Shrinkflation should be banned!

Everything should be sold at a R/kg or R/L rate and I agree that packaging weight/volumes should be standardised. I hate that you save by buying larger volumes of something. Sure I can afford the 2.5kg sugar or the 18 rolls of toilet paper, but the guy earning a daily or weekly wage cannot and it ends up costing them more to buy the same things to survive. The savings in packaging or processing the product cannot be that significant.

In a country where the majority of people is struggling to make ends meet, this should become standard practice.
 
Sheppard_za said:
Everything should be sold at a R/kg or R/L rate and I agree that packaging weight/volumes should be standardised. I hate that you save by buying larger volumes of something. Sure I can afford the 2.5kg sugar or the 18 rolls of toilet paper, but the guy earning a daily or weekly wage cannot and it ends up costing them more to buy the same things to survive. The savings in packaging or processing the product cannot be that significant.

In a country where the majority of people is struggling to make ends meet, this should become standard practice.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, this is coming...
 
Sheppard_za said:
Everything should be sold at a R/kg or R/L rate and I agree that packaging weight/volumes should be standardised. I hate that you save by buying larger volumes of something. Sure I can afford the 2.5kg sugar or the 18 rolls of toilet paper, but the guy earning a daily or weekly wage cannot and it ends up costing them more to buy the same things to survive. The savings in packaging or processing the product cannot be that significant.

In a country where the majority of people is struggling to make ends meet, this should become standard practice.
Click to expand...

It can be, and I am afraid the unintended consequence of forcing anything will be that they will just increase the prices of the bigger volume items instead of lowering the price of smaller item.
 
Sheppard_za said:
Everything should be sold at a R/kg or R/L rate and I agree that packaging weight/volumes should be standardised. I hate that you save by buying larger volumes of something. Sure I can afford the 2.5kg sugar or the 18 rolls of toilet paper, but the guy earning a daily or weekly wage cannot and it ends up costing them more to buy the same things to survive. The savings in packaging or processing the product cannot be that significant.

In a country where the majority of people is struggling to make ends meet, this should become standard practice.
Click to expand...
There is a store in Soweto (I think), where those that cannot afford to buy large quantities of everyday essentials can go to with their tupperware or packets and then fill them with what they need and only pay for what they are getting. Saw this at conference where the guy behind this idea was one of the speakers.
 
And for the folks that think there is no real problem or difference with reducing the weight of an item, versus increasing the price - well, do you think the official inflation rate takes shrinkflation into account?

I think not. So instead of showing a 20% inflation increase (using 25 grams from the 125g Maynards packet as an example), the price stays the same and what you get for the same price decreases.

But then CPI stays the same - which is used for many as part of their salary increase calculation.

Hey, there's been almost no inflation, so you need almost no salary increase, your employer tells you, happily....


Screwed by the manufacturers and screwed with your increase. Good times.
 
duckgray said:
There is a store in Soweto (I think), where those that cannot afford to buy large quantities of everyday essentials can go to with their tupperware or packets and then fill them with what they need and only pay for what they are getting. Saw this at conference where the guy behind this idea was one of the speakers.
Click to expand...
You find this is very wealthy areas as well. We have a store in Somerset West called “GRAM”, where you buy everything by weight and provide your own packaging. But there it’s done more to appeal to people’s environmental concerns around reducing single use packaging.
 
Out with the old 1kg tub & in with the 800g thats selling about the same price the 1kg used to.
Pretty sure the last 1kg tubs i brought weren't 90.

pp1.jpg

pp2.jpg
 
Bliksis said:
Shrinkflation is somewhat deceptive, a d should be banned.

But, how? Prices are the same, content/weight/size is less, but often in the same familiar packaging.

Technically, nothing is hidden. It's just scummy.
Click to expand...

Something similar to what they do with cigarettes...
They should be forced to add a big label on each product that reduces in size... for a limited time to warn customers: NOW REDUCED IN SIZE!.

Lol. Let them be too embarrassed to put that warning label on... that will deter them.
 
Splinter said:
And for the folks that think there is no real problem or difference with reducing the weight of an item, versus increasing the price - well, do you think the official inflation rate takes shrinkflation into account?

I think not. So instead of showing a 20% inflation increase (using 25 grams from the 125g Maynards packet as an example), the price stays the same and what you get for the same price decreases.

But then CPI stays the same - which is used for many as part of their salary increase calculation.

Hey, there's been almost no inflation, so you need almost no salary increase, your employer tells you, happily....


Screwed by the manufacturers and screwed with your increase. Good times.
Click to expand...
It generally does, or at least it does in Europe as it's done as price per kg/l for stuff.

Think South Africa is the same, so will be for x number of eggs, y grams of rice, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X