6 ms·

This is a textbook example of short-term business thinking, and it's especially dumb; besides using up packaging for no good reason, there's a natural limit to

by mbg721 5y ago

This is a textbook example of short-term business thinking, and it's especially dumb; besides using up packaging for no good reason, there's a natural limit to how small you can make your packages for any product. Your customers might be idiots, but they're not infinitely idiots.

mason55 5y ago
Eventually you introduce a new larger sized product and can charge more for it without the wrath of “raising prices”
smnrchrds 5y ago
Not if they do it like this: Step 1: Shrink existing packages but keep the same price Step 2: Introduce a new package with a catchy name like "mega-sized" that is equivalent to the older normal size but now for a higher price Step 3: Discontinue the smaller package Step 4: Rinse and repeat
- adventurer 5y ago
  I have seen Walmart and the supermarket offer the bigger family size box which cost more per oz than the smaller box. Maybe this is the short time where they offer both sizes and faze the other out but it sure makes me think people don't pay attention. People can't seem to do simple math based on how sales prices are consistently implemented. Coke and Pepsi sales alone is a good example. Calculating the cost of a 24 pack as cheaper than a 12 is a mystery to the average consumer.
  - DSMan195276 5y ago
    I disagree that people are incapable, I think a large portion just don't care all that much. Frankly I certainly fall into that category for lots of things - I'm more concerned with getting a reasonable amount (and not wasting tons of time in the store) than the exact cheapest price, especially when the difference usually isn't that drastic in the end. Going with your example, I buy a 12 pack because I don't drink pop that often and really don't have room to store a 24 pack, so saving a dollar or two just doesn't justify it for me. Where-as for other products that I do get a lot of I take the time to make sure I'm getting a good deal. I will readily say that the above is a luxury that not everybody has, but then buying the best per oz price is a luxury not everybody has either. Certainly there are oddball cases like you pointed out, but typically the larger items have a better per oz pricing and not everybody can afford the higher upfront price even if the per item price is less.
  - firecall 5y ago
    Here in Australia they put the price per unit on the shelf sticker! Like for Pepsi it will show $1.67/per litre, for instance. Then you can easily shop all the 24 or 30 multipacks. Also, like other countries the actual weight inside the same packaging are shrinking. Chocolate Bars are a good example. They've tried pushing the smaller than 350ml can size, but it hasnt stuck. In the UK they have a 330ml can size. Source: I work in Marketing and currently am working for retail FMCG and F&B clients, so research things on shelves more than your average human :-)
    - distances 5y ago
      330ml is a standard size in Europe, both for cans and bottles. Next step is 500ml. So wasn't due to shrinkage.
    - me_me_me 5y ago
      > In the UK they have a 330ml can size. Well there are the new taller cans that look 'bigger'. even though it probably costs more to make those in terms of aluminium ammounts.
    - dhosek 5y ago
      They do in the US, at least at the major grocery stores. Not always for sale items though.
  - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
    Sometimes I wonder how much wealth transfer there is based on people who were never taught how to avoid this kind of trickery being duped. The person that buys the overpriced "value" pack is basically giving money to PepsiCo or whatever, but in effect that subsidizes the conscientious consumer.
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      Cost per unit is present on the price tags in every grocery that I've been to. Certainly Walmart does it.
      - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
        Right, but clearly people just ignore those, otherwise shrinkflation wouldn't be worth doing.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  They can also keep the box size the same, but put less stuff in the box. Back in the day, ~50+ years ago, we used to have stores like this [1] and you'd buy most items based on how much it weighs. I wish we would buy things not as a "package", but loose. Some countries in Asia still have stores that sell stuff by the kilogram. There are also grocery stores in US like Sprouts that have dispensers for dry fruits, nuts, grains, cereal, etc. which is sold by weight. Everytime I see one, I ditch the brand name packages and opt for it. [1] https://dustyoldthing.com/15-photos-old-general-stores/ https://dustyoldthing.com/15-photos-old-general-stores/
  - distances 5y ago
    You can find these in many European countries. Not super common and probably more expensive than the boxed variant (catering now for the ecological audience), but they are there.
  - bushbaba 5y ago
    Canada has the bulk barn
- MarkLowenstein 5y ago
  This is the answer. Shrinkflation happens all the time, with bigger sizes being reintroduced at the top, and apparently it's executed well enough for people not to notice, since this is the first comment I've seen that acknowledges it. There is a great analog in sound: the Shepard tone, a.k.a. the "sonic barber pole": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VMfdG873E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VMfdG873E To your ear, the pitch constantly descends, yet it can go on infinitely without ever actually getting "low".
mc32 5y ago
This works for packaged dry foods. What can they do about standardized beverages sizes and such? You can't go around calling something a 12oz can and only put in 10 or 11. On the other hand they have high margins on this, so it's not like they'd save a lot on water.
- kipchak 5y ago
  Coke has played around with various "slim" or smaller 7.5oz or 8oz cans/aluminum bottles that are a higher cost per oz, though they don't seem to have caught on too much. Or with (somewhat questionable) alternative products, like the somewhat new 8oz coke with coffee.
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    Tall skinny cans are a waste of pkging material. An optimal cylinder is double the diameter in height. Drives me nuts. I think they’re trying to avoid a tobacco style lawsuit for the sugar content in a decade or two because we all know the hazards of sugar. The Canadian coke formula used to have more sugar and they’ve reduced it. I think this is why.
    - hyperhopper 5y ago
      This stack exchange question says that the optimal cylinder is one with a height twice the radius, not diameter https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1449563/height-radius-ratio-for-maximum-volume-cylinder-of-given-surface-area https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1449563/height-radi...
    - bell-cot 5y ago
      IIR, that optimal cylinder assumes that the cost per unit area of the sides is the same as the top & bottom. A can of coke - or beer, or other carbonated & pressurized beverage - breaks that assumption. The curved sides are mostly supported by the pressure of the contents, and can be far thinner than the top and bottom. But commercial success is much more driven by consumer preferences than by optimized packaging. So don't expect to see many tall, thin coke cans. (Which may tip over too easily, feel odd in the hand, slosh when one takes a quick drink, etc.)
throwaway984393 5y ago
It's not necessarily dumb. It might be a short-term solution to a short-term problem. If the cost of wheat goes up, they shrink the size of the shredded wheat box. When the cost goes down, they may increase the size. It depends on logistics. Part of the calculation of the size of the box and its associated cost is a logistical calculation which includes both manufacturing and transportation costs. From the article: "This change also allows more efficient truck loading leading to fewer trucks on the road and fewer gallons of fuel used, which is important in both reducing global emissions as well as offsetting increased costs associated with inflation." Depending on the trucks they have, the number of trips they need to make, the size of the boxes, and how much the boxes cost, a change in size (either larger or smaller) can affect manufacturing & transportation cost, which affects profits. If the cost of wheat goes up, the calculation changes, and they may need to change the box size in order to reconfigure their transportation - until the cost of wheat goes down again, when they will re-calculate and potentially resize again. Also it's worth noting that "reducing global emissions" is not a lie or excuse. These companies really are making changes directly due to their new goals of reducing emissions. Sometimes that will result in less-than-stellar changes, like smaller boxes, or crappier packaging, or something else. It can be very hard to separate "consumer exploitation" from the externalities of competing goals.
- benplumley 5y ago
  > If the cost of wheat goes up, they shrink the size of the shredded wheat box. When the cost goes down, they may increase the size. More likely if the cost of wheat goes up, they shrink the size of the box, and when the cost goes back down, they increase their profit margin.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Why not do it all the time to increase their profit margins?
    - loa_in_ 5y ago
      And if done over long enough periods of time nobody significant might notice for years. Just smear the whole process over the span of a decade or multiple.
II2II 5y ago
It must work well enough since this is not a new phenomena. People may be discussing it more now with the rising concern about inflation, but it is something that my family taught me to watch out for in the 80's and I very much doubt that it was a new business tactic then. If you haven't noticed it in the past, try thinking about the opposite effect: all of those temporary labels claiming "20% more". Quite often, that is the company restoring the package size in order to avoid them becoming noticeably smaller with time.
- eesmith 5y ago
  I think Consumer Reports back in the 1980s would print examples. FWIW, Consumerist called it the "grocery shrink ray". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerist#grocery_shrink_ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerist#grocery_shrink_ray attributes is to Meghann Marco in 2008.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Oh, and in 1983 Stephen J. Gould in "Hen's teeth and horse's toes" wrote the essay "Phyletic Size Decrease in Hershey Bars" about the diminishing size of Hershey bars between 1949 to 1979. Here's a link to one copy at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/hensteethhorsest00goulrich/page/312/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/hensteethhorsest00goulrich/page/... .

by mbg721 5y ago

mason55 5y ago

Eventually you introduce a new larger sized product and can charge more for it without the wrath of “raising prices”

smnrchrds 5y ago

Not if they do it like this: Step 1: Shrink existing packages but keep the same price Step 2: Introduce a new package with a catchy name like "mega-sized" that is equivalent to the older normal size but now for a higher price Step 3: Discontinue the smaller package Step 4: Rinse and repeat

adventurer 5y ago
I have seen Walmart and the supermarket offer the bigger family size box which cost more per oz than the smaller box. Maybe this is the short time where they offer both sizes and faze the other out but it sure makes me think people don't pay attention. People can't seem to do simple math based on how sales prices are consistently implemented. Coke and Pepsi sales alone is a good example. Calculating the cost of a 24 pack as cheaper than a 12 is a mystery to the average consumer.
- DSMan195276 5y ago
  I disagree that people are incapable, I think a large portion just don't care all that much. Frankly I certainly fall into that category for lots of things - I'm more concerned with getting a reasonable amount (and not wasting tons of time in the store) than the exact cheapest price, especially when the difference usually isn't that drastic in the end. Going with your example, I buy a 12 pack because I don't drink pop that often and really don't have room to store a 24 pack, so saving a dollar or two just doesn't justify it for me. Where-as for other products that I do get a lot of I take the time to make sure I'm getting a good deal. I will readily say that the above is a luxury that not everybody has, but then buying the best per oz price is a luxury not everybody has either. Certainly there are oddball cases like you pointed out, but typically the larger items have a better per oz pricing and not everybody can afford the higher upfront price even if the per item price is less.
- firecall 5y ago
  Here in Australia they put the price per unit on the shelf sticker! Like for Pepsi it will show $1.67/per litre, for instance. Then you can easily shop all the 24 or 30 multipacks. Also, like other countries the actual weight inside the same packaging are shrinking. Chocolate Bars are a good example. They've tried pushing the smaller than 350ml can size, but it hasnt stuck. In the UK they have a 330ml can size. Source: I work in Marketing and currently am working for retail FMCG and F&B clients, so research things on shelves more than your average human :-)
  - distances 5y ago
    330ml is a standard size in Europe, both for cans and bottles. Next step is 500ml. So wasn't due to shrinkage.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    > In the UK they have a 330ml can size. Well there are the new taller cans that look 'bigger'. even though it probably costs more to make those in terms of aluminium ammounts.
  - dhosek 5y ago
    They do in the US, at least at the major grocery stores. Not always for sale items though.
- only_as_i_fall 5y ago
  Sometimes I wonder how much wealth transfer there is based on people who were never taught how to avoid this kind of trickery being duped. The person that buys the overpriced "value" pack is basically giving money to PepsiCo or whatever, but in effect that subsidizes the conscientious consumer.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    Cost per unit is present on the price tags in every grocery that I've been to. Certainly Walmart does it.
    - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
      Right, but clearly people just ignore those, otherwise shrinkflation wouldn't be worth doing.
systemvoltage 5y ago
They can also keep the box size the same, but put less stuff in the box. Back in the day, ~50+ years ago, we used to have stores like this [1] and you'd buy most items based on how much it weighs. I wish we would buy things not as a "package", but loose. Some countries in Asia still have stores that sell stuff by the kilogram. There are also grocery stores in US like Sprouts that have dispensers for dry fruits, nuts, grains, cereal, etc. which is sold by weight. Everytime I see one, I ditch the brand name packages and opt for it. [1] https://dustyoldthing.com/15-photos-old-general-stores/ https://dustyoldthing.com/15-photos-old-general-stores/
- distances 5y ago
  You can find these in many European countries. Not super common and probably more expensive than the boxed variant (catering now for the ecological audience), but they are there.
- bushbaba 5y ago
  Canada has the bulk barn
MarkLowenstein 5y ago
This is the answer. Shrinkflation happens all the time, with bigger sizes being reintroduced at the top, and apparently it's executed well enough for people not to notice, since this is the first comment I've seen that acknowledges it. There is a great analog in sound: the Shepard tone, a.k.a. the "sonic barber pole": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VMfdG873E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VMfdG873E To your ear, the pitch constantly descends, yet it can go on infinitely without ever actually getting "low".

mc32 5y ago

This works for packaged dry foods. What can they do about standardized beverages sizes and such? You can't go around calling something a 12oz can and only put in 10 or 11. On the other hand they have high margins on this, so it's not like they'd save a lot on water.

kipchak 5y ago
Coke has played around with various "slim" or smaller 7.5oz or 8oz cans/aluminum bottles that are a higher cost per oz, though they don't seem to have caught on too much. Or with (somewhat questionable) alternative products, like the somewhat new 8oz coke with coffee.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Tall skinny cans are a waste of pkging material. An optimal cylinder is double the diameter in height. Drives me nuts. I think they’re trying to avoid a tobacco style lawsuit for the sugar content in a decade or two because we all know the hazards of sugar. The Canadian coke formula used to have more sugar and they’ve reduced it. I think this is why.
  - hyperhopper 5y ago
    This stack exchange question says that the optimal cylinder is one with a height twice the radius, not diameter https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1449563/height-radius-ratio-for-maximum-volume-cylinder-of-given-surface-area https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1449563/height-radi...
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    IIR, that optimal cylinder assumes that the cost per unit area of the sides is the same as the top & bottom. A can of coke - or beer, or other carbonated & pressurized beverage - breaks that assumption. The curved sides are mostly supported by the pressure of the contents, and can be far thinner than the top and bottom. But commercial success is much more driven by consumer preferences than by optimized packaging. So don't expect to see many tall, thin coke cans. (Which may tip over too easily, feel odd in the hand, slosh when one takes a quick drink, etc.)

throwaway984393 5y ago

It's not necessarily dumb. It might be a short-term solution to a short-term problem. If the cost of wheat goes up, they shrink the size of the shredded wheat box. When the cost goes down, they may increase the size. It depends on logistics. Part of the calculation of the size of the box and its associated cost is a logistical calculation which includes both manufacturing and transportation costs. From the article: "This change also allows more efficient truck loading leading to fewer trucks on the road and fewer gallons of fuel used, which is important in both reducing global emissions as well as offsetting increased costs associated with inflation." Depending on the trucks they have, the number of trips they need to make, the size of the boxes, and how much the boxes cost, a change in size (either larger or smaller) can affect manufacturing & transportation cost, which affects profits. If the cost of wheat goes up, the calculation changes, and they may need to change the box size in order to reconfigure their transportation - until the cost of wheat goes down again, when they will re-calculate and potentially resize again. Also it's worth noting that "reducing global emissions" is not a lie or excuse. These companies really are making changes directly due to their new goals of reducing emissions. Sometimes that will result in less-than-stellar changes, like smaller boxes, or crappier packaging, or something else. It can be very hard to separate "consumer exploitation" from the externalities of competing goals.

benplumley 5y ago
> If the cost of wheat goes up, they shrink the size of the shredded wheat box. When the cost goes down, they may increase the size. More likely if the cost of wheat goes up, they shrink the size of the box, and when the cost goes back down, they increase their profit margin.
- gruez 5y ago
  Why not do it all the time to increase their profit margins?
  - loa_in_ 5y ago
    And if done over long enough periods of time nobody significant might notice for years. Just smear the whole process over the span of a decade or multiple.

II2II 5y ago

It must work well enough since this is not a new phenomena. People may be discussing it more now with the rising concern about inflation, but it is something that my family taught me to watch out for in the 80's and I very much doubt that it was a new business tactic then. If you haven't noticed it in the past, try thinking about the opposite effect: all of those temporary labels claiming "20% more". Quite often, that is the company restoring the package size in order to avoid them becoming noticeably smaller with time.

eesmith 5y ago
I think Consumer Reports back in the 1980s would print examples. FWIW, Consumerist called it the "grocery shrink ray". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerist#grocery_shrink_ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerist#grocery_shrink_ray attributes is to Meghann Marco in 2008.
- eesmith 5y ago
  Oh, and in 1983 Stephen J. Gould in "Hen's teeth and horse's toes" wrote the essay "Phyletic Size Decrease in Hershey Bars" about the diminishing size of Hershey bars between 1949 to 1979. Here's a link to one copy at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/hensteethhorsest00goulrich/page/312/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/hensteethhorsest00goulrich/page/... .