Three-Pound Tubs Of Country Crock: Now 3 Oz Lighter!
Country Crock's three-pound vats of fat are now three ounces lighter, but you can't tell by looking at the packaging. The crock-purveyor Unilever claims that the adjustment was made not to ensure optimal profitability, but to "ensure optimal consumer satisfaction."
Unilever sent Mouseprint several excuses for slashing the container contents:
In order to maintain price, we have reduced the size of the container for several reasons:Unilever reduced the contents of the container, not the "size of the container," which is very different.[In a separate letter, the company added:] A redesign of the product line was undertaken which involved packaging changes that had an impact on the net fill weight of the products. Prior to implementation, the changes were thoroughly tested with consumers to ensure optimal consumer satisfaction.
- Increased costs of raw materials, including ingredients and packaging materials
- Transition to Trans Fat Free products
- Tamper resistant containers
If you catch companies reducing product and maintaining prices to compensate for the rising price of, well, everything, take a picture and send it to our tipline.
Country Crock 3-lb Margarine Tubs Stick It to Shoppers [Mouseprint]
Post a comment
Comments:
Obviously, food companies are now taking a page from the modeling industry, where less is more!
Easiest way to make some extra money. Keep the same packaging, skim a little off the top.
Their next excuse..."now with fewer calories!"
Frankly, I'm not sure what the big deal is about this. It's not as if they kept the same packaging AND labeled it as 3 lbs instead of the correct weight (2 lb and 13 oz). Now THAT would be a story.
I'm actually happy they did this. When it was 3 lbs, I was unable to lift the tub and put it in the fridge. Now that it's lighter, I can use it!
@ironchef:
That's a good one. Of course, companies that try to reduce the apparent caloric content of the product will often decrease suggested serving size and increase number of service to artificially reduce the numbers on the nutrition label.
Like the small snack-size bag of chips that magically contain 8 servings. Buy hey, look, only 50 calories per serving!
@lore: Or, alternately, if they reduced the content weight and kept the price the same, or higher. But we don't see in the article whether that's the case. The article does say (sneakily, in itself) "This is how some sneaky manufacturers opt to pass on a hidden price increase by just shrinking the product a little, and keeping the price same." They don't say that this is the case with Country Crock.
Maybe, for all we know, the price went down commensurate with the reduced content.
Sucks, but what do you expect companies to do? Put "now less for the same price as before!!!!" on the packaging?
It's liken when Whole Foods took over our local Wild Oats, in addition to the changing of vendors (resulting in crappy beef and bison). They posted signs on the doors saying: in order to better serve our valued customers we will now be closing at 9PM (instead of 10). How stupid do these companies think consumers really are?
@humphrmi: Whoops, I guess in their response, Unilever actually admits that they reduced the content without lowering the price. "In order to maintain price, we have reduced the size of the container for several reasons..."
Eh, whatever. News flash: Food company refuses to buck trends, raises prices, film at 11...
It looks like a nice way to increase profits by 6.25%
Crock is the right name for the product. Crock o crap would be more accurate.
I once came across a clearance on soap. The old soap bars weighed, I dunno.. 3.5 ounces, the new soap bars weighed 3 ounces. HERE'S THE KICKER. Not only did the reduce the size of the soap, they changed the shape. Anybody know how blood cells are shaped, that concave middle that provides more surface area for the cell to exchange oxygen? The damn soap was shaped almost the same way, like a rounded dumbel, which would would just provide more surface area for the soap to dissolve quicker.
Country Crock: Now with 6 fewer slices of greasy toast in every tub!
@mad_oak: I was about to say something snarky about "sure, companies are just rolling in profits right now" but in fact, Unilever is hugely profitable. So they have no excuse.
What really scares me is what their testing procedures are! Its almost shocking to hear them say so blazen "yeah we totally made sure nobody could tell"
Okay, as much as I love this site, I'm getting a little sick of this outcry for every act of product shrinkage*. We've previously established the need for it as cost to manufacturers have gone up and they need to either a]charge more for the previous amount of product or b]shrink the package to keep the price the same. Option b is the one which is somewhat easier on the consumer. Yes, they're being secretive about it, but what do you expect? A national ad campaign touting this fact in big, bold, brightly-colored letters? Possibly with a B-list-celebrity-voiced cartoon mascot [actually that'd be kinda entertaining but I'm get off the point]? To summarize: cost of business is rising, cost to us is minimized except when buying large quantities, and it's not a dark secret or unethical or anything.
*Although shrinkage could be expected in this as the product is shelved in the refridgerated dairy section, where it is cold. I was trying to be serious above but didn't want to interrupt for this stupid joke. Joke over.
What's the big deal? Prices of groceries goes up all the time...
Breyer's Ice Cream did the same thing-- shrank the half-gallon size, price remained the same.
Darren-- I would rather pay more than have to go to the market that much more often as we run out of the smaller size. It also feels deceptive.
Hey, Country Crock. I hope that small margin of profit was worth losing my business over. Because you just did.
Oh yes, those evil companies, shrinking package sizes to increase their profits! It's not like the cost of everything, including their raw materials, is soaring upwards or anything. They're just greedy.
Who cares, we all know that the price of food is rising. I suppose everyone thinks consumers should forever be immune to rising commodity prices and that companies should never change prices.
@Bay State Darren: Thank you. Well put.
One thing, though - the term product shrinkage actually means product theft in the retail sector... but other than that, I completely agree with you.
**News Alert**
Avoid the high price of gas by retrofitting your car with a smaller gas tank!
**Thank You**
Mmmm.... country crock. Yum!
wait doesnt unilever make soap? and they make "butter" too? uh... guess theres a reason i dont eat that stuff
Don't forget they are being anti-green too, by using same amount of plastic to hold less material inside.
Wow, only one person in this thread threatened to boycott Country Crock. And only one called it "crap". That's pretty impressive.
@APFPilot: There was a bank here that did that once. I asked the guy how reducing the hours serves me better. Didn't have an answer...
@BugMeNot2: we expect them to not alter it unfairly at all. Or if they lower the amount provided, have the packaging reflect that with, you know, appropriately smaller packaging.
This is a trick.
Country Crock's three-pound vats of fat are now three ounces lighter, but you can't tell by looking at the packaging.
Sure you can. You look where it says "Net Wt." Kinda like in those photos you posted.
okay. whatever.
this would not stop be from buying it if this what i choose to use.
@lore: Sorry, I'm a layman trying to sound smart. Something getting smaller led me to think of the word shrinkage, which I should no longer be smirking at like I'm twelve.
@astruc: I guess that's a matter of perspective. I can make 3 lbs and ~3lbs of butter last about the same length [i.e. trips to the grocery store] and not notice the difference. I suppose if I was feeding a family or something it would make a difference.
BTW, this thread title is innacurate. while the product may = (3lbs.-3 oz.), it should not be described as a three pound tub of Country Crock, because it isn't and nobody is actually claiming that it is.
Time for wage and price controls....
They are really doing you a favor by giving you less unhealthy "glop" to eat per tub and more exercise going to the store, more often, for more!
Another case of a big corporate lie.
I just finished eating a new 45 ounce tub and I am not satisfied.
Bsatards.
I am glad for this posting because it reminds me to not only look at prices for comparison but the quantity too.
Prices are outrageously high nowadays so you better believe I will go for a product that has 3 more ounces than its competitor.
Companies can play this product shrinkage game if they want to but I spend my money on items where the return is the greatest.
The crock-purveyor Unilever claims that the adjustment was made not to ensure optimal profitability, but to "ensure optimal consumer satisfaction."
I think the Consumerist is the one making false claims. You've taken Unilever's comments out of context. They said clearly that the amount of product was reduced "in order to maintain price" despite an increase in the cost of raw materials. Having made the decision to make that change, they tested in order to make sure the change was made in a manner that would "ensure optimal consumer satifaction." The "consumer satisfaction" refers to the way the adjustment was implemented, not the reason for making it.
@Snarkysnake: I am sitting in an airport bar at this moment, passing beer through my nose, as a result of your comment.
You'll pay for this. ;)
this is not food
@SacraBos:
Wow, you're lucky that your bank only changed its hours. My bank reduced its value of a dollar by 4¢, so when I went in to withdraw $40, they gave me $38.40. Sneaky secretive bastards!!
ugh, who buys that shit? 3lbs? dios mio, who the hell is shoveling that much altered fat into their glistening oily maws that they need to buy it in 2lb 13oz sizes anyway?
it takes me six months to go through a pound of butter (it freezes just fine).
So how many of you whiny bitches stopped eating Kelloggs, Post, and General Mills cereals? Every major cereal maker reduced the contents of their packaging by 10%, kept the prices the same. It's a sign of the times, get used to it (or plant a fucking garden.)
people actually spread that on stuff? Gross.
Is it aerated or something?
Because that could be a legitimate change, one that could make it spread better.
Do you live alone?
If so, stop assuming everyone does.
Hint: Butter doesn't contain vegetable oil.You shouldn't buy that shit in the first place.
When I was growing up, our dog loved Country Crock. We kept it on the counter for even easier spreading. But if we didn't push the tub all the way to the back, the sheepdog would pull that container down, remove the lid, and eat the whole thing. Then he'd barf it back up in foamy yellow clots all over the house. But he always came back for more.
@TechnoDestructo: Yes, CC is whipped (be sure to aspirate the 'h;' it shouldn't be silent). They prolly managed to add some more gums and a bit more air. The way to know if they did this would be to read the before time CC tub and compare it to the now tub--the now tub would have 6% or so fewer calories per serving (assuming they didn't change the serving size).
Have consumers ever been satisfied with getting less for their money?