• Shrinkflation is where producers shrink the size of a product yet continue to sell it at the same price. 
• New research from emlyon business school found that shrinkflation increases levels of aversion toward the retailer and perceived levels of price unfairness compared to a straight-up price increase. 
• Over time, shrinkflation also reduces the consumer’s trust in the retailer.  

Prices have been rising all around the world. Packets of biscuits, chocolates, butter, bagels, coffee, yoghurt, jams, and more are getting smaller and smaller and packaging trickier and tricksier as producers try to find ever more innovative ways to scam shoppers into thinking things haven’t shrunk, they’ve stayed the same. People are paying more for less. 

This practice is known as “shrinkflation”, where producers shrink the size of a product yet continue to sell it at the same price. Producers use tricks such as visual consistency (the same bottle size and shape, just slightly smaller) and packaging to make shoppers feel like they’re buying the same product as always. 

Oreo, for example, has been accused of reducing?the layer of cream between cookies?without lowering prices. Kellogg’s cereal packets are, in some cases, more than 80% more expensive than five years ago.  

This is all perfectly legal. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) states that shrinking pack sizes isn’t misleading or illegal, as prices and quantities are stated on packaging by law. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t unethical, though. In fact, three-quarters of shoppers say Shrinkflation is not a transparent practice, Which? reported. 

Brands do this rather than raising the cost of the item itself (shoppers dislike price hikes as much as shrinkflation) at times of supply chain issues and/or inflation to ensure that their bottom line remains the same. It postpones for as long as possible (through trickery) a change in relationship with customers and their potential fleeing to a cheaper alternative (rising prices inevitably depress sales).  

High inflation worldwide for years on end has caused consumer goods producers to argue that they need to either raise prices or engage in shrinkflation to keep their shareholders happy. 

One in five shoppers said they planned to switch from products that had been downsized by manufacturers to buying in bulk instead, reports Which?. 

Don’t forget about skimpflation 

Shrinkflation is happening in countries from Japan to the USA to Poland to the UK, where producers have been engaging in it since even before rampant inflation, as well as in “skimpflation”, where producers swap expensive ingredients for cheap ones, skimping on amounts and quality (e.g. meat has been cut in ready meals). 

When soaring production costs get passed on to consumers through skimpflation and a reduction in quality ingredients, it is even harder for shoppers to keep track of the changes.  

Even ‘the volume of olive oil in many popular spreads had been reduced from 21% to 10% and other changes meant consumers were getting a poorer product for their money,’ reports the Guardian. 

An age-old issue 

Shrinkflation “is a technique that has been used by everyone from Roman emperors, who debased silver and gold coins with copper and other cheaper metals to finance their empire-building, to bakers in the Middle Ages, who tried to prevent bread riots by selling smaller loaves,” says the Financial Times. 

While shrinkflation has been around forever, we have been living through the most devastating period of inflation in the Western world since the 1970s. Supply chain issues, the Covid pandemic, stimulus checks, and the war in Ukraine have all contributed to the issue. 

Governments (fail to) take action 

In South Korea a sweeping crackdown was announced against shrinkflation, ordering producers of food and essential goods to disclose any reductions in product sizes or face fines. The Korea Fair Trade Commission announced that it would classify any secretive slimming of products as an “unfair transaction” if consumers were uninformed of the change.  

This is a rare instance of a government opposing the unpopular practice (surely, you’d think, given its unpopularity among shoppers, cracking down on it would be a widespread practice in democracies, but no). 

Biden criticised shrinkflation, calling it –?and price-gouging –?out, but did nothing to help shoppers, helping Trump win office again. 

This has added energy to the perennial question: is everything a bit worse than it used to be? 

Not skimping on the research 

Research from emlyon business school – Monica Grosso, Professor of Marketing and Marta Pizzetti, Associate Professor of Marketing, both of emlyon, along with their fellow researcher, Diletta Acuti, Senior lecturer at the University of Bath – has tackled shrinkflation and people’s perceptions of it.  

The researchers’ analysis of more than 4,000 Twitter/X posts published between January?2022 and January?2024 containing the keywords “#shrinkflation” or “shrinkflation” showed that consumers blame manufacturers for shrinking the quantity of the products (as they are, after all, the ones who make the products), but also attribute responsibility to retailers for not protecting consumers from these new market dynamics.  

In France, the only supermarket chain to do anything about shrinkflation was Carrefour, which put out signs to show which products had been affected by the shrinking menace.  

Shoppers can blame food producers for this deception, specific brands, supermarkets, the food industry as a whole, or politicians. Or all of them together. When shoppers point the finger of blame at brands, which they often do, they show images of shrunken packaging. Shoppers often expressed feelings of deception or being tricked and cheated. 

Indeed,?brand?communications?about shrinkflation are perceived as deceitful, as they try to convince consumers about the benefits of the packaging reduction.  

These findings were further confirmed by the results of the researchers’ studies conducted online in the first six months of 2024. This study involved more than 1,700 consumers from the UK and Italy. Through an online questionnaire, consumers were randomly messaged that their favourite supermarket was implementing shrinkflation or raising prices. 

The consumers who received our communication on shrinkflation practices showed significantly higher levels of aversion toward the retailer and perceived higher levels of price unfairness (+7.3%) compared to those who received the message communicating price increase.  

This goes some way to showing that shoppers prefer honesty over trickery. The researchers’ findings also show a substantial reduction of trust toward the retailer, dropping by 4.5%, together with a drop in attitude, meaning that consumers have less favourable perceptions toward retailers when they sell downsized products (-4%). Dwindling trust is particularly problematic for retailers, and it might be even more pronounced if shrinkflation is used for a longer period. 

Brands should do better 

In our era of runaway capitalism and the future of Trumpist tariffs, inflation and supply chain issues are going nowhere. Supermarkets and food suppliers would do well to heed this research, which shows people prefer not to be tricked in the long run.  

The future health of supermarkets, the food industry, and societal trust would be better looked out for by brands not adopting shrinkflation and skimpflation, which is a grim metaphor and reminder of the times we live in.  

By, Thomas Willis

Enjoy this article? You might like this…