So I had to buy two of them to get as much as I used to get with one. Each one of these now cost $12. The total ounces of salmon you see here used to cost $7.
A community about companies who sneakily adjust their product instead of the price in the hopes that consumers won't notice.
We notice. We feel ripped off. Let's call out those products so we can shop better.
Shrinkflation is a term often coined to refer to a product reducing in size or quality while the price remains the same or increases.
Companies will often claim that this is necessary due to inflation, although this is rarely the case. Over the course of the pandemic, they have learned that they can mark up inelastic goods, which are goods with an intangible demand, such as food, as much as they want, and consumers will have no choice but to purchase it anyway because they are necessities.
From Wikipedia:
In economics, shrinkflation, also known as the grocery shrink ray, deflation, or package downsizing, is the process of items shrinking in size or quantity, or even sometimes reformulating or reducing quality, while their prices remain the same or increase. The word is a portmanteau of the words shrink and inflation.
[...]
Consumer advocates are critical of shrinkflation because it has the effect of reducing product value by "stealth". The reduction in pack size is sufficiently small as not to be immediately obvious to regular consumers. An unchanged price means that consumers are not alerted to the higher unit price. The practice adversely affects consumers' ability to make informed buying choices. Consumers have been found to be deterred more by rises in prices than by reductions in pack sizes. Suppliers and retailers have been called upon to be upfront with customers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkflation
n.b.: for moderation purposes, only posts in English or in French are accepted.##
Why is social media full of these posts?
“This used to cost $3 but today I paid $13.”
Why did you pay? Are an imbecile with zero control over your actions? Don’t give them money. It’s that simple.
Man's gotta eat
You're asking me why I bought that? I've been buying these for years, and I had a strong craving for it today and I went to the grocery store solely for this, the only thing I bought at the store today, because that's what I went to the store to buy. I had no intention of leaving the store without it, in some pathetic meaningless form of silent protest, fuck no, I was hungry for this, and this only.
It's not silent protest, you're voting with your wallet.
Voting with one's wallet is silent.
Ok, go verbally complain like a Karen to the manager. That'll definitely help. 😂
It also does literally nothing lol. I'm continually shocked at how many people continue to think it's an effective form of resistance despite all available evidence.
Edit: since this comment seems to have rustled a few jimmies, I found this thread about the nintendo situation which contains some pretty good info since I'm not one to spend loads of time and energy arguing with randos on the internet: https://redlib.catsarch.com/r/SocialistGaming/comments/1jr93bv/vote_with_your_wallet_and_other_liberal_arguments/
It absolutely works...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mcdonalds-sales-decline-value-meal/
That's not "voting with your wallet" lmao it's not being able to afford food
I could always afford, I just stopped going because it was bad value. I am not alone on this. That is literally what voting with your wallet means.
You need to work on your logic skills, you appear to have almost none and have zero awareness of this deficiency. I'm sure you'll ignore me or get emotional but keep in mind that is exactly how someone will poor logical skills reacts.
Straight from the article the other commenter linked:
Buying the cheapest available food option is not "voting with your dollar." That's called trying to survive. Low income people don't get to vote with their dollar.
McDonald's is not cheaper than groceries or cooking yourself, it never has been and never will be. People are voting with their wallets.
I literally just quoted the people in the article you cited
No you quoted a restaurant analyst...someone who is paid to figure out how to get people into restaurants, you really think they're gonna say "yes people aren't eating at your place because it's to expensive, you should lower your prices"...no they're gonna make up some bullshit that allows the companies to save face.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/18/shoppers-political-boycotts-spending-patterns-poll
Another article...
That is essentially what they said.
That article also doesn't say anything about the efficacy of voting with your wallet. Just that people are doing it.
It does give examples of boycotts that worked, meaning organized and with a clear message. Very different from randos silently "voting with their wallets" over "thing they don't like about a product"
I don't even....
Voting with your wallet out of a need to survive is still voting with your wallet.
It's really weird that you want to reject the definition that everyone else agrees it to be and even more weird that you haven't attempted to provide a definition for what would quality as voting with your wallet that excludes price sensitivity.
Are you hearing yourself right now? How tf is it a vote if you don't get to choose?
Wikipedia's definition is: "an analogy that refers to the theoretical impact of consumer choice on producers' actions by means of the flow of consumer payments to producers for their goods and services."
I'm low income, and I vote with my dollar. I go without, and find other sources. If the person who just paid $24 dollars for two pieces of fish (did I read that math problem right?) Can't afford to vote with his dollar, they're doing something wrong. But like if they want to pay it, let them. Its more important right now where you spend, than on what. Local grocer? Cool cool. Whole foods? Eat a dick bro. Stop supporting national companies that are supoorting this admin. Fish should be expensive, humans over harvest.
If you want to do so and can afford it, go for it. But without an organized movement backing it, don't expect it to change their behavior.
This is precisely what I hate about "ethical consumerism." Not only does it not work, it also pushes people to perseverate and waste energy over individual choices that, again, do not matter and divides us for no good reason. We are all just trying to get through this. Shopping at Whole foods or Amazon does not mean you endorse everything they do. It might just mean you have a dietary restriction that local grocers cannot accommodate or you need things delivered to you because you are disabled. Amazon makes the vast majority of its profits from AWS anyway. Whole Foods could die tomorrow and it essentially would not change anything.
In fact Whole Foods once was your local grocer. That's how capitalism works. There is no such thing as ethical consumption.
You want change? Organize. Boycott. Strike. Participate in mutual aid groups. If given the opportunity for direct democratic action, vote - with your vote, not your wallet.
it is literally the only thing that matters unders capitalism. or rather, any "protest" that doesn't also target the bottom line is useless when government/courts are captured.
In the absence of clear demands and organization (which would make it a boycott, which is something that works), "voting with your wallet" just looks like random noise to them. You really think because you stop buying a product or go to the grocery store across the street instead anything will change?
So you feel like you shouldn't have to pay this much but you're unwilling to fight and endure some discomfort for what you think you're owed. That sounds like a metaphor for a broader societal issue.
For a piece of food in a plastic packaging no less. 🤦🏻
It's the textbook definition of inelastic demand.
Supply and demand.
Once they know you will pay they will keep raising the price.