P&G Will Raise Prices Up To 16% On Products Such As Tide, Head & Shoulders, Etc.

Procter & Gamble has announced that you will pay more for your Tide and Head & Shoulders and all their other consumer products. P&G is raising prices by as much as 16% on “fabric, home and hair care, bar soaps, and health and shaving products.” P&G is the manufacturer of popular brands such as Gillette and Ivory soap.

A P&G spokesperson told the Boston Globe:
“We don’t price in anticipation,” Fox said. “We only price to recover costs.”

The company has already raised prices 4-8% in order to counter the skyrocketing cost of raw materials such as “pulp, used in paper, tallow, an animal fat used in soap, and oil-based products such as plastics.”

Oh well, at least they’re being straightforward about it! Honesty is better than the Grocery Shrink Ray.

P&G will boost product prices by up to 16% [Boston Globe](Thanks, Jill!)
(Photo: kandh07 )

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Gopher bond says:

    Time for the feds to print up some more cash.

  2. Manok says:

    Now all I need is my pay to go up. What? That aint gonna happen. :(

  3. Jozef says:

    At first I felt vindicated that without any hair left I didn’t use Head and Shoulders anymore. Then I subconsciously stroke my back hair and realized my mistake…

  4. DavidCopperballs says:

    Sucks, but you’re right – honesty is refreshing. They could have said, “We know how hard it is to pour your Tide out without spilling it everywhere, so here’s a new EZ pour spout you’ve been clamoring for. Pay no attention to the fact that the bottle is 7 oz. smaller.”

  5. DrGirlfriend says:

    I agree on the honesty part. I have a feeling that people just want to be told what’s up, instead of all these attempts to cover up the obvious.

  6. lalaland13 says:

    Guess I’ll have to shower and do laundry 16 percent less to make up for it.

    All kidding aside, I agree with others: It sucks, but at least we know about it now rather than later.

  7. I guessed they would increase thier prices soon. Lately the P&G price has been *almost* competitive with the off brands if you have a coupon. I assumed they would hike the prices soon since the gap was closing.

  8. ephdel says:

    at least they announced it, and there is no indication of the shrink ray happening. i think this is how all companies should treat the issue of the economic need of either paying more or paying for less.

  9. seismic007 says:

    I am much more accepting of straight-forward honesty about price increases than I am of sneaky tactics (like the grocery shrink ray) that give the illusion of value. Either way, you are going to pay MORE. Let me know I’m paying more instead of making me figure it out later. I’ll be a little angry now and then accepting, rather than a lot angry later and out for blood.

  10. nsv says:

    But have they promised to not shrink package sizes at the same time?

  11. SkokieGuy says:

    I’m suprised that so many people are prefering price increases to product size reductions.

    Given two equal options, either reducing product size OR raising prices, if the final price per oz is the same, why is the price increase preferred?

    I can understand this in the case of food products used as ingredients, where using a favorite recipie (add one can condensed milk) could be an issue.

    But laundry detergent? Shampoo? Cereal?

  12. civicmon says:

    Agreed…. I’d rather see a price raise than the shrink ray in action.

  13. DrGirlfriend says:

    Because with a smaller product, I will eventually have to run out more often, which means I have to buy more of it. A couple of ounces at a time may not seem like much, but it adds up over time. Perhaps in the end its just a matter of preference.

  14. lawnmowerdeth says:

    Actually, I have a P&G shrink ray example I haven’t submitted yet. The old bottle of Pantene shampoo was 400ml, the new one is 375ml.

    I keep forgetting because I don’t normally take the camera into the shower.

  15. Hamm Beerger says:

    @SkokieGuy: It’s just because the shrink-ray is sneaky and, unless I’m really paying attention, increases my grocery bill without me even noticing.

  16. SaveMeJeebus says:

    I guess it’s a good thing that I seek out loss leaders for these items anyway. Shrink-ray, price-ray, whatever-ray, zap away!

  17. mtarget says:

    I guess I’ll be going to Aldi for the no brand version that P&G makes and save the 16%.

  18. cobaltthorium says:

    I’m happy that they’re not being sneaky about it. I don’t use brand name detergents, soaps, etc … (ok, except for Ivory, but $2 for 8 bars + 16% is still a good deal, imo) but I’d still prefer the honesty over the shrink ray.

  19. Shark1998 says:

    @Jozef: Excuse me while I go gauge out the mental image.

  20. SkokieGuy says:

    @Hamm Beerger: If the shelf labeling unit price is correct, it’s not sneaky. Even without ‘shrink rays’ you have to look at unit pricing to make sure you’re getting the best deal (see today’s post on Target).

    Also, product size is done by the manufacturer. The selling price is a function of the retailer. When P&G says they are raising prices, they can only control what they sell to merchants at. P&G’s 16% price increase could mean a 20% increase in shelf price, or maybe 12% at a store that runs the product as a loss leader.

  21. SkokieGuy says:

    @cobaltthorium: P&G is not going to put big bright stickers on their products (New – Higher Prices!). The information in this post came from an article in the business section of a Boston paper. The press release was likely more about insuring investors that P&G will remain profitable.

    So when the average consumer goes to buy a favorite product, the price is suddenly higher (16%!) with no notice or warning.

    A non P&G product is the same price, but smaller packaging.

    Again I ask, why is the higher price less sneaky? The effect is equal, each dollar you spend gets you less.

  22. theblackdog says:

    Good thing I bought that bucket of Costco detergent about a year ago. By the time I need another one perhaps the prices will have come down a bit.

  23. Youthier says:

    @SkokieGuy: But I do think more people pay attention to the price rather than the size.

    You’re right, it’s not sneaky but the intent is for less people to notice the change and that makes people feel duped.

  24. I can only hope this does not lead to a 14% reduction in hygiene.

  25. SkokieGuy says:

    Head & Shoulders will not have a price increase, but be relaunched as a value brand: Head & Neck.

    (Hey, if you need a dandruff shampoo for your SHOULDERS, maybe its time to think about waxing)

  26. Bagels says:

    The price of all the animals they test on must have gone up as well

  27. pmathews says:

    @SkokieGuy:

    And the lesser popular: Head and Ears

  28. mike says:

    As long as they aren’t shrinking the products too, I’m refreshed by the honesty.

    PLEASE don’t shrink the products without making an announcement.

  29. SkokieGuy says:

    @pmathews: Win!

  30. Mr_D says:

    @SkokieGuy: It’s less efficient.

    Let’s say I eat a lot of hamburgers, and a 20-count box of hamburgers lasts a week (I said a lot of hamburgers). Due to oil and stuff, the manufacturer cuts the number down to 10, but keeps the price the same. I’m now paying more for less product, obviously. But now my box of hamburgers doesn’t last a week, and requires me to go to the store more often. Thus annoying me, AND increasing the gas I use to buy hamburgers.

    Now, if the price doubled instead of the count being halved, I would probably still be annoyed (albeit less so), and still be using the same amount of gas.

    Of course, it’s not going to be this simple, and it’s not by much, but even by reducing the size they’re increasing the cost. And it’s annoying.

  31. FLConsumer says:

    Add one more vote for honesty vs. product shrink.

    I do wish that some of the products came in smaller packages, but I’m a single guy and tend to do things a bit differently than most Americans. With my Gorenje front-load washer I’m only using 2 tbsp of TideHE powder per load. I only use TideHE on whites & light-coloured clothes due to the optical brighteners they use (which make dark colours appear faded). So, it takes me about 10 months to kill a single box of TideHE.

  32. Corbin123 says:

    @SkokieGuy: because most of the time the size of the container shrinks while the price remains the same, so the price per oz is going up just the same as if the container remained the same size and the overall price went up.

  33. SkokieGuy says:

    @linus: Linus, do you understand that this is NOT really refreshing honesty?

    P&G provided this information in the business section of one newspaper. It is designed to soothe investor’s fears and was NOT meant as a consumer anouncement. No company likes to raise prices, but a smart company tries to put positive spin on the issues “We don’t price in anticipation,” Fox said. “We only price to recover costs.” prior to the issue being reported elsewhere.

    To me the ONLY consumer issue related to either smaller sizes OR price increases is are they proportional to increased costs or are companies using gas prices and the economy as an excuse to increase profits. (Sort of like how gas prices spiked after 9/11 and people accused the oil companies of war profiteering).

    For example General Mills is expected to EXCEED targets and sales ending in May 08 have grown by 13% in a declining economy [www.generalmills.com] To me, THIS is the real consumer issue. Large corporations using gas prices and the economy to increase profits. Kick Joe consumer in the wallet at the time he can least afford it.

  34. SkokieGuy says:

    @Mr_D: While it is less efficient for you to have less hamburger buns (more trips to the store), the hamburger bun company can ship more packages in a given truck or railcar, so the fuel cost impact per package is lower to get the product to the store, which technically should mean a smaller increase.

    @Corbin123: You have agreed with my point while trying to argue. Key word in your post “just the same”. Smaller package + same price vs. same package + larger price often = same cost per ounce, so I still maintain neither is more “honest” than the other.

  35. NitrousO says:

    @DrGirlfriend: Except these guys did the shrink ray thing ON TOP OF RAISING PRICES. My Gillete Razors used to come in boxes with 8 heads. Now the same price got me 5 of the same razor (though the box never decreased in size).

  36. NitrousO says:

    @SkokieGuy: Probably because its easier to get a big discount on a more expensive, larger item.

  37. Wally East says:

    @SkokieGuy: Unless you can point to the press release heralding “SMALLER CONTAINERS, SAME PRICE!,” it is refreshing honesty. Maybe “honesty” is the wrong concept for your taste, however. How about “refreshingly upfront”?

    Yes, yes, in the end, it’s all same price per ounce. One method is unannounced and hopefully overlooked. It will only be noticed by someone checking the unit price sign on the shelf. Another method has been announced and covered in the media.

  38. SkokieGuy says:

    @Wally East: Fail.

    This method has not been announced, it has been reported on by the media, just like shrinking package sizes.

    P&G’s own news section of their website does not list any information regarding price increases. The word “announced” is in the consumerist story. It does not appear in the Boston Globe story.

    The media is awash with stories about shrinking products and rising food prices. Both methods have received tons of media play.

    Smart consumers have always looked at price per ounce and will continue to do so. If you don’t you will not always make smart purchasing decisions, regardless of whether the mfg. downsizes product or increases price. So this discussion about one technique being better than the other is silly.

  39. SkokieGuy says:

    @Wally East: Neither method is announced. P&G didn’t announce anything, that was a word added in the Consumerist post. It did not appear in the Boston Globe source article.

    Both methods are widely reported on in the media. So once again, I state P&G does not deserve any special kudos being honest, refreshing or anthing else. Mfg. who choose to shrink packages instead do not deserve to be whipped.

    These are simply two ways to approach the problem of rising costs. You found out about the price increase because of the media, the same way you found out about shrinking package sizes.

  40. SkokieGuy says:

    Wally – double post. First didn’t appear for 7 minutes, redid and the both posted. Please choose one (or both) to ignore……..

  41. Inflation = a period of rapidly increasing prices.

    Can either McCain or Obama say the word “inflation”? The candidate that first uses the word gets my vote.

  42. @Corporate-Shill:

    Of course the candidate with a real plan to address the inflation problem will get everybody’s vote.

  43. marsneedsrabbits says:

    I’d rather get the same detergent as always with the same number of loads and pay a bit more than try smaller or get stuck with a cheaper brand that doesn’t work as well.

    The detergent I purchase has something like 64 loads of washing power. Except it actually does more like 128, because I water it down by half, which gets things just as clean (or cleaner – no residue to trap dirt is also better for the clothes). It’s also better for the environment (less detergent over time).

    So that 64 load bottle lasts half a year or so. I don’t want to have to find coupons for it more often than that.

    I appreciate their honesty.

  44. Wally East says:

    @SkokieGuy: You know what? My mistake. I made the jump that there was a press release, at the least, that was on the P&G site. Not there. I appreciate the Globe’s reporting.

    I absolutely agree that smart consumers look at price per ounce. (This brings to mind the idea of how impossible it is to comparison shop for toilet paper, but that’s probably just me.)

    All that said, I do prefer to maintain package size for a variety of reasons.

  45. SkokieGuy says:

    Wally: That’s why I was so insistent that P&G was doing nothing heroic or laudable.

    And we can all go a step further. The media typically caters to its advertisers not the public in terms of news reporting. The fact that the mainstream media is reporting on these issues, even at the risk of angering their advertisers is commendable.

    With media consolidation and so many media outlets seeming to be the marketing arm of the White House and the media’s corporate partners, I’m the first deservedly bash them on many accounts. (Of course never Consumerist that I love).

    In this case credit is due.

  46. Wally East says:

    @SkokieGuy: Perhaps the first sentence should read, “Proctor & Gamble has admitted that you will pay pay more for your Tide and Head & Shoulders and all their other consumer products.

    (Of course, we could also lose the superfluous “that.”)

    That would probably change the tone of many of the comments.

  47. xsmasher says:

    @BurnsyNY: They’re not that honest. Last time I was in the supermarket, all the giant bottles of detergent had been replaced by smaller ones that say “2X concentrated.” have you seen their commercials for “more concentrated” liquids that you can use less of?

    If they were honest, they’d say “It’s no longer profitable to ship giant bottles that are half-filled with water, so we’re gonna stop that tactic.”

  48. SkokieGuy says:

    @Wally East: Yes, that would be a more correct headline and seemingly more in keeping with the truth.

    We have to stop now Wally, or people may talk.

  49. Aresef says:

    I work at a supermarket and am soon going to get a discount off the store brand of the very same stuff, so kick, replies, etc.

  50. azntg says:

    C’mon P&G, ADMIT IT!

    You will RAISE PRICES AND SHRINK THE CONTENTS as well. It’s oh-so-tempting, isn’t it?

  51. Bourque77 says:

    P&G make so many different products that everyone uses so this sucks. I can only imagine other companies will raise prices to “stay competitive”

  52. mbz32190 says:

    Good for them for being honest, but I will continue to avoid their overpriced products. $9.99 (Sale) for a regular bottle of Tide??? (before the price increase), No thank you.

  53. GamblesAC2 says:

    I nominate P&G for The Consumerist’s 1st ever Best company in America showdown…beacuse not only are the honest but they make damn good products!

  54. ian937262 says:

    @linus:
    Honesty goes along way! I agree. Times are a changing and prices are going up. I never feel more jaded than when I get the smaller ice cream container home and notice…. even if it just freezer rots 1/2 the time!

  55. vladthepaler says:

    Agreed: at least they’re being honest about it. 16% seems awfully steep though, maybe it’s time to cut down on bathing.