Hacker News Reader

Comment by headbansown | Hacker News Reader

I believe Consumer Reports used to show instances of this and call it the "grocery shrink ray." Corporate greed and willingness to deceive: news at 11.

View on HN

What is the deception? Are the measurements correct on the packaging? Does the calculator app on phones work? It’s really not too much to ask people to divide price by quantity.

Choose to give business to shops that show unit prices.

In 2018, Koopmans reduced the weight of their buckwheat flour packages by 20% from 500g to 400g - claiming 'renewed' on the package, without specifying that 'renewed' only meant that less product was provided. It is unknown whether wholesale prices were affected, while it is certain that retail pricing remained exactly the same.

From the article, this example almost seems as if there was a deception. They claim their product is "renewed" but in reality all they have done is lessen how much you get. If I read renewed I would think they have changed the formula of their food, hopefully for the better, and that is why I am receiving less of their product. The fact is, nothing was changed, there is no renewed product and I am being sold less for more. Yes the price is still listed and I can make a decision as to if I buy it or not but be honest in this situation the company putting "renewed" on the packaging is hoping you believe they have improved their formula.

> If I read renewed I would think they have changed the formula of their food, hopefully for the better, and that is why I am receiving less of their product.

Why would you think that? If I read renewed, I would think that it’s some BS marketing, since there was no verifiable claim made.

Deception is not the same as lying. The information can be accurate, but presented in a way that is intended to fool the other person. Increasing the price is a more obvious way of charging more money for a product; reducing the package size is less obvious. There's a reason why a company would choose the latter: they know full well that most people will pay less attention to the unit price than they will to the package price.

And that’s the buyer’s problem.

Unless one is suggesting legislation requiring the use of certain package sizes, I don’t understand why people shouldn’t be expected to suffer the consequences of not understanding the concept of unit price.

It would be interesting if sellers were required to show a 52 week graph of unit price though with each product.

Yes, it is the buyer's problem. And no, it doesn't follow that just because a person acknowledges sketchy business policy that the person believes that the answer is legislation. In my case, I understand unit pricing, but It's easier to remember whole package pricing than remembering unit pricing, as well as sizes that were in whole units versus fractional units. It's also aggravating that I have to buy more product than I need in order to make certain recipes that have been geared toward old standard sizing. There are also people out there who lack the intelligence to understand simple concepts and obviously they are expected to suffer the consequences for being less capable intellectually.

It's worth noting that in the UK until fairly recently bread could only legally be sold in either 400g or 800g loaves.

Using the same container volume with less net weight, for example. Those of us who have the luxury of not being particularly busy can certainly keep logs of unit pricing, but it's not practicable for most.

All the stores I go to show unit price on the labels. What difference does it make if something costs less last week? It is what it is now, so all a buyer can do is compare the options on the shelves, and choose one or not choose at all.

Claiming on the packaging that the product is 'renewed', without mention the size reduction, seems pretty much deception?

Might as well outlaw marketing then. Generally, business don’t advertise negative changes.

In this case, the relevant information for a buyer is clearly stated, and accurate, and no false information has been conveyed. The buyer simply has to check the unit price and ignore the other words.

> Might as well outlaw marketing then.

Yes, because reasonable regulation requiring clear communication to consumers about product changes == outlawing marketing.

How would one propose that legislation with clear instructions that doesn’t get caught up in courts? And now the taxpayers have to spend money enforcing that legislation?

We already have a system. Show the amount of product being sold. Show the price. Require showing unit price, if anything. Any more is unnecessary.

First, it's pretty simple. Require that if net weight changes that either the size of the container decreases proportionately or that a standardized label (a la "Nutrition Facts") on the front of the container contains the old size and new size prominently.

And oh, the horror that taxpayer money might be spent protecting the public. I'm down for that.

I’m not opposed to protecting the public. I’m opposed to unnecessary spending of money. It’s far cheaper to educate people to pay attention to unit prices in 3rd grade than it is to enforce legislation about communicating changes in product sizes or packaging types, as loopholes will be found around the legislation, and then we stamp out loopholes, and spend more and more on lawyers.

We can do both, though if we did just one, I'd be with you, domestic economics should be taught from the earliest age.

> Corporate greed and willingness to deceive

* Need to maximize profits.

Is it greed on the part of market participants or price inflation necessitated by an overall inflation of the money supply?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com