<![CDATA[Consumerist: Shrinkage]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: Shrinkage]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/shrinkage http://consumerist.com/tag/shrinkage <![CDATA[ Ben Popken On TV Talking 'Bout Shrinking Packages ]]> Here's the clip of yours truly, Ben Popken, on FOX 13 Tampa yesterday talking about the Grocery Shrink Ray that all the writers on the site have been doing a great job of covering. The interview was done over Skype webcam and I think it came out pretty well. "Shrinkage" and "downsizing" may be nothing new, but I think we're going to see more goods shrinking and by greater degrees in the coming months. It's practically a secret inflation. At the end of the story they say that some manufacturers are considering doing away with gallons of milk and instead selling 3/4 of a gallon, for the same price. If that happens, I think a lot more messages like the recording of the good ol' boy upset over the downsized Jimmy Dean's sausage are going to be left on customer complaint lines across America. As the guy in the New York Daily News shrinking package article (which I was also quoted in, whoo), said, "Soon people will be buying empty bags and empty boxes."

Shrinking packaging costing you more [Fox 13]

]]>
Consumerist-5018351 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:54:57 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5018351&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Three-Pound Tubs Of Country Crock: Now 3 Oz Lighter! ]]> Country Crock's three-pound vats of fat are now three ounces lighter, but you can't tell by looking at the packaging. The crock-purveyor Unilever claims that the adjustment was made not to ensure optimal profitability, but to "ensure optimal consumer satisfaction."

Unilever sent Mouseprint several excuses for slashing the container contents:

In order to maintain price, we have reduced the size of the container for several reasons:
  • Increased costs of raw materials, including ingredients and packaging materials
  • Transition to Trans Fat Free products
  • Tamper resistant containers
[In a separate letter, the company added:] A redesign of the product line was undertaken which involved packaging changes that had an impact on the net fill weight of the products. Prior to implementation, the changes were thoroughly tested with consumers to ensure optimal consumer satisfaction.
Unilever reduced the contents of the container, not the "size of the container," which is very different.

If you catch companies reducing product and maintaining prices to compensate for the rising price of, well, everything, take a picture and send it to our tipline.

Country Crock 3-lb Margarine Tubs Stick It to Shoppers [Mouseprint]

]]>
Consumerist-381776 Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:33:11 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=381776&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Readers Write In With Examples Of More Shrinking Products ]]> con_tinytp%26pb.jpg Brawny's not the only product skimping on size to sneakily increase profits. Here are two more items readers have noticed recently.
 
Henry writes:
Our house uses Skippy Peanut Butter, but i just found out they changed their jars from 18 ounces to 16.2 ounces for the same price. I know 2 ounces is not a huge amount of peanut better, but still.
And Matt writes:
I have noticed this same thing with Quilted Northern. I don't know what the price used to be but i noticed while shopping at sams club now you get less quilted northern than you used to.
If you know of another company that's downsized a product without passing along the savings, let us know. Maybe we can put together a single reference post so shoppers will see which products are the worst offenders.

RELATED
"Brawny Paper Towels Shrink By 20% While Price Goes up 6%"

]]>
Consumerist-369993 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:51:19 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=369993&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Brawny Paper Towels Shrink By 20% While Price Goes up 6% ]]> Yet another common product has been hit with the shrinking ray—this time it's Brawny paper towels, which Jason noticed recently received a new package design, apparently to disguise that there are now fewer sheets and a higher price.

Today at the store I picked up some Brawny paper towels. Specifically, the 8 roll pick-a-size ones. I try to use paper towels only for really messy stuff like coffee grounds and stuff. These are nice since the area of each towel is smaller than most other ones, so I don't have to use a big towel for a small spill. Anyway, I noticed they changed the package design, as well as that the price increased from $5.98, which is what it's been for the 6+ months I've been buying this brand, to $6.36.
 
After I got home I compared the dimensions listed on the package to those listed on the previous package of Brawny 8 roll pick a size paper towels that I purchased. On the previous package of Brawny paper towels that I purchased it says that each roll has 110 2-ply paper towels and a total area of 403.3 square feet. On the new package of Brawny paper towels it says that each roll has 88 2-ply paper towels and a total area of 322.6 square feet. So the price went up 6%, while the number and area of the paper towels on each roll decreased by 20%.
 
On the package of the new Brawny paper towels it claims that they're now softer & thicker. I don't know who cares about the softness of paper towels, and if anything the new ones seem less soft. They do seem slightly thicker, though, although the difference is minimal.
This is one of those small-but-offensive ways companies screw over their customers, by sneaking in price increases disguised as reformulated products or packaging. We know why they do it—so nobody can accuse them of suddenly hiking the price by 25%—but we wish new package designs had to clearly display price/size differences between the new product and the previous for, say, a six month period.

RELATED
"General Mill Will Decrease The Size Of Cereal Boxes, Raise Prices"
"Dial Full Force Soap Bars Now 10% Smaller"
"New Taller Honey Nut Cheerios Box Is 15 Oz Lighter"
"Cadbury: Our Eggs Aren't Smaller, You Are Bigger"
"Charmin Rolls Out Shorter Ultra Big Rolls"

]]>
Consumerist-369489 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:04:17 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=369489&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Home Depot Lets You Keep $199 Power Tool That Rang Up For $0.01 ]]> Penny%20Toy.jpgJohnny was pleasantly surprised when the $199 power tool he grabbed off the clearance rack rang up at the self-checkout for just $0.01. Home Depot, of course, stopped him before he could leave and asked for the item back, but Johnny wasn't fast to part with his new toy.
I told the manager well that's to bad because I ALREADY PAID FOR IT!!! and if you don't return MY PRODUCT!!! that I PAID FOR!!! that I would call the cops because you are now stealing from me. I will call Weights and Measures. OH YEAH and my attorney.
Read the full story after the jump.

Well I never thought I would see the day when I would buy an item in a store, I have the item in my hands with my receipt and a Home Depot employee takes the item out of my hands because they are not sure if I can have this item. Sound funny, WELL, ITS NOT!!!

A few months ago I was in a Home Depot shopping and I saw a Power tool (worm drive) on clearance for 49.95 markdown from $199.99. I really wanted this item but did not have the cash on me at the time (just my luck) so I drove home got my credit card and drove back to the store but I was to late, someone had already purchased the item.

So just the other day I was in the Home Depot again and by lucky found the worm drive on the clearance rack unmarked. I took the item to self check-out and the item came up at a penny. I thought, cool I am getting a deal of a life time here. I then PAID for the item and took my receipt. I checked the UPC on the receipt and on the box just to make sure they were a match and they were.

Then a Home Depot employee came up to me from the self check-out and took the worm drive and said I need to check something I'll be right back and walked away from me with the item that I just PAID for. So after waiting for 6 to 7 minutes a manager came up front and told me that I can not have this item because it is on clearance and once the price falls to a penny it is to be markdown and thrown away. I told the manager well that's to bad because I ALREADY PAID FOR IT!!! and if you don't return MY PRODUCT!!! that I PAID FOR!!! that I would call the cops because you are now stealing from me. I will call Weights and Measures. OH YEAH and my attorney.

So after all that, they finally wised up and gave me back the item that I PAID for. I have never had a retail store do something like to me. They made me feel like I was a thief. Like I did something wrong, when all I wanted was to buy a worm drive that I saw on Clearance. (WHAT HAPPEN TO TAKING CARE OF THE CUSTOMER) because you lost another one to LOWES.

Johnny was more than dramatic—he was right. Scanner errors are only worth a small discount in some states. Now, it would have been more ethical to tell the store about the error and to ask for an additional discount, but since Johnny already paid for the item, it was his.

]]>
Consumerist-349355 Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:45:56 EST Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=349355&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Dial Full Force Soap Bars Now 10% Smaller ]]> The latest installment of quietly shrinking packages arrives care of Dial's Full Force Soap Bar. Once 4.5 ounces per bar, Dial now packs a mere 4 ounces of sudsy splendor.

Downsizing is a sneaky way to pass on a price increase because you are getting less for your money but may not catch the change. As is typical for many downsized products, the manufacturer diverts your attention from the net weight statement to something else "new". In this case, they are calling it a "new grip bar" because ridges have been carved into it.
Soap bars are supposed to shrink in the shower, not on the shelf.

Dial Soap: The Incredible Shrinking Bar [Mouseprint]

]]>
Consumerist-321295 Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:22:46 EST Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=321295&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ CellHut Can't Understand That You Didn't Order The iPhone, Thieves Did ]]> UPDATE: CellHut disagrees with this version of the events, writing, "Mr. Laurence has played this dirty game to cheat small businesses and to get away from a sudden price drop on the iPhone, which are sold as final sale at Cellhut.com." They threaten various legal hijinx.

Last Friday, I arrived home from work to discover a mysterious package waiting for me. Upon opening it, I found... trash bags. Lots of them. Puzzled, I rifled through the box and discovered, to my amazement, that they had been used as packing material for a brand new 4 Gb Apple iPhone!

At first I assumed that it was a gift from a particularly generous friend. As much as I would love to own an iPhone, I am not generally an early adopter and had no immediate plans to buy one.

Further exploration of the box revealed an invoice from a company I had never heard of called Cellhut.com. To my shock, the phone had been charged to my Chase Visa card to the sum of $663!

The credit card was one I rarely used, usually only for places that didn't accept American Express. I had used it exactly twice at restaurants the previous weekend while on vacation in Montauk, Long Island. Someone had obviously gotten hold of my credit card number.

I immediately called Chase's Credit Card department. They told me that the charge was pending, and I would have to wait for it to clear before they could do anything.

Next I called Cellhut.com (also located in Long Island... hmmmm) but was unable to get through to their voice mail. No help there.

A visit to their web site revealed this:CellHut%20Is%20Weird.jpgNotice the "interesting" pricing scheme?

I am a Mac geek. I use a Mac exclusively in my job as a web developer. I'm the guy people call when they have a Mac-specific problem. More importantly to this story, I set up and maintain the custom online Apple Store for the college where I work.

I knew bloody well that the 4 Gb iPhone was retailing at $499, not $849. That is, it was until Steve Jobs killed it off a few days earlier that week. And just about every man and his dog heard the howls of outrage around the country from early adopters as the price of the 8 Gb phone dropped to $399. In addition, they are bizarrely charging $100 less for the 8 Gb model!

The next kicker is the line "All iPhone sales are final **No Returns**".

I then contacted Chase again and explained the situation. This time, they were far more helpful. I was able to cancel the card immediately. Fortunately, the transaction was still pending, and I was able to stop that as well. A representative from their Fraud Department told me that I would not be responsible for the charge, and that I should return the phone to the company.

Repeated phone calls to Cellhut.com over the weekend went nowhere, so I tried to get an RMA number from their web site. The site claims that there is a 15% restocking fee for returning nondefective products. I emailed their customer service, explaining the situation, and that I was planning to return the phone, but I did not expect to be invoiced for any "restocking fees".

A few days later, I got a call from a representative from Cellhut.com, who claimed that the order had been placed over the phone on Sept 6th and verified by Chase. I told him that I had not made the call, that no one had called me to verify any charges and that my cell phone records show this. He said he would talk to his supervisor and email me an RMA. I had to give him my email address, as the one used for the order was fake.

A few minutes later, I received this:

Subject: CellHut.com RMA # 5731

Dear Brad Lyons,

This email is in reference to your last purchase from CellHUT.com on Thursday, September 06, 2007 EST.

We are sorry to hear that the product you ordered is not functioning properly. Sorry for inconvenience. Your RMA number is 5731.
Please send the item back to us at the following address:

CELLHUT.COM
RMA # 5731
275 7th Ave (Street Level)
New York, NY 10001

Please send your order in its original packaging with the copy of the invoice and indicate the reason for return on the invoice. We recommend you to use service of UPS or FedEx, so that you have tracking number for the package. Please insure the package, because we will not be responsible for the loss or damage of the package.

We must receive the item within 3-4 business days to process your RMA. The RMA will be processed within 24-48 hours after we have received the item.

Problem solved, right!?

Not quite. Only a few minutes after the first email came this gem:

Subject: CellHut.com RMA # 5731

Dear Brad Lyons,

This email is in reference to your last purchase from CellHUT.com on Thursday, September 06, 2007 EST.
RMA# 5731

We are sorry to inform you that your RMA request is declined as it does not meet the Terms and Conditions of CellHut for an RMA to be issued.

Mmmmmmm-kay.

By now I was sick of this entire business, so I wrote them back:

I sincerely hope that this email is in error.

Let me reiterate. I did not order this phone. I do not want this phone. It was apparently ordered with a stolen credit card number.

I have already contacted the fraud department of my credit card company and canceled both payment and the card.

To date, I have carefully documented every detail of my dealing with your company. If you do not accept return of this product, with no so-called "restocking fee", I will file reports with the fraud department of my credit card company, the Better Business Bureau and the Office of the Attorney General.

In addition, I will contact the popular Consumerist.com web site and make sure every detail of your company's practices are made publicly available to the entire Internet.

I await your response.

Sincerely,

Brad Lyons

Yeah, that'll learn 'em!

The next day, I returned the phone as per the instructions in the first email. Happy to be done with the whole ordeal, I sat down at my keyboard to find this sitting in my inbox:

Dear customer,
Before shiped any order we verify order by bank and customer, our rep talk to you about this order and you agree and also your credit card verify charge then we process this order and shiped.ok why sombody process a order with your stolen credit card and has shiping address to your home i really dont understand this. now you telling us you will go to BBB and fraud dept. there is no refund on this and no return on this.
thanks
alikhan
My response:
I did not verify any order. I had never even heard of Cellhut.com until the phone arrived in the mail. I certainly did not speak to any representative. Again, the order was made illegally with a stolen credit card number. I have explained this already over the phone.

I have no idea why the phone was sent to my address. That motive is known only to the criminal who placed the order.

I have returned the phone as per the original RMA #5731 that was emailed to me. The tracking number is xxxx xxx via DHL.

That was yesterday. Today I received an email informing me that they have already shipped me another iPhone!

I can't understand their behavior — the card they had on record no longer exists, so I don't know how they plan to charge me. Can they bill me for a phone I don't want and didn't order? Has anyone else received an unordered iPhone from this company?

If the card has been canceled, they shouldn't be able to charge you for any additional merchandise. Just to be safe, call Chase and confirm that the card is in fact canceled, and that no new charges are pending.

Call your Department of Consumer Affairs and explain the situation; state law governs whether or not you can keep the iPhone on the way as a gift for your troubles.
(Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

]]>
Consumerist-300277 Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:55:08 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=300277&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ More Than $3 Billion Stolen From Walmart This Year ]]> According to the AP, so-called "shrinkage" at Walmart could rise to more than $3 billion this year. The shrinkage comes from a combination of supplier fraud, employee theft, bad bookkeeping and, of course, shoplifting.

What's the reason for the increased shrink? It could be tied to Walmart's decision not to prosecute shoplifters who steal less than $25 worth of merchandise. Another possibility is that Walmart is understaffed, making it easy for organized shoplifters to rip them off. —MEGHANN MARCO

Shoplifting, employee theft plague Wal-Mart [Toronto Star]
(Photo: Clean Walmart)

]]>
Consumerist-268650 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:15:03 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=268650&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ How To Unshrink Wool ]]> It's actually very easy to unshrink a wool garment you shrank in the wash.

1. Place the wool item in a sink full of warm water.
2. Soak for 10 minutes.
3. Remove the item and squeeze out excess water.
4. Let dry on a towel.
5. Carefully stretch and pull the item back to its original shape. Voila!

Why are we talking about wool in the summer? Because we recently threw our smelly winter cap in the wash and it came out a kitty-cat chapeau. Bookmark this tip in your brain for the next time you forget to read your wool item's care label. — BEN POPKEN

References: StyleBites, The Gazette

]]>
Consumerist-267551 Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:48:12 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=267551&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Cadbury: Our Eggs Aren't Smaller, You Are Bigger ]]> Easter%20Cat%3F.jpgActor B.J. Novak from The Office appeared on Late Night with Conan O'Brien bearing proof that Cadbury eggs have recently shrunk. In tow were two Cadbury eggs; the egg from yesteryear was clearly larger than the egg currently on shelves.

Wikipedia claims the eggs have shrunk by 12.3% (citation needed, fellas.) A pack of four eggs weighed 155 grams in 2005, but only weighs 136 grams this year.

Cadbury's FAQ has contained the same cheeky question since 2003, though it seems especially relevant this year.

Why has the size of the egg changed?
It hasn't - you've just grown up!
The video proof of the shrunken eggs, after the jump...

(Photo: j.simpson)


B.J. Novak on Conan O'Brien:
This year, the easter egg hunt involves finding the rest of the rest of the easter egg. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER

The Cadbury Creme Egg Conspiracy [Yes But No But Yes] (Thanks to Brian and Toland!)
Late Night with Conan O'Brien

]]>
Consumerist-250559 Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:33:07 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=250559&view=rss&microfeed=true