Portion size shrinkage is an epidemic. Clearly all big vendors have conspired to size down nearly everything from cereals to seaweed.
And the ridiculous bags of air they sell with a small sample of chips inside, well, thats a scam we've had for some time. 6 oz of chips in a bag big enough to hold 3 lbs.
I think we should be writing letter of complaint to the FTC.
Dow1000 said: And the ridiculous bags of air they sell with a small sample of chips inside, well, thats a scam we've had for some time. 6 oz of chips in a bag big enough to hold 3 lbs.And if they put 6 oz of chips in a bag only big enough to hold 6 oz of chips, you would be here bitching about how your chips are nothing but crumbs when you open them. The "bags of air" do serve a purpose, you know. Not to mention the concept of "settling" after the bag is sealed.....
lampy2k4
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Jun. 29, 2009 @ 10:25p
As long as bag says "6 oz" on it and contains 6 oz of product then FTC has no reason to get involved.
If you don't like one brand's packaging then don't buy their products. We really don't need the government to oversee people who are dumb enough to fall for marketing tricks. The evolution will take care of them.
BlueEyesAustinTexas
Ancient Member
posted: Jun. 29, 2009 @ 10:43p
Dow1000 said: It's rampant.
Portion size shrinkage is an epidemic. Clearly all big vendors have conspired to size down nearly everything from cereals to seaweed.
And the ridiculous bags of air they sell with a small sample of chips inside, well, thats a scam we've had for some time. 6 oz of chips in a bag big enough to hold 3 lbs.
I think we should be writing letter of complaint to the FTC.
It's odd...I remember exactly this sort of thing happening in the 1970s as a kid--candy bars mysteriously diminishing in size, for example. For the last couple of decades, however, the game has been decidedly the other way--expand portion size from a trivial amount and expand price at a faster rate.
To give a serious comment to this thread, its important to note that this is a common marketing strategy. Its well established in marketing that once a price point has been established in the consumers head for a product, its extremely difficult to raise that price point. Thats one reason so many people still steal MP3s online. There was no legal source for 5+ years and everyone was used to getting them free its hard to raise the price to even $1 per song.
So rather than raise the price of the food items to keep up with inflation and a weakening dollar, and increased fuel costs to transport the food, the companies reduce the content of the bags while maintaining the same price. If a bag of chips used to be 10 ounces and cost $1 but now costs twice as much money. Its more likely to sell a 5 ounce bag for $1 then it is to raise the price of the 10 ounce bag to $2.
BlueEyesAustinTexas
Ancient Member
posted: Jun. 29, 2009 @ 10:50p
"Its well established in marketing that once a price point has been established in the consumers head for a product, its extremely difficult to raise that price point."
Yep. For nearly 20 years, for example, lunch was "supposed" to cost no more than five bucks. There's a lingering sense of this in the basic fast food value meals...and even today I am regularly astonished when a simple lunch hits seven or eight bucks.
Dow1000
Member
posted: Jun. 29, 2009 @ 10:57p
I can see now how these crooks and scamsters are getting away with it. Apparently , there are many fools that like to be taken.
Someone I know just paid $3.29 for a lb of raisins . Bad enough, since they're worth a lot less than that. Oh, and the contents. 15 ounces, nice and tiny print.
Anyone that thinks packaging 15 oz in a box that for decades has contained a full lb, isn't THIEVERY, well, I gots a nice bridge to sell ya.
And we're supposed to be having DEFLATION, why are all the food vendors jacking up their prices?
lampy2k4 said: As long as bag says "6 oz" on it and contains 6 oz of product then FTC has no reason to get involved.
If you don't like one brand's packaging then don't buy their products. We really don't need the government to oversee people who are dumb enough to fall for marketing tricks. The evolution will take care of them.It's actually the department of agriculture and I think they get about an 8% leeway on individual packages and a 2% leeway on averages.
Dow1000
Member
posted: Jun. 29, 2009 @ 11:28p
It's the Dept. of Justice that needs to look at it.
Dow1000 said: I can see now how these crooks and scamsters are getting away with it. Apparently , there are many fools that like to be taken.
Someone I know just paid $3.29 for a lb of raisins . Bad enough, since they're worth a lot less than that. Oh, and the contents. 15 ounces, nice and tiny print.
Anyone that thinks packaging 15 oz in a box that for decades has contained a full lb, isn't THIEVERY, well, I gots a nice bridge to sell ya.
And we're supposed to be having DEFLATION, why are all the food vendors jacking up their prices?
If it says 15 ounces and you are too stupid to read it, then you are an idiot. I look at what I buy, it takes all of 2 seconds.
Dow1000 said: Someone I know just paid $3.29 for a lb of raisins . Bad enough, since they're worth a lot less than that. Oh, and the contents. 15 ounces, nice and tiny print.So you didnt pay $3.29 for a pound of raisins and only get 15 oz, you clearly paid $3.29 for 15 oz of raisins. If you wanted a pound, you should've looked for a package that was labled as containing a pound. Oh yeah, that one cost more so you chose the 'cheaper' one thinking it was a deal.
WHO THE HELL CARES if they raise the price 10% or reduce the contents/package size by 10%? Either way, the end result is still the same $/unit cost. A "box" isnt a standard of measure you can use to compare prices, either between packages or over time.....
This is like everyone who complains about the price of gas in terms of how much it costs to 'fill up'. Variations in how much it costs to "fill up" mostly signifies how empty your tank is each time, and not so much the cost of the gas.......
Dow1000
Member
posted: Jun. 30, 2009 @ 12:10a
I really thought the caliber of poster here was higher. Looks like we have common sense deflation right here on FW.
tripleB said: To give a serious comment to this thread
You owe me a laptop. When I read "serious comment" and then saw your name, I spit beer all over my laptop. Then I started laughing so hard, I started choking.... and had to jump up to breathe before I passed out. The laptop hit the floor.... and I was still choking and coughing, but was mad and tried to curse... bad move! The next inhalation went to my stomach instead of my lungs, causing me to burp, which was followed by "a little" vomit! It landed on the keyboard... which pissed me off even more! So I stomped on the screen.
YOU OWE ME!
PS to OP: WTF does this have to do with FINANCE? Go away, and find a FREE BLOG service... and continue your (INCORRECT) rants there!!!
tyrone3971
Cranky Member
posted: Jun. 30, 2009 @ 12:39a
What I want to know is wtf is up with TP these days. Can't I just buy a single roll. I'm at the store and there's a double roll. And then a triple roll. 12 double rolls = 24 rolls. I guess I'm just gonna have to go back to doing it indian style with the left hand and all.
op, while i agree with you it is a marketing tactic and not an overly honest one at that (coke bottles in ny changed to 1 1/2 liter instead of 2, candy that used to be 1lb is less then that, tropicanas new bottles, squeeze bottles of mayo that hold less then the tradional ones...) but why are you getting up on a soapbox and yelling about it here? you can go post it on your twitter facebook or myspace page. There are millions of things that arent right that are more serious then the food industry repacking food to rip off the consumer. It sounds to me like an angry rant and I dont blame you, just not here....
WalStMonky
Happy Member
posted: Jun. 30, 2009 @ 3:10a
I bought a pound cake, and when I got it home I noticed the darn thing only weighed 10 ounces!
WHO THE HELL CARES if they raise the price 10% or reduce the contents/package size by 10%? Either way, the end result is still the same $/unit cost. A "box" isnt a standard of measure you can use to compare prices, either between packages or over time.....
Since it allows for higher pricing, the end result is not the same. They could start selling 1oz of raisins for 3.29 when they would never be able to get $53 for a lb. Most food companies are increasing profits even during a recession, which indicates that the 1oz of raisins removed from the OP's container is price gouging. Since the size reduction spreads across the industry almost instantaneously, affecting even store brands, there is a legitimate case to be made that food companies are colluding to fix prices.
WalStMonky said: I bought a pound cake, and when I got it home I noticed the darn thing only weighed 10 ounces!I've seen the same thing recently actually. I was looking for "pound cake" but it was labeled "loaf cake". I didn't realize at the time that it was a weight distinction.
squirrelproductions said: WalStMonky said: I bought a pound cake, and when I got it home I noticed the darn thing only weighed 10 ounces!I've seen the same thing recently actually. I was looking for "pound cake" but it was labeled "loaf cake". I didn't realize at the time that it was a weight distinction. It's not a weight distinction, it's a stupidity distinction.
it's nothing new. i never paid much attention to product size, but i started noticing a few years back w/ laundry soap. they changed the wisk bottle and when they changed the design, they also made the bottle smaller. that's when i started paying closer attn to the products. ice cream has going from 2 qts to 1 3/4 and now to 1 1/2, but i don't buy ice cream that often so it doesn't bother me so much.
i don't usually shop at wallyworld, but i went there for something and decided to pick up some noodles. they were 12 oz boxes for the same price as i buy 1 lb boxes at giant eagle.
then, after they get you to accept the smaller size, the price goes up.
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Jun. 30, 2009 @ 8:23a
If companies were increasing portion sizes, then people like OP would be calling for the government to step in because they're making Americans fat.
Stoned
Senior Member
posted: Jun. 30, 2009 @ 8:47a
Just wait until the Dow goes to 1000 and see what happens!
Stoned said: Just wait until the Dow goes to 1000 and see what happens! Portion size will still be 30, so we're ok.
Stoned
Senior Member
posted: Jun. 30, 2009 @ 10:46a
pecanpie said: it's nothing new. i never paid much attention to product size, but i started noticing a few years back w/ laundry soap. they changed the wisk bottle and when they changed the design, they also made the bottle smaller. that's when i started paying closer attn to the products. ice cream has going from 2 qts to 1 3/4 and now to 1 1/2, but i don't buy ice cream that often so it doesn't bother me so much.
i don't usually shop at wallyworld, but i went there for something and decided to pick up some noodles. they were 12 oz boxes for the same price as i buy 1 lb boxes at giant eagle.
then, after they get you to accept the smaller size, the price goes up.
I just tore open a box of graham crackers and sure enough the box was the same size but the crackers are smaller. There is now about an inch of space at the top of the box and about 1/4 inch on the sides. NOT EVEN GRAHAM CRACKERS ARE SAFE! (sorry for the Billy Mays like screaming!)
Obama4Prez
Senior Member
posted: Jun. 30, 2009 @ 11:20a
Dow1000 said: It's rampant.
Portion size shrinkage is an epidemic. Clearly all big vendors have conspired to size down nearly everything from cereals to seaweed.
And the ridiculous bags of air they sell with a small sample of chips inside, well, thats a scam we've had for some time. 6 oz of chips in a bag big enough to hold 3 lbs.
I think we should be writing letter of complaint to the FTC.
Maybe if the food wasn't wet there wouldn't be as much shrinkage
tripleB said: To give a serious comment to this thread, its important to note that this is a common marketing strategy. Its well established in marketing that once a price point has been established in the consumers head for a product, its extremely difficult to raise that price point. Thats one reason so many people still steal MP3s online. There was no legal source for 5+ years and everyone was used to getting them free its hard to raise the price to even $1 per song.
So rather than raise the price of the food items to keep up with inflation and a weakening dollar, and increased fuel costs to transport the food, the companies reduce the content of the bags while maintaining the same price. If a bag of chips used to be 10 ounces and cost $1 but now costs twice as much money. Its more likely to sell a 5 ounce bag for $1 then it is to raise the price of the 10 ounce bag to $2.
If America got back to gardening and sourcing/creating their own food, it would be soon that so called $1 bag to produce and sell for $2 would be $1 again. We are not paying for production costs, we are paying for advertising and profit wishing. They may claim they have to raise prices to compensate for fuel/commodity costs, but the products vs the true cost is still way overpriced.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.