What Is The End Game of Inflation/Package Size Reductions?

• 

  pao2x on 09/08/2015 - 17:07

  +7

  Well that escalated quickly….

  • 

    pointless martyr on 10/08/2015 - 00:31

    -1

    Yes, before you know it you can only buy a big bag of chip.

    Or a can of baked bean from Cole?

    Perhaps a 2 minute noodle from Woolworth?

    And it probably wont end with foodstuffs - soon enough you will be buying pant, shoe and short and sock!

    Or maybe all of them will disappear into 'nothingless'

    When will the madness end?

    • 

      DeafMutePretender on 10/08/2015 - 00:59

      I guess with apparel and clothing items, it works slightly differently.

      Instead of raising prices, they fire greedy, entitled, minimum-wage demanding local workers and outsource the jobs to poor 3rd world pseudo-slaves. Something still disappeared into nothingless: the local manufacturing industry and the employees's jobs.
      Many years from now, those jobs that have been outsourced will be replaced by machines.

      When will the madness end?

      • 

        pointless martyr on 10/08/2015 - 01:35

        -1

        Many years from now, those jobs that have been outsourced will be replaced by machines.

        I saw a documentary on the endgame of that once, i think it was called 'Terminator 2'

      • 

        DeafMutePretender on 10/08/2015 - 02:06

        @pointless comment:

        Was the movie called Job Terminator 2: Employee Efficiency and Productivity Judgment Day?

• 

  Unbranded on 09/08/2015 - 17:07

  Against the trend, I noticed Pascall marshmallows recently increased from 250g to 280g but now the on sale price is $3 instead of $1.50-$2. So about another dollar for maybe 2 more marshmallows!

• 

  juventino on 09/08/2015 - 17:39

  this is not Sparta, no madness here.

  • 

    DeafMutePretender on 09/08/2015 - 18:03

    +4

    THIS. IS.

    INFLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. TION.

• 

  iridiumstem on 09/08/2015 - 17:46

  Nothing would get as ridiculous as you are suggesting. The reason, at least what I think it is, probably is to fool people that nothing have changed when what you've got have decreased for what you pay (which would be same as increasing price without making people realise the price have increased). So yeah, I think at one point, they will stop decreasing the size because people will perceive that to be worse than actual increase in price.

• 

  sickllama on 09/08/2015 - 18:26

  It's psychology. An item that is 200g that's $3, that increases to $3.50, people are like "What a rip off!".

  If the same item is $4, but says "New Value Size" and its 220g, people are like, "its more expensive, but its bigger. Meh."

  Or alternatively, if its 150g and $1.90, people are like "its smaller, but its cheaper. Meh."

• 

  RandomNinja on 09/08/2015 - 18:39

  +1

  Similar to sickllama's comment - companies can simply 'reset' consumer perception by introducing a new range of pack sizes and price points. Or alternatively, they can add extra features/benefits to justify new pricing.

  When it's harder to compare like for like, we're less likely notice. I always check the cost/kg or equivalent on the price labels at Coles/Woolies as it seems to be the easiest way to sense check specials.

• 

  SlickMick on 10/08/2015 - 08:10

  They just phase out the small packs (those 100g will have to go as the "large" pack approaches) and prob introduce a new mega value 250g pack, then the cycle repeats.

• 

  divergent on 10/08/2015 - 09:10

  History always repeats itself, so when the poor become the majority, capitalism will have nothing to work with, then businesses will suffer and have to start again with consumers as their focus rather than money. That's the age when advancements are made, because prices will have dropped (market rates will be lower), people will use their skills to help society, (rather than just do a job to make money), and the cycle will start all over again, until money eventually has room to grow and greed can return, and so on and so forth.

  • 

    DeafMutePretender on 10/08/2015 - 21:51

    History always repeats itself

    So it's an endless (business) cycle of exploitation, abuse and power consolidation.

    I thought the point of us learning history is so that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past?

• 

  [Deactivated] on 10/08/2015 - 10:09

  +1

  Not at Aldi. Same product with same quality and same quantity.. price drops over the years. Only slightly, but they drop.

  They state this on the price tags of the particular item. Also here: https://www.aldi.com.au/en/groceries/home-of-the-lowest-pric…

  Yay Aldi.

  • 

    divergent on 10/08/2015 - 12:34

    I love ALDI too! :)

  • 

    johninmelb on 10/08/2015 - 21:31

    Sorry to disagree, but NO, not the same quality when the price drops.

    When their current supplier cannot produce the item for the negotiated price any more, Aldi reformulate the product and put it out to tender again.

    Whenever I see the words "NEW LOOK" on an Aldi package, I know now not to touch it.

    Case in point, I've been buying their Vita Grain Cracked Pepper biscuits for awhile now, as Colesworth no long stock the proper Vita Wheat Cracked Pepper biscuits. They weren't fantastic but I made do with them.

    Couple of months ago, I go in to stock up again, and I get the dreaded "new look same taste" garbage on the box. OK, I will try one. It went in the bin.

    They are absolutely revolting. Much thinner than before, not a skerrick of pepper, and could best be described as a thin piece of cardboard.

    Second example, have you tasted their crumpets lately? They have gone up to $1.19 from 99c, and have also been reformulated. You wouldn't give them to your dog now. Pure unadulterated garbage.

    Their Remano Tomato Paste is now made in China.

    Their margarine is full of palm oil. Trying to kill us as well as the Orangutans in Indonesia.

    Very disappointing, so I am gradually drifting back - albeit very reluctantly - to Woolworths.

  • 

    DeafMutePretender on 10/08/2015 - 21:51

    I know that OzBargain loves Aldi but I can't help but feel that even they have hidden costs (to society and the community).

• 

  SlartiBartFozz on 10/08/2015 - 15:42

  +1

  There is no end-game as such: Cola-cola and Cadbury are two regular felons in that area.
  Years ago, Coke was a 700ml bottle, then it went up to 800, 900, 1000, and settled on 1.25L, which was the largest size available (in Australia at the time), and most popular take-home/supermartket size. Later they released a 2L bottle, and finally a 3L bottle, all those size changes came with the typical claims of economy size/bonus/extra free/value size/family size/etc. Coke (and several of it's sister brands had similar changes to the milk bar (remember those places?) / convenience store sizes. Ultimately the larger sizes are seasonally reduced in size (under the auspices of fatter customer demand, but almost certainly purely for fatter profit margins).
  Cadbury and Mars do exactly the same thing, however they work very hard to conceal down-sizes with wider, slimmer packaging, scaling the whole item down, with smaller edging, smaller logos, etc. Unless you compare the grams or view them difference side-by-side it's often hard to see the change.
  Later they will come out with new, bigger block/family size and so on, and expand further into multipacks.
  It all essentially goes around in a circle, very little has changed if you look at it from a 20-30year period. The downsizing always coincides with a reduced price promotion, after which the price goes up slightly higher than before on a slightly meaner size.
  Today junk food makers are peddling a new line, which is the healthier sizing, which is not actually mentioned on the packaging but is in some marketing and press releases.
  Interestingly, ice cream makers cannot get away with the same size trickery, because the customer is typically more conscious of the product volume — the approach there is to alter the mixture in order to put more air in the icecream — if 30yrs ago, your icecream melted the volume would have changed by 20-30%, today many brands of icecream will reduce by 50-60% or more on melting. It's not such a bad thing for our waistlines, but it's the additives that facilitate that change that are more concerning.

  • 

    tonyjzx on 10/08/2015 - 17:53

    There's a practical side.

    I mean coke cans are available as 200ml? 250ml? There was a call for Red Bull sized cans. I believe these are $2?

    I dont see 150ml or 100ml cans any time soon.

  • 

    sickllama on 10/08/2015 - 19:22

    Didn't realise the change in icecream portions - thanks for sharing.

• 

  johninmelb on 10/08/2015 - 21:35

  Hermesetas Stevia tablets dropped from packs of 300 to 220, but still the same price. That's a huge change.

• 

  johninmelb on 10/08/2015 - 21:37

  Yoghurt is another one. Most single serves used to be 200 grams. Some are now down around 125 grams.

  Bigger tubs have gone from a litre down to weird sizes like 676 grams, 580 grams 716 grams etc etc.

• 

  divergent on 11/08/2015 - 07:31

  Lets also not forget that as we grow bigger the products we consume automatically grow smaller. I remember when a 600ml bottle of coke was huge as a kid. As were Peanut Slabs. And don't get me started on Rusks. They use to take hours to eat, and now they're gone in two bites!