Fellow Daily Fix contributor Paul Barsch posted a comment to a recent post of mine (Functional Candy) that got me thinking. Paul wrote: “With food costs going through the roof, consumers are getting less for more, or sometimes less for the same price.”
Isn’t that the truth? It made me wonder about how consumers feel about “getting less for more.”
Right after that, voila! I happened on a link to an article with the same theme. “Shoppers fed up as containers shrink” appeared in The Salt Lake Tribune and addressed this very issue.
While the title of the article suggests consumers are “fed up” with this trend, and I’m sure attentive consumers are; the body of the same article states that “Shoppers might not have noticed the change because grocers have typically pulled the larger packages when restocking shelves or have discounted the larger, older products separately”.
Preoccupied or not, I’ve got a feeling that most consumers have duly noted they’re either paying a few cents more for the same items every time they shop, or getting less product for their dollar. . . .and they’re likely chafing about it. Seems like we’ve gone from supersized to downsized, in short order, doesn’t it?
Just a few examples of recently shrinking food packages:
• Kellogg’s Cocoa Krispies, Corn Pops, Froot Loops, among other favorites have shrunk an average of 2.4 ounces to offset rising energy costs of manufacturing and distribution as well as raw material costs.
• Dreyer’s (West coast) and Edy’s (East coast) ice cream containers have shrunk from 1.75 quart packages to 1.5 quarts.
• Wrigley’s Gum has cut the number of sticks from 17 to 15 on its brands.
• Unilever’s Country Crock margarine has been reduced its 3 pound carton by 3 ounces.
Not all shrinking packaging, however, is a bad thing. In fact, not all shrinking packages indicate that consumers are getting less product for their money. Thankfully, the article also points this out in an even-handed manner.
Because my firm is intimately involved with packaging consumer products, I know that many companies are pushing for a reduction in packaging—and not only as a cost-saving measure. Fewer materials and a smaller footprint also indicate a move to greener packaging.
Think of it: fewer raw materials are used, less energy is required to manufacture fewer materials, the cost to ship product is less due to lower weights, and at the end of its life cycle: there’s less waste. All good incentives for smaller packaging.
Bottled water companies are moving in this direction. Large FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) companies like P&G are doing the same. That requires educating the consumer, otherwise the perception will be that of “getting less for more”. As the article points out: “Many detergents have been reduced by half or a third of their former volume, yet wash the same number of loads per package, according to Consumer Reports”.
Questions:
• As a consumer, do you notice reduced sizes in food packaging frequently? If so, do you find it annoying? Would you prefer to pay more, or pay the same amount for less product?
• Do you see value in consumer product packaging that is reduced for environmental reasons?
• If so, would you like to see marketers explain how their reduced pack sizes offer advantages vis-à-vis the environment?
I’d love to hear from you.
No Comments »
Filed under: Syndicated
Every product or service that is sold lies somewhere on the continuum from MONOPOLY to COMMODITY. At the extremes, your offer is either one-of-a-kind - in effect a MONOPOLY - or it’s the S.O.S. (Same Old Stuff) - a COMMODITY. In the case of the latter, the only way you can enhance customer value is by lowering your price.
