Connect with us

News

How to fight shrinkflation? Pay attention to unit prices at grocery stores

Published

on

How to fight shrinkflation? Pay attention to unit prices at grocery stores

Boxes of cereal are displayed on a shelf at a Target store in July 2022 in San Rafael, Calif. Manufacturers are using “shrinkflation” techniques as costs to produce goods increase. Some are making the packaging smaller but charging the same prices as they were prior to the reduction in size.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

In a recent episode of Planet Money, we dove into the wild world of package sizes. Tiny Coke cans. Family-size cereal. Travel-size deodorant. Jumbo-size peanut butter jars. Companies have figured out that by fiddling with package sizes, they can squeeze more money out of us. The practice is known in the biz as “price pack architecture,” and as we reveal in the episode, it’s really taken off over the last couple decades.

Today in the Planet Money newsletter: how consumers can fight back and defeat these packaging gimmicks.

But, before we get to that, we should say some forms of price pack architecture may actually be good for consumers. For example, maybe I don’t want a whole gallon of chocolate milk. I won’t drink it all before it goes sour. It’s great I can just buy a quart. More consumer choice for the win!

Advertisement

But, there’s also a dark side to price pack architecture. Given you’re reading this newsletter — and given that the president of the United States mentioned it in this year’s State of the Union speech — you might have heard about perhaps the most famous and devious form of it: shrinkflation. It’s a sneaky form of inflation, where, instead of just raising prices, companies shrink the amount of stuff they provide in packages.

Shrinkflation is really inflation in a literal sense. It means the price per unit — for example, a dollar per ounce or 2 cents per Cheeto — goes up. You get less product for your buck.

With all these package sizes — and changes to package sizes — it might seem like we’re destined to be on the losing end of intricate packaging strategies that enable companies to extract more money from us. But, luckily, there’s a relatively simple way to see through the fog of packaging gimmicks and spot the best deal: pay attention to unit prices!

For example, if you are trying to decide whether to buy that “family size” box of Cocoa Puffs, the “giant size” box, or just a regular box, look at the price per ounce. At many stores across the country, the price tag conveniently includes this number. It’s a standardized measure that makes shopping for the best value easier. Sometimes stores do this voluntarily. And sometimes the government forces them to do it.

Many stores, however, do not post this number. There’s no federal legislation mandating that stores do it. It’s been left up to the states. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal agency, 19 states have enacted unit pricing laws or regulations. And, of those, only nine states mandate that stores provide consumers with this information.

Advertisement

New Jersey is one of the states that requires stores to display unit prices — and they apparently take this requirement very seriously. Last month, New Jersey regulators fined Walmart over $1.5 million after inspectors found more than 2,000 inaccuracies in displayed unit prices at New Jersey stores.

“As the price of grocery items continues to rise, it’s more important than ever to ensure consumers have all the information they need — and are entitled to by law — to make educated decisions on how to spend their money,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin. “New Jersey will not allow retailers to engage in unlawful pricing practices that deny shoppers the ability to easily compare prices to figure out which product is a better buy.”

Consumers seem to appreciate when stores provide them with (accurate) unit prices. The Food Marketing Institute found that 78% of consumers use unit prices if they’re displayed. However, they’re still not available at many stores around the country.

If you live in one of the dozens of states where stores aren’t required to post unit prices and the store you’re shopping at doesn’t voluntarily do it, there’s still a solution. However, we’ll admit, it’s more annoying: bring your calculator (or, more realistically, just use your smartphone). Take the total price, the amount that’s in the package, and then divide. Boom, you have the unit price. Do it again for another product, and now you can do an apples-to-apples comparison to help figure out what’s the best value.

If using a calculator is too inconvenient or nerdy for you, well, then maybe talk to your elected representatives about enacting policies that encourage stores to post unit prices. Then you won’t have to do math.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Kering warns on profits after Gucci sales fall almost 20%

Published

on

Kering warns on profits after Gucci sales fall almost 20%

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Kering, owner of Gucci and Saint Laurent, warned on Wednesday that its operating income could fall by as much as 30 per cent in the second half of the year, compounding the woes at the French luxury company.

One of the biggest names in luxury, Kering was a laggard compared to peers LVMH and Hermès during the pandemic-era boom and its performance has only worsened as the industry as a whole has slowed.

Kering said sales at Gucci, its biggest brand accounting for half of revenues and two-thirds of profits, have fallen further with a turnround under a new designer having so far failed to gain traction.

Advertisement

Second-quarter sales at top brand Gucci fell 19 per cent on a like-for-like basis compared to one year earlier, including “a continuing marked decrease in Asia-Pacific”, Kering said.

Group sales in the three months to June 30 dropped 11 per cent to €4.5bn, and fell short of analysts’ expectations.

Operating income dropped 42 per cent in the first half of the year to €1.58bn, in line with expectations compiled by Reuters after the company guided sharply lower at its last results.

A recurring operating margin of 17.5 per cent in the first half was significantly lower than during the same period last year, which the company attributed to “negative operational leverage”.

“In a challenging market environment, which adds pressure on our top line and profitability, we are working assiduously to create the conditions for a return to growth . . . While the current context might impact the pace of our execution, our determination and confidence are stronger than ever,” said Kering chief executive François-Henri Pinault.

Advertisement

Kering has said it is continuing to prioritise long-term investment in its brands despite strained demand.

Gucci is still rolling out product lines from its new designer Sabato de Sarno, which the group said were being well received by customers.

But it is not the only brand that is struggling. At Saint Laurent, Kering’s second-largest label, sales fell 9 per cent on a like-for-like basis in the second quarter, accelerating a trend from earlier in the year.

Bright spots were Bottega Veneta, where sales rose 4 per cent in the second quarter, and the company’s eyewear division, where they increased 5 per cent. 

Kering’s shares have fallen more than 23 per cent so far this year to trade at €300 each, giving it a market capitalisation of around €36.6bn.

Advertisement

This is a far sharper sell-off than industry bellwether LVMH, after Kering shocked investors in April with a sharply lower profit outlook for the first half of the year. 

Controlled by the Pinault family, Kering had already issued a rare profit warning for the luxury industry in March amid falling sales, especially in the crucial Chinese market.

Smaller luxury companies Hugo Boss and Burberry, also in a turnround, have recently warned on profits. 

“More bad news and downgrades,” said Luca Solca, analyst at Bernstein. “The Kering guidance for the first half of the year is de facto materialising.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Terminal at New York's JFK Airport briefly evacuated because of escalator fire

Published

on

Terminal at New York's JFK Airport briefly evacuated because of escalator fire

NEW YORK — A terminal at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport was briefly evacuated Wednesday because of an escalator fire, officials said.

The fire at JFK’s Terminal 8 was reported at around 7 a.m., Fire Department of New York officials said.

Steve Burns, a spokesperson for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said four people were taken to a hospital for treatment of injuries that were not life-threatening.

Burns said terminal operations resumed by 8:15 a.m. and the cause of the fire was under investigation.

A video posted on X by a passenger from inside a stalled plane showed fire trucks swarming on the tarmac.

Advertisement

Airlines including American Airlines, British Airways, Cathay Pacific and Qantas fly out of Terminal 8.

Continue Reading

News

UN blasts ‘shamefully’ high hunger levels

Published

on

UN blasts ‘shamefully’ high hunger levels

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Levels of hunger are set to remain “shamefully” high, UN officials said as the multilateral organisation published a report that predicts almost 600mn people will be undernourished by 2030.

The report, published on Wednesday, came as senior UN officials called on donor governments to rethink prioritising national interests over foreign aid.

While the 582mn figure is lower than current levels, it is a long way off the target of eradicating hunger by 2030, set by the 191 member states that make up the UN under the multilateral organisation’s sustainable development goals in 2015.

Advertisement

Half of the number will be in Africa, according to the UN food, agriculture and health agencies, which together authored the report. Most of the remainder of people unable to consume enough calories to maintain a healthy lifestyle reside in Asia.

The report follows the publication of UN estimates, which show official development assistance to developing countries is going down. 

According to the UN report, only about a quarter of that assistance — $77bn — went to improving food security and nutrition in 2021, the most recent year for which data is available. 

Alvaro Lario, president of the UN’s International Fund of Agricultural Development (IFAD), said the political landscape was placing foreign aid and multilateralism “more and more into question” as national interests were being brought to the fore.

“That clearly diverts the focus on trying to address and join forces on tackling a global issue, which is food insecurity,” Lario told the Financial Times.

Advertisement

Rates of hunger jumped in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and have since failed to come back down as UN agencies expected. Last year, between 713mn and 757mn people were facing hunger, according to the UN report.

While the number of people without enough to eat has declined in Latin America and the Caribbean and stayed relatively unchanged in Asia, it is continuing to rise in Africa, said the report. There, one in five people faced hunger last year.

Overall, a higher portion of people are undernourished today than 10 years ago, according to UN estimates. This leaves the world on course to have a projected 582mn people chronically undernourished by the end of the decade.

Shock events, such as the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have helped to drive up food insecurity. Before the pandemic struck, the projection for 2030 was for 451.8mn people to be undernourished.

However, UN officials believe the goal of zero hunger by 2030 could have been achieved with more funding from donor governments and better co-ordination.

Advertisement

“Not only the donors, but our agencies should feel ashamed because it’s not only the money, it’s also how we implement it,” said Maximo Torero, chief economist at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. “There is a co-ordination failure. There is a lot of inefficiencies in the way the resources are being used.”

Often foreign aid focuses on emergency assistance, but more funds need to go to agriculture — “the root causes” of food insecurity, said Lario. “In five years, unless we invest now, we’ll be in the same situation,” he said. 

In particular, small-scale farmers in poor countries need more financing to adapt to climate change.  

“Why today [does] only 3 per cent of climate financing goes to agriculture and agri food systems?” said Torero. At successive COP climate conferences, agriculture has been portrayed as “the bad sector”, he said. “They forget the fact that agriculture is the one that provides food to people.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending