this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
94 points (97.0% liked)

Shrinkflation

301 readers
65 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 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 

If anyone can explain how it can be 3.3 ounces in the new can and 3.6 in the old while grams and millilitres remain the same i would love to know.

The damn can is also ever so slightly smaller you can see it very well but you can feel it and measure it

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 17 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

mL is volume. oz is weight or mass. It is entirely possible for only one to change.

It is TRICKIER for oz to change, but the mass g not to change. This can only mean that the weight changed, but the mass did not. Presumably, this is from an exoplanet with an approximately Earth-like gravity.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 6 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

The metric remained the same. By volume and mass.

The freedom units are conforming to their alternative facts.

[ OZ can be weight (fractions of a pound) or liquid ounces (fractions of a ...quart, gallon, pint, whatever nonsensical unit is used) ]

Either way, that label is a mess.

[–] adam_y@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The "e" before the weight means estimated.

If I had to guess, they might be giving an upper and lower number to cover a range and their backs.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 8 points 1 day ago

Ah I didn't know that about the "e"

You might be onto something

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

By the power of a quick search, I'm told that 3.6 OZ is actually 102 grams, while 3.3 OZ is 93.6. 96 grams is 3.38 OZ, so one has to assume they're starting from grams and rounding down (even though they'd be justified to report 3.4 instead, honestly). It's not fluid ounces because that'd be somewhere in the region of 5, again according to search.

So most likely, it's a typo of some sort, or proof that non-metric systems should be banned by all humanity. This is also how European basketball players grow several centimeters when they start playing in the NBA.

Interestingly, pictures of the product online alternately show 104 and 96 grams. Volume wouldn't have to change, because you can just pressurize the can less to include less product. Oh, and yet another search tells me the reported net weight should not include the weight of the propellant.

Also, what are you doing buying Beckham's spray deodorant? Multiple times? I mean...

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah the whole situation makes no sense.

As far as buying multiples im alllergic to something in some deodorants and i get rashes under my arms. This one hasn't so I have been using it for over 10 years. I have many many cans in the cupboardbecausewr buy them when they come half price.

My wife likes the smell I like the smell too.

And as far as I know it's not evil right?

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh, no, I'm mostly joking. It's just... celebrity "lifestyle brands", you know? Or maybe you don't know. I'm certainly the type of person that buys "deodorant" brand deodorant, I may be the outlier here.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago

Nah had no idea when i first bought it. It was just cheap and it didn't hurt me haha.

I've never even thought about the David beckham relevance at all

[–] Zier@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago

Just to add; it's clearly measured by weight because 150 ml is 5 fluid ounces. And my comment, buy unscented deodorant and an actual bottle of cologne, it smells nicer.

[–] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Depending on what it is it could be just more compressed as liters is volume but oz is weight. That said they’re both 96 grams so the only thing that “makes sense” is if one was weighed under different gravity

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Being weighed under different conditions is possible, but it's not significant enough for corporate greed.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pretty sure potato chip companies go to the effort

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

People are sometimes shocked, when I open potato chips by cutting with scissors under the logo, but that's usually where the chips actually start.

[–] superkret 5 points 1 day ago

This graph makes me uncomfortable.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

One was clothes on, the other was clothes off. Obviously clothes off weight is the only accurate measurement.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 5 points 1 day ago

Yeah I can't make heads or tails of it.

I just kind of assume they updated the one they're most familiar with and didn't adjust the other too.

The can is definitely skinnier though

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

... Or the specific density of the material inside the can is different.

The old formulation was more dense, so it weighed more at the same volume.

Or the volume (in mL) is the volume of the can, and not the uncompressed volume of the marital inside the can, and they just lowered the pressure of the substance inside the can as shrinkflation.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

96 g is neither 3.3 nor 3.6 oz, lmao

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not? My calculator says 3.3863 oz. If they were forced to correct the incorrect 3.6 they weren't going to go with 3.4 and risk it getting corrected again.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

3.38 is 3.4 rounded to one decimal place or three significant figures, there's no ambiguity again. If anything 3.3 has a risk of being corrected to 3.4.

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure, but most customer protection laws around the world say you can't round up. If you say the customer gets 3.4 oz, you need to give them at least 3.4 oz.

Plus I doubt they are that accurate when they produce this kind of stuff, that's usually +-10% without impacting the end product.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, but most customer protection laws around the world say you can't round up

Oh, I didn't know that, makes sense.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 1 points 18 hours ago

Yeah imagine if they didn't, all companies would round up to short change everyone

[–] stormesp@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Maybe it just had an incorrect value and they were forced to correct it?

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah and fixed it with the can update perhaps.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

I wish I had a full original can to do some research of my own.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

you'd have more weight if you had more liquid in the can. The can probably contains an emulsifying agent that was changed, altering how much liquid you'd need in the same volume to guarantee the aerosol effect worked.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But Oz and g's are both weight measurements

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

yes and no, fluid ounces are volume.

"Is 1 fl oz the same as 1 oz? Both fluid ounces and ounces represent a unit of measurement, but they are quite different. Fluid ounces, as the name might imply, are specifically meant to measure volume (often of liquid ingredients like water), while ounces measure weight, usually of solid ingredients like all-purpose flour."

aerosol cans typically display fluid ounces. You can google it.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 1 points 18 hours ago

Where as ml is volume and g is mass.

So either way Oz is portrayed here one of the other two would have to adjust?