Shrinkflation - examples?

[AM9]

So you only buy it for its alcohol content?

Well with a drop of 12.5% in alcohol, which I suspect wouldn't really be noticeable, the change is hardly worth bothering oneself about.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

A casual browse in Tesco revealed Heinz baked beans, formerly sold as a three pack, now reduced to...two

If these are the 200g size tins, they're actually four packs - although they do look like two packs when they're on the shelf.

Today I found these in the four packs, and singly and the larger 415g tins were available as singles, four packs and six packs.

The version with sausages is in singles in both sizes, but with multibuy discounts for three of the 415g size tins.

 

[Busaholic]

My local, small Co-op only stocks two types of mushroom, a small pack of the button kind and a larger pack of the chestnut variety. IMO the button sort are for people who don't really like mushrooms, so it's always the chestnut ones I go for in there. Today I went in for some and noticed the pack front had changed from displaying a sell-by date to the obvious code used by other supermarkets. It was only when I got home and opened the pack that I noticed there were far fewer mushrooms than previously.

As it happened, I still had the previously purchased pack in the fridge, which had gone well over its date so I decided to throw them out. When I got them out I immediately noticed that pack was much deeper and I saw the weight was given as 300g, whereas on the newer one it was given as 200g. I had the latest receipt which showed the price now as £1.10, against the £1,25 I believe they had been, so a one third weight reduction had only produced a cost saving of twelve per cent or so.

 

[AM9]

My local, small Co-op only stocks two types of mushroom, a small pack of the button kind and a larger pack of the chestnut variety. IMO the button sort are for people who don't really like mushrooms, so it's always the chestnut ones I go for in there. Today I went in for some and noticed the pack front had changed from displaying a sell-by date to the obvious code used by other supermarkets. It was only when I got home and opened the pack that I noticed there were far fewer mushrooms than previously.

As it happened, I still had the previously purchased pack in the fridge, which had gone well over its date so I decided to throw them out. When I got them out I immediately noticed that pack was much deeper and I saw the weight was given as 300g, whereas on the newer one it was given as 200g. I had the latest receipt which showed the price now as £1.10, against the £1,25 I believe they had been, so a one third weight reduction had only produced a cost saving of twelve per cent or so.

The law requires retailers to put the weight/volume of the goods inside clearly visible in preferred units of measurenment on the pack, so that potential purchasers know the size of contents beore committing to buy. If buyers choose to ignore that information, that's there problem.

 

[Gloster]

The law requires retailers to put the weight/volume of the goods inside clearly visible in preferred units of measurenment on the pack, so that potential purchasers know the size of contents beore committing to buy. If buyers choose to ignore that information, that's there problem.

Yes, but they rarely tell you when the weight or some other factor has changed, but the packaging, etc. has not changed noticeably. They know that most people will have decided which of the various products on offer they will buy and will not reconsider until they notice that something has changed. It is legal, but…

 

[AM9]

Yes, but they rarely tell you when the weight or some other factor has changed, but the packaging, etc. has not changed noticeably. They know that most people will have decided which of the various products on offer they will buy and will not reconsider until they notice that something has changed. It is legal, but…

It's up to the customer to insppect what they are committing themselves to buy, - moaning about a them buying the wrong item shows a general lack of attention when shopping. It's nobody else's fault, just pay more attention.

 

[Busaholic]

The law requires retailers to put the weight/volume of the goods inside clearly visible in preferred units of measurenment on the pack, so that potential purchasers know the size of contents beore committing to buy. If buyers choose to ignore that information, that's there problem.

You must be a joy to shop with! I have no 'problem' with it, by the way, just presenting an example per the thread title.

 

[AM9]

You must be a joy to shop with! I have no 'problem' with it, by the way, just presenting an example per the thread title.

The post was in response to @Gloster 's assertion that "they rarely tell you when the weight or some other factor has changed" which is batently untrue. If shoppers actually took notice of the information that manufacturers/sellers are legally obliged to disclose to inform buyers, instead of digesting all the commercial hype about products that they suck up to, we wouldn't have people claiming that nobody told them of changes.

 

[Dai Corner]

The post was in response to @Gloster 's assertion that "they rarely tell you when the weight or some other factor has changed" which is batently untrue. If shoppers actually took notice of the information that manufacturers/sellers are legally obliged to disclose to inform buyers, instead of digesting all the commercial hype about products that they suck up to, we wouldn't have people claiming that nobody told them of changes.

How many shoppers take records of the prices and pack sizes of items they've bought previously with them?

Retailers will often highlight changes that are in customers' favour but I don't think I've ever seen the opposite.

 

[Gloster]

The post was in response to @Gloster 's assertion that "they rarely tell you when the weight or some other factor has changed" which is batently untrue. If shoppers actually took notice of the information that manufacturers/sellers are legally obliged to disclose to inform buyers, instead of digesting all the commercial hype about products that they suck up to, we wouldn't have people claiming that nobody told them of changes.

I think that that statement is perfectly reasonable: they do, as they must, tell you what the weight, etc. is now. What they rarely do is draw your attention to the fact that the weight has changed since the last time you bought the product: you are left to discover that fact yourself.

 

[DoubleLemon]

There is lots of customer research which suggests that people would rather have sizes shrink than pay more for the same pack size.

 

[davews]

Spreads seem to following the shrinkflation trend. 500 gm packs of Can't believe now in 450 gm packs. Lurpak, having priced themselves out of the market, now in 400 gm and a Tesco club card discount on top to make it more reasonable.

 

[AM9]

I think that that statement is perfectly reasonable: they do, as they must, tell you what the weight, etc. is now. What they rarely do is draw your attention to the fact that the weight has changed since the last time you bought the product: you are left to discover that fact yourself.

That's true, - every I knows that if there's a reduction in price or an increase in quantity with the quantity or price respectively held, the practice of bigging the new offer up is normal in a capitalist culture, and similarly, any worsening of the deal is played down, but fortunately there is a leagal protection to prevent them telling a barefaced lie. It's unreasonable to expect anything else just as a person applying for a job is unlikely to spell out the reasons why an employers shouldn't take them on, (in other words it's the recruiter's job to find out for themselves). Note that I only include adults in that last sentence, for minors or those with an indentified limited mental capacity, it is either part of their learning in life, or they would have suitable support in making those decisions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Dec 2023 ==

Spreads seem to following the shrinkflation trend. 500 gm packs of Can't believe now in 450 gm packs. Lurpak, having priced themselves out of the market, now in 400 gm and a Tesco club card discount on top to make it more reasonable.

Yes, Anchor Spreadable 500g pack is discontinued and replaced by a 400g pack. For some products, given society's general overconsumption of 'unhealthy' products, (mostly treat types of foods including confectionery, biscuits, crisps, sugar rich soft drinks and many ultra-processed foods), size reduction might be a better method of dealing with increased costs. Noting the seemingly regular reductions in the quantity of Roses/Quality Street/etc., in the Seasonal large packs/tins, there could even be some behind the scenes governmental influence here.

 

[eoff]

There is lots of customer research which suggests that people would rather have sizes shrink than pay more for the same pack size.

Really? I don't see the logic for items like butter unless you can only use something at a rate that means it goes off before the packet/tin/jar is used up.

 

[philjo]

There is lots of customer research which suggests that people would rather have sizes shrink than pay more for the same pack size.

It depends what the product is.
If I am baking and the recipe requires 250g of something which is now reduced to a 200g pack then I have to buy 2 packets and potentially waste most of the 2nd packet.
E.g. One of the usual butter brands had reduced to 200g so I bought the alternative brand product that was still sold in 250g packs. I only need 1 pack and no weighing needed as I put the whole pack into the baking mix.
One of our regular soup brands has reduced from 600g to 400g pots with the result that 1 pot isn’t quite enough for 3 people any more so I tend to get another brand that still sells 600g pots instead.

 

[Dai Corner]

If I am baking and the recipe requires 250g of something which is now reduced to a 200g pack then I have to buy 2 packets and potentially waste most of the 2nd packet.

Or you could reduce the amounts of the other ingredients in proportion?

 

[Devonian]

It's up to the customer to insppect what they are committing themselves to buy, - moaning about a them buying the wrong item shows a general lack of attention when shopping. It's nobody else's fault, just pay more attention.

In isolation you are absolutely right to imply the time-worn expression of 'buyer beware': but it's worth remembering that the size of packets was regulated by law for decades, and the weight of certain goods for centuries, which means that there is good reason for the typical consumer to think in terms of 'small, medium and large' pack sizes rather than precise weights.

As examples, by law jam and honey could only be sold in jars containing 8oz/227g, 12oz/340g, 1lb/454g or multiples of 1lb, and butter only sold in 50g. 125g, 250g or multiples of 500g until as recently as 2014. That meant that any jar of any brand of jam, or any pat of any brand of butter, would be the same weight as similarly sized packages of any other brand, so the British consumer has been trained for generations - with protection in law - to think in terms of small/medium/large pack sizes and their price, rather than weight.

A typical 'big' pot of jam will still be 454g in most supermarkets (even the German ones): but the Co-op now sells jars that are seemingly identical in shape and size to the jars your grandmother bought, except they now hold only 420g. Have they made it clear? Even their own product catalogue expects them to be 1lb jars and advertises '454g' jars that are 34g short: https://www.coop.co.uk/products/co-op-strawberry-jam-454g (or http://web.archive.org/save/https://www.coop.co.uk/products/co-op-strawberry-jam-454g for the record).

 

[AM9]

In isolation you are absolutely right to imply the time-worn expression of 'buyer beware': but it's worth remembering that the size of packets was regulated by law for decades, and the weight of certain goods for centuries, which means that there is good reason for the typical consumer to think in terms of 'small, medium and large' pack sizes rather than precise weights.

That's true, I remember that after there was a lot of palaver about keeping 'British' sizes for a few things, I know that milk, butter and bread were regulated. That was primarily because they were all UK or even locally packaged and various random but logical metric sizes would confuse some in the early days after metrication. Of course, the fact that sizes were regualted for centuries was to prevent striaghtforward fraud, but I don't think there are any shoppers here on RUK that remember that.

As examples, by law jam and honey could only be sold in jars containing 8oz/227g, 12oz/340g, 1lb/454g or multiples of 1lb, and butter only sold in 50g. 125g, 250g or multiples of 500g until as recently as 2014. That meant that any jar of any brand of jam, or any pat of any brand of butter, would be the same weight as similarly sized packages of any other brand, so the British consumer has been trained for generations - with protection in law - to think in terms of small/medium/large pack sizes and their price, rather than weight.

Jam and honey were, (and in small quantities still are in some rural areas) hand made and packed, so the risk of size variations not being properly labelled is greater, but provided they are labelled with their actual weight, there isn't a problem. But 9 years after the law was changed it is reasonable for sizes to be changed so long as they are correctly labelled. Give the amount of foodstuffs imported from overseas, most of which is from a metric source, sensible sizing may even keep costs lower than insisting on an arcane regime just for UK delivery. We will end up like the US system where everything is imperial, but without the benefit of volume production.

A typical 'big' pot of jam will still be 454g in most supermarkets (even the German ones): but the Co-op now sells jars that are seemingly identical in shape and size to the jars your grandmother bought, except they now hold only 420g. Have they made it clear? Even their own product catalogue expects them to be 1lb jars and advertises '454g' jars that are 34g short: https://www.coop.co.uk/products/co-op-strawberry-jam-454g (or http://web.archive.org/save/https://www.coop.co.uk/products/co-op-strawberry-jam-454g for the record).

The case of the Co-op jam looks like either a lazy mistake rather than a delibrate attempt to deceive, but should be addressed, - with legal consequences if appropriate. However, the jar itself presumably carries the correct weight so that it can be read when picked up. The situation may be a bit more complicated with online ordered deliveries.

 

[Purple Train]

It's now seven in a pack for Penguins as well. Perhaps they ran out of bad jokes

Although I wish it could be an even number!

 

[davews]

Going back to carrots, no longer sold loose in our Tesco. The 1kg bags at 50p are now 800g ones at 45p

 

[MotCO]

It's now seven in a pack for Penguins as well. Perhaps they ran out of bad jokes

Although I wish it could be an even number!

Many years ago I'm sure they were sold in packs of 7 - one for every day of the week!

 

[gg1]

Pre-rolled puff pastry - until recently all the major supermarkets sold them in 375g packs, now 320g is the new standard. This one is especially annoying as I have a couple of recipes which specify a full 375g pack, 320g wasn't quite enough for the one I made a few weeks ago.

 

[Jon_jpwh]

A new one I have recently noticed is boxes of Twinings tea bags. Previously sold in boxes of 100 but now sold in boxes of 80.

 

[Typhoon]

A new one I have recently noticed is boxes of Twinings tea bags. Previously sold in boxes of 100 but now sold in boxes of 80.

I've had a look at my boxes - yes, most recent is 80 - and it is not so obvious because it is written in green.

On the Twinnings website, there seems to be a mixture: Assam (80s), English Afternoon (80s), English Breakfast (100s) but Strong English Breakfast (80s), Everyday (100s), Lord and Lady Grey (both 80s).

Looks like the more specialist is in 80s but standard in 100s, unless they are transitioning.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

A new one I have recently noticed is boxes of Twinings tea bags. Previously sold in boxes of 100 but now sold in boxes of 80.

Which variety is that? The ones I've bought / used in recent years have for some time either been 80s or 160s.

 

[LBMPSB]

During Covid, after the mass hoarding of toilet rolls by the public fear of having nothing to wipe their bum with, Sainsburys Super Soft 9x Toilet Rolls went up in price to £5 a pack. It stayed at that price until recently when it has dropped to £3.50.

Did anyone notice the name change and quality change. Sainsburys renamed the product, Super Softer. Notice the extra "er". It remained at £5, had almost identical packaging, same size except for the word Softer instead of Soft. The paper quality was thinner and rougher. I think the softer quality was the roll looked the same size but had more bounce to it. The orignal Soft version had 220 sheets per roll, each sheet 124x105mm, roll length 27.28m. total area of 25.78 sq m. The newer Softer version has 190 sheets per roll, each sheet 124x103mm, roll length 23.56m, total area 21.88 sq m.

The "Softer" I take is the extra air incorporated between the rolled sheets to give the roll the same size as its former. So the customer pays the same for over one roll less (30 sheets less x 9 rolls = 1 roll (220 sheets) + 50 sheets). So the comsumer will buy nine 9 roll packs compared to eight with the "shrinkation" product. Meanwhile Sainsbury makes £5 extra for resdistributing 8x 9 rolll packs over 9 x 9 roll packs. Clever marketing.

 

[gg1]

I've had a look at my boxes - yes, most recent is 80 - and it is not so obvious because it is written in green.

On the Twinnings website, there seems to be a mixture: Assam (80s), English Afternoon (80s), English Breakfast (100s) but Strong English Breakfast (80s), Everyday (100s), Lord and Lady Grey (both 80s).

Looks like the more specialist is in 80s but standard in 100s, unless they are transitioning.

That's not new, it's been the case for years.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Did anyone notice the name change and quality change. Sainsburys renamed the product, Super Softer.

This might have been a change of supplier, perhaps?

 

[LBMPSB]

This might have been a change of supplier, perhaps?

Maybe so, if that was the cause why put the product in almost identical packaging with slight rewording of the name? Leads to the consumer thinking they are getting a better product for the same price, when in fact it is inferior and over a whole roll less.

 

[Statto]

Some of the brands are pricing themselves out right now, 190g tub of Bisto Gravy Granules are now around £3, 2 years ago they were around £1.30, the 450g tubs are now £5 in Tesco, they were £2 to £3 for a 450g tub a couple of years ago.

Doing a bit of comparison, Lurpak Spreadable 400g, £2.75 right now in Iceland, £3.75 in Tesco.