Step 1: Shrink existing packages but keep the same price
Step 2: Introduce a new package with a catchy name like "mega-sized" that is equivalent to the older normal size but now for a higher price
Step 3: Discontinue the smaller package
Step 4: Rinse and repeat
I will readily say that the above is a luxury that not everybody has, but then buying the best per oz price is a luxury not everybody has either. Certainly there are oddball cases like you pointed out, but typically the larger items have a better per oz pricing and not everybody can afford the higher upfront price even if the per item price is less.
Like for Pepsi it will show $1.67/per litre, for instance.
Then you can easily shop all the 24 or 30 multipacks.
Also, like other countries the actual weight inside the same packaging are shrinking. Chocolate Bars are a good example.
They've tried pushing the smaller than 350ml can size, but it hasnt stuck. In the UK they have a 330ml can size.
Source: I work in Marketing and currently am working for retail FMCG and F&B clients, so research things on shelves more than your average human :-)
Well there are the new taller cans that look 'bigger'. even though it probably costs more to make those in terms of aluminium ammounts.
The person that buys the overpriced "value" pack is basically giving money to PepsiCo or whatever, but in effect that subsidizes the conscientious consumer.
Back in the day, ~50+ years ago, we used to have stores like this [1] and you'd buy most items based on how much it weighs. I wish we would buy things not as a "package", but loose. Some countries in Asia still have stores that sell stuff by the kilogram. There are also grocery stores in US like Sprouts that have dispensers for dry fruits, nuts, grains, cereal, etc. which is sold by weight. Everytime I see one, I ditch the brand name packages and opt for it.
There is a great analog in sound: the Shepard tone, a.k.a. the "sonic barber pole": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VMfdG873E
To your ear, the pitch constantly descends, yet it can go on infinitely without ever actually getting "low".
Part of the calculation of the size of the box and its associated cost is a logistical calculation which includes both manufacturing and transportation costs. From the article:
"This change also allows more efficient truck loading leading to fewer trucks on the road and fewer gallons of fuel used, which is important in both reducing global emissions as well as offsetting increased costs associated with inflation."
Depending on the trucks they have, the number of trips they need to make, the size of the boxes, and how much the boxes cost, a change in size (either larger or smaller) can affect manufacturing & transportation cost, which affects profits. If the cost of wheat goes up, the calculation changes, and they may need to change the box size in order to reconfigure their transportation - until the cost of wheat goes down again, when they will re-calculate and potentially resize again.
Also it's worth noting that "reducing global emissions" is not a lie or excuse. These companies really are making changes directly due to their new goals of reducing emissions. Sometimes that will result in less-than-stellar changes, like smaller boxes, or crappier packaging, or something else. It can be very hard to separate "consumer exploitation" from the externalities of competing goals.
More likely if the cost of wheat goes up, they shrink the size of the box, and when the cost goes back down, they increase their profit margin.
The costs of cereals vary widely, which leads to fragmentation, which leads to logistical and operational inefficiency. They may even prefer to take a loss on this cereal to increase size if it affords them efficiencies across their whole product line.
If you haven't noticed it in the past, try thinking about the opposite effect: all of those temporary labels claiming "20% more". Quite often, that is the company restoring the package size in order to avoid them becoming noticeably smaller with time.
FWIW, Consumerist called it the "grocery shrink ray". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerist#grocery_shrink_ray attributes is to Meghann Marco in 2008.
Here's a link to one copy at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/hensteethhorsest00goulrich/page/... .
What can they do about standardized beverages sizes and such? You can't go around calling something a 12oz can and only put in 10 or 11.
On the other hand they have high margins on this, so it's not like they'd save a lot on water.
Drives me nuts.
I think they’re trying to avoid a tobacco style lawsuit for the sugar content in a decade or two because we all know the hazards of sugar.
The Canadian coke formula used to have more sugar and they’ve reduced it. I think this is why.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1449563/height-radi...
But commercial success is much more driven by consumer preferences than by optimized packaging. So don't expect to see many tall, thin coke cans. (Which may tip over too easily, feel odd in the hand, slosh when one takes a quick drink, etc.)
Probably because in my area the slim/mini cans tend to be more expensive than the regularly sized cans.