They're careful to make sure the bottle still looks the same from the front, but from the side you can see the difference.
In a world where we should be using less packaging this sort of practice just increases more waste.
Once again demonstrating that corporations don't give a fuck about anything except constantly increasing their profit.
The customer doesn't matter. The survival of the planet doesn't matter.
As long as profit increases every single quarter the world could burn for all they care.
In general I agree this is a true statement, but for this particular bottle it is blow molded from the same preform and so weather they blow the shape narrow or wider it is same amount of plastic. But you obviously buy more bottles due to less soap.
Yes. My point was you now need to buy more frequently. So producing more wastage.
Really need a law that if the amount, or recipie changes it is notified on the packaging for... 3 months?
As someone with all: YES PLEASE!
Companies changing their recipes and ingredients while barely or even not changing their packaging has almost killed me at least twice now. And no doubt there have been several other "mystery reactions" that I've blamed on housemates not washing chopping boards, but could have been a product recipe change I didn't notice at that specific time.
It's been getting so much worse. One of the things I'm allergic to is potato, which is a supper common ingredient to be used when a company uses "skimpflation" to increase profits. Changing the ingredients and quality of ingredients, and manipulating the recipe to be cheaper to make, but not entirely noticeable to the public - maybe use a health-focused or other marketing strategy "now with less carbs" to hide that swapping half the wheat flour for wheat fibre was an entirety profit driven choice.
Potato is cheap and versatile. In the last 10 years I've lost entire catagories of products to brands adding unnecessary potato. From sachets of cup-a-soup to canned soup where potato is a great cheap thickening agent to pesto pasta sauce where most brands in Australia contain potato flakes as a binder. I'm allergic to tomatoes too so pesto pasta used to be my life saver at Italian restaurants, But no more. I'm not safe with sweet products either, potato flour is a cheap way to cut wheat flour in cookies and cakes, potato starch can thicken puddings and custards while conveniently making your product gluten free (so you can save money on ingredients, And charge more for being a "allergen friendly food")
My favourite brand of rice pudding is actually what first drew my attention to the issue with recipe changing and packaging not changing. I bought 2x two packs on the same day, got home and halfway through the week had an allergic reaction after dessert. I double checked the ingredients and because I still had the old pack sitting in the recycling bin I could directly compare while I waited for my boyfriend to bring the car around so we could go to the hospital.
It's gotten to the point where I'm paranoid enough that I'm checking the same ingredients list 3 times - in the store before I buy it, at home when I pull it out of the pantry, and when I'm standing over the trash can about to throw the packet away, or when I'm pulling it out of my lunch box about to eat it, after already having checked it as I was putting it in my lunch box.
I wonder if you could go to the CBC with your story, that seems like a serious concern that needs to be addressed. It's not fair to you or anyone with "unusual" allergies.
I'd say for twice the expected usage time of the original packaging.
Say on average someone goes through the original bottle once a month (yes that is way too much usage, just as a hypothetical), they should be required to have it prominently displayed on the new label that the new size is estimated to last x% less time(or more time) than the previous packaging, for 2 months minimum.
I'm cases of recipe changes I think it should be required to have that on the packaging as well. I could see a soap mfg just diluting the soap to meet the volume, and bypass the requirement.
Man that would be great but you know these companies are just gonna claim its an entirely different product to get around that
I feel like if we had an independent crowd sourced site or something to track these it would have better visibility
Nobody would visit it. If you entered products that you use to get a notification when it is changed, then someone would just hack the database and sell it to Informatica.
Go to your local restaurant supply place and go buy the 1 gallon jug instead for half the price.
Gotta look it up.
https://www.superc.ca/en/aisles/household-cleaning/dishwashing/dishwashing-liquid
591mL Palmolive: $0.48/100mL 4.27L Palmolive: $0.25/100mL
Great idea, I'll just drive 4 hours to my local restaurant supply store for some dish soap.
How far in the middle of nowhere do you live that it's 4 hours from a restaurant supply store???
Idk, but we have one 30 minutes or so away. Need a restaurant license or some shit to shop there.
This is an obvious change. Some time ago I noticed a much more subtle change in the dish soap I normally use(d): The manufacturor only inreased the diameter of the hole in the cap where you squeeze out the dish soap, resulting in a higher consumption of that product, because you are used to squeeze with the same force. This way you are expected to buy more frequently, because it lasts not as long as before. When I discovered it, I changed the product.
Did the Original flavour shrink too, or just the Orange tangerine? Before I was purchasing in bulk, I sometimes noticed the nicer flavours came in smaller volume than the basic/original for the same price. Not defending the company by any means, I’m just curious.
Excuse me, flavour?
I liked the shop towel rolls we buy came in the same box and the OD of the rolls was the same, but the cardboard tube in the middle was 50% wider, so you ended up with about 30% less towels on a roll.
Fucking shitbirds.
Same thing happened to my deodorant. I looked at the shelves recently, and ALL the deodorant was now the same redesign, down to the gram.
I'm convinced that theres actually like 4mm of deodorant in these friggin tubes anymore. I just bought my deodorant, and it's already showing the bottom.
I'm 70% sure they made the deodorant stick shorter on the inside too. It seems to run out way faster now. Same bottle, much more single use plastic thrown in the landfill....
Volume is an illusion, I can never tell how much anything is by the size of the bottle anyway.
That's why we have labels telling you the volume
Show me one ounce vs one and half ounces.
Open the new one. It'll fatten up when it sucks in some air.
That would be the comparison to make. I want to see how they shaved 3oz. off when the bottles look nearly identical. Betting it's mostly in the top.
I'm not one to be cynical and see evil shit everywhere I look. Some decisions that look bad on the surface were made for reasons we're not privy to.
THIS shit however... Someone said, "We're going to shave 10.7% off to raise profit. But we gotta design the smaller bottle so no one will notice. Oh, and we have to retool the manufacturing lines."
And then someone make a spreadsheet calculating the retooling cost and when it's expected to be recovered from the extra profit.
It says right on the front that there is 3oz less product.
You and the downvoters didn't read the whole comment? I'm well aware of the 3oz. difference. There're numbers and everything!
Literally read the volume printed on the bottle.
I'm amazed (yet not surprised at all) how this wasn't the top and only comment to such a dumb post.
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.##