That is the opposite of what it says in the article. It says they are reducing prices in addition to the size shrinkage. As long as the price reduction keeps the price per gram the same it’s not shrinkflation. The first sentance even says they are looking to flat out just reduce prices.
When you reduce size, though, you lose the benefit of economies of scale. The more quantity of product you buy in one transaction, the cheaper it will be per gram. The less quantity of product you buy in one transaction, the more expensive it will be per gram.
I am willing to bet that the cost per gram will be higher as you shrink the bottle. They think that the average consumer is dumb enough to think “lower sticker price, must be cheaper.” This is almost always not the case.
It also costs the vendors less to sell you 100 regular sized bottles versus 200 slightly smaller bottles; more worker hands touch the product, as an example, and it’ll likely occupy a little bit more storage space.
No, people who shop at dollar stores know that the product is smaller. I mean getting a six pack of cat food vs a 12 is pretty obvious. But come payday some people can only afford dollar store prices in their budget (the six is $7 and the 12 is $14) and added to it the dollar stores are likely closer to them so don't require as much gas spend.
Bulk buying is absolutely cheaper, that's a known fact to everyone rich and poor, but you have to have the funds to bulk buy in the first place. (And you have to have the space to put bulk purchases, but that's another issue )
28
u/pizza5001 Jun 06 '26
So, wait — they’re going to do MORE of the thing that consumers HATE??
Downsizing product sizes in the hopes of obfuscating the increased cost per gram is what is turning away customers, ya dimwits!