinking packet sizes over price increases and I don't remember the last time I looked at the actual price—only price per unit. So +40% would be immediately striking. That said, most...
I prefer shrinking packet sizes over price increases and I don't remember the last time I looked at the actual price—only price per unit. So +40% would be immediately striking.
That said, most people don't do that and fall for these tricks, including the "9.99" bamboozle and such.
I'd support this grocer if I could. I wish more would do it. I really appreciate that Costco include price per gram/litre on much of their products. My wife bought a box of cereal bars without...
I'd support this grocer if I could. I wish more would do it. I really appreciate that Costco include price per gram/litre on much of their products.
My wife bought a box of cereal bars without reading the packing, it's the same box since we were kids, when I opened the box the number of bars didn't even fill half of the space, when we were kids that box was stuffed. There needs to be limits on how much wasted volume a package can have. Also limitations on deceptive tactics like the massive punts in bottle and meat windows on bacon.
Shrinkflation and Skimpflation Carrefour puts ‘shrinkflation’ price warnings on food to shame brands Link to the article ‘Skimpflation’: how supermarkets reduce the quality of what you buy Link to...
Shrinkflation and Skimpflation
Carrefour puts ‘shrinkflation’ price warnings on food to shame brands
The French supermarket chain Carrefour has put labels on its shelves this week warning shoppers of “shrinkflation”, the phenomenon where manufacturers reduce pack sizes rather than increase prices.
It has slapped price warnings on products from Lindt chocolates to Lipton iced tea to pressure top consumer goods suppliers Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever to tackle the issue in advance of much-anticipated contract talks.
For example, Carrefour said a bottle of sugar-free peach-flavoured Lipton iced tea, produced by PepsiCo, shrank to 1.25 litres (0.33 gallon) from 1.5 litres, resulting in a 40% effective increase in the price a litre.
Guigoz infant formula produced by Nestlé went from 900 grams (31.75 oz) to 830 grams, while Unilever’s Viennetta ice-cream cake shrank to 320 grams from 350 grams.
“Obviously, the aim in stigmatising these products is to be able to tell manufacturers to rethink their pricing policy,” Stefen Bompais, the director of client communications at Carrefour, said in an interview.
In this he is backed by the French finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, who in June summoned 75 big retailers and consumer groups to his ministry urging them to cut prices. After a new round of meetings last month, Le Maire said Unilever, Nestlé and PepsiCo were among companies not toeing the line on prices.
Consumer groups say shrinkflation is a widespread practice, which supermarkets like Carrefour are also guilty of in their own-label products.
‘Skimpflation’: how supermarkets reduce the quality of what you buy
Shoppers, who have already had to contend with rising prices and shrinking pack sizes, now also have to look out for “skimpflation” – the quiet downgrading in specification of some products.
Where the big brands go, the supermarkets tend to follow, and some retailers have more than halved the amount of olive oil in spreads and cut how much they use in sauces without highlighting a change in recipe. Meanwhile, the rising cost of paper has led others to reduce the size of individual tissues and kitchen roll sheets.
In some cases there is nothing on the packet to indicate that anything has changed, so consumers are not aware they are getting less for their money until they get home.
Some of the changes are small but they all involve the reduction of key, and expensive, ingredients, and some came alongside price rises or cuts to pack sizes. Morrisons, for example, cut the olive oil content in its spread and reduced packs from 500g to 450g.
In some of these cases, retailers have stopped publishing details that made it possible to compare products before buying. On Tesco’s website, for example, information about the size of individual tissues has been removed.
Shrinkflation boycotts: have you joined the uprising against downsizing?
From biscuits to crisps, food items are getting smaller while their price stays the same. A fifth of consumers have had enough – and are shunning the offending products
Do say: “People are sick of paying more for less. Shrinkflation is real.”
Don’t say: “No it isn’t, your hands just got bigger.”
I had an astounding conversation with some folks in my office a few weeks ago about inflation rates as the Bank of England was banging on about inflation dropping to 6% from 12% or something along those lines. So many people didn't realise that didn't mean "Things will get cheaper", it simply means "They'll get more expensive, just half as quick (as before)." Some really bright people lacking fundamental critical thinking and statistical knowledge really brought home just how little some folks critically analyse how they see the world.
The 1.5 is straight, the 1.25 is curved ever so slightly at the top and bottom. You don't notice it... but that's almost a whole can less per bottle. It's ridiculous.
Which sometimes is bloody hard to fathom when you're shopping!
8 x Pepsi Max cans of 330ml? £5
What does the sign say? £1 per 528ml! So you sit there trying to do maths and just give up because you're exhausted from the days work.
I've started grabbing goods like this at bulk buy places, just because I can sit at home... do the maths... order... collect and not have to contemplate how fucked I'm getting by these big firms.
That, and it's not even discussing added waste.
If they shrink the quantity of a thing I buy weekly by 20% while keeping the package the same size, every month I have to buy an entire extra box worth product that I wouldn't have needed to. That box is pure waste.
If half the USA does this for one boxed good, like a box of cereal, that's 150 million boxes a month, which usually has the cardboard and single use plastic. If the plastic is 2 grams and the cardboard is 10 (arbitrary guess), that's 150,000 kg of cardboard and 30,000 kg of single use plastic that was thrown away for absolutely no good reason.
I think this is a more compelling arguement against this practice than any other.
Is that a consequence of Brexit, because I'm pretty sure it's an EU wide requirement to list the price per Liter?
It was hypothetical. But that's still endlessly bloody infurating.
It'll be some weird unit, litre or £x per 100ml. It can be frustrating to sit there having to math constantly when you're at stores.
Yeah, here in the States brands are listed like $x per unit (ie. can) while another is $.xx per ounce while a yet another is $x per package (ie. full price).
Annoyed is the last thing I need to be while grocery shopping..
It is, but look e.g. here https://wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/71ab5458bca46180ae5cc3ba07b69fb84e7885d0610cbd62487dd20d00afdef1,w800.jpg?author=Valorcrest&auth=f5075c1bcee705619f4c8c72ab63d3a1
Look at the font size difference.
That's ridiculous. Here everything is per liter, per kg etc., you never have to do any arithmetic. At best move the decimal point left or right.
In Czech Republic (and probably whole EU) there must be a price per unit under the regular price per bottle/pack/whatever. That way you can very easily spot difference between different sized packages.
This doesn't save you from shrinkflation, but at least you can see the difference in price between various products.
Yeah, it's the same in the UK. But the units don't often correspond properly these days.
Like when you see "x grams of sugar per 100g, but recommended serving is 30g" so the two are just frustrating numbers out of context when you've had an already busy and complicated day.
I’m really not a fan of this post, it’s quite toxic to be dunking on community members over a weeks old thread and giving them no way to defend themselves.
Meta: Eh, we do this a lot.
We link related older discussions, which I think avoids retreading the same ground a bit.
That said, I said in a sibling post to yours that shrinkflation is indefensible on grounds of waste packaging alone, unless they also reduce the quantity of material packaging by the same or larger percentage.
And that runs into physics problems. If you take a 30x30 cm cube, and change it to be 9 equally sized, but smaller cubes, you're using a lot more material. You might be able to get away with making walls thinner, but single use plastics and packaging cardboard is already pretty close to those physical limits without making them useless.
Isn't it more of a 20% increase? 1.5/1.25 = 1.20
Depends on your reference, percent change is usually calculated as (new price - old price)/(old price) which in this case would be 0.25/1.5 which would be about a 17% decrease. If you use the new price as the reference then you're right, it'd be 20%. The 40% figure above is exaggerated for sure. Still, essentially a 17-20% markup is pretty rediculous all the same.
I don’t recall the earlier conversation, but Inwould certainly be a proponent of smaller sizes on certain goods if I must choose between a smaller size or higher price, so long as packaging is also accordingly resized.
True standardized unit cost labelling helps a little I suppose in any direction. An interesting experiment would be to require unit cost trend labelling.
Regardless, in today’s world we’re pretty powereless. Most essentials are controlled oligopolistically, and they set whatever price at whatever volume their AI model tells them will maximize profit.
I prefer shrinking packet sizes over price increases and I don't remember the last time I looked at the actual price—only price per unit. So +40% would be immediately striking.
That said, most people don't do that and fall for these tricks, including the "9.99" bamboozle and such.
I'd support this grocer if I could. I wish more would do it. I really appreciate that Costco include price per gram/litre on much of their products.
My wife bought a box of cereal bars without reading the packing, it's the same box since we were kids, when I opened the box the number of bars didn't even fill half of the space, when we were kids that box was stuffed. There needs to be limits on how much wasted volume a package can have. Also limitations on deceptive tactics like the massive punts in bottle and meat windows on bacon.
Shrinkflation and Skimpflation
Carrefour puts ‘shrinkflation’ price warnings on food to shame brands
Link to the article
‘Skimpflation’: how supermarkets reduce the quality of what you buy
Link to the article
Shrinkflation boycotts: have you joined the uprising against downsizing?
Link to the article