This is after the large bottles were previously reduced from 1L to 900ml, and the small bottles were reduced from 450ml to 400ml.
At this rate, they will be packed in eye drops bottles very shortly and the slogan will need to be changed from “One squirt is enough” to “One drop is enough”.
A work colleague bought a couple of packs of Haagen-Dazs ice-cream at Coles during their half price sale a week ago. She was expecting a total of 8 units to share around. When she opened the first one, she discovered there are only 3 per pack. That’s not great value for a multipack, but the main issue is that Coles didn’t even realise there were 3 instead of 4 ice-creams in a pack as they listed it as a 4 pack in the catalogue (although the pack shows 3 sticks at the bottom right)!
Your work colleague should contact Coles (with proof or purchase and also copy of the advertisement) and advise of the error and also of the inconvenience of relying on the wording of the advertisement for the purchase decision. It is possible that Coles may offer some sort of remedy to the error and inconvenience caused.
Oddly the depiction of the treat is reversed in the panel at the bottom from that of the large picture, and while one could assume it means contents are three, supported by the small math lesson on the other side of the stick, it’s not glaringly clear in contrast to Coles description that says the pack contains four.
Perhaps we could nominate Häagen-Dazs for the “most number of packaging design teams who don’t talk to each other” award? Of course one has to take into account national and regional differences in laws (what they can get away with) and how people relate to ice-cream (not all the photos are from Oz).
Had to wait until I bought more so I had old and new packs for comparison. The brand is Greenies. The old pack was 71 g and the new pack is 60 g. On special, these are $10 each (if you bought 4). Normal price is $11 something. I’ve tried other brands but my cats much prefer this one, which is why I still get it. Paying a $1 or so less isn’t a saving if the cats won’t eat it
Take care looking at price labels.
I picked up some Physical Milk at our local Woolworths Supermarket which was priced as special on the shelf label at $3.91, 20% off its normal price. After going through the check out, the charge was at the full price of $4.89. On querying one of the store managers checked the shelf label, removed it. In very fine print at the bottom the special was only till 24th January. This day was the 30th January, six days later. I was given a refund, but how many would be caught?
In recent weeks I have found two different products I use have been “downsized”. L’Oreal Elvive shampoo and conditioner has gone from 325ml to 300 ml. The other is Deeko paper napkins which have gone from 80 per pack to 75 per pack. The latter cheekily have noted on the packaging that the napkins are now 20% thicker!
I have moved your post to an existing thread about products being reduced in size, with no change in price. You will see that the two you have found aren’t the only examples of shrinking product sizes.
More downsizing of package content, but an unchanged or even increased selling price, can be expected due to increased costs.This is happening much more now in the USA where cost inflation is greater than here.
Keep and eye out for more and post more examples here.
Spotting such content downsizing is much easier If you know/remember the unit price (price per unit of measure).
(not all the photos are from Oz).
