A peer-reviewed study of a decade of US grocery scanner data found that companies shrink product sizes 5x more often than they increase them, and sales go UP 6% after downsizing. Researchers conclude this is a deliberate pricing strategy, not a response to cost pressure.

4709 points by Due_Willingness_3277 16 hours ago on reddit | 112 comments

My comment got deleted before, but I had said that we are going to experience super mega mini jumbo lil’ foods and not know what its actual size really is.

real-darkph0enix1 | 14 hours ago

Nah, they’ll just start selling you the old size at a ludicrous price as large to the new “smedium”. Look at the 2 liters and 12 pack cans of sodas. They introduced smaller sizes that retained the old price point while increasing the old 2L/12oz12pk prices to the point a 12oz can costs as much as the old 20oz bottles used to before they started scaling in price to damn near $3.

Best thing to happen to my weight loss.

: LogoffWorkout | 14 hours ago
I was in old navy a while ago, and they had a fridge near the checkout with pepsi 20 oz sodas, but no price anywhere. I asked the cashier, she had no idea, so I checked out with it, and it rung up at $4.79, I put it back, lol.
: ddhmax5150 | 13 hours ago
Smedium. Haven’t heard that term in a while
: StrobeLightRomance | 8 hours ago
Just goes to show how wrong we were for raging out about $5 Super Size meals, when 20 years later, the same amount costs $15.

We treated abundance like it was some kind of burden, simply because individuals lacked self control with the options.

LogoffWorkout | 14 hours ago

ITS COLOSSALLY tiny. Buy 2! To CRUSH your hunger.

No_Detail2408 | 12 hours ago

Like chunks from starfield?

dane83 | 10 hours ago

>some economists argue that the company that shrinks quietly is doing less damage to household budgets than the one that raises prices sharply, because the psychological shock is lower and the adjustment is more gradual.

"It's less damaging to boil the frog in the pot than throwing it in after it's already boiling."

: Phugasity | 9 hours ago
Personally I prefer to add one tick at a time until I'm fully exsanguinated. Think of all the fun memories I would have missed if they loaded me all up at once?

throwaway214203 | 16 hours ago

Never thought of this angle. I suppose a smaller package does make it feel like less commitment if. It’s something new/makes it not seem as bad if it’s something unhealthy

ShadowTacoTuesday | 16 hours ago

It’s to maintain or lower the price to increase sales while actually giving less. Regardless of the status of the economy. Someone may notice a large decrease but they’re less likely to notice small ones done little by little.

hybridaaroncarroll | 16 hours ago

We're all frogs in a pot about to boil.

MyJimboPersona | 13 hours ago

I regret to inform you it’s been boiling for quite sometime already

: FortunePaw | 8 hours ago
We already past boiling point and straight into deep fryer now.
: Freud-Network | 10 hours ago
The boiling hasn't even started yet. If you're struggling now, boy do you have a lot to look forward to.

shakeitsugaree_ | 5 hours ago

Holy fuck I feel like I hear this phrase more and more

ugotmedripping | 9 hours ago

I remember in elementary school they taught us that it was the drug dealers who would get you hooked then jack up the price…

RandyTheDandyPansy | 16 hours ago

Especially when you've already conditioned Americans to understand their overconsumption as a moral failing that can only be soothed through more consumption.

Creates the illusion that it is their fault that the bag of chips that used to last a week now only lasts a couple of days and that if they want their fix, they should make more money and buy more.

IcySheepherder6195 | an hour ago

This should be considered predatory pricing and be illegal

Affectionate-Tip-164 | 13 hours ago

They used to have the "diet" pack or the "lite" pack as contrast, but nowadays there's no comparison, so you don't know if the prices are adjusted to match the volume too.

indycpa7 | 9 hours ago

I feel like the article misinterpreted the study when they say consumers “don’t notice” actually consumers just didn’t stop buying or change to another product. The study did not measure identifying that a change happened, consumers may have noticed.

cosmic_backlash | 3 hours ago

Not just a smaller commitment, but people literally consume it more quickly because there is less so they must go buy more to restock.

Sorge74 | 3 hours ago

A huge amount of Americans are also on GLP1s(not that it's a bad thing it's a great thing miracle drug ...hopefully) so smaller sized are appealing. Also throw in some extra protein and vitamins and they f****** love it.

snarfer-snarf | 5 hours ago

sabra hummus $3.99 for 10 ounces at kroger. they switch to 8 ounces for $3.19 for a week an tout the great "sale" on sabra hummus. two weeks from downsizing, sabra goes off sale and is still $3.99 but now it's for 8 ounces. fuckers. 😒

3RADICATE_THEM | 16 hours ago

I'm sure the brilliant economists who tell us inflation is 3% and are tracking a broad range of basket of goods are accounting for shrinkflation.

EOD, any major company is ultimately thinking about how they can produce a product as cheaply (including unit cost at volume) as possible while charging as much as possible for it while also paying their employees the least amount as possible.

reasonably_plausible | 16 hours ago

> I'm sure the brilliant economists who tell us inflation is 3% and are tracking a broad range of basket of goods are accounting for shrinkflation.

Yes. They do.

>Given how easy it is to miss downsizing when you are shopping, you might be wondering if the CPI is able to reflect these types of price changes accurately. The CPI strives to capture the price change caused by downsizing through accurate data collection and effective price calculations. Our data collectors and economists identify changes to the goods and services used to calculate the CPI. Data collectors collect prices for the same unique set of goods and services over time. This includes identifying, verifying, and notifying each other of product size changes so the effective price change experienced by consumers can be accurately reflected in the CPI. When an item goes through downsizing or upsizing, the data collector reports the new data, updates the product description, and sends a message to economists in the national program office noting the product size change. Data collectors do not record information such as the number of chocolate chips in a cookie or the number of pepperonis on a pizza, however, they do record attributes such as weight and volume.

>Our economists continuously review goods and services in the CPI. They identify product downsizing through monthly reviews of CPI data and online research. For products data collectors identify with a size or weight change, economists will conduct further research on the manufacturers’ websites, online shopping websites, and other sources to verify if the product is experiencing product downsizing or upsizing. Once the economist has verified that the item is experiencing product size change, they will notate the item and search the CPI sample for the same item. To ensure downsizing is captured in a timely manner, the economist will notify the data collectors that a product is experiencing downsizing so that they can be on the lookout for a size change.

>Data collection procedures vary for different products and services; therefore, the impact of product size change is handled differently based on the item. An effective price per standard size, usually a price per ounce, is calculated for items where size is reported. The effective price per ounce is the collected price divided by size. For example, if a half-gallon (64 oz) of Brand A vanilla ice cream is priced in January 2021 at $5.99, then the effective price per ounce is $5.99 divided by 64 oz or $0.093 per ounce. If, in February 2021, the same Brand A vanilla ice cream is reduced in size to 60 oz, but the price is still $5.99, the effective price per ounce would be $0.0998 per ounce. This results in a 6.7-percent increase in the price per ounce of the ice cream, and the CPI would include this price increase. Our economists even adjust for items that do not have a weight, like toilet paper. For example, when the number of sheets per toilet paper roll changes from 220 per roll to 200, the economist will adjust the data to show a 10-percent price-per-sheet increase.

>CPI economists track identified downsizing and upsizing in the CPI sample each month. Chart 1 displays the item categories with the most downsized and upsized observations in the CPI sample from January 2015 to December 2021. Household paper products experienced upsizing and downsizing more than any other category in the sample with 716 total reports during 2015–21. While that sounds substantial, it is only about 3 percent of the price observations for that category during the 7-year period. Snacks experienced the largest number of size changes for food items, with a total of 509, followed by sweetrolls, coffee cake, and donuts, tea and pies, tarts, and turnovers. For food items, 2.9 percent of observed prices experienced downsizing and upsizing.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflation-and-its-impact-on-inflation.htm

3RADICATE_THEM | 13 hours ago

I believe a trimmed-mean CPI is used so it excludes the stuff with the highest and lowest increases, which is how they massage the data to produce an artificially lowered CPI figure.

jeffwulf | 12 hours ago

Trimmed mean is not used for Headline inflation, it's used to calculate inflation volatility.

reasonably_plausible | 7 hours ago

It is not. The federal reserve has suggested looking at a trimmed-mean for guidance on rate changes. It is not currently the case, nor does it have anything to do with the regular CPI numbers that are released.

Glittering-Walrus228 | 11 hours ago

Also love how theyll just throw shit out when it gets too expensive. "Americans dont need to eat... 'eegs', 'eh-ge-gegs', whatever the fuck these white oval things are when styrofoam will do... Styrofoam's in the basket now guys!"

Lions_with_ladders | 8 hours ago

That is not how it works. When eggs increased in price several times of the last few years those increases were part of the CPI calculation. No items are removed for having too large of an increase.

You may be thinking about the idea of substation effects. That part is fairly minor because it is from using a geometric mean instead of a laspeyers mean at lower level index calculation. Substitution effects are real and ignoring them would overstate inflation. This information is all available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Downtown_Reindeer946 | 11 hours ago

Part of it is because CPI assumes what you buy is somewhat constant. I'm real life, if something doubles in price, we will substitute away if we can.

: reasonably_plausible | 7 hours ago
The CPI does include substitutions within categories. So if brand names are getting expensive, but generics are staying the same, they will assume a substitution for generic. Or if, say, cantaloupe sees an increase, but watermelon doesn't, some amount of substitution is assumed.

Now, this is only within categories, so despite what people claim, it isn't including things like swapping steak out for ground beef. But, there is also a regular reweighting of categories to capture sustained changes in purchasing behavior.

Independent-Baker865 | 16 hours ago

Already covered in the report the article references and yes, they did account for that.

“While shrinkflation increases prices, its effect on inflation is small because most spending is on things that cannot be shrunk. But the prices of certain products, like coffee and cereal, are affected more.”

AmusingMusing7 | 13 hours ago

From the article:

>The standard economic response to concerns about shrinkflation is that its contribution to overall inflation is modest. The GAO found it accounted for less than one-tenth of a percentage point of the 34.5 percent increase in consumer prices between 2019 and 2024. That is a small number in aggregate.
What it does not capture is accumulation. A family buying the same 50 grocery products every week has experienced shrinkflation across multiple categories simultaneously over multiple years. The cereal box shrank. The chips shrank. The paper towels shrank. The detergent shrank. Each individual reduction is minor. The combined effect of what that family gets for the same money is not.

Prestigious_Load1699 | 10 hours ago

Why do you think this effect in aggregation isn’t accurately reflected in the GAO findings?

Do you think they deliberately exclude items to understate the overall impact?

The point of the citation you responded to was that they do include all of this in aggregate and the effect is negligible.

Your argument that this is neglected and compounded by the myriad goods that people purchase requires substantiation by showing that this isn’t already a consideration.

AmusingMusing7 | 9 hours ago

No, they don't necessarily do it deliberately... maybe some more ideological biased sources do, but I'm sure the official CPI calculators are not intentionally missing anything. They just can't account for the non-quantifiable secondary and accumulative effects beyond all the trackable factors. You can track a lot of factors, but in the end, life is just too complicated among too many people for any kind of single comprehensive analysis to cover all the details and facets of everyone's financial situations or buying habits, etc. So there's always going to be some gap between the official centralized analysis based only on certain indicators, vs the actual widely distributed reality full of infinite variables and complications.

It gets worse when more and more when the go-to indicators of economic activity are becoming more and more monopolized by the rich, as inequality rises more and more. The value of GDP is not evenly distributed, so when we talk about GDP per capita, it's skewed by how much value the upper levels are getting, while creating a wash between that and the less value that the lower classes are getting. "The economy" is referred to and analyzed as a whole, so whatever the prevailing trend is will cover up any mitigating or opposing trends. As long as the rich are doing well and their gains are greater than the average person's losses, "the economy" will appear to be doing well, while most people are actually doing worse in tangible circumstances.

: thewimsey | 2 hours ago
> They just can't account for the non-quantifiable secondary and accumulative effects beyond all the trackable factors.

Okay...

But

>What it does not capture is accumulation. A family buying the same 50 grocery products every week has experienced shrinkflation across multiple categories simultaneously over multiple years. The cereal box shrank. The chips shrank. The paper towels shrank. The detergent shrank. Each individual reduction is minor. The combined effect of what that family gets for the same money is not.

But this is a quantifiable effect and it is captured. There are 80,000 items in the basket.

Sipikay | 12 hours ago

Inflation is only 3% if you don’t count things that people actually buy and use all the time!

: Lions_with_ladders | 8 hours ago
The CPI puts huge efforts into getting a representative sample of goods and services that people buy. It is partially updated every 6 months. There is a lot of information about the sampling process available at the BLS's website.
: thewimsey | an hour ago
The "basket of goods" has 80,000 items.

FearlessPark4588 | 16 hours ago

You do know that inflation in aggregate can be 3% while your household experiences a different rate, right?

3RADICATE_THEM | 15 hours ago

Yes, I understand. I understood that anyone who owned housing prior to 2021 was sheltered by massive amounts of shelter inflation that CPI absolutely did not capture, and it effectively underreported real inflation over the past five years.

In essence, it's basically an esoteric, academic, theoretical value that isn't representative of true COLA changes people are experiencing as individuals.

a157reverse | 14 hours ago

If people that owned housing prior to 2021 didn't experience shelter inflation isn't that a true part of the cost of living experience?

FearlessPark4588 | 14 hours ago

It is. They are below 3 and other households are above 3. that's the problem: the distribution of lived inflation rates.

3RADICATE_THEM | 14 hours ago

Here's why it matters. Neoliberals have been spamming multiple social media platforms (including Reddit) over the past five years that 'real incomes / wages are up'.

It's very likely that this isn't the case for a huge cohort of young adults, and then they somehow seem to scratch their heads why they keep losing said demographic in key polling when their figures told them we're in the 'greatest economy ever'. I don't think this is a good rationale to pivot and vote for Trump mind you, but maybe don't run around saying we're in the 'greatest economy in the whole damn world' and then Pikachu face when you lose a demographic you though was impossible to lose—as their material conditions greatly worsened in short duration.

It's a great economy if you owned assets that experienced a huge appreciation beyond general average annual appreciation—the problem is it's the young people who have to eat the cost of it—and it's not a great economy for them.

EDIT: Formatting

RashmaDu | 13 hours ago

> Neoliberals

I have a tendency to disregard people who just spout "nEOlIBeRaL" at any economics they don't like or understand, but here we go

> have been spamming multiple social media platforms (including Reddit) over the past five years that 'real incomes / wages are up'. It's very likely that this isn't the case for a huge cohort of young adults

So just to be clear, you 1don't have any facts to back up your hypothesis, and even in your hypothesised world, you only think it's "very likely" that you are right?

By all means, look up median real wages in the US. They have increased over the recent years. Is there going to be a lot of heterogeneity? Of course- and you're welcome to find facts to back you up

3RADICATE_THEM | 13 hours ago

Did you not see all the countless threads on Reddit in late 24 and most of 2025 getting mad at Gen Z for low voting turnout?

That heterogeneity you mentioned is literally the most important factor in all of this.

Who gives a fuck about aggregated averages with how widely spread and diverse of a population the US is? What you're basically suggesting with such a notion is that nobody under 35 who wasn't able to secure housing pre-2021 matters because the majority of the general population was able to do so.

If NBA data analytics can tell someone which exact square foot of the court a specific player has the best comparative advantage, why can't we get more age and region / city-based metrics that measures inflation more granularly and in a more practically useful way?

RashmaDu | 13 hours ago

Sorry, I don't use Reddit threads as a source of information on economic facts, because it's known as anecdotal evidence.

But why look up data to back up your claim? I'll do some work for you, see Fig 6A here (you can also download the data yourself and do whatever heterogeneity analysis you want on the person's website): https://www.xavierjaravel.com/_files/ugd/bacd2d_40a5d2231f0847e1a2e20f6ca4031c7d.pdf

3RADICATE_THEM | 13 hours ago

I don't care about long-term inflation—it's a red herring in scope of this discussion at best. The subtext of this discussion is in relation to roughly since COVID began, and due to various caveats (shelter inflation, CPI using OER, CPI not properly accounting for interest rate hikes greatly increasing the cost of homeownership etc)—CPI does not give a representative model for huge portions of young adult cohorts' real COLA.

: RashmaDu | 13 hours ago
If you bothered reading the first sentence of the abstract, you'd see that this is real time inflation measurement which also studies "real wages dynamics during crises", not just the long run. If you bothered looking at the specific figure I pointed to, you'd see that you can in fact see short term effects as well.

But why engage with facts at all, right? Better to just stick with your biased priors!

creosote____ | 10 hours ago

>Here's why it matters. Neoliberals have been spamming multiple social media platforms (including Reddit) over the past five years that 'real incomes / wages are up'.

I've never understood why they do this. Real median household income has been flat since 2019. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

: thewimsey | an hour ago
Because doomers have been claiming that real median household income has been flat for decades - sometimes as far back as 1980, other times as far back as 2000.

thewimsey | an hour ago

> Neoliberals have been spamming multiple social media platforms (including Reddit) over the past five years that 'real incomes / wages are up'.

Real wages are up.

Cute rhetorical trick to try to undercut actual data by suggesting that the source is "neoliberals" and that they are "spamming" this data.

You and DJT are both reading from the same playbook, and neither of you are entitled to your own facts.

>It's very likely that this isn't the case for a huge cohort of young adults,

Perhaps your time would have been better spent learning what an "average" is, rather than ranting about "neoliberals".

We have historically low unemployment.

That still means that ~4 million people are unemployed, and that sucks for them.

And if we cut unemployment in half, lower than it has ever been (the record low is 2.5%), we would still have 2 million unemployed, and that would still suck for them.

: 3RADICATE_THEM | 26 minutes ago
I have literally seen RW tech bro MAGAs talk about how real wages are up and unemployment is low - just as you are.

I already accounted for averages—averages in an extremely vast, heterogenous population is meaningless because it doesn't capture the true variance in outcomes.

UE is another extremely flawed metric that has a million asterisks and caveats that aren't accounted for (underemployment being a major lurking variable of many).

I know this might sound callous, but certain subsets of the population are more important than others—especially for society to function day to day but also for it to progress in the future.

Right now, everything is in favor of the least important demographic of the population (like quite literally they could all vanish tomorrow and the economy would vastly improve as a result).

It's people like you for why Trump won a second time.

Muted_Masterpiece342 | 14 hours ago

The numbers are cooked. PPP says the usa inflation rate is nuts.

: defaultedebt | 11 hours ago
No, they are not. No economist believes what you are saying.

creosote____ | 10 hours ago

Wow, I never knew that ",right"?

jeffwulf | 12 hours ago

Yes, shrinkflation is accurately tracked by inflation metrics.

errie_tholluxe | 8 hours ago

That last part? Less than 50 years old. Thank the CEO of GE for that.

JC_Hysteria | 3 hours ago

The other part people tend to forget is how the most lucrative professionals are in the “making money business”- working toward their own lifestyle…

They’re not aiming to serve a market in the most sustainable way, because most people aren’t incentivized to work at a company for the long-term any longer.

thewimsey | 2 hours ago

> I'm sure the brilliant economists who tell us inflation is 3% and are tracking a broad range of basket of goods are accounting for shrinkflation.

They do.

Why do you assume that you are smarter than they are?

Hot_Fisherman_6147 | 13 hours ago

Little by little it's just some person's promotion. Like how they put QR codes on things instead of printing out a manual. Saved millions probably. Just some random person's path to a promotion.

Most companies just want to figure out a way for us all to give them money....and then that's it. Just take money and provide nothing

wandering-monster | 8 hours ago

"when we put less in each package, people buy more packages"

Wow, it's almost like maybe they needed to because they still eat the same amount.

AdventurousLet548 | 8 hours ago

I just refuse to buy the stuff when they shrink the package and increase the prices on soda, chips, ice cream etc. I also make my own granola. As someone else said, it’s a good weight loss strategy.

VariousAir | 6 hours ago

What did you do when you ran out of products to buy, since they all do this?

: AdventurousLet548 | 5 hours ago
I buy as little packaged food as possible. I plan my meals for the week, buy only fresh for what is on the list, and don't buy anything else. Amazing how much money you save. No chips, no processed food. I limit my spending in other areas but not groceries.

Albg111 | 5 hours ago

I wanted a bag of chips the other day and when I grabbed it there was SO MUCH EMPTY SPACE in it! Like the bat was maybe a quarter or a third full. For almost 6 bucks? Fuck them.

I ate no chips. I guess, good for my health.

Leather-Map-8138 | 4 hours ago

The delay between purchase and consumption reduces the salience of the effective price increase. As a result, marketers may reduce package quantities with less consumer resistance than an equivalent price increase.

LogoffWorkout | 14 hours ago

I've noticed any time inflation hits something noticeably on something that I buy, they promote it/discount it pretty hard for quite a while after. Its hard to be too outraged when the thing that was $4 is not $5 but they run a 2 for $5 discount, same thing for if they shrink the yogurt tub from 32 oz to 24 oz, but they discount it heavily for a while.

jelliphiish | 8 hours ago

I noticed this a decade ago in the UK. Cat food pouches dropped 15g to 85g over night and the difference in the bulk packs of whiskas was apparent when you picked them up, checked on some extant old packs I still had and clocked the drop in contents..

Once I'd noticed that, it turned up the same all over: prices go up, the contents go away.

frankster | 5 hours ago

Presumably they think they're getting a good price on the product they know, rather than less of the product for their money.

Would the findings hold up.if the product had a label saying "quantity reduced recently" for several months after the shrink?

Doctorbuddy | 8 hours ago

I feel like this is obvious? Has no one ever worked for a CPG company or asked someone who has?

Why is this world beating news?

Yes, a consumer would much rather buy a smaller package at the same price. The company would much rather “increase prices” (increase profits) by reducing the size of the package. It’s all psychological.

And by reducing the size of the package, the consumer ALSO buys it more frequently (because there is less per pack).

Ta da! I told you CPG magic!

: K1rkl4nd | 3 hours ago
A couple years back, I had an 8 hour round trip meeting at corporate to be told that “people who buy more, buy more.”
Of course they then broke it down in how selling half-liter 6pks at 4/$12 can get a bump in volume switching to 5/$15. And then two weeks later you do just 3/$9. Then 2 weeks later do 5/$15 again. Then 2 weeks later.. don’t put it on sale. You are slowly training the consumer to consume more and expect regularity. Throw in a 4 week gap, then suddenly they run out and either have to pay full price (yay- full markup) or go without (booo).
Then you run a sale at 6/$18 and people will stock up. Then 2 weeks later do 4/$12 again.. and people will overstock because they fear running out again. Now they are sitting on excess and will go through more. Now you’ve got them used to a higher velocity, and can raise prices to 4/$13 and they will not blink an eye.

MIT_Engineer | 9 hours ago

Makes sense. Fewer families, fewer family-size products.

I don't really need to buy my minced garlic in 1.5lb jars if I'm cooking for 1 or 2.

JC_Hysteria | 3 hours ago

You don’t need to “research” this too thoroughly…

Just look up the job posts at any consumer packaged goods company with the word “strategy” in it.

TioJ888 | 14 hours ago

I wanted a 12 pack of coke for a work event but they only sold 8 packs or 24 packs, two 8 packs were obviously a worse deal too. This is NZ but I'm sure 12 packs used to be available.

: Mysterious_Umpire684 | 9 hours ago
I have switched to buying liters of soft drinks instead of cans unless I'm hosting.