TakeAway: As businesses anticipate rising raw materials costs, consumers are beginning to encounter shrinking food packages.
With unemployment still high, companies have tried to camouflage price increases by selling their products in smaller packages.
Most companies reduce products quietly, hoping consumers are not reading labels too closely. However, there could be some backlash as consumers wise up.
* * * * *
Excerpted from the NYTimes, “Food Inflation Kept Hidden in Tinier Bags” By Stephanie Clifford and Catherine Rampell, March 28, 2011
In every economic downturn in the last few decades, companies have reduced the size of some products, disguising price increases and avoiding comparisons on same-size packages, before and after an increase. Each time, the marketing campaigns are coy; this time, the smaller versions are “greener” (packages good for the environment) or more “portable” (little carry bags for the takeout lifestyle) or “healthier” (fewer calories). Trying to keep customers from feeling cheated, some companies are introducing new containers that, they say, have terrific advantages — and just happen to contain less product.
“Consumers are generally more sensitive to changes in prices than to changes in quantity,” John Gourville, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School, said. “And companies try to do it in such a way that you don’t notice, maybe keeping the height and width the same, but changing the depth so the silhouette of the package on the shelf looks the same. Or sometimes they add more air to the chips bag or a scoop in the bottom of the peanut butter jar so it looks the same size.”
Kraft is introducing “Fresh Stacks” packages for its Nabisco Premium saltines and Honey Maid graham crackers. Each has about 15 percent fewer crackers than the standard boxes, but the price has not changed. Kraft says that because the Fresh Stacks include more sleeves of crackers, they are more portable and “the packaging format offers the benefit of added freshness,” said a Kraft spokesman. Similarly, P&G is expanding its “Future Friendly” products, which it promotes as using at least 15 percent less energy, water or packaging than the standard ones. “They are more environmentally friendly, that’s true — but they’re also smaller,” said Paula Rosenblum, managing partner for retail systems research at Focus.com, an online specialist network. “They announce it as great new packaging, and in fact what it is is smaller packaging, smaller amounts of the product,” she said.
Or marketers design a new shape and size altogether, complicating any effort to comparison shop. The unwrapped Reese’s Minis, which were introduced in February, are smaller than the foil-wrapped Miniatures. They are also more expensive — $0.57 an ounce at FreshDirect, versus $0.37 an ounce for the individually wrapped.
In the culture of thinness, smaller may be a selling point. It lets retailers honestly claim, for example, that a snack package contains fewer calories — without having to change the ingredients a smidge. “For indulgences like ice cream, chocolate and potato chips, consumers may say ‘I don’t mind getting a little bit less because I shouldn’t be consuming so much anyway,’ ” said Professor Gourville. “That’s a harder argument to make with something like diapers or orange juice.” But even while companies blame the recession for smaller packages, they rarely increase sizes in good times, he said. Once the economy rebounds, he said, a new “jumbo” size product typically emerges, at an even higher cost per ounce. Then the gradual shrinking process of all package sizes begins anew, he said.
Edit by AMW
SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY
The Homa Files 