this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
19 points (88.0% liked)

Shrinkflation

286 readers
1 users here now

A community about companies who sneakily adjust their product instead of the price in the hopes that consumers won't notice.

We notice. We feel ripped off. Let's call out those products so we can shop better.

What is Shrinkflation?

Shrinkflation is a term often coined to refer to a product reducing in size or quality while the price remains the same or increases.

Companies will often claim that this is necessary due to inflation, although this is rarely the case. Over the course of the pandemic, they have learned that they can mark up inelastic goods, which are goods with an intangible demand, such as food, as much as they want, and consumers will have no choice but to purchase it anyway because they are necessities.

From Wikipedia:

In economics, shrinkflation, also known as the grocery shrink ray, deflation, or package downsizing, is the process of items shrinking in size or quantity, or even sometimes reformulating or reducing quality, while their prices remain the same or increase. The word is a portmanteau of the words shrink and inflation.

[...]

Consumer advocates are critical of shrinkflation because it has the effect of reducing product value by "stealth". The reduction in pack size is sufficiently small as not to be immediately obvious to regular consumers. An unchanged price means that consumers are not alerted to the higher unit price. The practice adversely affects consumers' ability to make informed buying choices. Consumers have been found to be deterred more by rises in prices than by reductions in pack sizes. Suppliers and retailers have been called upon to be upfront with customers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkflation

Community Rules

  1. Posts must be about shrinkflation, skimpflation or another related topic where a company has reduced their offering without reducing the price.
  2. The product must be a household item. No cars, industrial equipment, etc.
  3. You must provide a comparison between the old and new products, what changed and evidence of that change. If possible, also provide the prices and their currency, as well as purchase dates.
  4. Meta posts are allowed, but must be tagged using the [META] prefix

n.b.: for moderation purposes, only posts in English or in French are accepted.##

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The article seems to be shifting the blame onto the companies doing this, not the decades of governments that have allowed these companies to change the rules to their liking.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This isn't new behaviour and isn't specific to current government policy or regulations.

Part of the problem stems from jurisdictional issues. For example, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency can dictate some things one the federal level, while most provinces have control of Health (where food safety also often falls). So the regulations are a tangled mess to navigate even if you're doing it in good faith. If you're looking at the regulations from the perspective of a lawyer, you'll find so many contributions, grey areas, etc., that you figure you can argue anything in court if needed.

Like a cereal being classified as a meal replacement to fall into different labelling laws...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

I swear I've seen this tactic of "re-classification" used elsewhere...