I’m sure you’ve all heard of shrinkflation — companies reducing how much you’re getting of a product while charging you the same price, or sometimes even more than before. But I’ve found a new example that’s especially infuriating.
The whole goal of shrinkflation is giving consumers less for a certain price point. Let’s be clear — in many cases, the product actually costs more to produce now than it used to because prices for raw materials and services are going up. But instead of just raising the price of their product to keep up with inflation, they just sell you less in each package and hope you don’t notice. This is deceptive, and I personally think it should be illegal to do.
If you have noticed box sizes changing or item counts going down, you’re not alone. Reports of shrinkflation have been exploding online. Before moving on to my new example, if you’re interested in seeing some of the most egregious or well-known ones, here are a couple links for products in the US and UK:
Business Insider: 27 of the Most Extreme Shrinkflation Examples
Bored Panda: 30 Times Brazen Companies Shrunk Their Products For The Same Or Higher Price
Among the worst examples is pharmaceutical companies or their store brand equivalents reducing the potency of cough syrups while charging the same price:
“Photos provided by ConsumerWorld show the “see new dosing” message on the front of several sore brand cough syrups. On the back it used to tell you to take 10 milliliters every 4 hours: Now you need to take 20 to have the same effectiveness. […] They are not shrinking the size of the package this time, just watering it down, ConsumerWorld says. The bottle of cough syrup is the exact same size as before.”
I’ve been keeping on eye out for shrinkflation the past few months and have noticed several products we regularly buy getting smaller. But since my daughter and I eat breakfast cereal almost every day, I’ve noticed it the most with this. And they’ve also been among the most cited examples of shrinkflation by consumers.
Here’s a note that I saw yesterday on the side of a box of Cap’n Crunch’s Crunchberries that irked me in particular:
In case you can’t read it in the pic, it says:
Cereal Filled To This Line
Package contains empty space to accommodate product size and/or density variation and to ensure sufficient package sealing. This package is sold by weight, not by volume. Contents may settle during shipping and handling.
So in other words, I’m supposed to believe the box is only 2/3rds full now because they want to make sure the product is sealed? When boxes used to be full when I was growing up, were the cereal companies being reckless? Or now the cereal is settling more than it used to in the box for some reason (Earth’s gravity has increased?!)? But don’t worry, it’s sold by weight, so even though the box has a ton of empty space, you’re not paying for that!
Except that you are in a way, because you’re being given the impression that there’s a full box of cereal, or at least closer to full like it was a year or two ago. We’re being sold a bunch of not-so-hot air disguised as a much-taller-than-it-needs-to-be cereal box.
My guess is they’re getting lots of complaints from people who are noticing shrinkflation and are tired of it. Quaker Oats — which is owned by PepsiCo, so not some tiny mom-and-pop outfit — has a number of products that have been called out for shrinkflation, including Cap’n Crunch.
And Quaker’s Life cereal was caught increasing the size of their boxes while reducing the amount of product inside. It wouldn’t be a stretch to think that their other cereals are suffering the same fate.
Post cereals are changing the names of their sizes, hoping you don’t notice that the Giant size is actually the old Family size, and the new Family size is smaller and costs more per ounce than it used to.
So Quaker, spare us misleading notes that we shouldn’t be upset that you’re not giving us a full box even though you’re still charging the same money for it. Gatorade, cut the BS about slashing the size of your 32-oz bottles to 28-oz and claiming it’s just to make them easier to handle (while charging the same price). There should be same basic consumer protections for deceptive practices like this, but the odds of that happening are about the same as Elon Musk saving Twitter from self-destructing.