Thanks for doing this. It may be easier and less expensive for manufacturers to downsize some types of packaged products than others. For example it will be more expensive if a new container is needed to ensure that the container is still full of product, for example toothpaste, than if only minimal changes are needed to the packaging, for example only to the printed quantity statement.
It’s a pity that there does not seem to be any publicly accessible comprehensive info about content downsizing. However, CHOICE may have a small amount of info obtained from its periodic surveys of the cost of small baskets of grocery products in different supermarkets…
I think your observation is correct, but for completeness some detergents have become more concentrated in recent times resulting is less product at a higher price than before, but the recommended dosage has been reduced since the product is now concentrate, so the price per wash is about the same. If the dose has been reduced another question is whether the washing efficacy is also reduced - noting the recommended amounts are usually well above what is required (1/2 to as little as 1/4 the recommended amount as being quite sufficient appear from time to time). It could be they noticed that and cynically changed instructions accordingly?
Previously was the weight more than 250g?
A reduction in the number of biscuits but not in the total weight of the pack is not really downsizing.
And manufacturers are not required to completely fill packages with products i.e. slack fill is allowed. So to really know if the pack has been downsized, for many products you have to look at the weight/volume info (or the number of items in the pack for products like vitamins, tablets, plastic bags when no weight/volume info is on the pack).
Add snickers to the shonky award list. What else does not get smaller chocolate is worst at prices going up blocks get smaller. I still remember Toblerone being really shonky making the pieces wider but less chocolate pretty unbelievable
Until this month, Weeties was $5-6 in a Family 700 gm packet but today, the Weeties packet looks deceptively identical but is 30% smaller(510gm) BUT, is still $6.
I rang Weeties consumer feedback and a very obliging employee said the price is the same, but the packet is smaller because of wheat shortages and packaging costs??
. I reminded her that the bigger the packet, the bigger the economy of scale savings and far less packaging waste.
She seemed pleased when I told her it was my intention to ask an MP and a Senator to highlight this issue in both Houses of Parliament.
I merged your post into this existing topic about shrinkflation. There seems an ongoing priority for sellers to hold their prices rather than hold their margins by raising prices and being seen as causing the increased cost of living.
I personally suspect this trend will continue and only stop for specific products as they become ‘smaller than bitesized’.
Thanks for finding and publicising this example of “shrinkflation”. They can be hard to spot and rarely does the manufacturer or the retailer publicise it is planned or has happened.
However, things are changing in Europe. In France, two large supermarkets have started to use special shelf labels to alert customers to products where "shrinkflation " has occurred. And, politicians in France and Germany seem to be considering requiring greater disclosure of “shrinkflation” or even banning it.
In this case, assuming that the selling price was and still is $6, the reduction in the amount in the pack resulted in the price per 100g (the unit price - which IMO is your best friend in the supermarket) increasing by a whopping 37%.