Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shrinkflation Tracker

shrinkflation.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 240 posts

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#221

Post by hinkley »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #218
zerd wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been buying the exact same pair of boxers for years. This year I noticed that they were actually smaller, by almost an inch. Elastic band is smaller and the actual length, so it started chafing. Shrinkflation even on clothes.

Heh.. I'd like to blame my boxers getting tighter on the same thing but I'm pretty sure it's just my waistline that's grown

When Levi’s moved to Mexico it wasn’t that the sizes got smaller, it was that they got inconsistent. Before I started shopping around for more responsible brands, I enjoyed the privilege of being able to walk into a department store and simply buy jeans based on the label. No dressing room. After I had three pairs of the same sized jeans that varied from uncomfortable to comfortable. Tolerances matter.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#222

Post by pnt12 »

hinkley wrote: post #141

I was just talking today to someone about how they don't like food from a certain global coffee chain anymore because their food has gotten kinda crappy. Shrinkflation generally means same price for less product (grams, fluid ounces), but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem. Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella or track it as a separate problem? Since they…

I've heart the term "skimoflation". There have been posts on HN about it.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#223

Post by prepend »

c0pium wrote: post #196
prepend wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a recent focus, it’s a continual focus. Shrinkflation is important for understanding true price increase. It’s not enough to say “toothpaste went up 20%” in price because you really want to know “toothpaste went up 35% based on weight.” It’s also frustrating because it’s just another level of bullshit to sift through when shopping. It would be nice if manufacturers and retailers didn’t do this.

You don’t need to sift through it, though. There’s no prize for catching companies in the act. Figure out which toothpaste you want, decide whether youre willing to spend the money, then buy it or don’t. They do it because otherwise people will complain incessantly about price increases and this way people only complain intermittently about shrinkflation.

The prize is making well informed decisions.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#224

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

robertlagrant wrote: post #219
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have to alter the packaging to account for the changes. They can either do so in a way that makes apparent to the customers that they're receiving less value for their money, making sure they're aware of it, or they can do so in a way that attempts to deceive consumers and hide this information. An example of messaging for the former is described in the quote you quoted. Another would be to use different-looking…

> If a consumer will still buy the item when properly informed of the lower value, then this apparent labeling should not have any effect on sales. If it looks different, consumers might not know it's the same thing just smaller. E.g. if I buy a box of Celebrations, I know what each little sweet is because it shares the same packaging as its normal-sized equivalents. I know it's smaller because...it's smaller.

If it doesn't look different, customers might not know it's a different product than before due to the quantity change, and won't be prompted to investigate further.

Indeed, if the packaging is the same except for the quantity labels, then you don't, in fact, know it's smaller, because both the quantity change and the packaging change has been calculated to hide that fact from you. That's the problem being solved here.

With a proper packaging change, on the other hand, your confusion is resolved within seconds, when you read the packaging, which can include whatever explanatory info the manufacturer decides to put there. And if it's not resolved? The manufacturer should do better to explain.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#225

Post by PCMcGee1 »

vmilner wrote: post #167
xwdv wrote: post #76

I don’t get it, would people rather pay higher prices up front? A lot of times people don’t even use the entirety of a product they pay for. Shrinkflation can essentially just cut that part out. Even if you eat 100% of something, your brain was probably satiated after eating 80%, the rest is excess. For stuff like candy you won’t notice a missing gummy bear or two. You’ll get the same satisfaction.

When I see perceivable sneakiness, I assume non-perceivable sneakiness is there too. (E.g. Poor product standards, worker abuse)

I just don't understand why you would expect there to be any honest companies left to deal with. Any honest company has an insurmountable disadvantage in a competitive economy where the winners fund the policymakers. The honest business will always, eventually, become the prey of vulture hedge funds and predatory mergers seeking market capture. Even if it's a privately owned business, the monopolies will just drive down prices to force it out of the market, and then once market dominance is achieved, the price rises commensurate to recoup that lost profit. Even if this ploy isn't actually profitable in practice, the financing for such corporations that employ these methods is assured, through the stock market and big banks loan practices. Monopoly is really the only game left in town, they just have to make it look enough like a "free market" to keep people from trying to make it illegal. This is rather simply accomplished by having multiple different companies all owned by the same wealthy shareholders or mutual funds. But, I'm sure you can see all this for yourself, you just can't figure out a better system.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#227

Post by daveoc64 »

xwdv wrote: post #87
daveoc64 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people resent how sneaky shrinkflation feels. Manufacturers would gladly boast about increasing the size of their product if they did so, but do everything they can to hide when they've shrunk it. Manipulative tricks like oddly shaped packaging or plastic fillers to take up the space that was previously product are examples of why people hate shrinkflation. If something goes up in price but the quantity and…

They wouldn’t feel tricked, but then they’d be pissed off at the rising prices, which affects their ability to enjoy the product. If someone sells you a bag of chips but they’ve already eaten two of the chips, your enjoyment of the bag will still be the same as if you had the whole bag. If they reveal that fact to you though, then your experience will be soured. This is for the consumer’s own benefit.

It does not benefit me when I have to buy two packs of something to obtain the same quantity of product.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#228

Post by boxed »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #26
boxed wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why 0% items are shown on the big list at all. Like having a page of murderers with random innocent people with a text label under "not a murderer" :P

That would actually be beneficial to the innocent people if it gave them indemnity to prosecution! It's better to be cleared of a suspected crime than never prosecuted, in my opinion*. * assuming the availability of pro bono legal aid as part of social welfare, a key part of any judicial system.

That is a weird take. I'm pretty sure being accused of for example pedophilia can destroy someones life without a conviction.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#229

Post by webninja »

chongli wrote: post #113
wppick wrote: post #97

Another source of shrinkflation is changing ingredients. Something that used to be 50% water is now 75% water as an example. Another is changing from olive oil to canola or palm or, and things like that.

One of the worst offenders in this regard is packages of frozen meat products such as chicken wings, chicken fingers, nuggets, etc. They used to just contain the breaded meat with the net weight printed on the box (usually 2 lb). Now they've started including frozen sauce packets as well. I've weighed some of these and found, for example, a 2 lb box of chicken wings that comes with more than half a pound of buffalo s…

Another is multi-gallon containers of protein powders online. Many contain 2/5th air at the top and are only 3/5ths full.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#230

Post by chongli »

webninja wrote: post #229
chongli wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the worst offenders in this regard is packages of frozen meat products such as chicken wings, chicken fingers, nuggets, etc. They used to just contain the breaded meat with the net weight printed on the box (usually 2 lb). Now they've started including frozen sauce packets as well. I've weighed some of these and found, for example, a 2 lb box of chicken wings that comes with more than half a pound of buffalo s…

Another is multi-gallon containers of protein powders online. Many contain 2/5th air at the top and are only 3/5ths full.

They don’t sell those by weight?
Post reply on HN