Hacker News Reader

Comment by sokoloff | Hacker News Reader

My feeling is that, so long as the weights and prices are transparently displayed, this should be a producer/consumer choice.

Maybe it matters to me that I want to be able to buy $5 worth of dishwasher detergent, whether that's enough for 12 loads of dishes or later is only enough for 9 loads, as long as that's transparently stated, I don't see the issue.

In some cases (like chips and sugared drinks), shrinkflation might be a net benefit to consumers overall.

View on HN

The problem is that the package size (or weight) is such a small piece of information that easily falls out of the average person's attention span, allowing the purchase to be continued on a misunderstanding that benefits the company that spent all the effort on the trick.

You can’t wish away inflation, it affects companies just as much as it affects us. All their inputs into their goods are more expensive too.

I suppose truly deceptive versions of this are possible, but for the most part even if you don’t pay attention to the exact weight or volume, you can see what you are getting. A chocolate bar, bag of fruit, etc. It’s right in front of you, and in many cases you pick it up when you buy it. I don’t even know if a chocolate bar from this or that company are the same size normally anyway. Boxes of cereal come in all sizes at the best of times, so if you really care about the weight you're getting you have to check it carefully anyway.

There are already laws mandating that weights be displayed in packaging. As a consumer I just accept the fact things are more expensive, for the company selling me stuff just as much as for myself. It’s up to us as adults to make sure we’re making purchasing decisions that are appropriate for our situation.

Where it sucks is with things like tuna. Tuna cans were 8oz 30 years ago, and shrunk 1/8 of an ounce at a time to 5 oz today.

I understand, but a law like this wouldn’t actually make tuna cheaper. It would just increase the minimum amount you can buy and price you have to pay. When prices are up and people are trying to economise, is requiring them to buy more of expensive products if they want any at all really benefiting them?

Smaller packaging never decreases your costs, just sort of hides whatever price point boundaries marketers think exists. Having to buy 10 oz of tuna because the price point of 8 oz would go from $0.99 to $1.29 isn’t a savings. (Just a hypothetical price)

There is some “innovation” in packaging that addresses consumer choice - for example with tuna a smaller portion in a pouch is available for you to take for lunch.

It’s a cash flow issue, not a cost per unit issue. The “buy in bulk” mentality doesn’t work for cash-strapped individuals, and could potentially force them, for example, to choose two instead of all three of: bread, tuna, mayo because minimum size laws have priced that individual out of the market. How does one make a sandwich for lunch then?

You make a good point.

I suppose that’s one of the ways poor people stay poor - getting pigeonholed into making the best worst choice for many products drains what resources they have.

My apology for being somewhat unclear, I’m not experiencing KPs but rather GUI locks up tight such that either mouse won’t move or Force Quit is ineffective, leaving mashing the power button as the only option. Happens on my current-gen Intel Mac Mini, M1 Mac Mini and my 2015 MBP.

If it was really transparent maybe...

I would think that means that if the number of washing tablets went from 12 to 9, then packaging would display in prominent letters "Same price, now 9 tablets instead of 12"

Similarly for unit weights:

Chocolate biscuits, "same 12 biscuits, now 20g instead of 25g. Pack size reduced from 300g to 240g"

That would be transparency from my perspective.

“Now 20% fewer calories per biscuit!”

Yes they would do that wouldn't they?

Difficult. hmmm.

I guess it would need to be a standard wording only. A specific sentence with 'fill in the blanks' only for the changed items.

"Now __ tablets instead of __"

Ah yes, let's shift the obligation of being aware onto the people who are traditionally lacking in education. Cool, let the exploitation continue

Ah yes, let’s think we know better than everybody else.

It's also a tempting but dangerous idea to think that it's just a problem of "education". Not nearly as many issues are solvable by "education" as people think, IMO.

Actively attempting to trick people who aren't aware of something is totally different than assuming we know something better than someone else. Are you serious right now?

Inflation is inflation whether that is keeping the price the same and reducing the amount or increasing the price and keeping the same amount. Consumers are going to have to deal with one anyways so why fixate on the former?

Because the goal of shrinkflation is to mislead. You have the same packaging, but weight suddenly changes from 750g to 700g. Or instead of 24 eaches, you have 22. It's not prominently displayed on packaging that anything has changed. For many products you will notice a change in price more easily (and it's difficult to show changes in prices on packaging as it's the retailers who set those, and they change much more frequently)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com