[HN Gopher] Shrinkflation Tracker ___________________________________________________________________ Shrinkflation Tracker Author : samlader Score : 251 points Date : 2023-09-15 15:06 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.shrinkflation.io) (TXT) w3m dump (www.shrinkflation.io) | lwansbrough wrote: | I would like to be able to sort by change delta. Cool site! | nowooski wrote: | I ticker arrows could use explanation. I assume green is good and | red is bad, but it's not immediately clear what the units are | ect. | karim79 wrote: | I would love to see something like this for tracking the sizes of | the content catalogs of streaming services like Netflix, D+, and | the other streaming services which go out of their way to create | the illusion of sitting on top of an infinite content library. To | see how those values change over time, while subscription fees | remain the same (at best) would be quite revealing. | alex_young wrote: | I don't really understand the recent focus on this. Shrinkflation | has always been a thing, and it seems like it shouldn't be | strongly correlated with actual inflation, since the critical | equation is something like how much material should a given | product contain to provide enough value to consumers, or in other | words it's equally advantageous to optimize the value of your | product in times of low or high inflation and thus optimize | margins. | | Maybe we just care more about it when we see prices raising in | general? IDK. | prepend wrote: | It's not a recent focus, it's a continual focus. | | Shrinkflation is important for understanding true price | increase. It's not enough to say "toothpaste went up 20%" in | price because you really want to know "toothpaste went up 35% | based on weight." | | It's also frustrating because it's just another level of | bullshit to sift through when shopping. It would be nice if | manufacturers and retailers didn't do this. | IAmGraydon wrote: | The worst part of shrinkflation is restaurants who have reduced | the sizes of their meals, in my opinion. I've seen this quite a | lot in everything from fast casual places like Cava to locally | owned establishments. | jacquesm wrote: | That may not be a bad thing per se. In plenty of restaurants | the amount of food in a serving is way too large for me and the | alternative probably was to raise prices. In restaurants food | isn't usually the high margin product, that's alcohol. | kernx16 wrote: | itd be interesting if tracking price is also included, although I | can imagine that would be insanely difficult to keep track of for | many reasons. I love this idea and hope it continues to grow. | syassami wrote: | @samlader - now overlay the graphs with EPS growth * -1 to see | correlation | hhthrowaway1230 wrote: | Would be nice to have the actual owning organisations in there. i | bet these are largely subsidiaries of the same mother company. | karim79 wrote: | I remember using this app[0] on my phone years ago, I just | checked and they have an API. I'm not sure, but if I recall | correctly this allowed you to scan barcodes of things and warn | you if they are sub-brand or subsidiary of [evil company you | wish to avoid]. | | [0] https://www.buycott.com/api | doubled112 wrote: | Was it just based on that chart about the illusion of choice? | corinroyal wrote: | This was my reaction too. I'd like to see which conglomerates | and their divisions are the worst offenders. To break it down | by brands alone makes it hard to identify who to name and | shame. | sgu999 wrote: | Nice project, very clean etc. | | Now about that shrinkflation thing... There isn't a single | product in that list that is actually healthy. Highly processed | food is horrible for us and our environment, and the gigantic | conglomerates making and selling them are a plague to our | economies. | | Veggies at my local farmers' market didn't shrink in size, prices | went up slightly for some and it's very visible from the tag. | Same goes for the bread I buy at the bakery, and the pasta I get | in bulk in a small store nearby. If you have no choice but to | rely on these products bought in a supermarket, you've been | conned way before shrinkflation hit. | prepend wrote: | I don't rely on candy. I enjoy it a few times per year. | | It sucks that Cadbury eggs get smaller and smaller. Not because | I need their nutrients to survive. | camhart wrote: | Did they get smaller or just fewer in the pack? | [deleted] | cactusplant7374 wrote: | Bread wouldn't be bread if it wasn't processed. We would be | eating the wheat kernels. | lq9AJ8yrfs wrote: | Not all bread has | | * added sugar | | * preservatives | | * texturizers | | Cut these out and you're on the right side concerning | processed foods. | cactusplant7374 wrote: | All bread cuts out most of the fiber of the wheat kernel. | That's more of a net gain than removing the items you | listed. | sgu999 wrote: | I wrote _highly_ processed, not processed | throwanem wrote: | Toothpaste and soap aren't healthy? | bumby wrote: | Some toothpaste can be a net-negative, like those with | abrasives. It's actually the mechanical aspect of brushing | that does most of the hygiene. Frothing and minty taste of | toothpaste are mostly marketing. Maybe there's a case for | fluoride, but there are other sources like tap water (and | that's a whole digression of it's own). | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | > Some toothpaste can be a net-negative, like those with | abrasives | | Yup. Those toothpastes with extra whitening are wreaking | havoc. It's effectively liquid sandpaper. | | > Frothing and minty taste of toothpaste are mostly | marketing | | The frothing, sure. The mint? I mean, I like _some_ kind of | flavoring. Mint is nice. | | > Maybe there's a case for fluoride, but there are other | sources like tap water (and that's a whole digression of | it's own). | | There's _definitely_ a case for the fluoride. Your tap | water isn 't enough. | bumby wrote: | > _The mint? I mean, I like some kind of flavoring. Mint | is nice._ | | I'm saying it's a subjective nice, it's not adding to the | hygienic effect of toothpaste. Its was added to _feel_ | clean, not because it actually does any cleaning. | | Fluoride works, but the concentration in toothpaste is | usually too low to be effective. | mauvehaus wrote: | Those of us on well water don't get fluoride in our | drinking water. | bumby wrote: | Hopefully you get it from a dentist visit because unless | you use a prescription toothpaste, it probably doesn't | have much effect. | cactusplant7374 wrote: | Mostly marketing or people actually enjoy these things and | they encourage good oral hygiene? | bumby wrote: | I guess, yes, from a behavioral change standpoint they're | effective, even if they don't objectively contribute to | hygiene themselves. | sgu999 wrote: | Fair enough, but let's not pretend this is what shrinkflation | is all about... | switch007 wrote: | Warning: rant about brands | | The sadistic think about brands is that people are paying for | marketing team to continue to lie to them and brainwash them, to | convince them to continue buying their products! | | Media is full of brands - gosh I wonder how they have all that | budget for expensive marketing campaigns ! | | It's so incredibly hard to wean someone off brands. I've been | campaigning my family for years, but they still seem allergic to | Aldi/Lidl etc. | | Take cereal (eww): | | Aldi Corn Flakes (500g) - PS0.75 ($0.93) | | Kellogs Cornflakes (500g) - PS2.25 ($2.79) | | 3x more expensive! THREE. (some people might be thinking that | $2.79 is _nothing_ but just think in relative terms) | | Yes Kellogs Cornflakes taste a bit nicer but that's not the | comparison to make: a small serving of oats with some fruit is a | MUCH better breakfast meal. Oats are roughly same amount of | calories per gram but much more filling and less sugar, salt, fat | etc and double the protein. But we're all addicted to cereal | because the adverts brainwashed our parents in to thinking it's a | healthy meal to have in the morning. | | (EDIT: oops guess I'm a hypocrite) And has anyone tasted a | McVities Digestive biscuit recently? (similar to a graham | cracker, a distant relative of the shortbread - very very popular | in the UK)? Absolutely vile. If you're still buying them you're | literally an idiot and COVID must have destroyed your taste buds. | Aldi own brand digestives taste like the old recipe of McVities | Digestives at 1/3 of the price! | ravenstine wrote: | But sugary cereal is heart-healthy! | | Oh wait, that's horseshit that even Kellogg can't get away with | anymore. | | https://thecounter.org/kellogg-sugary-cereal-healthy-label/ | | Breakfast cereal, namely corn flakes, is a mass psychosis. Have | them sometimes if you like as a treat, but even then you might | as well eat a bowl of ice cream. The idea of eating cornflakes | was invented by a guy who gave his "patients" yogurt enemas. | Why in 2023 are we still taking his advice? | hankchinaski wrote: | the choice as you say it's not between kellogs vs aldi cereals. | But between highly processed and industrially produced crap and | organic high quality raw foods. I personally don't buy any of | the products on this list. But for a lot of people, there isn't | a lot of choice but to go to a discount because that's | literally only thing they can afford unfortunately. | KomoD wrote: | > but that's not the comparison to make | | It is one a lot of people make, also... you make that | comparison literally one line down. | [deleted] | [deleted] | jstanley wrote: | I also find the Lidl Ginger Nut biscuits are vastly superior to | the McVities ones, which taste burnt. I don't understand why | McVities aren't better. | switch007 wrote: | > I don't understand why McVities aren't better. | | People pay McVities to brainwash them in to thinking they're | better, so they don't need to be better LOL | xwdv wrote: | I don't get it, would people rather pay higher prices up front? | | A lot of times people don't even use the entirety of a product | they pay for. Shrinkflation can essentially just cut that part | out. Even if you eat 100% of something, your brain was probably | satiated after eating 80%, the rest is excess. | | For stuff like candy you won't notice a missing gummy bear or | two. You'll get the same satisfaction. | waffleiron wrote: | If it's two gummy bears a year, a decade later it's an empty | bag. | daveoc64 wrote: | A lot of people resent how sneaky shrinkflation feels. | | Manufacturers would gladly boast about increasing the size of | their product if they did so, but do everything they can to | hide when they've shrunk it. | | Manipulative tricks like oddly shaped packaging or plastic | fillers to take up the space that was previously product are | examples of why people hate shrinkflation. | | If something goes up in price but the quantity and quality | stayed the same, people wouldn't feel like they're being | tricked. | xwdv wrote: | They wouldn't feel tricked, but then they'd be pissed off at | the rising prices, which affects their ability to enjoy the | product. | | If someone sells you a bag of chips but they've already eaten | two of the chips, your enjoyment of the bag will still be the | same as if you had the whole bag. If they reveal that fact to | you though, then your experience will be soured. | | This is for the consumer's own benefit. | lotsofpulp wrote: | People just like to feel outraged, apparently. | spandextwins wrote: | Ronald Reagan used to have the misery index | DanHulton wrote: | I feel like Reagan used to _cause_ the misery index. | spandextwins wrote: | They all do | eppsilon wrote: | http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx | not_the_fda wrote: | The idea is nice, but it seems to be tracking junk food, which | you probably shouldn't eat and can easily avoid. | | I'd be more interested in home goods such as soap, detergent; and | food staples. | [deleted] | Koeniggimeno wrote: | There's a listing for soap on the front page, I don't think | it's confined to just junk food | KomoD wrote: | I searched soap and got no result | dfgasdgsd wrote: | I don't think the search works, but it's here: | https://www.shrinkflation.io/products/535 | [deleted] | patrickwalton wrote: | We saw shrinkflation with our apartments when they went from a | central dumpster to expecting everyone in an 8-unit complex to | line up cans on the road | willio58 wrote: | I've definitely experienced this with colgate toothpaste and sure | enough it's on this list! | m3kw9 wrote: | For junk food which is what this mostly tracks, shrinkflation is | good for people's healths. | read_if_gay_ wrote: | >inflation is a good thing and here's why | corinroyal wrote: | Inflation Could Save Your Life! The reasons why may shock | you. | shmatt wrote: | Lipids HATE this one trick | read_if_gay_ wrote: | clickbait is not what i meant, why are we having a | reddit-tier comment chain? | rexpop wrote: | It's not lipids you should be worried about, it's | emulsifiers: | | > celluloses, mono and diglycerides of fatty acids, | modified starches, lecithins, carrageenans, phosphates, | gums, and pectins. Some recent studies have indicated | that emulsifiers can disturb gut bacteria and promote | inflammation, potentially increasing susceptibility to | cardiovascular issues.[0] | | 0. https://studyfinds.org/food-e-numbers-heart-disease/ | drivers99 wrote: | To OP's point, would be interesting to have an option to filter | out junk food. | mitthrowaway2 wrote: | Good news everyone! You can't afford snacks anymore. | ilyt wrote: | Well, till you need to get 2 burgers instead of one to feel | full... | lotsofpulp wrote: | That is the point, people eat fewer burgers because they | cannot afford more. | chongli wrote: | This has not worked out so well for other products. I live | in Canada where cigarettes are enormously expensive due to | taxes. Yet I know people who continue to smoke. | | They're a lot poorer now, and so they have less money to | spend on healthy food. So not only are they destroying | their health by smoking, they're stuck eating crappy food | as well. | tristor wrote: | Yes, GP is absolutely correct, all the people in the | developing world who can't afford food are much healthier | than those of us in the West, that live long enough and eat | enough to deal with diseases of obesity that primarily | affect one after 60 years of age. /s | seabass-labrax wrote: | You put /s, but that to an extent is sort of true. | Diseases can't be cured as effectively where remedies or | mitigations are too expensive, but the same first world | locations where medicine and care is most available also | have a litany of factors working against health. | | I don't believe though that this is inevitable, and I | hope that the first world will continue to improve its | situation, and that less well-equipped areas will somehow | avoid making the mistakes and leapfrog these | uncomfortable middle periods. We see this for instance | with the Industrial Revolution, where those that can be | credited with facilitating it generally did pretty poorly | for themselves, but those who industrialised later were | substantially better off. | lotsofpulp wrote: | The context is not affording junk food, not not affording | food. Most burgers qualify as junk food. | tristor wrote: | Sure. Starvation is more deadly than obesity however, and | globally more prevalent. | lotsofpulp wrote: | https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity- | and... | | >In 2016, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and | older, were overweight. Of these over 650 million were | obese. | | >39% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight in | 2016, and 13% were obese. | | https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-un-report-- | global-h... | | >The number of people affected by hunger globally rose to | as many as 828 million in 2021 | | I would bet the obesity numbers have greatly increased | since 2016. | waffleiron wrote: | Another statistic from your source | | > Around 2.3 billion people in the world (29.3%) were | moderately or severely food insecure in 2021 | | It's easy to talk on a forum like this, where the median | salary is massive compared to global/country median, that | poor people shouldn't be able to afford as much bad food. | I think when you do so you've lost touch with the average | person who is affected by things like shrinkflation. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I never meant to imply poor people, as in starvation | poor, should not be able to afford as much bad food. | | But generally, the people eating burgers in developed | countries have a choice of eating healthier foods, and | choose to eat burgers instead. | tristor wrote: | What wonder, we've nearly conquered hunger if obesity has | finally become more prevalent than starvation. I stand | corrected. Nonetheless, starvation is more directly | harmful/deadly. Obesity may kill you eventually, | starvation will kill you in relatively short order. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Sure, but this thread is about the price of processed | junk foods going up, including burgers, the sat fat laden | mayo, and the bread enveloping it. | | Price increases in healthy lentils, grains, nuts, fruits, | vegetables, dairy, and healthier meats/poultry/fish is a | concern for the global poor, but that is not what is | talked about here. | M3L0NM4N wrote: | I don't particularly care about shrinkflation. It gets calculated | in the CPI (obviously) and most of the time it's goods that are | unhealthy and overpriced to begin with. | cactusplant7374 wrote: | But a lot of us enjoy eating unhealthy foods. And as long as we | don't have diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc | then it's not a problem. | switch007 wrote: | I think it's just a wild theory at this stage, but some | doctors are saying that eating unhealthy food leads to | diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure | cactusplant7374 wrote: | If one is sedentary and obese, yes. | andy_ppp wrote: | Sure, most of these items also cost next to nothing to make too | and costs to actually make have barely risen (as a percentage | of the item cost). So mostly it's companies using inflation to | squeeze more money out of people. | M3L0NM4N wrote: | I agree that material cost is not a major component of the | cost in a lot of these products. | | It's marketing, distribution, etc. I don't think inflation is | their excuse to squeeze more money out of you as it is to | spend more in other areas of the business, as they should. | phreeza wrote: | It's basically a dark pattern. Not illegal or anything, but | designed to mask relevant information from the consumer. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > most of the time it's goods that are unhealthy and overpriced | to begin with | | Like British housing, horribly overpriced and half of it has | mould. | zamadatix wrote: | For some reason the same product often shows up multiple times in | the list. And I don't mean "the product looks the same" I mean | "the URL it links is even the exact same" . | _aavaa_ wrote: | On mobile some of the prices show up as 8E210, which is a | hilarious bug | kardos wrote: | Or someone added a bogus 'observation' | jacquesm wrote: | Same on FF. | jqjqjqjq wrote: | Should be able to sort by highest to lowest. Name and shame'em! | furyofantares wrote: | I don't like that it's sneaky, but I would rather candy servings | get smaller rather than prices get higher, if those are the | options. | ShadowBanThis01 wrote: | Love the idea, but how far back do the data go? | | And someone pointed out the preponderance of junk food; I want to | see core items that are often used in recipes. To me this is the | most offensive aspect of these scams: You know your favorite | recipe takes four cans of tomatoes, cans that have been the same | size for decades. Now... WHOOPS, your meal is messed up because | the manufacturer is too gutless to simply raise the price. | | The one example I see on the site is butter: | https://www.shrinkflation.io/search?query=butter | | These jagoffs reduced the quantity by 20%, which is definitely | enough to mess up recipes. | KomoD wrote: | > but how far back do the data go? | | Anywhere from 1297 to 9248 apparently, I guess he must have | some kind of time traveler | pazimzadeh wrote: | Recently I noticed that the baguettes at Whole Foods (in St. | Louis) are about 2 inches shorter than before. They are the same | price. | Hard_Space wrote: | I have thought about developing this site for the last 3-4 years! | This is exactly what it would have looked like. Thanks for saving | me the trouble (if I ever had got round to it). | kepano wrote: | In a high-inflation environment your profits are constantly | shrinking. The problem also affects small and independent makers | of all kinds. | | If you are an indie maker and priced your product at $10 in 2020, | you're now effectively making $8.38 USD[1]. Assuming inflation | will remain elevated and you want to maintain the same margins, | you need to either: | | 1. increase prices | | 2. reduce quality/quantity/features | | 3. reduce supplier costs | | 4. reduce service costs | | Customers are very sensitive to increases in prices. This is a | case where none of the options are great. | | [1]: https://twitter.com/kepano/status/1702401372661096477 | imglorp wrote: | There's more malfeasance here. | | 5. They expansively tier their product line with minor | variation to remove the idea of a standard offering. Eg there | are some 33 sizes of M&Ms so nobody could say "get me a bag of | M&Ms" any more. Forget comparing cell service plans. | * https://www.measuringhow.com/m-and-m-bag-sizes-guide/ | | 6. They generate different model names for sale at different | retailers to obstruct comparison shopping. The TV, appliance, | and mattress industries are dirty here. * | https://www.quora.com/Why-are-model-numbers-for-the-same- | appliance-all-different-in-each-store-you-visit?share=1 | | 7. They attempt to detect when comparison shopping is happening | and intervene. * https://www.washingtonpost.c | om/news/innovations/wp/2017/06/16/amazon-has-a-patent-to-keep- | you-from-comparison-shopping-while-youre-in-its-stores/ | * https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/accounting/discouraging- | price-shopping/ | masfuerte wrote: | Shoe and boot manufacturers also do 6. | consp wrote: | And onther method is offering a new product in the same | category with less content for a higher price, eventually | switch over all products and level the price, now you have | less at the same or higher prices for all products (looking | at you teisseire as a latest example) | dweinus wrote: | That's a good explanation, but problems with silently reducing | quantity are: - It attempts to trick the customer - As a | customer, it makes it harder to depend on your product or buy | predictably (a box of cereal used to last me through the week, | now suddenly it doesn't) - It is now harder for me to | comparison shop because I need to calculate cost per | volume/weight - It is often done at a rate higher than | inflation | | This site is great, people need more transparency and companies | need to be called out | n8cpdx wrote: | Most of the products on the site appear to be candy/junk that | shouldn't be consumed in large quantities anyway. There is | probably substantial social good being done by making the | default portions of pringles and chocolate smaller. | ImPostingOnHN wrote: | this is an accurate description of shrinkflation, though not a | good justification of it | | if companies were honest, they'd put _" 29% less, but the same | price! Inflation, you know?"_, and more-informed consumers | could make more-informed choices | | indeed, _" Customers are very sensitive to increases in | prices"_ is a nicer way of saying "shrinkflation makes it | easier to hide from consumers that they are receiving less | value for their money" | | Thank you for this site, if the author is here, it's something | I felt we needed to make markets more informed and more | efficient. I'll be submitting content. | kepano wrote: | I'm not defending CPG companies. I'm pointing out that if | you're an indie maker inflation is a problem you need to | contend with in your own pricing. Once you start thinking | about it from that perspective, you realize how difficult of | a problem it is to solve in a way that feels fair to | customers. | | In theory software is easier because you could more easily | change your pricing every month. With CPG these products sit | on store shelves and the manufacturers have less direct | control over the pricing. | ImPostingOnHN wrote: | The issue most people have with shrinkflation isn't that | the manufacturers made a tough call when all the options | were tough, it's that manufacturers do so in a manner | deliberately calculated to hide information from the | consumer, and in some cases outright deceive them (if they | didn't, this shrinkflation tracker wouldn't exist) | | To reiterate, a company honest with consumers would inform | them they were getting less for the same price, and try to | make the case you're making now: "hey, sorry about this, | but times are tough, and we can't raise prices" | | Less scrupulous and deceptive companies don't | kepano wrote: | Not sure if this fits under shrinkflation, but the | practice of substituting quality ingredients for cheaper | ones is even worse IMO. When Nutella did it, it caused a | huge kerfuffle, but it's virtually impossible for a | consumer to track this across all the products they buy. | | An upstream problem is the money printing that causes | some of these incentives in the first place. | robertlagrant wrote: | > To reiterate, a company honest with consumers would | inform them they were getting less for the same price, | and try to make the case you're making now: "hey, sorry | about this, but times are tough, and we can't raise | prices" | | How do they do this? They make a chocolate bar that a | shop buys and puts on a shelf. | ImPostingOnHN wrote: | They have to alter the packaging to account for the | changes. They can either do so in a way that makes | apparent to the customers that they're receiving less | value for their money, making sure they're aware of it, | or they can do so in a way that attempts to deceive | consumers and hide this information. | | An example of messaging for the former is described in | the quote you quoted. Another would be to use different- | looking packaging, to indicate that it is not what it was | before. If a consumer will still buy the item when | properly informed of the lower value, then this apparent | labeling should not have any effect on sales. If it does, | it means the information hiding was material, which makes | it bad. | | tl;dr: companies hide this information because being | deceptive increases sales, if it didn't, they wouldn't | adamc wrote: | Being honest doesn't pay as well. If it did, they would just | raise the price. | | They are hoping you don't notice. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | In an ideal world, one UPC code would identify only one product | with one set of ingredients and one weight. Want to make a "+20% | free!" package? New UPC! Want to change the contents from 16% | cacao to 14% cacao and some more sugar? Sure, new UPC. | | The manufacturers would have to publish the contents for each UPC | in a machine readable format. | | Then the retailers would have to publish daily prices, again in a | machine redable format. | | ...and the world would be a much nicer place for the consumer. | Everyone could build apps on top of that, you could compare | retailers, comparable items could be crowdsourced (eg, 1L of 3.5% | fat milk and a list of all UPCs for that), shopping list apps | could calculate the cheapest options to choose the cheapest | store, or in cases with multiple stores in a cluster, tell you | what to buy where, etc. | | And the best thing is, that nobody actually regulates any prices | or item sizes, just the consumer gets more informed. | Horffupolde wrote: | You are free to do that. UPC is a private standard. | imbusy111 wrote: | A lot of it looks like candy, so it could be a good thing. | maxbond wrote: | Very cool! Where are you sourcing data from? | phailhaus wrote: | Super cool! Very clean, nice font. Some UX things I noticed: | | 1. In the scrolling feed on the homepage, a 0% change is shown as | negative with a red down arrow | | 2. In the tracker page, 0% is grey (good!) but still with a down | arrow, which isn't accurate | | 3. Might be a good idea to highlight egregious offenders over | small decreases. Maybe bold the value if it's greater than | 10-15%? | | 4. Would be cool to be able to sort to see the worst offenders! | boxed wrote: | I wonder why 0% items are shown on the big list at all. Like | having a page of murderers with random innocent people with a | text label under "not a murderer" :P | herpderperator wrote: | It could be greater than 0% but less than 0.5%, ending up | rounded down when displayed. The value getting checked might | be against the raw value rather than the rounded one. Which, | of course, is a bug. | [deleted] | seabass-labrax wrote: | That would actually be beneficial to the innocent people if | it gave them indemnity to prosecution! It's better to be | cleared of a suspected crime than never prosecuted, in my | opinion*. | | * assuming the availability of _pro bono_ legal aid as part | of social welfare, a key part of any judicial system. | elurg wrote: | Most of these products are extremely unhealthy so shrinking | portions should be considered a public service. | smath wrote: | % change is over what time frame? YoY? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | So is shrinkflation actually included in official inflation | numbers? If all bars of soap in the country become smaller by | 10%, does 'official' inflation number go up? Are the folks | tracking official inflation index equipped to measure all the | various products per kilo, etc? | vuln wrote: | "Inflation? There's no inflation, we've created millions of | jobs and pay has increased!" - Current Administration | vuln wrote: | The truth hurts more than the downvotes. | hankchinaski wrote: | in the uk we measure the price of a basket of goods, which | includes quantity adjustment. So packaging size is irrelevant. | https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/meth... | | >The simplest form of direct adjustment is quantity adjustment, | which is used when there is a permanent size change in an item. | jacobsenscott wrote: | What's the problem? You want to keep everything the same size and | pay more? That's the other option. You know it works out to the | same amount of stuff for the same amount of money, right? | DoughnutHole wrote: | Yes, because it's easier to notice and adjust your purchasing | decisions accordingly. | | The point of shrinkflation is to obfuscate the price increase | and hope that some consumers don't notice. | akomtu wrote: | Why does it track some irrelevant products? It should track | things that matter: milk, bread, meat, fish, fruits and so on. | Koeniggimeno wrote: | Great Idea! Perfectly executed, great site to give some awareness | to the average consumer. | purplecats wrote: | can you automate this with amazon parsing? | MikusR wrote: | In EU prices for food stuff have to also list price per KG. | cj wrote: | This is also common in the US. | | Example below. Top row is blurry but bottom row shows "per | ounce" price on the bottom right. Tiny print and I imagine | barely anyone actually shops that way. | | I'm guessing there must be some US requirement for this | otherwise I'm not sure why it's commonplace. | | https://supersafeway.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-S... | ericpauley wrote: | > I imagine barely anyone actually shops that way. | | This feels so foreign to me; I largely ignore the overall | price and shop by unit prices within a reasonable size range. | belval wrote: | I think the commenter you are responding to does not have | enough faith in humanity. Most people I know (anecdotal and | biased sampling I know) do check that number when shopping, | especially for interchangeable items that don't have a | well-know brand such as flour or baking powder. | gen3 wrote: | Ancidotal, but myself and many of my friends shop this way. | I've found that sometimes the larger bottle isn't cheaper per | unit | Crunchified wrote: | Here in the US, while unit pricing is commonly displayed, I | frequently find that a store will use a wide variety of units, | thereby negating the ability to easily compare items in this | way. For the same type of product I may see cost per ounce, | cost per pound, cost per each, cost per dozen, etc. for various | sizes and brands. It's maddening, insulting, and probably in | most cases malicious. | ftyers wrote: | Yeah, this is insane e.g. I've seen cents/fl.oz, | dollars/litre, cents/ml, dollars/unit. For the same product. | And yes, totally malicious. Fresh Thyme does this. It's ugly. | sebazzz wrote: | Yes, but no history. | kamikaz1k wrote: | seeing "Do not know how to serialize a BigInt" | abeppu wrote: | Oddly, search only covers brand names? | | https://www.shrinkflation.io/search?query=soap <- zero results | https://www.shrinkflation.io/search?query=dove <- result has | 'soap' in name | hinkley wrote: | I was just talking today to someone about how they don't like | food from a certain global coffee chain anymore because their | food has gotten kinda crappy. | | Shrinkflation generally means same price for less product (grams, | fluid ounces), but enshitification by slowly decreasing the | quality of the ingredients is also a problem. | | Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella or track it as a | separate problem? Since they are both unwanted solutions to the | same problem, seems like they should be kept together (to avoid a | Goodhart's Law fiasco) | | I recall eating an Oreo after fifteen years of not having one. At | first I just thought I'd forgotten what they actually tasted | like, but the more I thought about it, the more I could see a | long chain of focus groups asking customers if cookie A and | cookie B taste the same, if one tastes better, and slowly | changing the formula to only alienate 0.2% of the customers each | time until one day I wander up and find I'm part of the 10% | they've cumulatively alienated. | | See also how only some of us can taste certain artificial | sweeteners as sugary toxic waste instead of sugar (saccharin | tastes to me like drinking soda after licking a 9 volt battery) | aequitas wrote: | > but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the | ingredients is also a problem. | | Every time you see a package with "new and improved recipe" you | can bet it only improved their margins by using cheaper | ingredients, not the actual taste. | cogman10 wrote: | Just one more factor to consider, some ingredients are no | longer available. | | Trans fats are a good example of this. They used to be the | prime replacement for saturated fats. Now, in the US, they are | effectively banned. | | This hit oreos. [1] | | [1] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2006/01/02/manufacturers- | tri... | hinkley wrote: | Fair point. Were oreos always palm oil or were they lard back | in the day? | | The fracking industry has made guar gum too expensive to use | as a food emulsifier. I know someone who reacts to xanthan | gum (which has all but replaced guar) and she's not a happy | camper, because it's in fucking everything. | skyyler wrote: | No, they were partially hydrogenated soybean oil back in | the day. | | Palm oil is thick at room temp, like partially hydrogenated | oils are. | vmilner wrote: | Sainsbury's don't like changing the weights encoded in their urls | so although Cadburys 180g "Price locked" Fruit and Nut has been | shrinkflated for over a year the link is still: | | https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/cadbury-dairy-mi... | | ...www.Sainsbury's.co.uk/gol-ui/product/cadbury-dairy-milk-fruit | ---nut-200g | | My | wppick wrote: | Another source of shrinkflation is changing ingredients. | Something that used to be 50% water is now 75% water as an | example. Another is changing from olive oil to canola or palm or, | and things like that. | purplecats wrote: | we need github tracking for the changes in metadata for | products, like we do for legislation or the terms of use (like | the one that unity deleted) | mkoubaa wrote: | I mind this much more than I mind shrinkflation | yoyoyo1122 wrote: | Yeah, people call it skimpflation: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkflation#Skimpflation | bjfish wrote: | I think the toilet bowl cleaner used to be more viscous and | last a long time. | chongli wrote: | One of the worst offenders in this regard is packages of frozen | meat products such as chicken wings, chicken fingers, nuggets, | etc. They used to just contain the breaded meat with the net | weight printed on the box (usually 2 lb). | | Now they've started including frozen sauce packets as well. | I've weighed some of these and found, for example, a 2 lb box | of chicken wings that comes with more than half a pound of | buffalo sauce. The net weight stays the same (2 lb) but if you | weigh the chicken you're getting less than 1.5 lb of meat! The | rest is all sauce! | atmanactive wrote: | Great idea! I'm afraid this would require at least a hundred | employees to keep it current and useful, though. But, as a | society, we definitely need this. Maybe if some government agency | could back it up? | sanitycheck wrote: | A ton of automated scraping is what it needs. Just the main UK | supermarket chains would do, as it seems rather British in the | choice of products even though there's no pricing actually | shown. | lozenge wrote: | The packages are changing so fast/often now that the shelf | labels, online sizes and unit prices are often out of date. | (Yes this is illegal, no nobody cares because it's PS0.05 per | product and they aren't doing it on purpose, they just don't | make it a priority to have correct data). | lotsofpulp wrote: | Why would this benefit society? Price per unit is a trivial | calculation, and most grocery stores already show it on the | price tag. | | Change in price over time is irrelevant for making a decision | on whether or not something is worth the utility to price ratio | now. If you are trying to time the market on junk food, then it | is best to simply avoid it. | | If, for some reason, you want to prevent Mondelez, or whichever | other manufacturer, from earning more profit margin than it | historically has, then you can look up their public financials | most of the time: | | https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MDLZ/mondelez/prof... | read_if_gay_ wrote: | i can't believe the sole use you could think of is timing the | market on junk food | [deleted] | eatsyourtacos wrote: | >Why would this benefit society? | | To put factual and open information out there of how | companies consistently just fuck with all of us and get away | with every little thing they can because "profits!" and | "their duty to investors!". e.g., the biggest lies our | societies ever came up with | lotsofpulp wrote: | It is already open information that pretty much every | seller of everything in the whole world tries to sell for | as high of a price that they think can get. | | And that purchasing power of currencies will go down over | time. | andymal wrote: | This is great! I wanted to add a product that I recently noticed | was smaller, but I no longer use Google, so I'm unable to go | through the submission process. Maybe if someone else sees this | you can add Kingsford charcoal. 4-5 years ago bags came in a pack | of 2x20 lb. Then 2022 they were 2x18lb. This year they are | 2x16lb. Can't wait until we can just buy a 2 pack of briquettes. | Ancalagon wrote: | Should probably complete the price point review prior to allowing | the data points to be shown. This dove bar has a price point from | the year 9999 and its messing with the whole graph: | https://www.shrinkflation.io/products/535 | steine65 wrote: | Very cool. Looks like it could use some more controls to reduce | bad data. For example the Dove year 9999 data point. | | I would love to see a list of Parent companies. Single brands | will be hard to remember. | robertheadley wrote: | Great, but manual input and seems to be focused on the UK. I | think someone needs to brute force this problem. | realjohng wrote: | Fabulous... I heart data ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-09-15 23:00 UTC)