French supermarket sticks 'shrinkflation' warnings on food to shame suppliers

This is shrinkflation, not inflation. Would you be happy paying the same amount (adjusted for inflation) for less product? I wouldn't and I don't think many other people would be.

I thought the whole point of "shrinkflation" is that instead of increasing the prices (in line with inflation) and keeping the size of the product constant, they shrink the size of the product and keep the price constant, such that the price I'm paying per unit is still just increasing in line with inflation. So when adjusted for inflation, I'm not paying the same for less product, I'm actually paying less for less product (even though it's physically the same number of pounds). I don't really have a problem with that, as it's basically just inflation under a slightly different guise.

To put it simply: I'm happy for prices per unit to increase in line with inflation, whether that is done by increasing the price tag or shrinking the product size. (If prices per unit are increasing in excess of inflation then it may be another story).

Toblerone are a good example of this.

I think you've slightly misunderstood what shrinkflation means. Shrinkflation is when the amount of product you get per £ decreases over time, after adjusting for inflation.

For example, the price of a 1kg bar of chocolate increasing from £1 to £2 even if inflation is at (0%), or a bar staying at £1 but decreasing from 1kg to 500g. Or, even worse, the price increasing from £1 to £2 but the size decreasing from 1kg to 500g.

Toblerone are a good example of this.

I think you've slightly misunderstood what shrinkflation means. Shrinkflation is when the amount of product you get per £ decreases over time, after adjusting for inflation.

For example, the price of a 1kg bar of chocolate increasing from £1 to £2 even if inflation is at (0%), or a bar staying at £1 but decreasing from 1kg to 500g. Or, even worse, the price increasing from £1 to £2 but the size decreasing from 1kg to 500g.

Toblerone are a good example of this.

I haven't seen it put like that before, but if that's what you mean then my view is this (let's ignore overall inflation for the moment):


If a 1kg bar of chocolate increases from £1 to £2, of course I'm not going to like it, but I don't necessarily think the seller is doing anything wrong or needs to be shamed for it. Most likely it's because their production and supply costs increased, or because the demand for their chocolate has increased. It's unlikely they'd be increasing their prices for no reason other than to make a quick buck at our expense, because if they did that, we'd all immediately start buying from other chocolate sellers who didn't increase their prices instead. They're pricing it at £2 because ultimately, enough people are willing to buy it at £2.

If instead of doubling the price of the bar of chocolate, they decided to keep the price the same but halve the size, I'd consider that to be exactly the same as the above. (Because I can just buy two bars and still get 1kg for £2 if I really want to). So in itself, I don't think there's anything wrong with this either.


Where I would think they are behaving immorally is if they increase prices or shrink sizes hoping that we won't notice. If you're paying £1 for 500g but you still think you're getting 1kg, even if they're not outright lying to you about the size, they may as well be because deception is still the intent. It prevents the market from running competitively because you'll probably just buy the product again without thinking about it, instead of re-evaluating whether it's a good deal compared to their competitors. In that case, I can see why a "shrinkflation" label might be helpful to some people.

However I don't think I personally would benefit from such a label, because I (perhaps unusually) make my shopping decisions based on the price per unit label rather than the price label. If it were a product I buy regularly, I'd notice that the price per unit had changed. If it were a product I'm buying for the first time, I'd be comparing the price per unit against similar products from other brands.

This is why shrinkflation labels are useful. Regardless of why a company may be charging more for less, it is important for consumers to know the value of what they are getting relative to what they could buy previously.

Yes, agree they could be useful to some people.

(I'm just being a bit pedantic here, but I'd say it's actually important for consumers to know the value of what they are getting now, but not "relative to what they could buy previously". That sort of information can even be misleading e.g. "90% off! Was £100, now £10" isn't a particularly good deal if the item is a small bar of chocolate. Instead of thinking "Wow, 90% off!", a rational consumer should instead think "£10? That's rather expensive considering these other similar bars are only £2".)

But I agree a shrinkflation label could be useful so that people don't incorrectly assume that the value they're getting now is the same as what it was before.