Food Packaging Downsizing

[MarketStEl]

After reading through the thread on Jack Daniel's watering down its best-selling whiskey, I thought for a while about one of the main reasons given for the change: holding costs in line. (A Brit noted that alcohol taxes in the UK are based on the amount of alcohol by volume, which would lead distillers there to lower the alcohol content to reduce taxes.)

Then I thought about the cans of tuna in my pantry. This kitchen standby comes in six-ounce cans now. When I moved to Philly 20 years ago, it came in 6 1/2-ounce cans; the net weight has gone down twice since then.

Same phenomenon with candy bars, though I forget how much they weighed in the past.

All these moves, if I understand them right, are attempts to hold the retail prices steady without eating into company profits. Meanwhile, on the prepared-foods side, portions seem to be rising--still, the effect of works like "SuperSize Me" notwithstanding.

Are restaurant economics so different from grocery store or food manufacturer economics that the eateries can offer *more* for the same price where the processors cannot?

[lovebenton0]

Doesn't make much sense, does it? Although most places (fast food in this reference of yours) do charge for the upgrade to the "why did I order this much food?" size. So those places are not giving a consumer more for the same amount of $.

Still, my biggest bitch is that a "pound" of plain ol' coffee in a bag or can now weighs anywhere from 12 to 13.25 ounces. So not only does one get less but needs to buy it more often -- which probably looks great in their sales statistics.

[FaustianBargain]

Then I thought about the cans of tuna in my pantry.  This kitchen standby comes in six-ounce cans now.  When I moved to Philly 20 years ago, it came in 6 1/2-ounce cans; the net weight has gone down twice since then.

Same phenomenon with candy bars, though I forget how much they weighed in the past.

Re candy bars, a google search reveals the 'Hershey Bar Index"

The "Hershey Bar Index"

Tracking the prices of "regular" candy bars is a complicated project because

over the years the definition of regular (ie, size and weight) have also

changed. Contrary to popular opinion, the size of the average chocolate bar is

not ever-shrinking. The price? Is a function of global trade.

The Hershey Company was kind enough to supply us with price/weight data for

their famous Hershey Bar from 1908-1986:

Year.....Size.....Retail price

1908.....9/16 oz.....2 cents

1918.....16/16 oz.....3 cents

1920.....9/16 oz.....3 cents

1921.....1 oz.....5 cents

1924.....1 3/8 oz.....5 cents

1930.....2 oz.....5 cents

1933.....1 7/8 oz.....5 cents

1936.....1 1/2 oz.....5 cents

1937.....1 5/8 oz.....5 cents

1938.....1 3/8 oz.....5 cents

1939.....1 5/8 oz.....5 cents

1941.....1 1/4 oz.....5 cents

1944.....1 5/8 oz.....5 cents

1946.....1 1/2 oz.....5 cents

1947.....1 oz.....5 cents

1954.....7/8 oz.....5 cents

1955.....1 oz.....5 cents

1958.....7/8 oz.....5 cents

1950.....1 oz.....5 cents

1963.....7/8 oz......5 cents

1965.....1 oz.....5 cents

1966.....7/8 oz.....5 cents

1968.....3/4 oz.....5 cents

1969.....1 1/2 oz.....10 cents

1970.....1 3/8 oz.....10 cents

1973.....1.26 oz......10 cents

1974.....1.4 oz.....15 cents

1976.....1.2 oz.....15 cents

1977.....1.2 oz......20 cents

1978.....1.2 oz.....25 cents

1980.....1.05 oz.....25 cents

1982.....1.45 oz.....30 cents

1983.....1.45 oz.....35 cents

1986.....1.45 oz.....40 cents

1986.....1.65 oz.....40 cents

[1991] .45

"Last year, candy makers raised the price of candy bars 5 cents, to an average

of 45 cents. The previous hike was in 1986."

---M&Ms Plans to Nickel and Dime the Competition, New York Newsday, April 8,

1992 (p. 41)

[NOTE: product weight is not referenced in this article]

May 23, 2003: a 1.55 oz Hershey Bar purchased in a Randolph, NJ convenience

store costs 80 cents.

[Andrew Fenton]

Same phenomenon with candy bars, though I forget how much they weighed in the past.

And I, for one, thank Big Brother for increasing our chocolate ration from thirty to twenty grams!

Are restaurant economics so different from grocery store or food manufacturer economics that the eateries can offer *more* for the same price where the processors cannot?

I'm sure that food cost is a much higher percentage of the total cost for food (even highly processed food) that is sold at market than for food sold at a restaurant. That's why fast food restaurants can offer such a "great deal" with super-sizing: a few extra ounces of fries or soda or whatever don't cost them any more labor or packaging.

[Jason Perlow]

First it started with the Coke bottles going from 2.0L to 1.5L.

Now I notice that somewhat surreptitiously, Breyers Ice Cream has changed their packaging from 64oz to 56oz.

Has anyone else noticed a lot of big brands are doing this? And they aren't charging any less for the smaller packaging, either.

[TAPrice]

What really bothers me is the downsizing of canned ingredients. Often it's a little less than what you need, so you're forced to purchase two cans.

[Andrew Fenton]

There was a related thread a couple of weeks ago, which introduced me to the concept of the "Hershey Bar Index".

[snowangel]

First it started with the Coke bottles going from 2.0L to 1.5L.

Now I notice that somewhat surreptitiously, Breyers Ice Cream has changed their packaging from 64oz to 56oz.

Has anyone else noticed a lot of big brands are doing this? And they aren't charging any less for the smaller packaging, either.

←

Methinks they are going broke (or paying their CEO's way too much) and don't want to charge more for their products, which would piss off the customers???

[Mayhaw Man]

Ice cream, chocolate, whatever. It's all a sleight of hand trick.

What I HATE is a pound of coffee that is not a pound of coffee. I don't want twelve or thirteen ounces of the stuff. I want a pound! Why do they do that? Because lots of people just grab the bag and throw it in the cart. They then get home and three days later realize that they are out of coffee again (yes, dearhearts, I drink that much of the stuff-probably more). This is a plot and when I get to the bottom of it heads will roll. Roll, I tell you!

[Bernaise]

Jeeez! imagine what it's like when you try to translate sizes to metric and back again..I'm just grateful there's coffee in the bag so to speak!

[snowangel]

Ice cream, chocolate, whatever. It's all a sleight of hand trick.

What I HATE is a pound of coffee that is not a pound of coffee. I don't want twelve or thirteen ounces of the stuff. I want a pound! Why do they do that? Because lots of people just grab the bag and throw it in the cart. They then get home and three days later realize that they are out of coffee again (yes, dearhearts, I drink that much of the stuff-probably more). This is a plot and when I get to the bottom of it heads will roll. Roll, I tell you!

←

I buy it in 5 lb. lots! Just flat sick of that 12 oz. of stuff.

I'll help you make those heads roll. Just how stupid do they think we are (especially when caffinated).

[Shalmanese]

Hmm... odd, restuarant portions go up as supermarket portions go down. Wonder why that is?

[MarketStEl]

Hmm... odd, restuarant portions go up as supermarket portions go down. Wonder why that is?

←

Were you reading that other thread? The one Andrew Fenton linked above? That was the observation I made in my initial post starting the topic.

I really don't like the phenomenon of downsized packages, either. My guess, though, is that the manufacturers figure (probably correctly) that they will get more complaints if they hike the price significantly on the same size container than if they reduce the container size while holding the price constant.

The only problem with this logic is that -- as with cans of tuna and (evidently) bags/cans of coffee -- there is a point of diminishing returns, when there's so little product left in the container that customers must buy more containers to get enough to meet their needs, at which point they've just experienced a steep price hike, larger than would have been necessary on a container of constant size.

Some companies anticipate complaints, however, and set up mechanisms for handling them. Allegedly: when Turkey Hill Dairy shrunk their ice cream containers from 64 to 56 ounces (a move the Lancaster dairy made before Breyers did locally), they printed a note on the side of the carton: "Now 56 oz. Why? Call 1-800-MY-DAIRY."

So I did--and got a recording that the office was only open during normal business hours, followed by an auto-redirect to someone's full voice mailbox.

That, IMO, is worse than just letting the change pass unremarked.

[MarketStEl]

First it started with the Coke bottles going from 2.0L to 1.5L.

It doesn't appear that the Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Company has shrunk their large bottles yet. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Has anyone else noticed a lot of big brands are doing this? And they aren't charging any less for the smaller packaging, either.

←

I've offered my comments on this elsewhere in this thread.

[albiston]

I really don't like the phenomenon of downsized packages, either.  My guess, though, is that the manufacturers figure (probably correctly) that they will get more complaints if they hike the price significantly on the same size container than if they reduce the container size while holding the price constant.

The only problem with this logic is that -- as with cans of tuna and (evidently) bags/cans of coffee -- there is a point of diminishing returns, when there's so little product left in the container that customers must buy more containers to get enough to meet their needs, at which point they've just experienced a steep price hike, larger than would have been necessary on a container of constant size.

←

Plus, by forcing consumers to buy more containers, and therefore more packaging, you're making them to produce more waste.

Just wondering, do people in the US have to pay for the amount of waste they produce or is there a fixed tax on waste disposal? If the former is true, like it is in many European countries, than that extra packaging has a cost for the consumer, and not only an ecological one.

[DaleJ]

What puzzles me about downsizing is that, I'll wager, the product in most cases is the least expensive part of the package. The container, its distribution and advertizing must cost more than seven ounces of tuna.

[NulloModo]

Just wondering, do people in the US have to pay for the amount of waste they produce or is there a fixed tax on waste disposal? If the former is true, like it is in many European countries, than that extra packaging has a cost for the consumer, and not only an ecological one.

←

I'm not sure if it is like this all over the US, but here there is no charge for more waste. Actually, I have never lived anywhere where there was _any_ cost for waste disposal, or at least not one listed as such (I imagine that it is rolled into my apartment rent at the moment, but that is for all I can trash ;) ).

[Chris Amirault]

Just to add some commodities to this list: a "pound" of some pasta products regularly consists of less than a pound. I bought some Pennsylvania egg noodles last week and the package advertised that it was 33% more than competitors. Sure enough, most other "pounds" were 12 oz.

[M. Lucia]

Over the holidays we noticed a gallon of vanilla ice cream doesn't go nearly as far as it used to. I think it's because they spin so much air into it (which gives it a lower calorie count), but when you scoop it out it condenses down.

We remedied this by getting our ice cream from a local homemade shop.

[Toliver]

I haven't read the other linked-to thread but this down-sizing screws up recipes, as well.

Good ole Aunt Fanny's dessert recipe that used a small box of instant pudding doesn't taste quite the same since the pudding maker quietly downsized the amount of pudding in the box.

Can you imagine how many hand-me-down recipes are impacted by this under-handed downright sneaky down-sizing?

[MarketStEl]

One more comment, related to something Andrew mentioned in the other thread--the "Hershey Bar Index":

If you go over to that thread and read FaustianBargain's post on the Hershey Bar Index, you will see that Hershey also increased the size of its chocolate bars when the company thought it could afford to. IOW, if Hershey got chocolate for less, it passed the savings on to the consumer in the form of a bigger chocolate bar for the same price.

When was the last time you heard about a major food manufacturer doing that?

[reesek]

Just wondering, do people in the US have to pay for the amount of waste they produce or is there a fixed tax on waste disposal?

←

in short - it depends. here in seattle, we pay for what we use. i pay what feels like a small fortune for a garbage can the size of my thumb. if we want a larger one, we'll have to pay more. i have a friend in dallas, texas however, who pays nothing for trash removal, and can even leave massive things out for trash collectors (matresses, etc) whereas we need to go to the local "dump" where we pay dearly for the space we're about to use. on the plus side - seattle waste management encourages and partly subsidizes composting.

Edited January 6, 2005 by reesek (log)

[andiesenji]

One of the reasons I began buying bulk foods and large sizes at places such as Smart & Final and repackaging, is because consumer packages misinformed people.

For some items, such as ice cream, it is a problem when one expects to get so many portions from a package and ends up short. For caterers who are handling small jobs where commercial packaging is not optimal, this can be a very costly proposition.

I began making my own ice cream simply because I was unhappy with some of the odd ingredients I noted had been added to some products, in particular aspartame to which I have a severe reaction.

As far as coffee is concerned, I would rather buy bulk beans by the pound and grind them myself, rather than pay for less in a can of pre-ground, which loses its flavor soon after opening.

There has been some local media attention to the subject of lessening the amounts in "standard" packages (while maintaining the size of the outer package), but not so much in the national news.

I believe Dateline did a piece on the subject a couple of years ago but there needs to be more reaction by consumers, such as a refusal to be treated as dummies, which seems to be the case.

When people complain about the cost of some of the "premium" coffee beans sold by the pound, I point out that if they figured out the cost of one of the canned brands, particularly the one that weighs only 11 ounces (in a regular sized can), it actually cost more per pound than the "premium" coffee. One lady with whom I had such a conversation was standing in the coffee aisle, looking at cans and comparing prices and announcing in a very loud voice, "what a rip-off this is!"

The plain fact is that a lot of people do not pay attention unless they are shown where to look to see the information.

[jgarner53]

The sad fact is that I bet that at least 75% of Americans won't even notice the smaller size, or just shrug it off if they do.

[misstenacity]

I have noticed with some dismay that the current trio of coffee cup sizes at gas stations is 16-20-24, compared to the previous 12-16-20. Most of the time I really, truly, do not want to drink more than 12oz of gas station coffee (which is already 2 servings on its own right), so drinking 24oz of the stuff just baffles me.

Unfortunately, I haven't noticed if the average price has gone up to correspond to the extra 4oz cups. Doesn't seem like it has.

Andrea

http://tenacity.net