Product contents: size drop but price remains the same ! !

APennySaved

Has anybody else noticed the number of products that are dropping in size - by just a small amount - but the price remains the same!

It's just a 'sneaky' amount. But that makes it all the more annoying!

I don't mind if they make the packaging:
(i) smaller
(ii) less fancy (less colour = less cost; e.g. 4-colour print process reduced to 3-col print process)
(iii) less weighty/sturdy (e.g. plastic container/bag: less microns = less cost); they've recently also started doing this with supermarket carry bags

e.g. Maltesers have recently made the last 2 changes.

In fact, many of these packaging changes actually help the environment, so that's OK.

But I don't like the contents being reduced! Grrr...!



So I thought I might start a list here at the MSE (assuming that no such list is already ongoing) that people can add to. As a 'heads up' to all of us buyers! ,-)

e.g. (this product is one of my favourite buys at Christmas, which is why I noticed it):

Cheese Footballs - manuf. by KP = smaller at 142g (previously was 150g)

spadoosh

In B&M theyve started selling 165g jars of Lor price is the same but they used to be 200g. Its been done in such a way that the near 20% reduction in size seems less noticeable than it should be.

molerat

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5839550/shrinkflation&highlight=shrinkflation

MovingForwards

Well, the product can stay the same size and price increases

Or

They can reduce the product size and price stays the same.

Which would you rather have?

Slinky

MovingForwards wrote: »

Well, the product can stay the same size and price increases

Or

They can reduce the product size and price stays the same.

Which would you rather have?

I'd rather have the same sized product and the increased price.



All this shrinkflation is quite environmentally unfriendly for one thing. There's almost as much glass and metal in the jars of Colman's Tartare sauce as there was previously but the contents have shrunk.

APennySaved

MovingForwards wrote: »

Well, the product can stay the same size and price increases
Or
They can reduce the product size and price stays the same.
Which would you rather have?

Yes, I realised that of course. All to do with the credit crunch, Brexit too, etc. A necessity to save £: we're all doing it, both individuals and companies.

But a bit more obvious a change seems more honest. Shown in plain sight, as it were! :T

It's the sneakiness of many weight changes that gets to me: it could be seen to be trying to hide the contents reduction from the buyer.

And aren't there consumer laws re honesty & clarity to the buyers - via the Trade Descriptions Act etc. - so that consumers are not misled?!

I myself noticed the change in weight of Cheese Footballs, but not everyone would - especially as they're usually only available at Xmas. And at least the packaging of the new Cheese Footballs was slightly smaller that previousy years. However, lots of buyers might not notice this, so would assume the contents were the same weight as previously.

My OH noticed that B&M had done the same with another favourite product. So it's spreading . . . yikes!

I don't mind some changes, e.g. PG Tips tea bags has cleverly gone for a retro look to their new packaging. This looks very fashionable, but in fact will also save them £ in changes to the print process as it has far less colour. Clever, but not sneaky.

But don't start me on the recent gaps in the Toblerone bar. SHOCKING!!

APennySaved

spadoosh wrote: »

In B&M theyve started selling 165g jars of Lor price is the same but they used to be 200g. Its been done in such a way that the near 20% reduction in size seems less noticeable than it should be.

So, another case then!

Interestingly - & I am glad to see it - not all companies are being too 'sneaky'. A multipack of Refreshers sweets was seen by my OH recently. At one of the pound'ish shops. It had the same plastic wrapper packaging as before, but 1 less roll of sweets than previously. And the gaping packaging therefore looked badly fitting, so was quite noticeable. No deception there, then.

What is also interesting is . . . this packaging policy with Refreshers probably saved the manufacturer even more £: a saving on 2 levels then, because - as well as providing less sweets - by using the old size of packaging wrapper they didn't have to design & manufacture a new packaging bag.

A twofold saving. Clever policy, then! And a case of the manufacturer choosing £-saving over packaging/marketing vanity. I'm all for that . . .

APennySaved

molerat wrote: »

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5839550/shrinkflation&highlight=shrinkflation

Ah-ha! I hadn't seen that thread when I posted this one.

Nor had I heard of the term "shrinkflation": I rather like it!

I'll have to read that thread.


BTW, the only good thing to come out of this new sales tactic is with multipacks of certain sugary products e.g. Mars Bars: as they are now often made far smaller than in 'times gone by' (the exact size being dependent upon which pound'ish shop you use!) it means we certainly eat LESS chocolate than previously. :rotfl:

Olliebeak1951

TOILET ROLLS - the tubes in the middle are getting wider - so, visually the rolls remain the same size and the packaging looks the same and the price is still the same BUT, check the number of 'pieces per roll' - there's less of them.