Procter & Gamble’s Aussie brand of hair care products have been redesigned, and with that came a shrink raying of their larger pump shampoo bottles, from 33.8 fluid ounces to merely 29.2. Only notice how the elegant curves and narrower bottle make the new version look larger, not smaller.
Thanks to Eric for this submission!
More From Consumerist
-
Grocery Shrink Ray Slurps Up Hunt’s Meat (Flavored) Spaghetti Sauce
-
Garnier Assumes Surfers Can’t Do Math, Zaps Hair Stuff With 40% Shrink Ray
-
Jennie-O Reverses Grocery Shrink Ray To Add 10% More Fat Back In To Turkey Franks
-
Pringles Multi-Grain Changes Packaging, Size, Grains Under New Owners
-
Target Really, Really Wants You To Know They Didn’t Shrink Ray Their Cheese
I love how the ‘new’ formula also has only 100 uses when the prior one was 125 :X
At east they didn’t redesign the pump to dispense 20% less shampoo per pump so they could keep the 125 number.
If they did that they’d sell less shampoo!
I think we should be supportive in acknowledging that the old bottle probably worked hard to get rid of those love handles and that unsightly gut, but oh, no…the Consumerist just has to focus on the negative.
she worked on her posture too!
I actually think the original looks bigger.
The whole shrink ray issue brings up a larger issue in my mind. I checked out the Consumer Price Index, and it says “The index for all items less food and energy has risen 2.3 percent
over the last 12 months, the same figure as the previous two months.”
Let’s take our Aussie shampoo example above. If the contents decreased by 4.6 oz, that’s a 13.6% decrease. I’m going out on a limb here and assuming that the unit price did not reduce, but remained the same. It costs $4.97 at Walmart, so the price per ounce went from 14.7 cents per ounce to 17 cents per ounce.
While technically a price increase, I doubt it’s reported this way because the SKU price remains the same. It seems like everywhere we turn, the contents of products are being reduced, while the prices remain the same, or rise. Does this affect, or not affect, the price index?
I’m tired of hearing that the costs for items remains flat, or have only small increases.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
“If the selected item is no longer available, or if there have been changes in the quality or quantity (for example, eggs sold in packages of ten when they previously were sold by the dozen) of the good or service since the last time prices were collected, the economic assistant selects a new item or records the quality change in the current item.”
No, the CPI is calculated with a little bit more care than that.
I’m amused the product itself calls attention to “volume”
Turn them sideways… THEN you’ll see how they’re smaller (thinner)
Wish I would have taken pics of the baby wipes we buy. There used to be 6 packs in a case. Then they started putting 5 packs in the same sized box. Now there are 4 packs in a smaller box for the same price the 6 pack was.
I liked the Aussie brand, but I don’t care much for pump-type bath bottles. If you don’t have a shower rack, it’s hard to store upside down to get to the last of the stuff. So invert-able bottles FTW!
I already reported this 8 months ago.
http://consumerist.com/2011/10/large-bottles-of-aussie-shampoo-now-slightly-less-large.html
I think they need to start keeping a database for their stories, as this is happening quite often – do they not review already published stories on their site before writing a new one, or is it that they hope nobody remembers?
Could be both or neither, I think they’re just looking for traffic.