Hi all - it’s that time again when we do a roundup of the products that have recently fallen victim to ‘shrinkflation.’
Shrinkflation refers to when an item gets smaller, but stays the same price or even gets more expensive.
We’ve done a few investigations into this in the past, but with more of us watching our shopping closely, we thought it might be a good time to re-visit this phenomenon.
So - what products have you seen recently suffer shrinkflation? Extra points to anyone who has photos and/or receipts!
Without visual or receipt proof, bars of chocolate suffer this reduction in weight and increase in price every year at least.
We are not the only nation to notice the change either.
The following Galaxy bars can be found here as well
An article that is Australian centric about a variety of items that have suffered shrinkflation, you may wish to contact the journalist for more detail
In Woolworths just recently and saw the Cadbury 180g bars are not all 180g, they vary from around 165g to 180g. They are the same price only the per 100g cost varies. This is obviously false in my opinion as 167g of chocolate would be a higher cost per 100g than a 180g bar that is at the same price per block and so definitely shrinkflation. A lot of the Cadbury larger 360g bars are not 360g either some are 316g…and again all at $7.00 per bar but not sure the per 100g price has been adjusted to reflect this.
I have had a rectangular basket to store toilet paper rolls for many years. It used to only fit four Quilton rolls, now six Quilton rolls comfortably fit in the basket. There’s certainly been some shrinkage but not in the price.
I just bought 7 chocolate Billies from Woolworths, at $6.38 each, on supposed special saving $2.12 each. I bought the same product last year (not sure if exactly the same size, but look to be) for $4 each. But more than 50% increase even at the “special” price. Price gouging continues despite company claims. Unfortunately chocolate Billie’s are hard to find so not much competition on this line.
It appears that the price increase may not be due to Woolworths pricing, as they are significantly less that other sellers. Prices for other sellers range from $12 to $21 per bilby. $6.38 on special seems cheap in comparison.
Chocolate prices across the board have been increasing substantially in the past year or so. This is due to a world wide shortage of the main ingredient of chocolate:
and it is likely that chocolate prices will increase into the immediate future, as one of the main producers of cocoa has been devastated by floods:
If one is buying the Bilbies to assist in ‘saving the bilby’, maybe it may be more effective in donating directly to the Save the Bilby Fund and buying more traditional chocolate products, rather than relying on $0.20 donation through buying the Darrell Lea Bilby.
To note Choice does regular product reviews of Toilet Paper. Quilton produces a variety of TP products. Is there one in particular - pack size, description etc that your observation relates to? Choice could compare details of that product with previous years reviews to note any differences in roll size etc.
This could also be a useful addition to the Misleading with Numbers discussion
The average size of new housing has not changed significantly over the past 15 years. New houses and appartments are now marginally smaller in plan area than 15 years prior. Is this in response to the shrinking size of a block of land? Definitely the costs have gone up, however in a market with changing standards and trends and inflation, should anyone expect houses to be any less expensive? Unless of course we build smaller homes and fit more people into them. Trend the bunk bed. Tax larger rooms and ban the kings and the queens. Long live the republic and bring back the double bed.
Looking further at the costs is the following what really matters?
The great Aussie dream of the 1950’s was a modest home (100sqm) on a quarter acre (approx 1012sqm) house block. Families were on average larger back then too!
If we are looking for examples of shrinkflation when it comes to homes - it’s the cost of land that stands out. Newly developed blocks with all services, curbing and sealed to the curb have been with us since the 70’s, perhaps longer. Over 5 decades the average size of a standard block in a new development has progressively diminished. To note finding references to newly developed estate block sizes and selling prices over time is not easy. Real Estate, Banking and ABS data has the greater focus on house prices over time. While of consumer interest, the average consumer is unlikely to be out purchasing a new block of land each week, vs doing the weekly family grocery shop.
I’m thinking of suburbs that are suffering from enforced densification, particularly high density as distinct from medium density i.e. you are paying more in real terms but getting less.
How does one seperate the cost of the land component from that of the build?
How does one seperate the differences in build quality, desirable features, and plan area from construction cost inflation?
How does one normalise that what is average and typical for one area, region or environment will differ from many others?
It gets more difficult when one looks to including or excluding sales of established homes, redeveloped sites, and major renewal burbs where enlargement and renovation rules.
It’s drifting off what was likely intended by @LiamKennedy for the topic. Although the cost of housing whether rented or on a mortgage is the single largest household expense for most of us. My view point previously expressed is it is the cost of land whether for a house block or other development that has driven the cost of new and established homes out of the reach of most. The cost is far above inflation and wage growth. Approx $12 per sqm for my first 600+ sqm urban block in 1979. Averaging more than $1000 per sqm for blocks of around 300sqm 2023 just down the road 75-85km from the city centre.
Food for thought - but not to be found in the grocery shop.
Cadbury small bags of Easter eggs have shrunk - eg I bought 125g bags of eggs (crunchie, Caramello, dream, Turkish delight etc) in 2020 from big W on special for $2.50 each. This year they were 117g, the packaging was noticeably smaller, and they cost $3.30 on special at Woollies.
Here’s the thing: The median Sydney household will spend more on procuring their housing than on e.g. groceries in their entire lifetime. So while it is cute to note that your 200g block of chocolate is now 180g and also costs more relative to wages, it is kind of missing the woods for the trees. I take your point that that probably isn’t what the OP had in mind.
Of course you are right that there is no direct, easy apples-to-apples comparison with what housing costs now as compared with previously.
Since the size of housing is staying the same it doesn’t match the shrinkflation concept. Housing has price rises for the same sized thing not a shrunken product for the same price. It doesn’t really fit here however you compare prices as the deceptive practice of quietly reducing the product is not happening.
