• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Did they remove the 89ml version entirely or did the price go up on both? I can find both the 89ml and 59ml versions of this product online, so it doesn’t seem like it has been replaced by one for the other.

    In my experience, shrinkflation has more to do with trying to hide the missing amount, while there is no hiding this at all.

    Like when all my bars of soap stopped being cube shaped and started having a rounded bit shaved out of the bottom 16 years ago. It was done to keep an appearance of the same general shape and size while cutting a significant amount of soap out from each bar.

    I would expect real shrinkflation to include the 89ml version no longer existing (as I said, I still see 89ml versions) and to be packaged into a new bottle with a different shape to hide the difference.

    This seems more of an example of just a general price increase without any attempt to hide the price increase, which at the very least is more honest.

  • y0din@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I do not know about shrinkflation, but they have reduced the amount of plastic by x% in the smaller product which is one thing that is very popular these days, and it’s weird that there is not a big sticker advertising it.

    • roastedpotato@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Did you drop the /s? Because that’s not how that works. The bigger the container the better the volume to packaging ratio

      • y0din@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I know that’s not how it technically works, but nowadays a lot of companies introduce smaller bottles at the same price as before, claiming they’re reducing plastic use by X%. What they don’t mention is that you’re still paying the same price for less product. So while a bigger container might be more efficient in terms of packaging-to-volume ratio, that logic often gets tossed out when marketing wants to spin “less for the same” as an eco-friendly move.

  • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Can’t speak about if shrinflation or not, but these measures bug me out. Where can u buy such weird things? Canada? 89 and 59ml…are all your products so weird or is this due to conversion for your more measurly challenged southern neighbors?