Simone Seymour: How NZ Consumers Are Being Ripped Off

Simone Seymour writes as a Guest Post on Goodoil.

All quite legally...and it’s not the government.

Shrinkflation, extortflation, ‘shrinkage’: words that refer to the evil phenomena of paying the same for less. All without realising you’re being deceived.

Not quite the original Kiwi dip it once was, after a 20ml weightline adjustment.

Manufacturers sometimes run promotional specials in supermarkets: e.g., buy two and get a third one free. Or 10 per cent extra for free.

Although it’s now rampant-but-concealed, never to be seen is 10 per cent less for fee. What’s happening is all a quite legal deception. The outer pack size remains the same, but the contents are less. The weights and measures shown on the packaging are all  accurate.

Rural consumers are not exempt. This pail is just over half full. Although not tested, the contents of three pails would likely now fit into two.

Consumer purchasing of many products is very strongly influenced by what it looks like and how familiar the packaging appears to the buyer. If it looks and feels familiar, it’s unlikely the contents or weight will be closely checked. Only when buying something unfamiliar or new is it likely that the weight, quantity or ingredient list, etc, will be closely inspected.

Same ‘look and feel’ jar, but 25 per cent less, as 500g has shrunk to 375g.

The way in which the deception happens varies. Sometimes, it’s the same pack and appears much the same, but there is less content. However, sometimes, the outward look and feel is craftily contrived.

Three bottles of a herbal supplement with all the tablets emptied.

Almost all those tablets fit back into one bottle, with the 21 tablets remaining visible.

This pack of biscuits is a cracker. Inwardly, the contents are much less in a deceptively tricky way. Extra buttress padding is added to the internal packaging, so that, outwardly it looks and feels the same.

Shown at the front, the colour-marked buttresses on each side retain the pack outer size, but reduce the inner space for the contents.

The marked extra packaging buttresses, each side of the biscuit content bay.

With the buttresses removed: 16 crackers per bay. With the buttresses: 12 per bay. The reduction per bay is four less, or a 25 per cent reduction in the pack contents.

Something that got bigger! The toilet roll inner-tube. Same roll and outer pack size; less toilet paper and more air.

There will be a cost to changing packaging, so it makes sense to keep it full and increase the price, to cope with inflationary cost pressures on ingredients, packaging, freight, etc. But that’s not happening, so the marketing gurus must disagree.

Stevia sweetener with 40mm of air space. Contents may settle?

The ‘contents may settle after packing’ fable! The same 400g of baby powder now in a smaller container and saving a bit of plastic! Well done, Johnson’s.

How many things outside the general range of supermarket goods get the same treatment?

Do chippies rate any mention? I enjoyed the joke that went, ‘I popped into the supermarket this afternoon and picked up a bag of nitrogen gas. The manufacturer was kind enough to throw in half a dozen potato chips, as well.’ Same pack size. Same amount of nitrogen, just 120–150g of content, instead of the 250g of yesteryear. Forty per cent less.

The local cafe is not exempt. The once-upon-a-time friand on the left has been on quite a diet.

If sizes remain the same, there is an environmental cost to providing less contents in the same packaging. It’s also likely the freight costs are the same, because the packages are the same volume but contain more air and less content. It’s a shame there’s no conservation-oriented political party to promote greater sustainability in packaging, delivery and cost. I believe we had one, years back...

Footnotes:
1) The examples given in the article are just that. They are not the sole culprits involved in the consumer deception ‘racket’. Everyone is in on it.

2) As the examples and illustrations are self-explanatory, there was no consultation with – or comments sought from – any of the product makers of the examples used in this article.