• 666dollarfootlong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah for some reason drinks seem the most effected by shrinkflation, I hate going to the drinks aisles these days because everything seems so overpriced, even just regular tap/spring water

  • HidingCat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man, the French really don’t fuck around, do they?

    Though the article says that Carrefour themselves do it for their house brands, so does that mean they’ll also apply it to themselves? XD

    • PeWu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Uhhh, no. They are gonna shame others, but not themselves. Capitalism my dude.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tbf, their stated purpose is to bring attention to the price discrepancy on diminished products. I would assume they believe their pricing is fair in that respect.

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, no… Carrefour conglomerate is peak capitalism, so I can only assume this action is a way to push people to their own brand stuff.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d love to see this naming and shaming becoming a standard. I want to know if the product I’m buying has changed and while I try to do this myself, it can be tricky to keep track of all the products I buy and it’s not like I’m scanning the exact weight every time and memorizing it, just that it’s generally the same weight. These scumbag companies are always trying to sneak by all these changes over time, it’s great to finally get a spotlight shining on it. If some sort of legislation can be made to force companies to note changes in products made in the last 6 months on the label, that would be great.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I want to know if the product I’m buying has changed and while

      Makes me think of a local git diff since your last purchase(s). See at a glance if it has changed, and what has changed.

    • TheGreenGolem@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly my thought for a long time. A law which mandates companies to…I don’t know…put on a label, occupying at least 1/3 of the whole packaging with giant red/white font to say at least for 3-6 months: “The net weight/contenct was reduced by 15%.”

        • ReginaPhalange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “What do you mean I should put the same barcode on these 2 clearly diffrent 1.25 litter coke bottle that we stopped selling a year ago and the new 1.15 litter bottle?
          That’s absurd!
          Also, fuck you.”

  • tvbusy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    If only smart glass is as popular as mobile phones. When Google introduced their smart glass, I dreamt of a day when a price history overlay is displayed when looking at a barcode, like how Keepa is doing for Amazon.

    I also like German price display which has effective price, as in Eur per liter for drinks, making it dead simple to compare products. A smart glass will make it available everywhere.

    Back to Carrefour, I really like that they are pushing pro consumer actions. However, we all know too well that they won’t do the same when it’s their products which are shrinking. Still better than no action though.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s so good too, you can cut through all the bullshit and simply check if per kg/liter It’s cheaper or not.

        even though for a lot of stuff it’s simple math. 100g you just 10x, 250 you 4 x the price, 200g you 5x.

        but there are lots of stuff that’s packaged in weird amounts. 230g yogurt, 180g tofu.

        you don’t want to break out the calculator for shopping.

        • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Your comment made me realized that displaying the price per kg is not a standard everywhere.

          This is the only price I’m looking at when doing groceries.

          • mustbe3to20signs@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Same for me, I got so used to it.
            The only annoyance is when (mostly brand) stuff is purposefully displayed in a different unit (e.g. washing powder in washing loads instead of kg). But imho that kind of obfuscation speaks for itself…

        • udon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Works for basic ingredients, but for even basic “preprocessed” items (mixed nuts, pizza, sauces…) they can just change the recipe, put more of the cheap and less of the good stuff. The cheapest product per weight often has a worse quality. Sunflower oil instead of more healthy alternatives etc…

          • kameecoding@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            i mean you can buy whatever ypu want that’s not really relevant to the price/kg(/l)

            there are plenty of products that are identical but have very different pricing

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is but it does nothing to curb shrinkflation in my experience.

        I’m trying to think of a way to mandate this kind of notification but I can’t think of a way to do it that could be both clear and mandated. Perhaps if the price per changes there needs to be a history listed on the label.

        One big problem with it is that in the short-term it discourages sales, so groceries aren’t incentivised to do it except as a stunt like this, so they won’t want the notices to be prominent. Ultimately they still want you to buy the stuff because then they make money.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I mean a price per unit history over the past X period, at least a year if I had my way, so if it changes a lot you end up with a clear list. That’s actually not bad. Over time people would learn to read it and be educated about it and there might be more public pressure against it.

        • SkyeStarfall
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t really know what google has said, I wasn’t really referring to them, but AR is plenty used in industry already.

          There’s just some way to go left for consumer use, but we are getting there. 5G networks are also supposed to help our with the possibility, due to their increased capabilities.

          Consumer grade AR is being worked on, and it is expected to become a big thing eventually.

          • dustyData@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was referencing Google Glass, which was Google’s attempt to make a consumer grade AR, a decade ago. They also said that they would have Glass commercially rolled out within the decade. It failed, not for any technical reason, but because it looks stupid and it makes everyone around the person using AR feel awkward. It was universally ridiculed online, has no use case and it has no consumer market. As you said, it only has uses in industrial applications, because factory workers don’t have to care about fashion or aesthetics in general in their work place. But people are already uncomfortable with everyone having a camera and microphone in their pockets at all times. Now imagine that every single second of your day was potentially recorded, sent back to Google, analyzed, used to train an AI, minified to tailor ads to manipulate your behavior, which would be easy because you have a screen glued to your eye 24/7 already; and also potentially having it all shared with authorities without your consent, along with the faces and data of every single acquaintance and stranger you interacted with without their consent…yeah, that doesn’t sound like another step in the privacy dystopia we live in already.

            But Apple is making the Vision Pro now, I’m sure a couple million of gullible consumers will shell out money for that. And maybe the AR era will finally come to us.

            • SkyeStarfall
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Those are all technical reasons though. Aesthetics are limited by the technology. And the glasses calling home more than it should is also a technical and regulatory reason.

              It can absolutely be done while sidestepping all the concerns. Or better yet, have glasses running FOSS software.

              But sure, those concerns are reasonable, but they are not fundamental to the technology itself, but to our societal reality. That stuff won’t get fixed by avoiding technology, only by societal change. And you can be sure that all kinds of stuff will be pushed into people if that societal change doesn’t happen, no matter whether it’s AR or not. (Just look at the recent trend of enshittification of everything).

              • dustyData@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Pick a lane, is it “limited by the technology” or are concerns and limitations “not fundamental to the technology”. Both statements cannot be true at the same time.

                AR, just like VR, have problems for which the technological solutions are either not physically possible in reality as we understand it, or the practical solutions completely nullify any cool factor the technology has to offer, or the price to overcome them is so high that they would never be financially feasible to become a commercial product. Like other futuristic fantasies like flying cars, and holographic interfaces, they sound cool in paper, are shit in reality.

                • SkyeStarfall
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I was referring to the concerns about privacy. In addition, when I say “to the technology itself” I am referring to AR in its ideal form.

                  …also XR technologies are absolutely technically feasible. They’re not even that extravagant these days. The fundamentals are in place, and used.

  • FLeX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    Carrefour are fucking thieves and their own low-price brands are also shrinkflationated carcinogenic crap.

    They don’t really have anything to teach.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    It appears to be in some mystic arcane language but I have been able to translate it:

    This product has seen its liters

    REDUCED

    and the price charged by our supplier

    INCREASE

    WE COMMIT TO RENEGOTIATING THIS RATE

  • Kite@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good for them. I made tacos for the first time in ages a couple of days ago, and I could not believe the size of the shells now. I would have called them child-sized, they were so small. It’s disgusting.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The French supermarket chain Carrefour has put labels on its shelves this week warning shoppers of “shrinkflation”, the phenomenon where manufacturers reduce pack sizes rather than increase prices.

    It has slapped price warnings on products from Lindt chocolates to Lipton iced tea to pressure top consumer goods suppliers Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever to tackle the issue in advance of much-anticipated contract talks.

    Since Monday, Carrefour has been putting stickers on products that have shrunk in size but cost more even after raw materials prices have eased, to rally consumer support as retailers prepare to face the world’s biggest brands in negotiations due to start soon and end by 15 October.

    “Obviously, the aim in stigmatising these products is to be able to tell manufacturers to rethink their pricing policy,” Stefen Bompais, the director of client communications at Carrefour, said in an interview.

    The Carrefour chief executive, Alexandre Bompard, who also heads the retail industry lobby group FDC, has repeatedly said consumer goods companies are not cooperating in efforts to cut the price of thousands of staples despite a fall in the cost of raw materials.

    In this he is backed by the French finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, who in June summoned 75 big retailers and consumer groups to his ministry urging them to cut prices.


    The original article contains 494 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 56%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Geat idea! There’s no reason this couldn’t be done everywhere by citizens with access to sticker printing services… I’ve spotted a few products myself in the past year and wouldn’t be against sticking some labels on them to warn my fellow shoppers :)

  • BlushedPotatoPlayers@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know only one case where this shrinkflation thing was stopped - one beer company decided to sell 0.4l cans, because “that’s what the customers want”. It turned out pretty fast that wasn’t what their customers wanted :)

  • fruitleatherpostcard@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be fair, most likely of these ‘foods’ look like complete junk. Over-processed shit. Huge mark-ups on what amounts to packaging and cheap fat/sugar/industrial flavours.

  • beerman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get it’s to shame the brands. But do the French not have unit prices? That’s how I determine the better prices among different brands regardless of package size.

    • Mothra@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      You mean if they display price per gram/kg/oz/ml etc? It’s irrelevant whether they do or not, that’s not the point. They are comparing the price against the same product before , not against other similar products from other brands. It doesn’t matter if Lipton Iced Tea is the cheapes iced tea brand per litre, it matters that they reduced the product size compared to what they used to

      • beerman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Right, but the before price is no longer available to me now. When I’m at the grocery store, I have to make decisions on today’s prices. My choices are to buy brand A, B, or C. Or I can buy nothing. Or I can go to another store and hope for lower prices.

        The company making the product likely has their own costs that have increased, such as increased labor and/or materials. In an inflationary environment, I cannot reasonably expect every company to maintain the same prices indefinitely, the company would then be forced to sell the product at a loss, which would lead to bankruptcy of the company.

        Companies could increase prices, and/or decrease quantity arbitrarily to increase profits. But that’s where competition with the other brands would keep them in check.

        • Mothra@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, you are right in what you say but are still missing the point. The point isn’t to inform the consumer about the best price for an item now, and it’s not to help regulate the price of an item against other similar items. That is not the goal here. If that happens or not is irrelevant.

          The point here is to shame a company who is now selling less of their product but at the same price, without making and advertisement about it.

          Unlike what you mentioned, a lot of the base costs for production of these items have not increased and or have actually become cheaper, therefore resorting to shrinking the product and not shrinking the price is a morally questionable practice. This is why the name and shame move is happening.

          A lot of consumers buy by brand out of habit, and we’ve seen countless times stories of “I went for my cereals like always, the box looked the same, the price was the same, but it actually weighed a third less and didn’t realise until I got home and opened it. Had I realised earlier I would have bought a different brand”. So the second objective of this move is to warn the consumer about these changes in value that are not as obvious at a glance.

          I hope this helps explain better.

          • beerman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, I understood that part. My first sentence was:

            I get it’s to shame the brands

            I guess I’m probably more vigilant than most about looking at the unit price, which would reveal these kinds of price changes vs competitors.

            I think it’s an unreasonable expectation that companies will advertise they’ve raised prices or shrunk packaging. The shrinkflation is deceptive for sure, but I’ve just come to expect that’s what companies will do, especially in an inflationary environment.

            • Mothra@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Then if you get it then why you insist on talking competitors? I don’t see how they are that much relevant here

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unit prices shows you the cost per g or ml. This would show changes to historical pricing that you may not notice otherwise.

      A product could still be cheapest per unit or in the middle but the increase wasn’t noticed as they changed the packaging and volume of the product. Strange sizes also make comparison difficult without the actual ticket.

    • RotaryKeyboard@lemmy.ninja
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unit prices are easy to remember when you buy a single product. I bet you know the price of gas per unit immediately. What was the price of Pepsi per liter today? What was the price of Coke per liter? There are dozens and dozens of soda products alone you would have to memorize. And that’s just soda.

      I applaud a store using its data to communicate to customers how prices have changed. We should do this everywhere.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’ll probably only do it to pull a stunt like this to improve their negotiating power like they are here, because if they left it up all the time it would discourage sales.

    • Player2@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      That method is very useful but it wouldn’t help you notice if every single company making a specific kind of product increased their prices the same amount (or reduced quantity)

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do, but the shelf price is the most prominent, given that this is what you’ll pay at the counter.

    • Wilker
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      i see milk tasting almost like water like skimmed milk, as well as some juices i used to be able to buy, fillings in sweets like crackers and wafers being almost as thin as paper or outright stopping being sold and replaced by cookies using drops for a filling, yogurt being replaced by “milk drink” (yogurt is thicker and slower to flow down, i can tell the difference, but the label also changes, idk the english term for “bebida láctea”), a lot of sweets and bags reducing from 800g down to 600g, down to 400g while keeping the same price, packaging turning opaque and non-transparent, potato chips and other salt foods being filled 1/5th, down from 1/3rd, even instant noodles going from 150g down to 80g in the past decade.

      only things that aren’t changed as much is what i know to be the very basic things that people in here uses and cooks every day, that being rice (5kg), beans (5 and 1kg), pasta (500g all variants), sugar and salt (1kg), etc.
      mostly depends on the country you are in (i’m in Brazil), but the point is that it doesn’t stop at the chocolate bars.