TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 25 July 2008 | When we buy gas at the pump, we see an obvious connection between the amount we get and the amount we pay. At times, the price goes up and we all recognize that filling up our tank will cost us more. At times, the reverse is true. Either way, it is easy for us to determine if we are willing to pay the current price in exchange for the amount of gas that we feel we need.Would we feel the same way if it was the quantity of gas that fluctuated, rather than the price? If the price of gas was fixed at $2, but, at times that $2 would buy you a full gallon, and at other times it would only buy you a half gallon, would it be cause for concern? The end result would still be the same—a full tank of gas would always cost more than you hoped it would. But, would you feel deceived when your $2 didn’t buy as much as they used to?
Well, some consumers are concerned that this has been happening at the grocery store. As prices have continued to rise, some food companies have recognized that there is a threshold price for any given commodity. When the price reaches that threshold, consumers will simply stop buying that product. Rather than continue to push the price to the threshold point, food companies have decided to change tactics. They have repackaged items in smaller amounts and still charge the same price. The end result is the same—a gallon of ice cream will cost you more than it used to. But, consumers aren’t used to thinking in terms of “product decreases”, and some feel that the practice is a little deceptive.
Key Points
Conclusion
Food producers have a bottom line to focus on. That bottom line has to include the costs of raw materials, transport of those materials, production and processing, product marketing, and transportation to their vendors. The costs in all of those areas have increased significantly in recent months, and that leaves the companies with a difficult choice. While consumers are responsible for the choices they make when spending their money, grocery companies should let the invisible hand work its magic. Exchange creates wealth only when both parties are getting what they think they are getting from a transaction. If there is a need to change pricing structures, make it obvious to the consumer. Rather than hope that consumers don’t catch on to what they are doing, food producers should be up front and let the market decide. Otherwise, deceptive marketing practices will almost certainly make that decision for them.
Action Items
MRFC Principles:
(4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Sources
Four Points Media, “Incredible Shrinking Consumer Products”, KUTV 2 News, July 22, 2008.
(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 26th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Matthew - fantastic article. This is not surprising to me that producers of products are doing this. I don’t believe there is anything deceptive about shrinking portions (and I don’t believe you were making that point). If they were to claim the portions were the same size, and shrink them, then yes, that would be fraudulent.
It’s a little backwards to shrink the product size, because you are actually increasing production cost by increasing packaging materials. Whenever possible, I buy in big, huge quantities because:
a) I like living in abundance
b) Generally speaking, it’s more effective in terms of value, and less trips to the store.
I believe it to be wise to learn a little math, or carry around a calculator, so we can measure what we are paying per pound, and then make our value judgements based off of that (weight and quality, not # of packages).