We thought we’d use The Simple Dollar’s guide to writing an effective thank you note to “thank” our friends at Kellogg’s for trying to pull the wool over our eyes with the ever-present grocery shrink ray. Here it goes:
Dear Kellogg’s:
Thank you for shrinking the size of your packaging while maintaining prices. This small act of kindness keeps people reading the Consumerist as more and more companies like yours attempt to deceive the public. We hope you’ll consider additional sneaky practices in the future as we sincerely appreciate exposing dishonest marketing efforts wherever they occur.
Thanks again,
The Consumerist
A bit too much? Anyone want to suggest alternatives?
How To Write an Effective Thank You Note for Any Occasion [The Simple Dollar]
More From Consumerist
-
The EECB Gets T-Mobile Off My Back, $300 Refund
-
How Consumerist Empowered A Consumer, Saved The Day
-
Man Looking To Thank Anonymous Time Warner Cable Worker Who Helped Stranded Wife
-
Waiter Kindly Lets Cook Know That He Has A Tendency To F*&k Up The Eggs Benedict
-
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Gives Local Manager A Ring To Thank Her For Doing A Good Job
I dont get why they need to be sneaky about it. We all know prices are going up so why try to sneak one by us? It just makes me not want to buy their products even if it is a minor thing.
Sorry for the double post but I feel the need to add that cereal was already waaaay over priced.
How much does it cost them to make a box? Break down anyone? My guess is…per box
Food $0.75
Package $0.30
Shipping $0.05
Advertising $0.03
Wages $0.10
Total = $1.23
Retail price (average) = $4
If anything, bitch about how reduced quantities = more overall packaging waste.
Everyone is doing this – I think there’s been more Grocery Shrink Ray articles than Chinese Poison Train articles…
I believe General Mills did this a while back. Why pick on Kellogg’s?
Careful Consumerist, you’re starting to sound like Grampa Simpson writing angry letters to TV shows: “The following is a list of words I never want to hear on television again. Number one: ‘Bra.’ Number two: ‘Horny.’ Number three: ‘Family Jewels.’”
How dare companies raise prices! The shame!
@parad0x360: Overpriced? If it was overpriced then they would be losing money because fewer people would be buying. From what I can tell, the market seems to think it’s a fair price as I see lots of people buying cereal.
@AtomicPlayboy:
i’m not sure if you were being sarcastic, but you made a good point.
@Wally East: Thank you for the help.
…ahem…Damn you Consumerist, it’s not like breakfast is the most important meal of the day…what?
Nevermind. It must be my fault.
Who do we blame for Chocolate Honeycomb?
Oh pulllllease, people. Costs increase and so marketing changes accordingly. They are not being dishonest. The boxes are marked accordingly, as are the prices. Some thoughts:
1) Perhaps the incessant marketing “shrink ray” is a positive – I mean, it’s not like obesity is an American epidemic or anything …
2) How can it be “overpriced”? When’s the last time you say anyone say “Gee, that was really cheap/reasonably priced!”? Probably not too often.
3) Does it matter if it’s a higher price or smaller package w/same price?
4) Aren’t there better things than this for the Consumerist?
It’s cereal. Sheesh. If ya really, really, really need Frosted Flakes, it’s not like it’s a lotta coin…
@backbroken: of course lots of people buy cereal, it tastes good and its a quick and easy breakfast.
You must not buy the groceries or have kids because everyone I know thinks its too expensive. Even if the current price is determined to be ok by the market it still doesnt justify the price…and it just got more expensive.
@renilyn: it’s just not sneaky if it says the weight right on the box… that’s what i don’t get. HOW is it sneaky? they are telling you how much you are getting, and the price. it is your choice as a consumer whether or not that is an appropriate purchase. they are not withholding information, or being deceitful. sure it sucks to get less cereal, i guess, but nobody is trying to trick you.
@parad0x360: Good job with the arbitrary numbers.
If only somebody like Michelle Obama can help us write letters like this. Epic win!
Everyone knows breakfast cereal is crap anyway. I only eat fruits and vegetables organically grown in my own garden and fertilized with my own compost/excrement.
@AnderBobo: Ooooh! I really like this! What a great idea.
@anderbobo: Who do you think makes the store brands? I got news for you it’s the same people that make the name brands. Same product different box.
So their competion is themselves. They don’t care if you buy the store brand or not. It’s from the same factory.
@Darrone: Only one problem with that: Lucky Charms is a General Mills brand.
@testsicles: wow. funny. don’t quit your day job, if you even have one.
Year after year, cereals are Kellogg’s bread and butter (grain and sugar?). With prices up, they could take a major hit.
As long as they don’t try to cover it up I’m fine with it.
I can’t wait for Consumerist’s Swelling Ray when the market corrects itself.
Other options?
Biggerizing Ray
Uber-Ray
America-Gets-Fatter Ray
Rick Moranis
I am getting really tired of this “smaller portions are better because we’re fat” argument. You don’t really think that if someone is fat, that they won’t just buy two boxes of cereal? That isn’t the point.
The point is that they are charging the same price for less product, which isn’t as apparent to consumers because, really, how many people look at the net weight on the boxes of products they buy every week? Not many. I sure don’t.
But, the consumer would easily notice if the product they buy every week suddenly cost more and the manufacturers know that. So, instead of being upfront and risking lost customers, they lower the portion, which won’t likely be noticed by the average consumer.
Quit jackin’ around with Kellogs. Go Quaker Oats.
@muffinpan: Finally, somebody says it.
@parad0x360: Actually, I have 2 kids with another on the way and I do know the price of cereal. If it was too expensive, people wouldn’t buy it. It’s not a necessity. There are plenty of other options for food.
If Kellogs raised prices, I have a feeling the story would be the same with different wording.
“Kellogs is charging more for the same amount.”
And then commenters would say they’re dishonest for not pointing out that the price has changed, but the size hasn’t.
This isn’t consumer advocacy, this is just being whiny. It’s not new, and we should probably expect more to follow.
Hershey has always done this. They used to have their nickel candy bar, and as the price of chocolate changed, the size changed, but it was always a nickel.
are you kidding? This is a business we are talking about. Do you expect them just to eat the increased costs of production because they are nice guys? Stop being whiny Consumerist.
This is typical business practice and for years we have been benefiting from larger amounts for less money so what comes around goes around.
@Letsgohokies:
“No question, I would rather them raise the price. At least they are being up-front about it.”
Especially because they’d have to raise prices a whole lot less by selling the same size for more than we are losing in price/oz by incurring all the costs of designing new packaging and modifying the production/packaging line to deal with the new packaging.
perfect – send it via EECB !
@Wally East: How do you make Cap’n Crunch?
@ehhh: This.
Isn’t there a crime here somewhere? For example, if the shelf price tag says “CHEERIOS 21 OZ $6.99″, but you buy a box that shows 19.4 oz, but you get charged the $6.99, isn’t that against the law? Particularly if your receipt likewise says “CHEERIOS 21 OZ” — and that’s not what you got?
I don’t find that they change the size, or that the price is the same, to be dishonest. What I find dishonest is that the companies advertise in large letters and eye catching colors that it’s “THE SAME GREAT PRODUCT IN A NEWLY DESIGNED BOTTLE/BOX/CAN/GERBIL” and they show the new size in tiny letters you can barely see. It’s a practice that seeks to distract consumers from the fact that they’re now paying more for less than they were getting before.
Dear Consumerist,
We apologize for your dismay and can assure you that we are taking the matter very seriously. Please accept these coupons for a free small DQ Blizzard and these left over “They’re GRRRRRRRRRRRR-eat! bicycle stickers.
Thanks again,
Kellogs
The problem w/ Kellog’s is when they add .1 mg of Vitamin C, its plastered all over the box like the second coming of jesus, but when the pendulum swings away from the customer, not a word is muttered.
Like some of the other posters, I’d honestly rather them just raise the price, so I can make the decision between 16oz of Kellog’s “high priced flakes” or the knock-off brand sitting 2 feet from it..
Malt-O-Meal Frosted Flakes taste exactly the same as Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes for less than half the price.
It’s amazing how many people just stand up for companies no matter what they do.
How is it NOT deceptive to keep the same size box (maybe slightly thinner), same price, but less inside the box?
I’ve always priced by the ounce, but obviously, they think most people do not. That’s an individual’s fault for not paying attention, but if they weren’t trying to deceive, they would just raise the price.
Same thing with the @#%@# airlines!!!!
@krom: Particularly if your receipt likewise says “CHEERIOS 21 OZ” — and that’s not what you got?
Oh gosh, if I go to Wal-Mart, buy the Cheerios with the wrong size listed on my receipt am I going to have to pepper spray the receipt checker to get out of the store???
Dear corporate fat-cats,
Thanks for nothing.
Yours,
John Q. Public
You know, I remember about a year ago when Kellogg’s took a price increase, there was absolute public pandemonium about how ridiculous it was that the cereal companies were taking a price increase. So they took the price back down, and instead took down the size of the packaging.
Now I come on this site and read people bitching about “grocery shrink-rays”. I don’t get it. You complain when there is a price increase, and you complain when the package size goes down. Neither one of these is deceptive. Cereal companies pay more for transportation and commodities, just like everyone else. What do you expect them to do?
Disclaimer: Hi I work in food packaging graphics. My nebulous corporate employer handles the Kellog’s account but our office has no business relationship whatsoever with Kellog’s. I’m not shilling for Kellog’s but do have an insider’s view on cereal boxes.
@ilovemom:
I’d guess that they are NOT changing the package size, just reducing the amount of product inside.
Not true. A downsize in the net weight in a carton is almost certainly going to entail a change in the size of the carton. Simply reducing the amount of product in a box leads to an immediate cost savings based for the product itself but is both offset by other costs and also lost opportunities. Less product makes for a smaller box. Smaller boxes mean less paper consumption and more boxes on a shipping pallet. (Shipping costs are by the cube, not by weight.) Smaller boxes means more boxes on a shelf; narrower box fronts can mean more boxes visible on the shelf.
It costs too much to make, ship, and shelve a box where several cubic inches of product has been replaced by an equal volume of air.
So the change is likely a simple adjustment to a “scale” on the assembly line and new artwork for the screen or pad printing on the package. Not very much cost at all.
Any change in the weight of the product triggers multiple related changes for regulatory compliance and to avoid kinking the logistics. Everything from the net weight on the carton to the number serving in the nutrition facts panel to the UPC are updated to the reflect the new size. These are, depending on the design of the carton, frequently multicolor changes which require lots of prepress work and setup fees. (And cereal boxes and cartons in general run offset. Some run gravure and some lower-quality printing is done flexo, but most boxes you buy are offset.)
The amount of retooling involved does get factored into the cost-benefit analysis. Easily can run tens-of-thousands of dollars per SKU.
I rather they keep the same size and then slightly raise the price due to inflation and the rest of the economic dillema….
BUT DONT…
make less of it and charge me more so you gain the profit while my boxes have less of your product in it…
oh corporate america and its greed!!!
sometimes the consumerist posts things without really thinking them through.
OMG CORPORATE GREED, CAPITALISM, OH NOES. why don’t you take a friggin economics class or social sciences class so you know how the world actually works, rather than just screaming blindly about how the man’s always trying to screw you over?
@Nihon no Purin: Hey, why don’t you actually read the points of the other people in the comments so that you actually know what you’re talking about, hmm?
If they were really trying to save money they would make the packages smaller as the items get smaller. That would save them money not only on the packaging but also on the shipping. It’s an obvious ploy and noone would know if it weren’t for the watchdogs here. Here’s my letter to all companies that do this:
I’m not buying your products anymore because you choose to use deceptive advertising and marketing.
Consumerist has joined the trend by decreasing the number of letters used to spell “Kellogg’s” in their headlines, saving countless pixels and boosting the bottom line of Gawker HQ.
I put my own spin on it. Enjoy!
Dear Kellogg’s:
I want to commend you for shrinking the size of your packaging while maintaining prices. Paying too much for cereal forced us to explore other options, and we realized that there are much healthier and cheaper alternatives out there, such as fruit, whole-grain breads, and oatmeal. We’re so thrilled to be free of your expensive, corn-syrup filled products that we’ve decided to tell our friends…all [insert # of consumerist readers here] of them.
Keep this up, Kellogg, and Americans will be enjoying a cereal-free breakfast experience in no time. We can’t thank you enough for doing your part to prevent childhood obesity.
Thanks again,
The Consumerist
Well, sugary cereals are a luxury these days. Thankfully, they are NOT a necessity in the healthy American diet, despite what their commercials will tell you. Actually, the healthier cereals are the least expensive. Maybe this is a good thing. It will encourage parents to wean their kids off the excess sugar, cheaps toys, and shiny boxes that they get with their cereals.