Why do manufacturers keep reducing package sizes?! The environmental toll...

[Neurotica]

I was just grocery shopping and became irritated, needless to say, to find that the Classico jar has been reduced from 32 to 24 oz. (with no corresponding decrease in price). I know that this is a marketing gimmick, but if they need to charge more, then just do so. Reducing the package size causes me to buy more units, which then ultimately has a greater toll on the environment due to the greater amount of packaging required.

Is there any kind of organized consumer effort to encourage manufacturers to stop reducing package sizes?

[tridim]

1. That practice will never stop, so just shop at Costco.

[Neurotica]

2. I do -- as much as possible

There are so many good reasons to be a Costco customer.

[AndyA]

12. Unfortunately for some of us, we don't have Costco.

And I refuse to shop at Sam's Club.

[KamaAina]

25. Unfortunately for some of us, we don't have cars.

So unless Costco were right across the street from me, it's as uselss as your average repuke. :eyes:

[madmom]

16. Color me confused but...

how is shopping at costco a remedy for this? The package will still be smaller, thus forcing people to buy more than one, thus causing more pollution.:shrug:

[tridim]

18. Costco sells bulk items.

I've not seen package sizes change at Costco in the 5 years I've been shopping there.

[Statistical]

24. Have you seen the size of cost co packages on some stuff. n/t

[madmom]

30. Nope, won't shop an where, where I have to pay for the "privilege".

[Statistical]

31. Why does it matter? You pay to shop anyways (it is in the prices).

You can visit (but not shop) at a Costco for free.

You might want to check it out.
Comparison shop a months worth of groceries and other daily items.

If the total prices @ costco for a months worth of goods is $4.25 less than your local grocery store you break even.

I figure I saved about $500 to $700 a year by shopping there and that is compared to even Walmart prices. More than pays for the membership.

[madmom]

33. Well to start with the closest Costco is at least 50 miles away. Then I just

don't like the idea of having to pay them to let me shop there. What's the point? To keep out rif raf? Poor people? What? Then what do they do with the fees they collect? Is it profit? Does it go to employees? Charity? Sorry I just don't like the idea or the exclusivity of it I suppose.

[walldude]

34. Actually, at Costco if you get the premium membership

you end up making money. It's $100 for the membership and at the end of the year you get a check back for 2% of what you spent in the store. Which for us works out to about $200.. so we come out ahead.

Costco employees are paid above union wages, they are known as a great company to work for, their CEO has a salary cap of $350,000 per year. They keep the prices low and pay their employees well. I'm happy to pay to shop there, but as it turns out if you spend a lot of money on groceries, they pay you to shop there. I can't find a single thing to complain about.

[AndyA]

3. Our local news station had a story on this just the other night.

They suggested contacting the manufacturer to complain. They said if enough consumers call to complain about this practice, and present it exactly as you did...smaller quantities increase cost and environmental waste due to having to buy more.

If enough people start complaining, they'll stop this stupid practice. It started due to high fuel costs in 2008. Manufacturers were trying to keep costs down, so they provided less for the same price, hoping no one would notice.

Yet something else we can thank high oil prices for. (And the Wall Street speculators who drove them up artificially!)

Here's a link to the story: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/segment_2/grocery-store-products-shrinking-while-prices-stay-the-same%3F--

[Neurotica]

8. Thanks - I'll give it a try!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

28. It downsizing began long before 2008

I can for sure say I noticed it back in the 1990's. And that's just from my personal experience. Just think how long it's been since you saw a can of Folgers coffee which was actually 1-lb?

It became an industry standard in the 2000's and shows no signs of slowing down in the 2010's. A study done by two university professors in 2004 proved consumers have a greater sensitivity to price than quantity. Which has increased the frequency of downsizing significantly since then.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I really love the 25 and 50 pound bags of dog/cat food that are now anywhere from

14 to 18 or 34 to 40 pounds.

[MineralMan]

5. Just wait until the gasoline companies realize that they could

increase profits by going to liter measurements at the pump. Since most people can't multiply by 4 in their heads, they could raise the price of gasoline up to 20% without people even noticing. It's coming, I guarantee.

[truth2power]

20. OK. I'll out myself....

Geez! Sometimes the simplest mathematical operation is the hardest (I tell myself). :blush:

1 gal. = 3.8L approx.

At $2.00/gal.,$8.00 will get you 4 gal.

At $2.00/L, $8.00 will get you 15.2L, so you're getting cheated out of .8 of your purchase, thus the difference - 20% I guess.

I guess I would be one of their "marks", although I CAN multiply by 4 in my head.

[sharp_stick]

6. Drives me nuts too

I remember years ago I bought a jar of popcorn. Right on the label it said "New And Improved" with no other explanation and the same old price. The jar looked identical to the one already at home and it wasn't until I poured it into the popper that I noticed they'd "punched in" the bottom of the jar bringing it from 24 ounces to 16 ounces.

Ever since then I've been on the lookout for this crap. Toilet paper was another classic. New and improved meant 800 sheets instead of 1000 or smaller sheets.

[RKP5637]

7. Yeah, I notice they do this with crackers, for example, get a box, open it

and the packages inside are only 3/4's full. Oh, so they don't break in shipment, that is pure BS. I've also noticed some makes of bread slowly shrinking in size, a few slices short... It's all a bunch of capitalistic crap, profit at any cost. I see this in a lot of products, anymore.

[charlie]

9. If it's a choice between higher prices or smaller sizes

I prefer the reduced size. People of lesser means will still be able to buy what they need, instead of doing without.

[biermeister]

10. "with no corresponding decrease in price" - you answered it yourself nt.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. They've been doing this for several years.

It allows them to keep a price while reducing costs. It sucks.

[nichomachus]

13. It's actually a two-step process

First they raise the price. Then, they reduce the package size. Then, they raise the price again. Then, they reduce the package size.

My partner works in food retail and it drives him crazy.

I was making dinner for a group a few months ago and just grabbed two pounds of pasta off the store shelf, thinking that would be just about right. Then, when I went to put the pasta into the boiling water, I realized that the "pound" was really 12 ounces.

[Subdivisions]

14. Why has anyone yet to call this what it is?

This is inflation in action. Soon, it will morph into hyper-inflation.

Why is anyone surprised by this practice? The reduction in package size is done to obfuscate inflation.

[Dr.Phool]

19. Hidden inflation.

Pounds are now 12 0z.
Quarts are 24-28 oz.

On and on.

I remember when I could get 3 decent sandwiches out of a can of tuna. Now about 1-1/2.

[Brickbat]

15. So they don't have to raise prices.

[burnsei sensei]

17. Take the basket from the side of the road,

leave the German marks that were in it to blow away.

[truth2power]

21. Half-gallon container of ice cream...

Went to 1.75 quarts, then 1.5 quarts. Like people don't notice.

I completely stopped buying Breyer's ice cream, which is pricey anyway, because they went that route when other brands were still an actual half gallon. Now they're all that way.

Yeah, it's to hide inflation.

[JVS]

26. At my store the generic half gallon ice creams are back to true half gallon size.

[4lbs]

22. It's so they won't have to increase the price.

It costs more to produce 32 oz of a product now than it did 8 years ago.

However, instead of increasing the price by, say, 12% to match that cost increase, to maintain profit margin, they simply decrease the package size by 12% and keep the same price.

So, 32 oz goes to 28 oz.

My father told me years ago, that Snickers bars used to be twice the size they are now, but now the original size is marketed as "King Sized" Snickers and priced 50% to 75% more than the current smaller ones.

[Statistical]

23. Because sadly it works.

Companies only do what works.
Often they even try to different strategies in different chains.

Obviously making package smaller generates more revenue than raising prices.

Sadly lots of Americans don't look or only look at the price.

So say brand x * y have a package for $2.00 and costs o up.

Brand x shrinks package and charges $2.00.
Brand y keeps amount same and raised price to $2.40.
Brand x sells more.

Stupid but it happens thus eventually brand x,y and z all shrink the package.

[yella_dawg]

27. A lot of the cost of products, particularly food, is the packaging.

For a lot of processed food manufacturers, their product is packaging, and the contents are trivial.

[The2ndWheel]

29. They reduce the size, but not the price, and you buy more of it?

Then want an organized consumer effort to basically protect you from yourself, and the environment from you?

You could just live with the same amount of 24 oz jars you were buying when they were 32 oz jars. You don't have to buy more. They're not forcing you to buy more. You could find another brand that has 32 oz jars. It's really your want of the product that causes you to buy more units.

[Chisox08]

32. It has nothing to do with the enviroment

It is all about the race towards the bottom line. Instead of raising the price they reduce the size of the product often times by putting a large indention at the bottom so that it doesn't look any smaller.