Blogless

Due to increased fuel costs, the price of food is going up, but instead of charging customers more, some manufacturers are simply giving customers less. For instance, an 11oz. box of cereal that once cost $3.59 is now an 8.7oz box that costs the same.

This begs the question: Why wouldn’t they just increase the price and be done with it?

I can think of two reasons which relate to two kinds of people: those who fixate on price and those who fixate on volume.

If price matters more, then people who can’t afford the increased cost might stop buying the product. Therefore, by pricing a smaller amount at the old price, the manufacturer helps keep its customers.

On the other hand, if volume matters, smaller packages mean people can only buy less than they want. As a result, they might have to buy more to satisfy themselves. For example, let’s say your family is used to consuming a 24oz. box of cheese crackers every week. But now you can only a buy 20oz. box. Therefore, you may have to purchase more 20oz. boxes or buy more often. This costs considerably more than the price of the original portion. Again, the manufacturer comes out pretty well.

It’s interesting to note that research seems to show that a significant number (at least half) of people don’t want less; they would rather pay the increased cost for the original amount. Therefore, shrinking does not seem like an optimal solution for customer satisfaction—it seems like it benefits the manufacturer more.

Now, ask yourself why they did this:

From the front, the redesigned cereal box with the smaller portion looks the same on the shelf…
…but from the side, it is clear that the volume has decreased.

Lowering prices is one thing, but it’s sleight of hand like this that bothers me. By keeping the price the same and altering the box, it seems obvious that they don’t want people to notice.

Is that right and what does that accomplish? Shouldn’t people know how much things cost so they can make good decisions? Does it make people feel better unconsciously to think that nothing’s changed? For that matter, can it really fool anybody for long? Don’t they catch on to the fact that they get fewer bowls of cereal from their purchase? (And won’t that blow back onto the manufacturer?)

At this point, I have to dial down my righteousness and come back to the humanitarian argument that when it comes to something a person wants or needs less is probably better than none.

If that holds true, it still leaves the question of whether shrinking is a sustainable tactic. First, it has to cost something extra to redesign, retool, and manufacture smaller packages; and second, where does the shrinking end? At what point are people unsatisfied and packaging sizes have to increase again? The whole thing makes me wonder how long this has been going on. Is this particular instance an aberration, or is it part of a cycle that happens frequently?

At DLB, we put a lot of stock in reduction and restraint, but I think we’ve shown through this example that it’s not a sacred concept. Under some circumstances, less can be both wasteful and opaque.

That being said, I’m not sure there is an absolute right or a wrong in this particular situation. It has given us something to ponder.

When less is necessary but not desirable, what is the best way to deliver it?