Lately, I’ve been encountering more small cans of tomato product that are 14.5 ounces. And I’ve even seen one that was 13.5 ounces. That’s down from what has become the “normal” 15-ounce size. Which is down from the norm of 16 ounces that existed for decades.
The bigger cans of tomato product used to be 32 ounces, and are now down to 29 or 28 ounces.
Tuna fish used to be a full 8 ounces, and then went down to 7 ounces typically, but is now often 5-6 ounces.
A box of pasta used to always be 16 ounces, but now it’s often 13 to 14 ounces. And even 12 ounces.
There are similar examples all over the grocery store. It's obvious that food companies are hoping that less aware consumers won’t notice that they’re getting less for the price they're paying.
But a savvy consumer is far less likely to be taken in by these attempts by manufacturers to hide their price increases.
The bigger cans of tomato product used to be 32 ounces, and are now down to 29 or 28 ounces.
Tuna fish used to be a full 8 ounces, and then went down to 7 ounces typically, but is now often 5-6 ounces.
A box of pasta used to always be 16 ounces, but now it’s often 13 to 14 ounces. And even 12 ounces.
There are similar examples all over the grocery store. It's obvious that food companies are hoping that less aware consumers won’t notice that they’re getting less for the price they're paying.
But a savvy consumer is far less likely to be taken in by these attempts by manufacturers to hide their price increases.
Because, as we know, any smart shopper will shop for value, not for brand loyalty. And that means always comparison shopping and using the unit price to determine which product is the cheapest one on the shelf.
That would be the price in the orange square in the photos below.
Of course, it's easy to see which product is the cheapest when they're all the same weight, but with the constantly changing sizes, the unit price is the only way you can tell.
And if it's not included on the price label, you can also calculate it yourself by just dividing the total price by the units of measure contained in the package (pounds, ounces, pints, quarts, servings, etc.)
That would be the price in the orange square in the photos below.
Of course, it's easy to see which product is the cheapest when they're all the same weight, but with the constantly changing sizes, the unit price is the only way you can tell.
And if it's not included on the price label, you can also calculate it yourself by just dividing the total price by the units of measure contained in the package (pounds, ounces, pints, quarts, servings, etc.)
The biggest problem for me in this food industry practice of constantly changing packaging sizes is that it can mess up my recipes, so I sometimes have to make changes to accommodate the smaller product sizes available.
Most of the time, a little less here and there doesn't matter, but if you're using several cans of, say, tomato product, the cumulative effects are obviously greater.
It's just a bit annoying.
I just wish the food companies would stop playing consumers for fools, keep the sizes the same, and be open and honest about their price increases.
After all, just how small do they think they can go in reducing sizes before it becomes ridiculous?
Most of the time, a little less here and there doesn't matter, but if you're using several cans of, say, tomato product, the cumulative effects are obviously greater.
It's just a bit annoying.
I just wish the food companies would stop playing consumers for fools, keep the sizes the same, and be open and honest about their price increases.
After all, just how small do they think they can go in reducing sizes before it becomes ridiculous?
RSS Feed