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.##
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.