Shrinkflation - examples?

[johnnychips]

It’s not like mince or stewing steak where it doesn’t really matter, Bacon rashers aren’t as easy to divide up!

You are right, especially if you cut your fingernails short!

 

[JamesT]

Yes and I did end up freezing half the packet; however as it is only possible to cut bacon one way, and the rashers are the same size it wasn’t as good as usual where we normally use half the pack, as indeed there was a lot more bare bread.

It’s not like mince or stewing steak where it doesn’t really matter, Bacon rashers aren’t as easy to divide up!

I may be missing something here, but I’m not seeing how it’s hard to divide up a packet of bacon. You just take a number of rashers as your amount to freeze or use, don’t you?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Got tricked in Sainsburys for another example of this last week.

J James bacon used to be sold in packs of 200g advertised as 8 rashers, priced at 83p. Now it's 300g with an unspecified number of rashers, priced at £1.25. The shelf edge sticker made no mention of this pack change, which admittedly is hardly anything of a change per kg...

Annoying, I'll grant you, but not actually an example of 'Shrinkflation' if the price per kg hasn't really changed and you're just being expected to buy a bigger pack size as the smaller one is no longer available.

 

[Mojo]

I may be missing something here, but I’m not seeing how it’s hard to divide up a packet of bacon. You just take a number of rashers as your amount to freeze or use, don’t you?

Because the rashers of bacon are the same size in the dimension that matters (ie. how much bread gets covered).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2022 ==

Annoying, I'll grant you, but not actually an example of 'Shrinkflation' if the price per kg hasn't really changed and you're just being expected to buy a bigger pack size as the smaller one is no longer available.

Presumably you missed the quoted post - I’ve pointed out a number of items lately that are actually bigger than before - but also more expensive, as sort of a similar practice to Shrinkflation.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Presumably you missed the quoted post - I’ve pointed out a number of items lately that are actually bigger than before - but also more expensive, as sort of a similar practice to Shrinkflation.

We'll agree to disagree there. It's not 'Shrinkflation' if the price per kg effectively remains the same. See also post #1.

 

[davehsug]

An earlier example I mentioned of Cheetos multipacks going from 8 to 6, are now 5! They're only tiny packets, it's hardly worth bagging them.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

An earlier example I mentioned of Cheetos multipacks going from 8 to 6, are now 5! They're only tiny packets, it's hardly worth bagging them.

Something like 13g per pack. Who's selling the five packs, by the way?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Last week I managed to grab the last two 4-packs of Toffee Crisps in Poundland with 38g bars. All the others (with longer dates on them) had 31g bars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Sep 2022 ==

Something like 13g per pack. Who's selling the five packs, by the way?

Poundland seem to stock 5-packs rather than 6-packs, even brands where 6-packs are the usual such as Seabrook.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Poundland seem to stock 5-packs rather than 6-packs, even brands where 6-packs are the usual such as Seabrook.

Might just be a special sized pack for Poundland. They also have form for selling multi-packs of Walkers crisps with just four individual packets in them!

 

[Dai Corner]

Might just be a special sized pack for Poundland. They also have form for selling multi-packs of Walkers crisps with just four individual packets in them!

Not just snacks; they also stock smaller packs of toothpaste, for example. The secret to successful discount retailing is to make customers think they're getting a bargain when they're not.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Last week I managed to grab the last two 4-packs of Toffee Crisps in Poundland with 38g bars. All the others (with longer dates on them) had 31g bars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Sep 2022 ==


Poundland seem to stock 5-packs rather than 6-packs, even brands where 6-packs are the usual such as Seabrook.

Seabrook are six for £1.35 in Tesco and Morrisons, five for £1.00 at Poundland would be six for £1.20, so still cheaper.

I had the last four rolls of reasonably priced kitchen foil from a Poundland last Tuesday, should last me a good while. The foil and clingfilm shelves were rather bare and the cheaper versions seem to have disappeared from all the main stores.

 

[davehsug]

Something like 13g per pack. Who's selling the five packs, by the way?

Morrisons.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Tesco Springforce Kitchen Towel (the thin stuff suitable only for sticky fingers and small spills).
Was 220 sheets per roll, now 240 sheets per roll. Oh that must be better value, you get more sheets per pack.
Wrong. Sheet sizes are smaller - although you wouldn't know that as the size isn't displayed on the packaging or the website. 10% price increase per sheet, 27% increase per sqm.

For those who like detail:
Was 210mm x 210mm x 220 sheets = 9.7sqm for 91p. 0.41p per sheet, 9.38p per sqm.
Now 190mm x 200mm x 240 sheets = 9.12sqm for £1.09. 0.45p per sheet, 11.95p per sqm.

Still a lot cheaper than the alternatives though, even Tesco Kitchen Towel.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Jacobs Mini Cheddars. Were 25g, now 23g per pack - with a 'great value' banner across the new smaller packs! Well not so great value compared to last week actually Brother Jacob.

One problem with this shrinking technique is that in my Tesco online account the old pack size simply shows as being 'unavailable' rather than being replaced by a new pack size. So I don't (can't) order any. Who's the winner there?

 

[david1212]

Pattersons shortbread fingers. Pack weight was 380g. New packaging and no doubt a new barcode but now 300g.

Edit 26-10-22

In ASDA £1.25 a pack too so 25% price hike on top of 21% weight reduction.

 

[johntea]

Pound shops are no longer viable in terms of ‘everything £1’, OneBelow (the former founders of Poundworld) tried the concept again but it obviously didn’t work as the stores are now being rebranded as ‘OneBeyond’ to indicate many of their product lines will now cost more than a quid!

Poundland seemed to clock on many years ago but I have to admit to still wearing a light coat I bought from them (Pep&Co) years ago for £15 that is still going strong, and lasted far longer than more premium priced coats I’ve had in the past! A bit like Primark clothing really, seems to last forever!

They bought Fulton Foods out though which has left a bit of a gap on quite a few high streets and I don’t think the Poundland food and drink offerings are anywhere near as good value in general

It does sadly render asking ‘how much is this?’ joke a bit redundant!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Pound shops are no longer viable in terms of ‘everything £1’, OneBelow (the former founders of Poundworld) tried the concept again but it obviously didn’t work as the stores are now being rebranded as ‘OneBeyond’ to indicate many of their product lines will now cost more than a quid!

Poundland seemed to clock on many years ago but I have to admit to still wearing a light coat I bought from them (Pep&Co) years ago for £15 that is still going strong, and lasted far longer than more premium priced coats I’ve had in the past! A bit like Primark clothing really, seems to last forever!

They bought Fulton Foods out though which has left a bit of a gap on quite a few high streets and I don’t think the Poundland food and drink offerings are anywhere near as good value in general

It does sadly render asking ‘how much is this?’ joke a bit redundant!

TwoPoundland would be the obvious answer. Simply stick a picture of a £2 coin ahead of Poundland (or the word two) on the shop signage.

They could even take advantage of their customers and build in yet more shrinkflation. Say currently 5 bags of crisps for £1, becomes 8 or 9 bags for £2.

 

[boyaloud]

I am 99% sur quality street and roses tins were around £10 in the 1990s, even into the 00s, so despite them being 1.2kg were actullj a lot more expensive. Atone point they shrunk a lot in size, but also went down to £5 in supermarkets on offer, perhaps creating more of a mass market for them, therefore meaning greater production numbers so a fall in cost to produce and thus sell.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Chocolate Hobnobs. Previously you could get a double pack (2 x 300g) for £1.99. Now it's 2 x 262g for £1.99 which is equivalent to a 14% price increase. They are currently on offer at Tesco for £1.75 which is equivalent to just a 1% increase.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2022 ==

And there's more (one for the older comedy fan)

Kettle Crisps Sharebag, was 150g now 130g for the same price. Effectively a 15% price increase.

 

[Mojo]

The cheaper range of Sure Men’s Deoderant is now 200ml instead of 250ml. I picked up a can in Sainsbury’s earlier and thought it looked similar but different. I only realised because my ‘Nectar Prices’ was for the 250ml version so it rang up as full price. Online searches show that the 250ml isn’t avaliable at most places anymore.

 

[david1212]

Toothpaste that was 100ml tubes now mostly 75ml at the same if not higher price.

 

[AM9]

Shrinkflation is a media buzzword. If inflation causes costs to rise, then there are only two solutions (if the intention is to stay in business):

Just increase prices in line with costs​

Reduce sizes maintaining prices​

It's interesting that most of the posts refer to confectionery or sugar laden drinks, items that the government on health advice is trying to reduce, so maybe not such a bad thing.

There is no other practical way of surviving. Similar to salaries, if the cost of living goes up, but there is no increase in the hourly rate, cut spending or work more hours.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Shrinkflation is a media buzzword. If inflation causes costs to rise, then there are only two solutions (if the intention is to stay in business):

Just increase prices in line with costs​

Reduce sizes maintaining prices​

It's interesting that most of the posts refer to confectionery or sugar laden drinks, items that the government on health advice is trying to reduce, so maybe not such a bad thing.

There is no other practical way of surviving. Similar to salaries, if the cost of living goes up, but there is no increase in the hourly rate, cut spending or work more hours.

Yes, there’s a third option.

Reduce profit margins, but stay profitable

 

[birchesgreen]

Yes, there’s a third option.

Reduce profit margins, but stay profitable

Don't be silly, thats crazy talk

 

[Dai Corner]

Yes, there’s a third option.

Reduce profit margins, but stay profitable

Which somebody from Sainsbury's, speaking to the BBC this morning, said they've done.

 

[AM9]

Which somebody from Sainsbury's, speaking to the BBC this morning, said they've done.

The next idea will be that they should make it even less profitable. So should the DfT cap their subsidy, (to protect poor hard-up taxpayers) and the railway can shrinkflate fares*, i.e. remove Off-Peak returns, - they're so complicated that the increase is well worth the simplicity of paying more?
* just another form of product/service shrinkflation

 

[davehsug]

Shrinkflation is a media buzzword. If inflation causes costs to rise, then there are only two solutions (if the intention is to stay in business):

Just increase prices in line with costs​

Reduce sizes maintaining prices​

It's interesting that most of the posts refer to confectionery or sugar laden drinks, items that the government on health advice is trying to reduce, so maybe not such a bad thing.

There is no other practical way of surviving. Similar to salaries, if the cost of living goes up, but there is no increase in the hourly rate, cut spending or work more hours.

I think you're rather missing the point? Shrinkflation is about trying to con consumers in the hope that they won't notice that they're paying more for less. It's a form of dishonesty, that rather than raise the price, they reduce the pack sizes.

 

[AM9]

I think you're rather missing the point? Shrinkflation is about trying to con consumers in the hope that they won't notice that they're paying more for less. It's a form of dishonesty, that rather than raise the price, they reduce the pack sizes.

There's nothing dishonest in that, - it's the buyers responsibility to check the packaging, and naïve to expect manufacturers to do more than that. Goods, and particularly the junk food products that have been mentioned in this thread are sold in packaging sizes specifically to target certain price points. The safeguard is that the weight/volume of food products must be clearly marked on the packaging according to the law, for the benfit of the purchaser. Those that don't bother to check before they buy will not be getting what they assumed, but giving it a daft name like 'shrinkflation' doesn't mean anything and doesn't make it dishonest. Buyer beware!

Pointing out the equivalent practice in rail fares is precisely the point, - by altering the fare structures, passengers will be getting less flexibility but paying more, and all the time the official line is that there will be benefits in simpler ticketing. That is more dishonest than changing packet sizes yet maintaining the same price - the weight/volume of food products must be clearly marked on the packaging according to the law. There is no such requirement for rail ticketing, which is in itself more complex and has more opportunities for buyers to not realise the impact of the change on travellers.

 

[Bantamzen]

There's nothing dishonest in that, - it's the buyers responsibility to check the packaging, and naïve to expect manufacturers to do more than that. Goods, and particularly the junk food products that have been mentioned in this thread are sold in packaging sizes specifically to target certain price points. The safeguard is that the weight/volume of food products must be clearly marked on the packaging according to the law, for the benfit of the purchaser. Those that don't bother to check before they buy will not be getting what they assumed, but giving it a daft name like 'shrinkflation' doesn't mean anything and doesn't make it dishonest. Buyer beware!

Pointing out the equivalent practice in rail fares is precisely the point, - by altering the fare structures, passengers will be getting less flexibility but paying more, and all the time the official line is that there will be benefits in simpler ticketing. That is more dishonest than changing packet sizes yet maintaining the same price - the weight/volume of food products must be clearly marked on the packaging according to the law. There is no such requirement for rail ticketing, which is in itself more complex and has more opportunities for buyers to not realise the impact of the change on travellers.

So consider this, when manufacturers increase the size of a product (regardless of cost) they usually make a big song and dance about it. Why then not the other way around? Because they are trying to sneak reductions under the radar in the hope that customers don't take notice. I do agree that we should all be checking actual cost per unit / volume / weight, but the phrase "shrinkflation" has come about because industries are quite literally trying it on. There's no defending that I'm afraid, and its not a media driven thing as you seem to imply.

Personally I'm becoming increasingly careful about checking prices, making sure deals are actually deals and keeping an eye on products falling in value. The best investment I've made in recent years was to buy a half-size chest freezer (around 93 litres IIRC), a place handy to store all those yellow label products that can be frozen meaning I can keep my costs down a bit more still. Its amazing how many people turn their noses up at individually reduced items that are approaching their best before or sell by dates, even fresh products that need using up can usually be cooked then frozen in preparation for a future meal.

 

[AM9]

So consider this, when manufacturers increase the size of a product (regardless of cost) they usually make a big song and dance about it. Why then not the other way around? Because they are trying to sneak reductions under the radar in the hope that customers don't take notice. I do agree that we should all be checking actual cost per unit / volume / weight, but the phrase "shrinkflation" has come about because industries are quite literally trying it on. There's no defending that I'm afraid, and its not a media driven thing as you seem to imply.

Personally I'm becoming increasingly careful about checking prices, making sure deals are actually deals and keeping an eye on products falling in value. The best investment I've made in recent years was to buy a half-size chest freezer (around 93 litres IIRC), a place handy to store all those yellow label products that can be frozen meaning I can keep my costs down a bit more still. Its amazing how many people turn their noses up at individually reduced items that are approaching their best before or sell by dates, even fresh products that need using up can usually be cooked then frozen in preparation for a future meal.

I don't have any fundamental disagreement with anything that you've said, but the notion that not making price rises glaringly obvious above other attributes of a product or service isn't dishonest, I.e. there is no untruth in the offer. We've had an openly capitalist economy for centuries where the name of the game is that vendors get the best return for their wares and the buyer looks to acquire them at the lowest personal cost
The law says that the details of the offer must be available before they commit to buy. It's the buyer's duty unto themselves to be aware of the details in this contest. Vendors are free to optimise packaging sizes and contents quantities to establish price points as normal business practice so long as the description of the goods is accurate. The fact that not all buyers pay sufficient attention when buying just perpetuates that.
The word 'shrinkflation' was coined by an economist in 2014, and has been used as a label by popular news media ever since.