Send a big green hat with a dead fish in it.

"what does it mean?"

"It means Lucky sleeps with the fishes...."

Would you rather they did that, or that they kept the size the same and raised prices?

@MissTicklebritches: No question, I would rather them raise the price. At least they are being up-front about it.

Let's send them wire hangers!

Dear Consumerist,
I don't know that I like this story, as being a commenter, I am not sure who to blame here or how to do so.

But yes, we thank Kellogg's because now we can divert some of that unused angst left over from paying $35 for half a tank of gas.

Agree here. Tranportation costs to get all products into stores are skyrocketing. In addition, corn and wheat prices are going straight up both to ethanol crops and soon, the recent midwest flooding.

Before "thanking" Kellog's or anyone else, what action would you prefer? Something realistic.

Remember a good complaint letter closes with a request for resolution.

the note needs more sarcasm, I can almost taste it

@MissTicklebritches: I'd rather the prices go up. A bag of chocolate chips used to be 16 ounces. Over the years, it's shrunk down to 12. That either means less chips in my cookies or having to buy an additional bag. The same thing goes with a lot of stuff. While this doesn't have as much application to items like cereal and ice cream, it still has effect. Lowering the amount of cereal means having to buy an additional box so I don't run out of cereal on the last day of the week.

Also, does anyone know what change in wholesale price Kellogs is charging? The merchant sets the shelf price, not Kellogs.

Perhaps Kellogs is minimizing price increases and letting their margins shrink, but the grocery stores are using this as an excuse to jack prices out of proportion to actual cost increases?

Its alright, I always get Post or the off-brand... same stuff for cheaper. I stopped buying most ice cream brands when they shrank from 1.75 to 1.50 (blue bunny is the last brand I know of that is still 1.75). I'm sure if most people start buying the brands that are marginally larger Kellogg and other companies of the like would start going back, that or face reduced earnings.

I understand how people might be mad about this, but I don't really see how this is sneaky. It says right on the package how much is inside. Are they supposed to take out ad campaigns about the smaller sizes? That would defeat the purpose, since they are doing it because of higher fuel/food prices.

And, like MissTicklebritches brought up, would there be as much stink if they had raised prices and kept the sizes the same? It seems like it would be a damned if they do, damned if they don't kind of proposition.

I would cram a horse's head inside a flat rate USPS box.

@Darrone: Love it. :-)

Love the letter too.

@doctor_cos: You must always, always blame the OP. In this case, that's Consumerist itself. We could go with, "Yeah, Consumerist, you probably don't need the extra food anyway." Or, perhaps, "As if you're even going to notice the missing cereal." Maybe, "Whatever, Consumerist, only losers and dillholes actually BUY cereal. Everyone knows you should just make your own."

@zorba: I agree... costs to produce everything are rising and I'm sure market research shows people would rather just pay the same for the product and get a little less than pay more for the same amount.

And btw, we get it, food is downsizing, must we document EVERY occurance? I'm sure there are more pressing consumer issues then losing out on 14 corn flakes.

@SkokieGuy: I'd prefer they keep the size the same, and raise the prices instead. At least then I'd know I'm still getting what I pay for.

Especially with cereal. I swear, half the time, they don't even change the box size; they just put less cereal in the same size box, and change the weight on the bottom. You want to talk about deceptive practices...

@zorba: Much like some of the other commenters-I would rather companies be honest than sneaky.

Dear Kellogg's:

I wanted to express my appreciation for your continuing efforts, in keeping with industry trends, to expand "customer choice", to make your products lighter and easier to carry, and to help fight America's growing obesity epidemic by reducing the size of your containers. I'm glad you kept the price for this reduced quantity the same, so I would not be confused. Keep up the good work!

@renilyn: It's not dishonest. Dishonest would be not altering the weight to match the downsized product. I love how being totally forthright is "dishonest" and "sneaky" b/c they aren't throwing a parade down main street to announce the change.

Tell then to put one of those callouts saying "New smaller size" at least they would be honest.

What I want to know is how much all the shrinking sizes actually costs the companies. If you change the box size or package size, doesn't that require the entire factory to be reconfigured?

@MissTicklebritches:

How is that even an open question? This comparison isn't really valid but how would you like it the next oil change you paid for only included 2 fresh quarts of oil instead of whatever your car requires, but it still cost the same... and they didn't tell you about this?

Companies have to raise prices from time to account for inflation, cost of doing business increases, etc. It doesn't make me happy but it's understandable and expected.

I find it vaguely underhanded that they do it in the worst possible way, however - charge the same price but sell a smaller amount... silently.

Just raise the price of a box of the cereal by 30 or 40 cents or whatever.

I'd rather they change the amount put into the container and change what they print on it than scrap who knows how many unprinted container templates they have lying around.

@InThrees: They are trying to stay in business. Do you really think the cereal makers want to raise the price of cereal even more than it already is? They already have enough competition from the store brands, why make it even more of a no brainer for the consumer?

Savvy consumers will notice the difference and adjust accordingly, those who don't notice will live their lives unaffected.

Please increase the price. Not only is it honest, but it's gotta cost the companies less to alter a figure in a computer to change the price than adjust the serving size and the nutrition information and change the printing on the boxes.

@HeartBurnKid: A smaller box to hold the smaller amount of cereal means (very expensive) changes to packaging equipment, redesigning product graphics and layout and totally would wipe out the savings from reduced product quantity.

If gas prices lessen, they can easily go back to previous sizes (same box, more fill) and will certainly trumpet the fact.

As long as the labelling is honest on the package and cost per OZ on the shelf tag, I think it's unreasonable to expect a company to advertise the fact that they are providing less product for the same cost.

We are in an economic crisis. Gas prices are a big part of it, but so is unemployement, the mortgage crisis, the cost of war and healthcare and the falling dollar.

Our blame should be aimed at our government, not the producers of Froot Loops.

[NY Times. A government official noticed a 1 billion dollar discrepancy in charges from a Haliburton Subsidiary. He refused to pay the charges. He was fired. His replacement approved the charges]. Fruit Loops indeed! [www.nytimes.com]

No I won't get into a long political debate in this thread, but making the point that Kellogs isn't the bad guy here.

Is it still news that companies are switching to smaller sizes in similar packaging? Seems like you would have to be living under a rock to not notice this. I believe coffee, paper towels, diapers, potato chips starting doing this a couple of years ago.

I have always though cereal was outrageously expensive to begin with. I try the store brand rice krispies (which are just as good), and some of the malt-o-meal in a bag are also good. Instead of writing a snide letter, just switch brands.

If they plaster it all over the box when they give you "20% more!" then it is dishonest not to point it out when they shrink the content. It is reasonable for us to expect standard sized packages to contain standard amounts, and when consumer goods companies start messing with that, they lose credibility that they will not easily regain.

I understand, instead of raising prices which always sends people reeling, that they would reduce the size/volume/quantity of the product.

What I am most concerned with, is that when the cost of fuel goes down and the dollar improves, that they will increase the size of the products appropriately.

Companies do a lot worse stuff that actually harms the consumer. This doesn't harm the consumer at all because all the information is out in the open. This is obvious because of all the stories there are. I think it's good to post these stories because they keep everyone aware that it's happening. Sending a snarky letter isn't very helpful though. But if you're going to write it, why not include what you think they SHOULD do? The only other thing they can do is raise the price. There's actually other good reasons to reduce the package size. Shelf space is more competitive now as well as freight. More boxes will fit on the truck and the shelf if they're even a little bit smaller.

@SadSam: I'd guess that they are NOT changing the package size, just reducing the amount of product inside. 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.

How about like a once a week "shrink-ray roundup" so that these stories are more centralized and have far less argument?

@dugn: Why does a smaller box affect the serving size?

Raise prices or shrink the size.

I vote for shrink the size ..... less waste in my house from product sitting on the shelf going stale.

Dear Kelloggs,
Can you seperate each "portion" into seperate packages, so I know how much to eat?
Or ever better! - 100 calorie parcels!!
hugs and kisses,
DeepFriar

@HeartBurnKid: You raise a good point. Did the actual external package also shrink or did they leave it the same size?

If they left it the same size, that is dishonest. You are paying a higher percentage for the packaging and shipping. Shipping costs pretty much the same no matter what it weighs for light weight stuff like this. They charge by volume, how many boxes can you fit in a truck.

@AnderBobo:

I think this is a great idea.

Also - Shrinking sizes (when the box does actually get smaller) benefits as the same number of units takes less space in a railcar or truck, therefore increase transportation economy.

Please stop the the "smaller packaging to save fuel" argument, it is false.

The packaging to food ration is INCREASING which means, per kilo of food, the price to package and ship is HIGHER.

The food corporations are deliberatly increasing thier delivery costs. Since they are not stupid, I can only assume the marketing advtage gained is offset by the smaller portions delivered.

Anyway, if the amount of product did not continuously shrink, they would not be able to come out with a "new larger size" every couple of years: Eventually the container would be too big to carry!.Please stop the "smaller packaging to save fuel" argument, it is false.

The packaging-to-food ratio is INCREASING which means, per kilo of food, the price to package and ship is HIGHER.

The food corporations are deliberately increasing their delivery costs. Since they are not stupid, I can only assume the marketing advantage gained is offset by the smaller portions delivered.

Anyway, if the amount of product did not continuously shrink, food corporations would not be able to come out with a "new larger size" every couple of years: Eventually, the container would be too big to carry!.

@DeepFriar: That will be 3-4 pieces of frosted flakes at best LOL.

Watch. Prices will go up, on that shrunken size. All the corn to make cereal is underwater in Missouri, Iowa, etc.

Face it, Kellogs is in business to make money, not to make friends. Their costs go up, our costs go up. As many have noted, shrinking the box itself costs money. It's not like they're saying the same amount is still in the box. Come on, we have to look out for ourselves in the marketplace.

I can't wait until they start selling them by the flake. Smaller packages are simply stupid. I am smart enough to understand that prices go up. Leave the package the same and charge me more if you have to. Those new ice cream containers are downright silly. you get what 2 scoops out of them?

This phenomenon confuses me. Are they trying to make us forget that inflation exists? I'm OK with inflation, please keep my Indiana Jones spoon infected Cocoa Krispies at their normal size/weight please. Here's an extra 25 cents to cover the difference.

On second thought, maybe as the Earth's core cools its gravitational pull becomes weaker and therefore all things on Earth would become lighter. So maybe the weight has changed, but the mass has not.

Nah, just give me back my ounceage please.

@doctor_cos: I know, I'm just going to blame the poster...wait, who the hell is "freemoneyfinance" Meg, Ben, answers please!

@skahead: Buy the Target brand! They taste the same and all cost $1.97! $1.97 for frosted shredded wheat or $4?
Love me some Target.

I really would prefer to pay a higher price for the same amount of product. Prices *are* going up, and I'm not going to think otherwise because there's a half-filled cereal box in my shopping cart.

That said, here's another vote for generic/store brand cereal. I (heart) Malt-O-Meal, and the stuff they sell at Aldi's is darn good,too.

So I'm just wondering, how far do they intend to shrink the packages? Will it get to a point where you only get one flake of cereal due to inflation and rising food costs?

Wait, Kelloggs sells CEREAL? Aw shit, no wonder my dog weighs 150 lbs and has a sugar tooth.

Lucky Charms isn't dog food? But, what if your dog's name is Lucky?