Oh NOES! What will we do now that our new snack god is dead?! Quick, someone flash an email from the CEO of Pringles. We will worship our new cylindrical God until it too falls from grace.

@henwy: Pringles fell off the wagon when they decided to discontinue the 5.x ounce can in favor of the 6.x ounce "Super Stack" can (which just happens to cost over 50% more). Won't go near them with a 10-foot pole anymore

@henwy: I forget, are Pringles potato chips or not?

@henwy: Wow, do you really worship snackfood companies as gods? I'm not one to pick on people's religions, but dang. See you in the afterlife, brother!

This sucks, but hey the cost of living always increases.

Just wanted to mention that I bought a couple bags of these after the last story, and they are awesome. Very tasty! And while the cost is high, I don't mind a smaller portion. The wife and I finished a bag watching a movie, and it was just about perfect for that.

Allow me to propose these ([www.amazon.com]) as the new snack god.

The cost of living does NOT ALWAYS increase, you never heard of recessions or depressions? Besides, why not be honest to your loyal customers and raise the price instead of giving you less product? While you might not mind less product for the same price, most I think would not agree. You sound like a shill for the company.

@takes_so_little: ya but not by 20%

I'm guessing the reason the box still said that it contained 1-oz bags was that they had left over packaging from before the shrink ray hit.

So... I'm a little confused. Why does the grocery store shrink ray continue when the main (supposed) reason was high cost of diesel, now that prices have gone back to "normal" level?

No, NOT POPCHIPS! It's OK, I will still eat the .8 ounces of crispy deliciousness.

@pockygt: Greed.

@j-o-h-n: Those cost more than a dollar per chip! How do they make money selling them?

The assumption is the price was unchanged -- is it?

@henwy: They should've had you write the article. (or post, or whatever you call them)

Tried them based on everyones ravings in that first article and you know they're just just seasoned mini rice cakes. Ssure it's potato, but it tastes just like rice cakes and overpowering and oversaturated flavoring.
I tried teh BBQ and sea salt and vinegar flavors.

@Hoss: Yes.

@Tvhargon: You mean more then $1 a bag. It is a 24 pack of 4oz bags.

@Tvhargon: It's a Pack of 24.

As in... 24 packages of chips. Not 24 chips.

@pockygt: Greed, and "The Economy" (air quotes required).

Also, the cost of food staples has and continues to skyrocket(ed).

I tried them. All flavors thinking they were going to be great, but they're like Munchos. Just get those things instead. If you're obsessed about dieting, you may eat these. Though I know myself it's possible to eat potato chips that actually TASTE LIKE POTATOES and maintain a healthy weight.

@pockygt:

Everybody knows it's because of El Nino...

Haven't these products only been out for a few months? If so, that seems really soon to have to make such a drastic reduction in package size.

@savdavid: Oh come on--they OBVIOUSLY did numerous marketing studies which concluded that "yes--people do in fact want less product and they have no problem with paying more for it to boot!"

@pockygt: You think the CEO's mansions, limos, yachts, and corporate jets maintain themselves?

@Laura Northrup: Until it goes up next week ("due to rising transportation costs")

@Eustace Silly: Profit$$$$ aren't in line with Wall $treet'$ expectations

@georgi55: The government had been inflating at 10% a month, so this is the result. It's not out of corporate greed. (no sarcasm)

@georgi55: I hear ya. To me, chips are a luxury item anyhow, so if the price gets too high, I won't pay. No sweat.

I don't think this is really the Grocery Shrink Ray in action. A serving of Popchips is 1 oz., so their original small bags were a single serving. But .8 oz is 100 calories, which seems to be a magic number for the "health-conscious" consumer. So I think the change in single-serving bag size is more about getting the serving down to 100 calories. Although they might be benefiting by continuing to sell them for the same price as the 1 oz. bags. As a dieter, I actually prefer the smaller bags, although I would not expect to pay the same price for them.

@savdavid: Lighten up. The cost of living always increases... over time. It's more expensive today than it ws 20 years ago, etc.

And it's chips, after all. If they're too expensive, if you feel it's a bad value, don't buy them. Problem solved.

@pockygt: Because they can, simple as that.

@pockygt: Because, while the cost of transporting the items in question may have dropped, a lot of the raw ingredient prices remain the same or depending on the staple continue to rise. While I'm not 100% certain this is the case at this very second, just last year there was a run on rice, and assuming that problem hasn't been fixed, base ingredients such as that will continue to rocket upward as demand outstrips supply and governments limit exports to keep their own people fed.

So while the dropped (now rising again) cost of fuel and transport has offset some hikes in some areas, others are still being pinched based on what they're made out of.

@Etoiles: Exactly. If you're willing to pay more for chips, they will charge more. If they overcharge, the market will correct. It's not Wall Street, it's chips.

@ptr2void:

That doesn't matter. They are still selling the boxes as if they WERE 1 oz bags.

It's like saying you're buying a box of motor oil in which it says each bottle is one quart, but you're getting less inside the box.

@shiftless: "If you're obsessed about dieting, "

...maybe you shouldn't eat chips.

@Eustace Silly: Time and the market will tell.

How do you maintain profits when people are buying less? Cut your costs by offering less at the same price.

Really, do you think that last year's price increases were all just because of increased costs? Nope - look at the food company's profits. Just about all had greater margins, even if their sales were down.

@TheStateOnDVD!_GitEmSteveDave: Im pretty sure they want to be called potato crisps but a judge in the UK declared they were chips and had to pay certain taxes that pertained to that title.

@pockygt: On of the main culprits is cellulose ethanol aka gas from corn. We need to stop this practice asap. It produces very little fuel and consumes vast quantities of staple food products.

@catnapped:

Sometimes you can get them at ALDIs for 89 cents.

@takes_so_little:

The only problem is, wages aren't increasing in proportion to the cost of living. So if we can't buy potato chips, maybe we'll all lose some weight.

Of course stinkin' Walmart just HAS to price Munchos at only $2 a bag.

@tailstoo: Many companies actually had increased sales as people stopped going to restaurants. There's nothing stopping the food conglomerates from pricing food like houses. Once the bottom two thirds of the population begin to starve the government can just borrow the money to pay them

Obviously this is the work of some dastardly fraudster. The bags are labeled Popch˚ps, not Popchips.

Do they think we're blind, that we can't see the I is missing?

Yall'd rather pay more?

Trader Joe's offers their own version of Popchips.

They're pretty tasty, and less expensive.

i just had popchips this weekend an i LOVE THEM MORE THAN LIFE

@takes_so_little: Doritos has a 20% more bag out there. Companies are starting to increase amounts, anyone decreasing at this time is full of it.

Ugh... I just had to move and unpack 100 boxes of those things this weekend for a festival.