Shrink flation!

That’s what it’s called when sneaky firms make your favourite products smaller, but DON’T shrink the price

WHETHER it’s a chocolate bar that no longer satisfies your appetite or washing powder which now runs out before your next shop, many of our big brands are shrinking their products.

The latest casualty are boxes of Cadbury’s Fingers which, it was announced yesterday, will contain two fewer chocolate fingers from now on. They join Creme Eggs, PG Tips teabags and even John West tuna in the everincreasing list of goods getting smaller.

But while it may be better for your waistline, it’s not better for your pocket if manufacturers and supermarkets don’t pass on the cost saving to consumers. When John West shrunk its No Drain Tuna Steak In Brine from 130g to 120g, the price stayed at £1 in Morrisons. And there was no change in the £5 cost of Surf with Essential Oils Washing Powder when it dropped from 2kg to 1.61kg.

It’s seemingly part of a strategy across the retail industry that enables manufacturers to increase profits without putting up prices (and thus risk losing customers). It’s now so common, it’s even got a name: ‘shrinkflation’.

In its latest issue, consumer watchdog Which? reveals a host of products that have been shrunk, from Surf washing powder and Cif spray to Hovis Best Of Both bread, while the price remains the same.

‘Shrinking products can be an underhand way of raising prices because pack sizes shrink but the prices don’t. Consumers will feel angry that they are being short-changed by some of their favourite brands,’ says Which? executive director Richard Lloyd. ‘It’s time for action on dodgy pricing practices that stop people from comparing products to find the cheapest.’

It’s fiendishly difficult to compare prices properly nowadays because special offers mean they change frequently. Indeed, very often a negative story about a product shrinking in the media will lead to its price magically shrinking.

For example, after being featured in Which? this month because it had dropped from 750ml to 700ml but stayed at the same £2 price in Asda, the supermarket giant discounted Cif Actifizz Lemon Multi Purpose Spray to £1.75.

fOOD industry commentator Martin Isark believes the shrinking ploy is becoming more widespread. ‘It’s now common practice among the big confectioners and their argument is that they reduce the size so they don’t have to put the prices up,’ he says.

‘Ping-pong prices going up and down almost daily confuse the shopper so the brands can reduce the size without the customer ever realising.

‘Most of us buy on price, which is why they get away with this.’

Other confectionery goods that have gone the same way as Cadbury’s Fingers include Mars Bars (down from an original bumper 58g to 48g since 2013), Kit Kat Chunky (down from 48g to 40g earlier this year) and in 2011, the tins of Cadbury’s Roses chocolates shrank from 975g to 850g, the equivalent loss of 11 chocolates.

Sometimes, changes are obvious, such as Cadbury altering the shape of its chocolate. On other occasions, the clues are more subtle — a pasta sauce taking less time to warm suggests you are getting less of it.

Angus Kennedy, editor of trade magazine Kennedy’s Confection, says one of the worst examples of shrinkflation was Cadbury’s reducing the number of Creme Eggs in a box from half-a-dozen to five in the run-up to Easter (both sizes cost £1 at Iceland).

‘If these companies said: “We’re sorry but we have no choice but to do this because cocoa is now in short supply,” then I think the British public would be much more understanding,’ he says. ‘What we don’t like is feeling duped when we realise what the companies are up to.’

Especially when they’re still paying £1 for a sharing bag of Maltesers that’s down from 140g to 120g (in fact, Cadbury’s fingers have gone up from £1 to £1.50 in Sainsbury’s this year despite the shrinkage).

Confectionery companies have argued that a reduction in the size of their bars is not all about rising production costs but is also an attempt to support the Government’s drive to help people lose weight in the face of an obesity epidemic.

Mr Kennedy disputes this, saying that as the bars get smaller, people are likely to just buy and eat more. Manufacturers often claim that, when they reduce the size of a product, they pass on savings to shops but cannot guarantee that they will, in turn, bring down retail prices.

Firms that were approached by Which? were unwilling to go into specifics, saying the information was ‘confidential’.

Vince Bamford, buying and supply editor of The Grocer, says shrinkflation has taken off because suppliers are under pressure to maintain profit margins to keep shareholders happy and believe consumers prefer smaller products to price increases. ‘ When we were in recession, suppliers and retailers were very wary of raising prices,’ he says.

‘But I don’t think it would do them any harm to be more honest with consumers. To say: “We’re having to pay 10 per cent more for our products and we’re having to pass some of that cost on to you.” ’

Instead, customers are left feeling short-changed.

‘Food and drink pricing always reflects the economic climate of the day, whether that’s the impact of changing utility prices or ingredient costs, which can be volatile,’ says a Food And Drink Federation spokesperson.

‘ Businesses seek to offset these costs wherever possible t hrough i mprovements in efficiency and productivity, but these actions can only go so far, and in some cases companies will reduce the pack size rather than increasing the price for consumers.’

However, it’s the underhand way in which these product changes appear to be introduced that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of so many.