all 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 195 points 3 months ago (20 children)

... posted a photo on social media of the 62.5g bar alongside one of today's Mars Bars, which is 40g.

"Over the last 35 years, we have made a number of updates to our bar sizes and pack formats to reflect consumer demand, alongside considering wider external factors such as manufacturing costs and the price of cocoa."

I'm sure your customers have been demanding smaller bars that cost more.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I’m sure your customers have been demanding smaller bars that cost more.

    Well, their customers have kept on buying their products so clearly they don't care too much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Their customers would take bars that cost the same and are imperceptibly smaller. Or, at least, would take it better than a price hike, I'd expect. Then, the Karens would come out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    There's a large number of people talking glp-1s (ozempic et. al) and they actually are looking for smaller portion sizes, which is driving a huge trend in grocery now of boxing up larger quantities of smaller items.

    Of course the industry has used this to their advantage. Instead of just offering a 4-pack of frozen dairy treats at 2 oz each, they can offer an 8-pack at .8 oz each (less total product) and sell it alongside that one for even more, and they actually will sell more of the 8-pack.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago*

    Translation:

    we have made a number of updates to our bar sizes and pack formats to reflect consumer demand

    People don't by Mars because it's a top-tier, gucci product.

    alongside considering wider external factors such as manufacturing costs and the price of cocoa

    And if we stayed the same size, it'd be really expensive, because among other things the global climate no longer supports chocolate production.

    TBF none of it is a lie. That's as close as corporate-speak comes to "yup we did that".

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -38 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

    If people weren't buying more of them, they wouldn't've changed the size.

    What people say they want and what they actually purchase are often different.

    edit: Yet again, Lemmy proves ignorance is rampant and people have absolutely no concept of the real world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If people weren't buying more of them, they wouldn't've changed the size.

    That’s not a valid conclusion.

    The only thing that we can say for sure is that the companies benefit from shrinkflation in some way otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

    If sales drop due to the smaller sizes but they still make more profit overall then you can be sure that we’d be getting smaller bars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    The only thing that we can say for sure is that the companies benefit from shrinkflation in some way otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

    Nitpick, even though I agree with you: companies believe they will benefit. We can't rule out how fucking stupid a lot of management types are. Like whatever company fired people for AI and then had to retire them, plus eat the lost potential from fucking around with AI for months.

    And even when the individuals aren't stupid, the incentives are fucked. Google kills products because of internal fighting for promotions and recognition, not anything that's good for users or the companies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    You are assuming both options were on the market for consumers to choose from.

    These are unilateral decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I am making no such assumption, and you clearly do not know how businesses operate.

    I'm not fond of much of what they do, but I'm speaking in realities, not idealations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    You "make no such assumptions" of whether both sizes were available in 1991, but you do assume that the user has no idea how businesses operate. You're not speaking in reality at all, you're just arguing nonsensically

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Y'all go live in made-up land, I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    If people weren't buying more of them, they wouldn't've changed the size

    That's what you said. If a business is already making sales and profit, why would they decrease the size? You think they were selling the candy at a loss or something, and had to slowly increase revenue?

    It's the definition of "shrinkflation" and it's anti-consumerism because they aren't making it obvious that they're increasing the cost of the product

    What kind of ignorant are you, that you can't wrap your head around that? Go spout your elitist, anti-intellectualism elsewhere, cause ain't nobody here buying it

    And if you truly believe in what you're saying, good luck my dude, and may god have mercy on your soul

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    Are you 15? Or do you just lack all common sense and ability to understand the universe around you?

    I'm serious. What you've written is so far from reality that I feel compelled to make sure you're OK and not like, IDK, stroking out somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 120 points 3 months ago (16 children)

    Factoring in 35 years of inflation. A $0.50 mars bar in 1991 is $1.21 today. The cost of a Mars bar today is at least $1.50 USD (after converting from UK pounds) and that's being generous.

    Companies are greedier than ever and there seems to be no stopping it (meaning because of the oligarchy in the US, Congress will never do a damn thing about it, and certainly the spoiled man-baby's executive branch will do nothing about it), and no end in sight of it.

    Fuck them all.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    I would also be surprised if the cost of production, now using cheaper ingredients and far more automation, hadn't also decreased.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Oh absolutely. Productivity has increased drastically since the 90s but wages never kept up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Don't say it in cop voice. Say:

    workers engineers and scientists made everything drastically more productive and the pedophiles stole all the gains. We keep letting them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    We're saying the same thing. The productivity surplus is getting stolen by the Epstein class. I'm not trying to sugarcoat anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Does infinite growth mean eternal shrinkflation? Will it ever plateau? Or collapse?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Shrinkflation implies a customer base that would either go elsewhere or without. I'm sure you've seen the efforts to eliminate all competition (establishing trusts, i.e. mega mergers) and weaseling into contracts like government that can't be avoided.

    When your audience has no choice, you have no limits.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    I visited a chocolate confection assembly plant. The only things humans do now is random tasks like flip the random bar that for some reason fell odd onto conveyor or shift the skewed box on the pallet, or open the door for a shipment.

    The rest was automatic, from the pipes running chocolate throughout the plant to the final gluing and boxing.

    The costs are materials, and the factory operation cost, labour is almost nothing. So to increase profit they really can only cheapen or lesson the materials

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    In 1991 those were closer to 30 cents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    I was 12, so I didn't have 3 cents to rub together, let alone 30. I assumed it was similar to candy bars when I was in high school, which were about $0.50 at the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I was only like 9, but I remember that shit. Lol.

    Least those were the prices here in the Midwest. Thirtyish cent candy bars, 25 cent bags of small chips, 35 cent cans of coca cola, 59 cents for a 20 ounce. If hamburger was a dollar a pound, it's because it wasn't on sale that week.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    That's the official inflation numbers, which are lies. It's an open secret that in the 90s there was a political movement among the owners to artificially lower reported inflation (see: Boskin Commission for example) because it would boost the economy (on paper) while letting them absorb the gains.

    Underreporting by 1-2% a year doesn't seem like much until you do it for several decades. Looking at actual inflation instead of the reported lie, that mars bar is closer to $2 today. Shrinkflation had to happen to keep the bigger con going. Most businesses will, of course, cheat the margins at every instance.

    TLDR; shrinkflation is a symptom, not the disease

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 74 points 3 months ago

    Even the font weight shrank

  • source
  • [–] 43 points 3 months ago

    Also, recipe blogs are a great source of information on shrinkflation. Going to the store to look for a package size that no longer exists is fun.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Back in the dialup days when brands were first coming online I used to have quite a thing for a Toffee Crisp. When I got a bar that was noticeably smaller than the last, I emailed them expecting a reply about market forces or cost of ingredients, but maybe they'd also send a voucher for a free bar or something.

    Instead they tried to gaslight me, telling me they'd always been that size and that I must be imagining it. I was so put out by it that, other than a very occasional multi-pack for picnics, I haven't bought a single-serve Toffee Crisp, Mars Bar, Snickers etc since.

    When shrinkflation became a recognised term I felt so vindicated! I wish I still had that email so that I could shove it in their faces.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I always had the feeling that they were 56% bigger when I was a kid.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 19 points 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Aww man, that was 10 years ago

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Sorry to make you feel old, but it was in fact 20 years ago!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago

    I'm curious to see how different the ingredient lists are between the two.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I bet the ingredients are worse now too

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's a weird thing to think about, but in a ship-of-Theseus sort of way a lot of the products we grew up with don't really exist anymore. By that I mean, if it's half the size and made of different ingredients then the Mars Bar as it was introduced has effectively been discontinued. There's just some other, crappier knock-off being sold under the same name now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Yep, really stretching the bounds of how far name recognition will get them. All of Christie, Mondelez and Nestle products are barely even edible anymore. Forget the shrinkage, it'd be slop if they doubled the size.

    Mondelez used to be a champion of quality but quarterly earrings erode all scruples.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    That's almost the worst part. Not only is the food ultra-processed now, but it's all engineered to extract every fraction of a penny in margins.
    If this goes on, I might as well just inject palm oil straight to my veins.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago

    The chocolate was thicker too. Easier to peel off and eat separately.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago*

    I clearly remember they were 68 grams when I was a kid, which always weighed on my mind when I had to choose between a Mars bar and the 78 gram Oh Henry

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    Even the font got skinnier!

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    This explains why I only needed to eat 1 Mars bar to feels satisfied back in the days while I now have to eat 3-4 bars.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    When I was a kid, a pound of coffee was 16 ounces (US). Now it's down to 12. They do it in small steps, so no one realizes it's happening until you see something like this.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    They had a better font back then too.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    Enshittification is the word of the decade. Century?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    I'd sign for enshittification being the worst thing that happens this century. Considering there are years 73 ahead of us in the century, it might only be the precursor of what will actually be the word of the century.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I think fascism is worse. I think Russia invading Ukraine is worse. I think the genocide by Israel of the Palestinians is worse. I think wealth inequality is worse. I think the lack of social safety nets in the US, especially universal heatlh case, is worse.

    Enshittification is bad, but I really don't think it's the worst thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    I could be wrong, but I believe the person to whom you replied was indicating that they would be okay with "enshittification" being the word of the century, because there are SO MANY worse things on the horizon or actively festering and spiraling out of control that, if "enshittification" is the worst thing to happen this century, that would be an acceptable outcome. I believe they were using "sign for" as in "to accept, as of a package or parcel"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    And using it to describe everything is the enshitification of the word enshitification

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    It had been at least 5 years since I bought myself a Snickers bar, I bought one about 2 months ago and I laughed my ass off at the shrinkflation size than that I remember, on the one hand you got Mars Inc. upping the price $.75c and shrinking it to whatever. On the OTHER hand, you actually got a reasonable portion to prevent over consuming empty calories/sugar.

    Lose lose win win. Balance in the force.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Even the design looks better!!! Why!?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I buy things in lbs or kgs so not much has changed beyond the price per weight of course.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    This would be the perfect time for him to make “I Hate Mars Bars.”

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    so Shrinkflation is normal in most products then?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Food products, probably. In clothes or cars, for example, you can't just make things smaller. With clothes, it seems more like skimpflation - some items definitely had thinner-feeling fabric right after COVID, although it got better again. With cars, they just raise the price, so that's inflation.

    If costs go up you have to do one of the three. You're probably not getting angry phone calls because your Mars bar went down in size by 1g, but might if it's more expensive or tastes like shit, so that's the advantage there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    This thing is plastic-wrapped, but the thing we can't easily compare is produce. I think it's likely that fruits and vegetables just don't have as much nutritional content as before thanks to aggressive agriculture and worsening environments.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    I've never actually had one. They haven't sold these in the US in years.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Mars bars are sold in the US under the name Milky Way. Not to be confused with what's globally known as Milky Way, which is called 3 Musketeers in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    um. the us had mars bars and they were nothing like milky ways. they were closer to snickers but with almonds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Yeah those are called Snickers Almond in the US now. Either way, whether they want a UK Mars bar like in the article or they want a pre-2003 US Mars bar, you can just buy the same thing with a different name in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It‘s sugary garbage, the less the better.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 8 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post