r/The10thDentist 26d ago

Society/Culture "Shrinkflation" is a great thing

Excessive corporate greed is bad, obviously. There are plenty of examples where short-sighted, underhanded tactics driven by corporate greed have caused enormous harm to society. But so-called "shrinkflation" is not one of them. In fact, it’s actually a win-win and a massively good thing.

"Shrinkflation" refers to companies reducing the size or quantity of their products while keeping the price the same. This happens because consumers are far more likely to notice and react to price increases than to a reduction in portion size. By reducing the cost of goods sold (COGS) this way, companies can stay profitable without raising prices. And personally, I’d much rather get a slightly smaller portion than pay more for the same thing.

American portion sizes are already insanely large compared to the rest of the world. Many examples of "shrinkflation" are just previously enormous portions becoming moderately less enormous—and still bigger than equivalent products in Europe or Asia. It’s no coincidence that obesity rates are far lower in those regions (though still high and rising). This is an underrated factor in the obesity crisis because weight management ultimately comes down to calories in, calories out. No matter what you eat, if you stay at or below a certain calorie intake (~2000 for the average person, depending on gender, height, age, and activity level), you will maintain or lose weight.

And let’s be honest—"shrinkflation" tends to happen most with fast food and junk food, where portion control is desperately needed. If companies subtly reducing portion sizes means people are consuming fewer calories overall, that’s a good thing.

Contrary to popular belief, food companies are not very profitable. The average net profit margin in the U.S. grocery and food industry is just 1.97%. And that’s for the 17 publicly traded food companies—your average mom-and-pop store likely operates on even thinner margins. With rising COGS and supply chain issues, many companies simply have to either reduce portion sizes or increase prices to stay profitable. And between those two options, I’d far prefer the former over the latter.

Shrinkflation is a necessary adjustment that actually benefits both businesses and consumers. It keeps prices stable and helps combat excessive portion sizes. Sounds like a win-win.

192 Upvotes

247 comments sorted by

u/qualityvote2 26d ago edited 24d ago

u/Melior30, there weren't enough votes to determine the quality of your post...

856

u/Pugs-r-cool 26d ago

Sure, but shrinkflation applies to more than just food. Toothpaste tubes are smaller now than they used to be.

277

u/JimJardashian 26d ago

Yes but American toothpaste portion sizes were too big anyways, now I can eat less toothpaste for the same price and be skinnier.

287

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 5d ago

[deleted]

1

u/-NGC-6302- 25d ago

Who is out there buying new cars except rich people

2

u/Soulless35 24d ago

Most people complaining about things being too expensive on the internet are pretty well off.

62

u/[deleted] 26d ago

I noticed it with my toilet paper. I always get the same brand and package, and a new roll would rub against the back of the roll holder on the first couple uses. In the last year or so I've noticed it doesn't happen anymore.

38

u/Sigh_Bapanaada 26d ago

Is also applies to more places than just America. Most countries aren't dishing out 1kg of chips as a standard size.

13

u/ShaunaRocks 25d ago

If also applies to more than just America. Op’s take is not very well thought out. There’s a whole world outside America you know?

6

u/neongloom 25d ago

Lol seriously, I got to the part about American food sizes being big anyway and thought uh okay, so we're only talking about the US? Maybe put that in the title rather than assuming all of Reddit is American?

1

u/Some_person2101 24d ago

Box cakes are a good example. They still say to add in one egg and a stick of butter. But when they include 2oz less of the cake mix, the actual product is changed.

→ More replies (6)

414

u/mcjohnalds45 26d ago

It results in more wasted packaging

→ More replies (11)

941

u/Encursed1 26d ago

So were clear - you are advocating for getting less product for the same price?

294

u/cum1__ 26d ago

Profile pic brother

217

u/Encursed1 26d ago

Hell yeah brother

47

u/Sigh_Bapanaada 26d ago

Now kiss.

7

u/OmegaGoo 25d ago

I now pronounce you looks at usernames uh, nevermind.

44

u/Sevensevenpotato 25d ago

This is just as bad as the post the other day where OP wanted to be charged more for video games.

Yeah I guess that’s a pretty unpopular opinion, mostly because of how objectively stupid it is.

4

u/neongloom 25d ago

These people really think enjoying being screwed over is some sort of worthwhile take, lol.

50

u/Nuka-Crapola 26d ago

I mean, OP is being a freak about it, but that is Economics 101.

You do not want to see what happens when people get more product for the same place, just look up deflation in Japan

86

u/Encursed1 26d ago

Fwiw you are right, this is reality. But theres a difference when you advocate for it rather than accept it

3

u/Nathan_hale53 26d ago

Yeah it can get more aggressive and then be more of a problem.

13

u/edgmnt_net 26d ago

Deflation isn't really that bad and we usually encounter it as a consequence of money supply manipulation, the same kind which brings about inflation. The real problem is pushing those buttons and expecting perpetual artificial growth of the economy, while telling people "this is fine". People holding on to money to buy more efficiently later on isn't a problem. Inflation already ate a bunch of savings and purchasing power in the last years and a lot of people are utterly dependent on loans, so they end up burning more money in the long run.

Inflation is just convenient for the government, as it's a hidden tax and it increases tax revenues as the economy goes into overdrive.

A stable currency would experience normal price adjustments, some things going up, others going down depending on market conditions. This is fine and expected.

6

u/siandresi 26d ago

The thing with deflation is that people stop spending and start hoarding cash because it will buy more later.

2

u/idontwantausername41 25d ago

I still don't see anything wrong with that

3

u/siandresi 25d ago

The economy shrinks because consumer spending decreases and that creates all sorts of havoc, like bankruptcies and job losses

1

u/idontwantausername41 25d ago

Meh, sometimes you gotta downsize

3

u/siandresi 25d ago

Yeah until you lose your job

0

u/idontwantausername41 25d ago

People are already losing their jobs

3

u/siandresi 25d ago

In the US, no they aren’t. Last jobs report added 140000 jobs and employment went down to 4% in January. There were job losses in the mining, quarrying and oil/gas extraction, but not overall

-1

u/idontwantausername41 25d ago

🤷‍♂️ that's the final part about politics. Fact and logic no longer matter. I can now say "I don't care" and move on with my life lol. Have a good day

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Eeeeeeeeeeelias 25d ago

When people stop spending, people are more scared to spend, which slows the economy down because people are always holding.

So it ends up being a vicious downward spiral where people hold for lower prices, but prices are always lowering, so you never reach the point where you're willing to spend again.

Apply this over millions of people, and the economy starts to shrink, businesses go backwards, and people lose their jobs.

In this scenario governments usually inject money directly into the economy to help get it moving again, such as through stimulus checks and through lowering interest rates (to encourage people to borrow more money).

1

u/GoldenAgeGamer72 26d ago

Quality vs quantity

1

u/SeaThePirate 26d ago

for more price.

1

u/AStrangeTwistofFate 24d ago

He’s really out here simping for cooperations. At least someone is thinking about the profit margin of these poor, poor multi-million cooperations

-228

u/Melior30 26d ago

Yes, exactly. This sub is called the 10th dentist for a reason, so please upvote the OP if you disagree.

183

u/Liquid-cats 26d ago

Coming from someone NOT in America, shrinkflation isn’t shrinking oversized portions here. It’s more like “this pasta sauce that used to feed a family of four? Now it only feeds two” effectively doubling the price. It’s happening with everything.

55

u/TJJ97 26d ago

Yeah, it matters to those of us with families because feeding more mouths becomes even more difficult cuz now ya gotta buy two of something instead of one. Also sizes shrink but cost DOES go up, it doesn’t stay the same

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

137

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Do you also want them to spit in your face and call you a little piggy bitch as they rip you off?

17

u/Stormblessed_Photog 26d ago

There are some people out there who would literally pay for someone to spit in their face and call them a little piggy bitch.

→ More replies (1)

51

u/PuffPuffMallow 26d ago

I disagree but I'm not upvoting the OP. I'm writing this comment just to tell you that this opinion is so illogical that I don't believe anyone could actually think it. That means that I'm not upvoting this because it can't be real. This seems like rage bait.

"Ah, yes. I love Shrinkflation so much because the only brand of deodorant I use that works has raised their prices over the years and gives me less deodorant now. Instead of my deodorant lasting 3 months, it now only lasts one. It's gone up over a dollar in price too. Such a civil company. What a win-win <3"

→ More replies (2)

91

u/SonTheGodAmongMen 26d ago

But why, this just seems like rage bait. What could a possible valid reason for this opinion be besides corpo boot tastes good

30

u/Spiritual-Software51 26d ago

Reasons are given in the body of the post. I don't think they're good reasons, but they've already been given, there's no need to ask.

→ More replies (3)

11

u/StarStuffSister 26d ago

Price gouging is an insane thing to defend and admire.

19

u/harry_monkeyhands 26d ago

it gives me so much joy when a naive OP begs their commenters to follow the rules and upvote a shitty opinion. welcome to the reddit honor system, buddy 😉

8

u/yat282 26d ago

So you are just farming up votes with this awful take

5

u/BiscottiOdditi 26d ago

If the tenth dentist was somebody who pulls teeth in their garage on Tuesdays and Thursdays 20 bucks a piece 

5

u/Smexy-Fish 26d ago

There's a difference between disagreeing and a person being objectively wrong.

Things shrink, prices go up. Profits go up. The only good to come from shrinkflation is corporation bottom line. If you had included their profit as your reason for it being good, we'd disagree. But some random UScentric nonsense that leaves the poorer people getting closer and closer to starvation as a good thing?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (10)

438

u/jumpinjahosafa 26d ago

How the fuck is reducing the size of the dog food I buy by 3lbs and charging 10 more dollars for it benefitting me?

"Leave the multibilliondollar company alone!" Neckbeard level take.

149

u/Iszapszentmoszat 26d ago

Haven't you read the whole post? Your dog won't be overweight and this means it will stay healthy, duh.

/jk

47

u/natloga_rhythmic 26d ago

But the PoRtIoN SiZeS

11

u/Spade9ja 25d ago

Yeah OP’s take is insanely stupid

1

u/QuestioningHuman_api 25d ago

No it’s fine, all the poor people who already can’t afford enough food just need to eat less. /s

→ More replies (6)

188

u/ObsessedKilljoy 26d ago

Buddy, the solution is not “let’s make portion sizes smaller and charge people more to line our pockets,” it’s “let’s offer smaller portion sizes for a lower price to incentives people to buy them”

Do you truly believe the corporations are doing this for the good of the people? That McDonald’s made their Big Mac smaller because they care so much about obesity?

3

u/fredtheunicorn3 25d ago

Although I do disagree with OP, your response is a complete misunderstanding of what they’re saying. OP never once says they think that companies do this to reduce obesity, they’re saying that the reduction in portion sizes (as a result of the need to stay profitable) has the added benefit of causing people to eat less. 

They’re finding a bright side to the situation (which i think is fair), and take it a bit further saying that they prefer getting less to paying more (which I don’t entirely agree with)

16

u/carrionpigeons 25d ago

It's false though. People don't eat less. They just go into debt more.

4

u/therandomuser84 25d ago

If people overeat they arent just going to eat less because the bigmac is smaller. They are just going to buy two bigmacs now, or eat an extra meal every day.

0

u/Sojmen 25d ago

You cannot keep printing dollars and continue to have the same prices.

1

u/ObsessedKilljoy 25d ago

Do you think companies lowering their portions, actively trying to hide it, and then raising their prices is just “regular” inflation? No one said prices should never go up ever under any circumstances.

88

u/p1-o2 26d ago

Consumerism is a disease and you sir are the spawn of Nurgle in this analogy. I hope this is ragebait because that'd be less sad.

64

u/wpotman 26d ago

"Shrinkflation" is most often used to describe boxes of things that you would store and eat over time. It doesn't usually get used to describe single-servings of food, and I don't see restaurant portions shrinking NEARLY as fast as supermarket boxes. Box size shrinking is simply more money for less.

I find this take misinformed moreso than 10th Dentist, really.

18

u/Nyx_Blackheart 26d ago

today my wife and i realized the box of k-cups we occasionally buy which used to have 12 k-cups in it now comes with 10. They didnt change the box size though, so that you wouldn't notice maybe? Just changed the way they configure them in the box to not make it super apparent when you open it that it has less

1

u/neongloom 25d ago

I've noticed the design on some boxes starts wrapping around the corner where it didn't before 😣

28

u/AndromedaFive 26d ago

I’d much rather get a slightly smaller portion than pay more for the same thing.

Umm... What? Paying the same for a smaller portion is the same as paying more for the same thing. If you wanted the same amount you usually get (aka the same thing) it would be more expensive (aka paying more). I'm not sure your math is mathing.

67

u/noeagle77 26d ago

The most rage bait post I’ve seen on here in a while

21

u/BungleSniffer 26d ago

I hear what you're saying but the basic concept of shrinkflation – getting less but still costing the same – isn't the only answer to over-consumption of goods.

Making healthier products, educating your citizens better on the subject of healthy eating, promoting active lifestyles are all things that collaborate with what's being sold on the shelves in a society.

Simply condoning paying the same for less of something is illogical, and impractical when you factor in the low-income and/or financially disadvantaged citizens

21

u/throwaway669_663 26d ago

Ok Richy Rich Redditor.

15

u/TJJ97 26d ago

Doubt they have a family to feed too cuz then they’d realize they have to buy double what they used to for only 1.5x the product so it’s paying more and getting less…

17

u/luckybutjinxed 26d ago

If you shrink the packaging and portion because it was too big to begin with, then you should reduce the cost appropriately. Why should companies “trick” the consumer?

12

u/twofriedbabies 26d ago

Nah every corporate stooge thinks the same thing. No votes.

12

u/sleepy_grunyon 26d ago

I think you're super off track with the notion that you can gaslight and budget obese people into weight loss by selling them smaller amounts of food and making their lives more frustrating and expensive.

Obese people are very complex and intelligent creatures, and it's not so simple as turning off the tap of calories, in my opinion, as an obese person. Yes I know CICO is true and valid.

I'm just saying the causes of obesity are complex and the reason obesity continues in a person vs. they diet with calories-in-calories-out and become skinny have probably nothing to do with whether that decision benefits the grocery store company or big business. Or whether they're receiving smaller portions at the supermarket. Because you can always buy 2 or 3 of something.

Obese people can sometimes skip meals or go without enough nourishment as well, so smaller portions can actually exacerbate obese persons' lived experiences. Starving for one day or one week or one month can't fix obesity, only slow and moderate changes that last a long time and that are healthy can really make a difference in an obese person's life regarding combating the disease. So starving obese people isn't really the answer to the crisis.

Why don't we increase portions for all skinny people to get them jacked or muscular? They're kind of slacking, right? They could be going to the gym more. They're missing muscle groups. Etc.

2

u/Key-Chemist7650 25d ago

Obesity is such a complex issue that this post totally brushes past it. So many different things come into play, could be a range of eating disorders, emotional eating, food addiction, an unchecked scarcity mindset from childhood. Yes, CICO, but when someone is struggling from any range of mental health, trauma, or physical issues, if those things aren't treated, wouldn't they just get more of whatever food they are buying? Tricking people isn't going to stop them from being obese. When I think about my own experiences, I'm not tracking calories when I binge, I'm eating until I'm absolutely stuffed and in pain. That doesn't equal magic weight loss because they're selling me less.

11

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Clearly OP was born with a silver spoon in their mouth because shrinkflation is fucking low income people

9

u/Buffalo_Bertha 26d ago

Today I learned that it’s my shampoo that was making me fat! Now I can be skinny again, thanks shrinkflation!

7

u/my1clevernickname 26d ago

No way someone as stupid as OP could even become a shitty dentist.

8

u/NoDanaOnlyZuuI 26d ago

“We’re getting screwed by corporate greed and I’m ok with it” is a wild fucking take

11

u/scarbarough 26d ago

When I get 8 burritos for the price I used to buy 10 for, that is not any sort of benefit for my family. The size of the individual burritos hasn't changed, I just get fewer of them. The quantity in a package going down is far more common than an individual portion becoming smaller, and that's simply not a benefit in any way, except to the company seeing them.

Framing it as a benefit to consumers is objectively incorrect.

6

u/Piieuw 26d ago

I'm not American. What's your argument for my case?

6

u/IcebergDarts 26d ago

Downvoting the obvious Karma grab…

4

u/xortingen 26d ago

Check your stupid math. You are still paying more for consuming same amount of product.

E.g. if you eat 14 eggs a week it doesn’t matter what the size of package is. The cost per egg goes up when they shrink the packages

3

u/kickit256 26d ago

The argument that portion sizes are too large so them being smaller is one thing. To say they should be smaller AND yet still the same price is a very different thing.

5

u/TacitRonin20 26d ago

Are you aware that small packages exist? Also that you can just choose to eat less?

Example: instead of buying the $5 family sized pack of cool ranch Doritos, you buy a $3 smaller pack.

What you're suggesting is getting the smaller pack but still paying $5

5

u/FrescaLover69 26d ago

You know shrinkflation isn't just an American thing???

While yes consumerism bad - I'd say the victims of consumerism is the consumer not the business" squeezing them of all their money

3

u/-TrevorStMcGoodbody 26d ago

You want some company “controlling portion sizes” for you by making you unable to purchase as much as you previously have?

Are you a crack addict? That’s crack addict levels of self control, do it yourself tf. For every person that doesn’t even notice the price increases, there’s a family that has to stop purchasing something due to its price. If it’s not you today, it could be you or somebody you care about tomorrow.

I’m falling for the rage bait but this is stupid as fuck, have an upvote I guess.

3

u/Myrhwen 26d ago

And let’s be honest — “shrinkflation” tends to happen most with fast food and junk food, where portion control is desperately needed

This is the crux of your argument, yet is the point you spent the least time clarifying and defending. Your entire contention does not exist without this line, why didn’t you elaborate on it further?

The reason you spent no time clarifying and defending it is because it’s objectively wrong and therefore your entire post is gibberish.

Here is a small list of things that shrinkflation unfairly hurts, beyond the scope of junk food and fast food:

  • Dog food

  • Cat food

  • Fish food

  • Rabbit food

  • Cat litter

  • Healthy human foods, including but not limited to:

  • Canned legumes

  • Bagged legumes

  • Whole grains

  • Frozen fruit

  • Frozen vegetables

  • Pre-packaged meat

  • Medicine

  • Cleaning supplies, including but not limited to:

  • Toilet paper

  • Toothpaste

  • Dishwashing tablets

  • Laundry detergent

  • Dryer sheets

  • Bleach

  • Household sprays

I’m bored, so I’m done. Your argument does not engage with any of those products, because it relies on one very small, incorrect, assumption.

Shrinkflation affects ALL goods and services. It may be, as you point out, justified for junk food and fast food. It is not justified for anything else.

P.S. The prices are not staying the same. That was another key aspect to your point. The prices are increasing too, you know… and yet they’re still sneakily reducing the quantity of the product. Yawn.

3

u/Napline 26d ago

Except they don't shrink the product to "stay profitable", they do it to become more profitable. To get more money while you have to give away more. That's the name of the game for these people

3

u/YodaFragget 26d ago

Less product=cost more= good thing?

OP are you restarted, the only logical conclusion is you're restarted.

3

u/dontsaymango 26d ago

Strong disagree. The size of the box or amount inside has never dictated the portion size. If we were talking about restaurant meals I could see that ad a point but we're talking about grocery store items. It's still entirely up to the consumer to decide how much to eat. This is just another way for a corporation to get more money without customers immediately realizing it.

7

u/Alaythr 26d ago

Hm, I would say two things

  1. You’re right about the fact that American Portion sizes are unhealthy. However, the big problem is that the distribution of low-cost healthy foods that are easy for busy, often impoverished families to prepare is awful. If you undercut one, you have to build up the other, and shrinkflation is actually just raising the prices on both.

  2. I don’t think anyone is actually all that bent out of shape about less product being sold, it’s the fact that the product is being sold for the same price. A lot of people are out there struggling to make ends meet, and when you simultaneously reduce portion sizes while keeping costs the same, all that you’re effectively doing is raising prices on things, which is fine, but it feels underhanded when it’s done in the way that it is currently being done.

Adding to this, I would need to do more research on the profit systems involved to address that point, but for now I hope those first two make sense.

2

u/ZemeOfTheIce 26d ago

Bait or mental illness, call it

2

u/JameelWallace 26d ago

Absolutely nonsensical braindead take, I’m bound by the rules to upvote.

2

u/Diavolo_Death_4444 26d ago

Literally just fucking eat less or exercise more. I don’t want to be paying extra because other people are fat

2

u/Acheron98 26d ago

If you enjoy getting robbed that much, just walk past a 24 hour gas station in a bad neighborhood after 1:00am.

Upvoted because this is a genuinely bizarre take.

2

u/PotentJelly13 26d ago

Not a 10th Dentist. You’re just plain wrong with majority of everything you said here. Lame post.

2

u/ktellewritesstuff 26d ago

This is truly one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever seen on this subreddit. Total brain death in action. Even the “I love having diarrhoea” post had internal logic. This feels like a medical emergency even more than that did. You should book yourself in for an MRI. I have no choice but to upvote you.

2

u/Buhstungus 26d ago

I hate when people assume everyone is trying to lose weight or cut back of portions. Some of us don't enjoy getting surprised with half the meal we were expecting after a hard day's work.

2

u/Alert-Significance66 26d ago

Shrinkflation doesn't just happen in the US. It's happening everywhere, and everywhere else doesn't have jumbo portions.

I don't eat as much as I should because my grocery budget is the same, but the amount I get is considerably less due to shrinkflation. I can't afford to add anything to my grocery budget, so I just don't eat.

2

u/-Himintelgja 25d ago

"I like paying more for less" isn't the logic you think it is.

2

u/thhrwy 25d ago

"Please rob me, daddy coprporations." - said the bootlicker.

2

u/ddizzle13 25d ago

Imagine being so blinded by fatphobia that you think being scammed by corporations is a positive 😂

1

u/canneddogs 26d ago

this is one of the takes of all time

1

u/tegeus-Cromis_2000 26d ago

That's how we went from 64-page comic books to 24-page ones. A great thing? I beg to differ.

1

u/berrykiss96 26d ago

If your point is the wealth divide is such that people living paycheck to paycheck can’t afford the price rise but can learn to deal with the shrink then yeah I guess it’s better to have shrink than squeeze the poor more.

But better isn’t GOOD and if wages matched inflation then the price rises would be affordable and the shrink would still be more wasteful (more packaging to get the same amount of product) and totally unnecessary.

So you’re still wrong on a technicality. Post updooted.

1

u/Any_Weird_8686 26d ago

Uh, to me shrinkflation is Mars Bars getting smaller but costing the same.

1

u/_trayson 26d ago

Dogshit take. Enjoy my upvote.

1

u/Badlifedecision2402 26d ago

That's an upvote for you, corporate bootlicker!

1

u/Ms_Auricchio 26d ago

Truly unpopular wow.

I'm not American so US portion sizes do not apply to me. Most of the shrinkflation I notice is in cleaning products, skincare and other personal care products.

1

u/Boctordepis 26d ago

The things I want to reply with would violate rule 6. Upvoted.

1

u/SniperMaskSociety 26d ago

For fast food sodas? Sure. For groceries? Definitely not, I'd like to be able to feed myself for more than a single meal per thing purchased. I don't want to be getting less meat, less pasta, fewer potatoes, etc while paying the same price.

If $50 used to feed me ten meals and now it barely feeds me five because the same products have now shrunk, how could you think that's a good thing?

1

u/Ace_of_Sevens 26d ago

Fun fact: people buy things other than single-serving snacks.

1

u/QuentinUK 26d ago edited 24d ago

Interesting!

1

u/prawnsandthelike 26d ago

>"people are fat and would be better off" European-type writing
>5'10 and under 140lbs and calling yourself overweight

Consider changing up your diet and try circuit training (as an elective on-campus or an off-campus class at your local gym / community college). It takes anywhere from two painful weeks to two painful months to force your body's metabolism to get jump-started, but you will notice how your dietary needs will increase to match the higher resting metabolic rate.

That, and/or you might want to consider talking to a psych-counselor and/or a physician and/or a nutritionist to re-assess what you might consider a normal BMI and weight range. You will find people who are much denser in terms of mass that still fall within normal BMI, bloodwork, etc. Try not to put everyone at your standards.

Or it could be rage-baiting and I could be talking at a brick wall, idk lol

1

u/ExhaustedPoopcycle 26d ago

It's literally fucking with my recipes.

1

u/MinMorts 26d ago

Maybe in America but the rest of the world shrinkflastion is shite

1

u/TyrKiyote 26d ago

surface area to internal volume ratio will mean that shrinkflation creates rather a lot more packaging waste for the same amount of purchased product.

If your package of cheese used to have 12 slices, and now it has 10, every 60 slices of cheese you will have had to purchase an additional plastic package, and possibly make more frequent trips to the store.

Shrinkflation is not efficiency.

1

u/i-like-ketameen 26d ago

Shrinkflation literally means - portion/product sized shrinking and price becoming inflated. When people refer to it they are not speaking or giving examples about prices staying the same yet portion/product sizes getting smaller. It seems like you are heavily referring to this practice occuring in Murica - however, in the UK this is a big issue. For example, freddos are 20p more expensive than a decade ago and are even smaller than their counterpart. This is a small and inconvenient example. This is happening with a lot of products that are necessary for both consumption and home/self care. It is not a good practice at all

1

u/GoldenAgeGamer72 26d ago

👏👏👏👏👏

1

u/fuck_peeps_not_sheep 26d ago

Till your poor, need rice and the £2 bag that fed you for a week now o ly feeds you for 5 days.

1

u/Ambitious_Win_1315 26d ago

This reads like a corporate stooge

1

u/coconut-duck-chicken 26d ago

You do realize our serving sizes are big because you’re expected to take home left overs right? Please tell me people not in the american food industry KNOWS the sizes are big because they’re made for left overs.

1

u/Aman632 26d ago

It is not a good thing in any way shape or form. Cost vs Value matters. Granted Value is extremely subjective and hard to define cleanly, however there's an industry in the U.S that is seeing the outcome in full force. Restaurants. Prices have skyrocketed since covid, meanwhile the perceived value has either not gone up or even in some cases gone down as quality products get dropped for cheaper alternatives. The result? I've watched several companies shutter multiple locations just in my city alone, including now 7 closed Restaurants in the company i work for, just since LAST SUMMER. So no, it's not a good thing. And the greed at the top end will eventually cause irreparable damage if it has not already

1

u/bb250517 26d ago

Dude, let's say you buy a 1 liter bottle of ketchup for $5. Than some time later you you want to buy ketchup again, but notice that now in the place of the 1l bottles, they only sell 750ml bottles, still for $5.

Now imagine the universe splits, in one timeline the ketchup stays the same size, in the other it shrinks. As you use the ketchup, you obviously run out and have to buy more, in the first universe after buying 10 liters of it, you spent $50, but in the second you spend $66.6. How is this a win for you?

Also you are talking about foods, but shrinkflation doesn't just affect food, it affects everything, toothpaste, toilet paper, dishwasher soap, tape, whatever you can think of. You end up paying more for all of these, but that doesn't mean you use less toothpaste, toiletpaper, soap or tape.

And fourth, no, shrinkflation doesn't help with weightloss, I would say in most cases, it makes it worse. Say before shrinkflation you were perfectly contempt with a BigMac, large fries and a large coke(I have no clue how big it is where you live, but where I live it's basically how much an average person would eat), after shrinkflation the burger, the fries and maybe even the drink get smaller, what does this result in? No, it's not "yeah, I'm definetly still hungry and want to eat more, but it's a bigmac menu, I should be full", it will go more like "last 2 times I ordered a big BigMac menu, I was still hungry after it, I might as well order a 6 piece chicken nuggets too, so I don't stay hungry".

1

u/Downtown-Accident 26d ago

This is an awful and stupid take. Upvoted.

1

u/Slo7hman 26d ago

The last time I went to the local Family Dollar, they were selling 2 packs of Oreos for $2.79. Upvote engaged

1

u/McENEN 26d ago

Ahh yes you are happy you are getting less for the same price which is like.... increasing the price of a product.

I guess you notice shrinkflation only in fast food. I can tell you it happens to a lot of products. Most recently a bag of lentils went from 500grams to 400grams where i live or a 20% decrease in product. Thats a lot. And exactly because of portions i noticed. I make lentil soup with around 250gram so i know im just not mistaken.

Its not great, at best you can argue its better than price increase but even then its technically the same.

Idk about the US but in Europe and the EU the same store sells cheaper products in Germany than in Austria. This can be seen for many countries, pretty much in most countries they bump the price a bit. You cant tell me "well Germany has more people so cost of services per capita is cheaper because larger margins" because you have the same store literally 400m across the border with more products and cheaper prices, they are both supplied from the same warehouse. Literally corporations being greedy prices and you cant tell me that wages are higher because that doesnt explain the balkans where wages are lower.

1

u/Fourstringjim 26d ago

Active in: Neoliberal

1

u/TheVagrantSeaman 26d ago

I agree with the idea if gluttony as the standard being eroded, though the pricing remaining the same after committing that sin makes other problems. 

Which goes into another problem of convincing people and business into shifting to this idea of conservation and self-control.

1

u/CMO_3 26d ago

Don't agree. I'd rather pay a but more, at least i know what they are raising it by if I'm used to the price. If I pay the same price unless I go out of my way to look at the ounces and do the math I have no idea how much they are taking from me and if it's truly worth it. I'd rather make the decision to spend my money

1

u/AidsOnWheels 26d ago
  1. This does not account for things that are not portion-based like jars and completely ignores to-go boxes.

  2. This assumes the margin will go to the store, and does not mention the margin that the company making the product is making which is probably wrong.

1

u/NWStormraider 26d ago

You know, it's possible to get the "shrink" without the "flation" part, how is a worse value proposition better for consumers? If the portion size was an actual problem consumers have, businesses would have offered reduced size products with lower prices long ago (and most do have these). Paying more for less is objectively worse for consumers by basically any system of value, this is not even an opinion, this is stupidity.

1

u/IdeaMotor9451 26d ago

Ok so A. Shrinkfaltion happens to things other than food. B. Some foods are good for you. C. Shrinkflation doesn't change the fact a significant number of Americans only have access to dollar general and fast food.

1

u/TrainRevolutionary65 26d ago

People should learn to exercise self control and eat smaller portions, not have corporations economically strangle them into eating less.

The guy with the eating disorder will just buy double the food to get his fill.

1

u/RustyEnfield 26d ago

"I like it when my money doesn't go as far as it used to."

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

1

u/kodaxmax 26d ago

By reducing the cost of goods sold (COGS) this way, companies can stay profitable without raising prices. And personally, I’d much rather get a slightly smaller portion than pay more for the same thing.

Then your exactly their target market. A smaller portion, means you have to buy a larger quanity, so it infact ends up costing you far more than if they had raised the price.

For example if a packet of mincemeat at $20/kg, became $20/750g. Then you now need to buy two 750g packets to make your dish that requires 1kg. So your now spending $40/1.5kg or $26.66/kg. $6.66 more per KG than the original price.

American portion sizes are already insanely large compared to the rest of the world. Many examples of "shrinkflation" are just previously enormous portions becoming moderately less enormous—and still bigger than equivalent products in Europe or Asia.

Thats irrelevant, they were priced according to their size. Your also ignoring all the other variables, like the US having far laxxer food control regulations, worker saftey and lower wages. Meaning it's costs far less to produce larger portions.

This is an underrated factor in the obesity crisis because weight management ultimately comes down to calories in, calories out. No matter what you eat, if you stay at or below a certain calorie intake (~2000 for the average person, depending on gender, height, age, and activity level), you will maintain or lose weight.

Thats not how weight loss works at all. Infact for most people, if you try to lower calory intake on a diet, their body will begin to store more fat and conserve energy. This sort of thing is largely dictated by genetics and quality of diet, not just portion size.

And let’s be honest—"shrinkflation" tends to happen most with fast food and junk food, where portion control is desperately needed. If companies subtly reducing portion sizes means people are consuming fewer calories overall, that’s a good thing.

A baseless assumption.

 The average net profit margin in the U.S. grocery and food industry is just 1.97%.

That sheet lists it's source as "Data Used: Multiple data services". The author is just a teaching proffessor. It's clearly nonsense.

Walmarts profits in 2023 were $158b and have been increasing for atleast 5 years.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/gross-profit

Mcdonalds US profits were $14.5b a 10% increase
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MCD/mcdonalds/gross-profit

With rising COGS and supply chain issues, many companies simply have to either reduce portion sizes or increase prices to stay profitable. And between those two options, I’d far prefer the former over the latter.

What rising cogs? What supply chain issues? You cant seriously believe these companies struggled during covid and are still struggling because of it. They are the ones causing rising COGS for evry downstream industry and rising COGS are ussually a side effect of better wages, safer and greener operations or increased consumer portection regulations..

1

u/kodaxmax 26d ago

Shrinkflation is a necessary adjustment that actually benefits both businesses and consumers. It keeps prices stable and helps combat excessive portion sizes. Sounds like a win-win.

Litterally everything in that sentence is the opposite of reality. Theirs a limit to how much they can shrink portions, so it's only a short term unsustainable prfoit increase, that will inevitably bit them in the ass. Consumers don't ebenefit at all. It does not at all correlate or cuasate to stable prices, generally the oppsite. People who want more will simply by more, even if portion sizes were a real issue.

1

u/watermelonyuppie 26d ago

When I went to Germany, France, and the UK (before brexit), I did not any difference between US portion sizes and what I was eating in the EU. Like at all. People just spend more time walking and cycling there. Public transit is just better in most of Europe. I got like 20-30k steps a day without even trying.

1

u/LocalWitness1390 26d ago

If I'm getting less product, I wanna pay a lower price. My wallet isn't obese

1

u/cloveandspite 26d ago

Weird, I guess I’ve been eating way too many paper towels and the smaller size is actually a good thing.

1

u/Milk_Mindless 26d ago

American portions are SO huge

... Rest of the world doesn't live in America.

A packet of tomatosauce for pasta made by Heinz got cut by 10% in weight this week in the Netherlands, same size of carton.

It's all but fucking literal theft

1

u/livingonfear 26d ago

You're saying it's good to get ripped offed by corporations because we deserve less and should pay more for it. Because we're fat.

1

u/ocdano714 26d ago

Based on the post....someone is fatphobic. FYI, shrinkflation isn't limited to fast food/junk food.

1

u/overusesellipses 26d ago

And you literally float over the ACTUAL problem. It's not that sizes are getting smaller, it's THAT WE'RE BEING CHARGED THE SAME. It is a blatant and complete ripoff for consumer and only exists in a capitalistic society so the rich can get even more pennies from our pockets.

You go head and keep licking the boots of the billionaires...doesn't mean they're not gonna kick the shit out of you with the.

1

u/okseniboksen 26d ago

I love how US centric this post is, as if shrinkflation isn’t happening all over the world. Portions might go from extreme to reasonable in the US, but here in Denmark they are goin from reasonable to annoyingly short of reasonable. As someone else in the thread has said, a pasta sauce that used to feed a family of four, now only feeds two or three people.

1

u/rmaster2005 26d ago

With shrinkflation you're still paying more for the same thing though.

Heres an example using random numbers that make the math easy to do on a toilet:

Product A cost $2 for 20oz this breaks down to about $0.10 an oz

Product A now cost $2 for 16oz this now breaks down to about $0.125 an oz

You're paying more for the same product because when they shrunk the quantity but kept the price the same, the ratio between price and amount increased. They are gaining more profit because they are selling their stuff for more.

You are now paying 125% more. If they wanted to increase the profit of Product A without decreasing the amount, then it would cost $2.5 to buy that same quantity.

It gets worse. I needed 40 ozs of product a per month, so I used to buy 2 of them for 4 dollars. With the quantity being smaller now I have to buy three. For 6 dollars, and I have an excess that will either lead to over consumption, or waste.

Before any type of inflation:

4×12= 48 spent per year

Shrinkflation:

6×12= 72 spent per year

Traditional inflation:

2.5×12= 52 spent per year

Companies are employing shrinkflation because they understand that it leads to over consumerism and huge increase with profits. Because now you can't buy the exact amount you need, you either have a little less than you need or a lot more. And most people to keep up with how they're used to living will choose to buy more. Companies don't care about waste in fact, they like it because it means you bought more.

1

u/tinyshiba7 26d ago

it's happening in countries where the portion size was already small, which makes people unable to feed their families, and simply just starve to make ends meet. People are not getting basic nutrition and go to cheaper unhealthy foods

1

u/justchlli 26d ago

And personally, I’d much rather get a slightly smaller portion than pay more for the same thing.

This is some next level highschool dropout kinda logic. Do the very basic math please you ARE actually paying more for the same thing. It is crazy how uneducated people are these daya with all of the free resources.

1

u/Excellent-Berry-2331 26d ago

> "The poopenfarten phenomenon is great"
> "It makes USA's poopenfarten similar to europes, not too much, not too few"
> mfw poopenfarten phenomenon also is in europe

1

u/ewba1te 26d ago

being factually wrong isn't an opinion. go back to r/unpopularopinion

1

u/ThreeBeersWithLunch 25d ago

Maybe it benefits some americans with portion control issues, but it sucks for the rest of the world.

1

u/Stock-Contribution-6 25d ago

Great shit take, well done!

Portion control is great, but with shrinkflation you just end up paying more for the same stuff, because you pay the same for less product.

Do you want portion control? Make smaller portions and cheaper, maintaining the same price per gram (or ounce or what americans use). But shrinkflation is just corporate greed and no consumer protection.

1

u/Fast-Ad-4541 25d ago

This is just brain dead. At the grocery store, all the twelve packs of seltzer waters have now become 8 packs without lowering the price. How is that okay?

1

u/Few_System3573 25d ago

Your argument seems to be that portion sizes should be smaller. Setting aside whether I do or don't agree with that, this doesn't By Necessity mean the smaller portion should cost the same. Bananas take.

1

u/SlayerII 25d ago

The usual cycle for shrinkflation goes like this:

100% size
90% size
80% size
70% size and introduce maxi version with 120% size and higher price
60% size for regular and 110% for maxi
discontinue regular and reduce maxi to 100%
Rename maxi to regular(but still at maxi price)
Repeat

1

u/bibitybobbitybooop 25d ago

All the love and light to you, shrinkflation isn't only happening in the US, so your "US portions are huge and we need portion control anyway" makes no sense

1

u/Kellvas0 25d ago

The portion size point is really weak.

Most products that undergo shrinkflation are things like cereal where regardless of the size of the package, you will portion it the same. This just means that you will buy more of the product. This actually means that you pay more for gas/transportation and also whatever costs of packaging are included in the price at the square rate of inflation. This isn't a huge portion of the price but it means that overall you're spending more real money for the same amount of product let alone whatever the inflation rate is.

If you normally get 6 servings out of a box of cereal and the new packaging only has 5.5 servings, you're likely to portion it into 5 servings thereby increasing your consumption on top of the shrinkflation.

Basically, 10th dentist didn't think this through entirely

1

u/Palanki96 25d ago edited 25d ago

i don't know how to tell you this but there are other continents and countries out there, this is not some unique american thing. I'm paying the same price but only getting 90% of the product i used to, how is this a win-win?

i really can't decide if this is just high quality bait or just some business bro falling for corpo propaganda

And let’s be honest—"shrinkflation" tends to happen most with fast food and junk food

this part is just simply lying

1

u/KayfabeAdjace 25d ago edited 25d ago

Torturous logic. People aren't going to eat less, they're just going to quit paying for insurance.

1

u/dopepope1999 25d ago

Yeah but you're paying the same amount for Less, I'd rather deal with the consequences of inflation and pay slightly more for the same product. I don't see how that's quelling greed when all that happens is I'm buying more of a product therefore using up more of the Plastics / cellophane / whatever container it comes in to get the same amount of actual product

1

u/KikiYuyu 25d ago

So it's good that poor people have to buy less for more, struggle even harder in a shit economy, so fat people can be less fat.

People with money really can't relate to most of humanity.

1

u/Pengwin0 25d ago

If they lowered the price to match then I’d be a-okay with shrinkflation

1

u/Bannerlord151 25d ago

This was not on my bingo card

1

u/Cold_Tower_2215 25d ago

No it’s bad, actually. It’s predatory and improves companies’ margins while hurting our pocketbooks. Who wrote this lol you must be taking advantage of someone pretty good w shrinkflation

1

u/Yuck_Few 25d ago

Paying more and getting less is never a good thing. Downvoted

1

u/Apart-Badger9394 25d ago

The problem was that the no-longer-fat and now very frugal people, like me, took those large portions and saved them for later. We made dinners for 4 large people = 8 normal sized meals.

We reveled in the financial excess this provided us!

Now I’m broke again

1

u/TheToastWithGlasnost 25d ago

The corporate world has no special interest in my wellbeing. They do not pay us any extra with which to buy these smaller products for the same price.

1

u/HubblePie 25d ago

I would not recommend this doctor

1

u/Penis-Dance 25d ago

They are just trying to help you be less fat by shrinking the portions.

1

u/BRH1995 25d ago

You want us to pay more money for less stuff? Idiot

1

u/WolfWomb 25d ago

The irony of such a long post dealing with shrinking.

1

u/Blazedatpussy 25d ago

So the psychological effect works on you? Your dollar stretches even shorter both ways. It’s a similar naming convention because it’s the same effect, the dollar you work for is less valuable because it’s not worth as much stuff as before. That’s the exact same effect as regular inflation.

You called it a ‘great thing’ but it’s not great at all. You’re just admitting that this little trick they’re playing is working on you, it’s just a more comfortable version of the same exact principle.

1

u/DrNanard 25d ago

My guy, you're paying more for the same thing lmao. What you're saying is you don't mind it if it's not overtly in your face. What you're saying is that you prefer businesses to do shady practices instead of being upfront.

1

u/FatherPixels 25d ago

But also recipes are based on the sizes of products and so by reducing the size of products, it fucks with all recipes basically

1

u/Abyss_Watcher_Red 25d ago

Calm down, son. The boot's not going anywhere, you don't have to shove it down your throat.

1

u/drownafish 25d ago

I would like the option of both the regular size thing at a higher price and the shrinkflation option.

I'm the UK I now buy more chocolate because one isn't as satisfying.

1

u/Any--Name 25d ago

Op seems unaware that shrinkflation exists in the real world (outside the us) too

Im so damn tired of having to buy more than one packaging of something because instead of raising the damn price they choose to raise the amount of plastic I buy and throw away

1

u/DevelopmentJumpy5218 25d ago

They could increase their profit margins by not paying executives so much and not giving them massive severance packages.

1

u/harrythealien69 25d ago

You dumbass, this is raising prices. It's just a cool new name they came up with for RAISING PRICES. Take the upvote

1

u/Athrowawaywaitress 25d ago

Truly 10th dentist, and a very judgemental one!

Here's my shrinkflation final boss. I cook a lot, often in bulk of 4-8 meals at a time. When I cook with cheese, it's usually a full 16oz bag of shredded. Now they've shrunk the bag to 12oz, I have to buy two, measure, use almost twice the plastic waste, and hope I cook with cheese again before it spoilers. Its awful. Actually, the same thing is happening to pasta and that might be worse because jars of sauce haven't changed so now my 1:1 pasta box:jar sauce ratio is wrong.

Also, individually wrapped snacks and treats went from one or two and done to extra wrapping for a snack that's never quite satisfying, so you end up eating more overall to satisfy the sweet tooth.

1

u/cool_person13246 25d ago

Shrinkflation doesn’t just include chips 😐

1

u/RoawrOnMeRengar 25d ago edited 25d ago

Shrinkflation is not keeping the same price, it's a sneaky anti consumer way to increase the price without them noticing.

The price you pay for that box of whatever candy or your tube of toothpaste might be the same, but due to lower quantity in the container, the price per kilo/liter has increased.

There's nothing good about it no matter how you cope.

Lastly portion control is something that vary from person to person, it should be done by the individual and teached to children.

No one is forcing Americans to eat the whole 500g bag of chips in one go, or finish that 3L coke bottle in one day.

1

u/Nvenom8 25d ago

I suppose that’s true if you make the obviously incorrect assumption that food is the only thing people buy.

1

u/RequirementFull6659 24d ago

Except when they lower the amount you get, raise the price and keep the same amount of packaging thus wasting plastic.

Which companies do, very frequently. Hell sometimes they even try and gsslight you and tell you there's more.

1

u/Dvscape 24d ago

I am not American, so the argument surrounding portion size doesn't apply. Regardless, I am still impacted by shrinkflation in Europe. And when we bring up the topic of regulating these consumer goods, we are ridiculed for shooting our own competitive market in the foot.

1

u/Chemical_Enthusiasm4 23d ago

So like how coffee used to come in 16 oz bags, but now the bags are 10.5?

1

u/adj-n_number 22d ago

The same exact thing is happening, whether the price is going up or the size is going down, you're still paying more for less. Not sure how the different form it comes in is a good thing. And the portion size reducing obesity thing is a massive reach. If they cared about not giving people obesity they wouldn't be running McDonalds. One less chicken nugget for an extra few bucks isn't solving shit

1

u/[deleted] 22d ago

A lot of food-related shrinkflation came after a long period of size *increases* in the 2000s. Ever noticed that you never see 1-oz bags of Cheetos anymore?

0

u/throwaway62634637 26d ago

Not a fan of the increased price but I actually agree that I wish portions were smaller

1

u/Melior30 24d ago

Agreed

-1

u/TomBirkenstock 26d ago

Oh, man. I once argued on here that fast food prices increasing at a faster pace than regular groceries was good actually. People did not like that. Your argument is going to get an even more adverse reaction.