Forum menu
These 2 packs were bought at the same time at the same shop. Both are 200g but 1 pack is definitely 2 crackers short.
Did you notice that Easter eggs were no longer egg shaped this Easter?
Chocolate bars and stuff have been getting smaller for ages, but what surprised me recently was how small McVities Jamaica Ginger Cakes are now. Bought one the other day for the first time in ages and only got 4 servings out of it.
They were 400g when I used to buy them weekly. Now 200-300g (varies by retailer, which is an extra bit of deliberate sleight of hand IMHO). I don’t buy them at all now.
Meh quality street,or lack of quality street.
it’s amazing to look back at one of the massive old tin 80’s cans and the pale impersonation masquerading as it now.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Christmas without one but after this years disappointment in taste and the lack of quality I won’t be bothering anymore 🙁
I think that the selling out of all the familiar brands to the Mercian multinationals has literally ruined all the childhood stuff, the constant drive for profit by reformulating to make production cheaper has actually ruined what made the brands what they were.
I get being old makes you moan over how things aren’t as good but they literally bought theses brands and butchered them.
Did you notice that Easter eggs were no longer egg shaped this Easter?
Also, is it me misremembering, or did a big egg used to come with 2 chocolate bars? All only one this year.
I use 'Simple' soap. They have changed the shape of the bar by carving a concave on one side, so about 15% less. Why? I'm not going to use any less soap. Just charge a bit more.
As mentioned cocoa price is back to a normal number. 1/3 what it was a year ago. We are being gouged.
You need to put more cheese per cracker to compensate.
See, the universe always supplies the answers 😃
Did you notice that Easter eggs were no longer egg shaped this Easter?
A bag of Mini Eggs suggested that 8 eggs was "a portion".
I believe this to be incorrect, mostly because I had 8 eggs in my mouth already and there was room for at least 2 more. Also when a pack of Peanut M&Ms says "more to share" and I think that there's barely enough for me, never mind any sharing!
Some things are bucking the trend;
Rear derailleurs may be more expensive than they were but they are also way bigger
Surly just released a new bike the Sorceress, not cheap but still got all that Surly heft and not an ounce less.
Just buy non branded crackers, you’d be nuts not to 😀
Yeah, just had mcvities ginger cake tonight. 1/4 cake portion and that was like "is that it?". The packet recommends 9 portions per cake! I can't even find a total product weight on the packet, but 9 portions of 25.8g....230g. Come on, are we feeding the mice or something?
The big packs of Crunchy Nut are thinner than they used to be. I have a plastic container with a flip-top opening, that I use to put my Crunchy Nut in, and the extra large boxes would fill it to the top, with enough left in the plastic bag to get around a weeks worth of breakfast from. Now, the box just fills the container! That’s a significant drop in quantity! 😖
Not had an ice cream for years so Mum bought me a magnum ice cream/lolly at the weekend….it was ****ing tiny 😱 😠 and £2.50
**** these parasitic companies/conglomerates that own everything, they deserve to get absolutely ****ed
Not srinkflation per-se but Feasts have the changed their recipe. The middle chocolatey bit is smaller, and now a sort of hazelnut flavour and the ice cream is vanilla not chocolate.
Mid-afternoon ice cream stops have been ruined.
Both are 200g but 1 pack is definitely 2 crackers short.
Have you weighed them? If they're 2 crackers short then they must be wider if they weigh the same?
They have changed the shape of the bar by carving a concave on one side
Terry's Chocolate Orange pulled the same stunt a few years back.
Anyway, my contribution:
There has always been 13 cakes in a box, forever. There's now - well, the last time I bought them - 11.
Pisses me off, I'd rather just pay more rather than have companies think we're too stupid to notice. Mars has been pulling this stunt for years, shaving a few grams off and then launching "new bigger bar" which is the same as it used to be only with a new bigger price.
Not had an ice cream for years so Mum bought me a magnum ice cream/lolly at the weekend….it was ****ing tiny
and £2.50
See also: Cornetto. I remember when they came out, their USPs were the waffle cone and just how huge they were. The Soft cones are bigger but's that's because soft serve ice cream was specifically invented to sell people air.
There's a huge industry in this, I watched a documentary on TV about it a little while back.
Mr Whippy - air. Wispa - air. Aero - air. Curly Wurly - air. Flake and Ripple - air. "Contents may settle during transit" - air. Multipack crisps - air (and excessive packaging). Wotsits and a supporting cast of thousands of other puff-type snacks - air. Mousse - air. Squirty whipped cream - wait, I have it here somewhere - ah yes, air. "Nitrogen packed" - what do we suppose air is made from? Philadelphia Whipped Cream Cheese "whipped a thousand times so it's really light and fluffy" and full of air. Et ****ing cetera.
Yes, it makes for some nice products. I love me a Wispa, for instance, and it'd be difficult to sell exceedingly good cakes that didn't have holes in. But this aeriated existence is often a cynical cost-saving exercise, they experiment to see how much more air they can squeeze into stuff before the product becomes non-viable.
Why? I'm not going to use any less soap. Just charge a bit more.
Because research has shown you might buy another "cheaper" brand instead assuming you dont check the weight/cost ratio.
There is a marketing legend about how someone boosted toothpaste sales by increasing the size of the nozzle by a mm or two. Since people dont really pay attention to that the tube gets emptied that much faster.
There are two ways to view that story. The correct way of thinking "what a ****" and the other of going "what a hero and what can I learn from him".
I did read an article about how it is screwing up recipes. Traditionally (as far as I can tell. Whilst I do cook my approach is I do coding all day so come cooking time I cant be arsed being precise) prices went up but the quantity stayed the same.
If we take the ginger cake example I could write a recipe saying take a McVities ginger cake and then add this and that and whilst you might pay more we would all end up happy. However now you would bake it and go "wait what the **** is this?"
Both are 200g but 1 pack is definitely 2 crackers short.
Have you weighed them? If they're 2 crackers short then they must be wider if they weigh the same?
They have changed the shape of the bar by carving a concave on one side
Terry's Chocolate Orange pulled the same stunt a few years back.
I remember the day I bought several chocolate oranges as presents in Morrisons. Had to take them from different display packs. They looked identical from outside but 1 lot were marked as 175 grams and the others at 157 grams. Kind of sly to keep same numbers i thought.
Fish fingers the same. A box bought a while ago ran out, I opened the new box and side by side, the size difference was noticeable. The fingers from the new box were the same length and width but thinner.
Why are you buying this crap!? 🤷♂️
futonrivercrossing - have you never sampled the delights of a fish finger butter, dripping butty and tomato ketchup on sourdough thickly (cut other bread is available). Oh and we happen to like the odd simple meal, as unlike most on STW I'm not Corden Bleu trained :0)
Fish fingers the same. A box bought a while ago ran out, I opened the new box and side by side, the size difference was noticeable. The fingers from the new box were the same length and width but thinner.
Compared to the other supermarkets Sainsbury's seems to be making its salmon fillets ever smaller and sort of awkwardly spacing them out in the packet - which makes them look smaller still. I was at the checkout a little while back and the woman at the till held up the packet and said 'oh my god I'm embarrassed to sell that!' 🙂
unlike most on STW I'm not Corden Bleu trained
I'll let you into a gourmet secret - the instructions are on the back of the packet - thats all the teach you at Cordon Bleu school 'read the small print' 🙂
But this aeriated existence is often a cynical cost-saving exercise,
Having never bought it before I bought some Fage yoghurt the other week - I'm sure thats somehow finely aerated, a very odd texture and very weird and very, very white - paint-white rather than milk-white. Quite reminiscent of 'One Strike Instant Plaster Filler' I use in the workshop, although I haven't tried putting blueberries in that yet.
I thought that in the same way as things are measured in football pitches, olympic swimming pools or double decker buses, there was an established unit of measurement for things getting smaller?
Coffee,
I have an old tupperware tub in the office that I kept my ground coffee in for the last 20yrs or so. I used to fill it to the top, squeeze the lid down and still have to reseal the bag as there was a fair bit left in it. Nowadays a full bag of ground coffee goes into the tub and there's at least a centimetre or so space left in the tub.
Very often the underlying issue with shrinkflation is not tied solely to the expense of ingredients. It’s often closely linked to distribution costs. If it costs more to transport 1000 mars bars due to rising fuel costs then you can offset that by squeezing more mars bars into the same space by reducing their size a bit. If 1000 40g mars bars cost £100 to transport and then the transport cost goes up to £110 then you can offset that by making 1100 mars bars fit in the same box/pallet if you reduce their size to 36g.
Same thing with Easter eggs and the weird flattened egg shape that’s becoming common. The actual reduction in chocolate is less of a factor than the fact the packaging is subsequently smaller so more of them can be packed into the boxes/pallets
Surly just released a new bike the Sorceress, not cheap but still got all that Surly heft and not an ounce less.
And their raw frame costs have "risen" directly in line with inflation. More props, etc.
I use Tesco to do online shopping, and I often notice products being no longer available, so "Why not try this instead".
For example, Pringles 200g is no longer available, why not try Pringles 185g instead (at the same, if not higher, price). There was a time when they would do Pringles on offer for £1 a pack, however, I haven't seen them on offer for less than £1.50 for years.
(I don't particularly like Pringles, it's just an example before I get flamed).
I realised the other day, it's not just food. Small shower gel bottle are now 225ml rather than 250ml. That's a few days worth of showers for the abstemious/stinky amongst us!
I thought that in the same way as things are measured in football pitches, olympic swimming pools or double decker buses, there was an established unit of measurement for things getting smaller?
Ah but that’s not an original flavour.
TBH if you get the original flavour version I’m sure it’s the only one that hasn’t changed , still the same familiar soap flavoured duff chocolate.
Thing is when you bought one of them you weren’t expecting cadburys(old school pre Poland) melt in the mouth 🙂
Perhaps an unpopular view, but we could all do with eating less processed food anyway - especially sweeties.
It’s often closely linked to distribution costs.
And manufacturing costs, some time ago a cheese manufacturer changed the zip lock opening from the long side to the end of it's bag, from a customer perspective it's barely noticeable, from a production cost perspective it's probs. saving a few grand a year.
Very often the underlying issue with shrinkflation is not tied solely to the expense of ingredients. It’s often closely linked to distribution costs. If it costs more to transport 1000 mars bars due to rising fuel costs then you can offset that by squeezing more mars bars into the same space by reducing their size a bit. If 1000 40g mars bars cost £100 to transport and then the transport cost goes up to £110 then you can offset that by making 1100 mars bars fit in the same box/pallet if you reduce their size to 36g.
Same thing with Easter eggs and the weird flattened egg shape that’s becoming common. The actual reduction in chocolate is less of a factor than the fact the packaging is subsequently smaller so more of them can be packed into the boxes/pallets
Hmm my Fox’s Christmas bicci box bucked this trend, looked old school size but turned out to be a two tier masterpiece in deception .
Although the tiers could have taken 4 biscuits most of the plastic wells were formed to hold just 2 and a lot of air.
TBH it was a very disappointing Christmas 🙂
I do wonder when people will start to vote with their wallet but I just think the companies know that people will keep buying the product regardless of the price/quality and literally don’t care if you don’t repeat purchase as there’s always another sucker.
I realised the other day, it's not just food. Small shower gel bottle are now 225ml rather than 250ml.
And toothpaste – The standard Colgate/Aquafresh offering used to be £1 for 100ml. Now it's £1 for 75ml.
I use Tesco to do online shopping, and I often notice products being no longer available, so "Why not try this instead".
For example, Pringles 200g is no longer available, why not try Pringles 185g instead (at the same, if not higher, price). There was a time when they would do Pringles on offer for £1 a pack, however, I haven't seen them on offer for less than £1.50 for years.
(I don't particularly like Pringles, it's just an example before I get flamed).
We use Asda online for non perishables and it's been useful for keeping an eye on the major brands that like to take the piss. There's several that we've switched from now, more for their levels of deviousness than the cost increase/shrinkage.
Mars have just made it onto the shit list, Mrs f gave me a Maltesers egg for Easter. Massive box, tiny egg that looks like it's been squashed flat, wafer thin chocolate, the chiselling *****!
I do wonder when people will start to vote with their wallet but I just think the companies know that people will keep buying the product regardless of the price/quality and literally don’t care if you don’t repeat purchase as there’s always another sucker.
Agreed. The UK consumer is pretty unsophisticated TBH, as evidenced by our tolerance for what passes as chocolate on these shores. Companies will continue to shaft us and very little posted above surprises me.
What did hugely surprise me was that French supermarkets actually drew customers' attention to shrinkflated products when they appeared. Being accustomed to UK supermarkets' desire to shaft us every which way I was amazed and heartened to see Carefour etc being so honest and open about the trouser drop.
Hmm my Fox’s Christmas bicci box bucked this trend, looked old school size but turned out to be a two tier masterpiece in deception .
Although the tiers could have taken 4 biscuits most of the plastic wells were formed to hold just 2 and a lot of air.
I took exception to this and improved their packaging.
Whilst I'm trawling through my picture archives,
Don't you get a lot of toppings!
... Oh.
Why? I'm not going to use any less soap. Just charge a bit more
Consumer research suggests differently. There’s a price above which people just won’t buy something. So you have to shrink it to keep below that point. That point may well move over time but there is a top end.
So if you can’t make the same product below that price you either reduce the size or reduce the quality (or both). Or you make less profit, which won’t happen.
Groceries purchase habits are a hugely researched area, their decisions are very well informed.
Mars have just made it onto the shit list, Mrs f gave me a Maltesers egg for Easter. Massive box, tiny egg that looks like it's been squashed flat, wafer thin chocolate, the chiselling *****!
Also, easter shows up just how rubbish "chocolate" has become. I'm sure it used to be the case that you could taste the subtle difference between Cadburys (dairy milk), Mars (Galaxy) and Nestle (rubbish, a yorkie has always tasted like cheap crap). Now everything tastes like the crap chocolate flavor coatings on the sweets.
Nestle/yorkie technically bucks the trend by tasting less crap. It's still crap, but it literally tastes less now.
Whilst I'm trawling through my picture archives,
There's definitely rule 34 joke there.
The UK consumer is pretty unsophisticated TBH, as evidenced by our tolerance for what passes as food on these shores.
FTFY
The UK consumer is pretty unsophisticated TBH, as evidenced by our tolerance for what passes as food on these shores.
Are you kidding? Go to America.
In my working life, I used to sell packaging to the food industry. Speaking to a fairly senior person at one of the big dairy chainsiirc it was Arla, they told me the invention of spreadable butter was a game changer in terms of the profitability of butter as they were able to introduce air to fluff up the product whilst charging more for the privilege of doing so.
Consumer research suggests differently. There’s a price above which people just won’t buy something. So you have to shrink it to keep below that point. That point may well move over time but there is a top end.
Exactly – as I mentioned in my earlier post – people on a budget buy £1 tubes of toothpaste as, mentally, it is a good budget price. However, that £1 tube of toothpaste did contain 100ml, but it now contains 75ml.
Exactly – as I mentioned in my earlier post – people on a budget buy £1 tubes of toothpaste as, mentally, it is a good budget price. However, that £1 tube of toothpaste did contain 100ml, but it now contains 75ml.
Correct. They won't buy it at £1.25 even though the cost per mm is lower at £1.25.
Are you kidding? Go to America.
I recall having exactly the same feeling about food when I went to California as I got returning to the UK from New Zealand....
How do people eat this shit it's so bland precessed, tasteless and awful.
Correct. They won't buy it at £1.25 even though the cost per mm is lower at £1.25.
I once read a report that consumers are more likely for 'three for the price of two' rather than 'BOGOF' as they perceive it to be better value...