This is the practice of manufacturers combatting rising costs by maintaining their historic nominal prices and packaging but reducing the amount of contents.
They gave numerous examples, such as Beehive matches in which the unchanged matchbox now contains 45 matches instead of the traditional 50, or a Cadbury’s block of chocolate decreasing in size by 10%, and so it went.
Their one glaring omission however, was Stuff’s own product, namely daily newspapers. In the face not so much of increased production costs but instead a near collapsed demand thanks to electronic instant news, their newspapers today are at best half the size of 25 years ago.
This is not “shrinkflation” but instead dwarfism; unmatched in its degree by any other product.
I’m a newspaper addict and deeply regret this phenomenon but must resign myself to their inevitable and imminent disappearance, a world-wide phenomenon.
Sir Bob Jones is a renowned author, columnist , property investor, and former politician, who blogs at No Punches Pulled HERE.
Now I've heard it all - shrinkflation!
Only Stuff could come up with utter bilge like that.
So, the customer goes into the supermarket for some matches or chocolate...or bread and milk even.
Wow, inflation at 7.3% but they still cost the same. Funny, they don't take up as much room in the trolley and seem a bit lighter now, but that must be the new, cost-effective packaging.
On returning home, they discover that they have to go back to the supermarket more often to get the same items because they seem to run out quicker.
And, the total amount of packaging used is probably more because they're now selling MORE individual but smaller items which still require the same lids and wrapping etc.
Which means you are actually paying more for packaging, and getting even less than you should on your new downsized product which is the same price as it was.
I hope Grant Robertson hasn't read this. He'll ring Adrian Orr up and get him to offer the Stuff journo a top economics job.
Post a Comment