How To Thank Kellog's For Shrinking Cereals

We thought we’d use The Simple Dollar’s guide to writing an effective thank you note to “thank” our friends at Kellogg’s for trying to pull the wool over our eyes with the ever-present grocery shrink ray. Here it goes:

Dear Kellogg’s:

Thank you for shrinking the size of your packaging while maintaining prices. This small act of kindness keeps people reading the Consumerist as more and more companies like yours attempt to deceive the public. We hope you’ll consider additional sneaky practices in the future as we sincerely appreciate exposing dishonest marketing efforts wherever they occur.

Thanks again,

The Consumerist

A bit too much? Anyone want to suggest alternatives?

How To Write an Effective Thank You Note for Any Occasion [The Simple Dollar]



Edit Your Comment

  1. Darrone says:

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

    “what does it mean?”

    “It means Lucky sleeps with the fishes….”

  2. MissTicklebritches says:

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

  3. Letsgohokies says:

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

  4. themediatrix says:

    Let’s send them wire hangers!

  5. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    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.

  6. SkokieGuy says:

    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.

  7. zentex says:

    the note needs more sarcasm, I can almost taste it

  8. Wally East says:

    @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.

  9. SkokieGuy says:

    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?

  10. skahead says:

    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.

  11. zorba says:

    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.

  12. SaveMeJeebus says:

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

  13. mike says:

    @Darrone: Love it. :-)

    Love the letter too.

  14. Wally East says:

    @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.”

  15. AnderBobo says:

    @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.

  16. HeartBurnKid says:

    @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…

  17. renilyn says:

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

  18. 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!

  19. AnderBobo says:

    @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.

  20. regjoe says:

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

  21. SadSam says:

    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?

  22. InThrees says:


    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.

  23. rjgnyc says:

    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.

  24. AnderBobo says:

    @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.

  25. dugn says:

    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.

  26. SkokieGuy says:

    @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! []

    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.

  27. 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.

  28. bunjyzeke says:

    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.

  29. geeky_reader says:

    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.

  30. EBounding says:

    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.

  31. ilovemom says:

    @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.

  32. AnderBobo says:

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

  33. swags says:

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

  34. 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.

  35. DeepFriar says:

    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,

  36. ColoradoShark says:

    @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.

  37. dripdrop says:


    I think this is a great idea.

  38. SkokieGuy says:

    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.

  39. klahnako says:

    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!.

  40. ironchef says:

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

  41. allstarecho says:

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

  42. MissTicklebritches says:

    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.

  43. BeastMD says:

    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?

  44. wiggatron says:

    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.

  45. Wormfather says:

    @doctor_cos: I know, I’m just going to blame the poster…wait, who the hell is “freemoneyfinance” Meg, Ben, answers please!

  46. veronykah says:

    @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.

  47. MameDennis says:

    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.

  48. Dobernala says:

    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?

  49. CaptainConsumer says:

    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?

  50. csdiego says:

    @Wally East: Exactly. A lot of recipes are based on standard package sizes (like the ever-shrinking can of tomatoes, now down from 16 oz. to 15 to 14.5 to 14). By shrinking the package size, manufacturers are screwing up the recipes. I’d rather pay more for the same package size.

    The opposite is true for restaurant meals. I wish they’d take this opportunity to shrink their way-too-damn-big serving sizes, but instead most places I’ve seen have no problem raising their prices through the roof.

  51. parad0x360 says:

    I dont get why they need to be sneaky about it. We all know prices are going up so why try to sneak one by us? It just makes me not want to buy their products even if it is a minor thing.

  52. parad0x360 says:

    Sorry for the double post but I feel the need to add that cereal was already waaaay over priced.

    How much does it cost them to make a box? Break down anyone? My guess is…per box

    Food $0.75
    Package $0.30
    Shipping $0.05
    Advertising $0.03
    Wages $0.10

    Total = $1.23
    Retail price (average) = $4

  53. Skiffer says:

    If anything, bitch about how reduced quantities = more overall packaging waste.

    Everyone is doing this – I think there’s been more Grocery Shrink Ray articles than Chinese Poison Train articles…

    I believe General Mills did this a while back. Why pick on Kellogg’s?

  54. Rick Rockwell says:

    Careful Consumerist, you’re starting to sound like Grampa Simpson writing angry letters to TV shows: “The following is a list of words I never want to hear on television again. Number one: ‘Bra.’ Number two: ‘Horny.’ Number three: ‘Family Jewels.'”

  55. backbroken says:

    How dare companies raise prices! The shame!

  56. backbroken says:

    @parad0x360: Overpriced? If it was overpriced then they would be losing money because fewer people would be buying. From what I can tell, the market seems to think it’s a fair price as I see lots of people buying cereal.

  57. crazybutch says:

    i’m not sure if you were being sarcastic, but you made a good point.

  58. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    @Wally East: Thank you for the help.
    …ahem…Damn you Consumerist, it’s not like breakfast is the most important meal of the day…what?
    Nevermind. It must be my fault.

    Who do we blame for Chocolate Honeycomb?

  59. hankrearden says:

    Oh pulllllease, people. Costs increase and so marketing changes accordingly. They are not being dishonest. The boxes are marked accordingly, as are the prices. Some thoughts:

    1) Perhaps the incessant marketing “shrink ray” is a positive – I mean, it’s not like obesity is an American epidemic or anything …

    2) How can it be “overpriced”? When’s the last time you say anyone say “Gee, that was really cheap/reasonably priced!”? Probably not too often.

    3) Does it matter if it’s a higher price or smaller package w/same price?

    4) Aren’t there better things than this for the Consumerist?

    It’s cereal. Sheesh. If ya really, really, really need Frosted Flakes, it’s not like it’s a lotta coin…

  60. parad0x360 says:

    @backbroken: of course lots of people buy cereal, it tastes good and its a quick and easy breakfast.

    You must not buy the groceries or have kids because everyone I know thinks its too expensive. Even if the current price is determined to be ok by the market it still doesnt justify the price…and it just got more expensive.

  61. zorba says:

    @renilyn: it’s just not sneaky if it says the weight right on the box… that’s what i don’t get. HOW is it sneaky? they are telling you how much you are getting, and the price. it is your choice as a consumer whether or not that is an appropriate purchase. they are not withholding information, or being deceitful. sure it sucks to get less cereal, i guess, but nobody is trying to trick you.

  62. rjgnyc says:

    @parad0x360: Good job with the arbitrary numbers.

  63. Angryrider says:

    If only somebody like Michelle Obama can help us write letters like this. Epic win!

  64. Gopher bond says:

    Everyone knows breakfast cereal is crap anyway. I only eat fruits and vegetables organically grown in my own garden and fertilized with my own compost/excrement.

  65. MissPeacock says:

    @AnderBobo: Ooooh! I really like this! What a great idea.

  66. muffinpan says:

    @anderbobo: Who do you think makes the store brands? I got news for you it’s the same people that make the name brands. Same product different box.
    So their competion is themselves. They don’t care if you buy the store brand or not. It’s from the same factory.

  67. SharkD says:

    @Darrone: Only one problem with that: Lucky Charms is a General Mills brand.

  68. firesign says:

    @testsicles: wow. funny. don’t quit your day job, if you even have one.

  69. dtmoulton says:

    Year after year, cereals are Kellogg’s bread and butter (grain and sugar?). With prices up, they could take a major hit.

    As long as they don’t try to cover it up I’m fine with it.

    I can’t wait for Consumerist’s Swelling Ray when the market corrects itself.
    Other options?

    Biggerizing Ray
    America-Gets-Fatter Ray
    Rick Moranis

  70. I am getting really tired of this “smaller portions are better because we’re fat” argument. You don’t really think that if someone is fat, that they won’t just buy two boxes of cereal? That isn’t the point.
    The point is that they are charging the same price for less product, which isn’t as apparent to consumers because, really, how many people look at the net weight on the boxes of products they buy every week? Not many. I sure don’t.
    But, the consumer would easily notice if the product they buy every week suddenly cost more and the manufacturers know that. So, instead of being upfront and risking lost customers, they lower the portion, which won’t likely be noticed by the average consumer.

  71. Nighthawke says:

    Quit jackin’ around with Kellogs. Go Quaker Oats.

  72. @muffinpan: Finally, somebody says it.

  73. backbroken says:

    @parad0x360: Actually, I have 2 kids with another on the way and I do know the price of cereal. If it was too expensive, people wouldn’t buy it. It’s not a necessity. There are plenty of other options for food.

  74. ehhh says:

    If Kellogs raised prices, I have a feeling the story would be the same with different wording.

    “Kellogs is charging more for the same amount.”

    And then commenters would say they’re dishonest for not pointing out that the price has changed, but the size hasn’t.

    This isn’t consumer advocacy, this is just being whiny. It’s not new, and we should probably expect more to follow.

  75. Hershey has always done this. They used to have their nickel candy bar, and as the price of chocolate changed, the size changed, but it was always a nickel.

  76. iluvhatemail says:

    are you kidding? This is a business we are talking about. Do you expect them just to eat the increased costs of production because they are nice guys? Stop being whiny Consumerist.

    This is typical business practice and for years we have been benefiting from larger amounts for less money so what comes around goes around.

  77. meadandale says:


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

    Especially because they’d have to raise prices a whole lot less by selling the same size for more than we are losing in price/oz by incurring all the costs of designing new packaging and modifying the production/packaging line to deal with the new packaging.

  78. wdnobile says:

    perfect – send it via EECB !

  79. dualityshift says:

    @Wally East: How do you make Cap’n Crunch?

  80. ZekeSulastin says:

    @ehhh: This.

  81. krom says:

    Isn’t there a crime here somewhere? For example, if the shelf price tag says “CHEERIOS 21 OZ $6.99”, but you buy a box that shows 19.4 oz, but you get charged the $6.99, isn’t that against the law? Particularly if your receipt likewise says “CHEERIOS 21 OZ” — and that’s not what you got?

  82. cloudedice says:

    I don’t find that they change the size, or that the price is the same, to be dishonest. What I find dishonest is that the companies advertise in large letters and eye catching colors that it’s “THE SAME GREAT PRODUCT IN A NEWLY DESIGNED BOTTLE/BOX/CAN/GERBIL” and they show the new size in tiny letters you can barely see. It’s a practice that seeks to distract consumers from the fact that they’re now paying more for less than they were getting before.

  83. MercuryPDX says:

    Dear Consumerist,
    We apologize for your dismay and can assure you that we are taking the matter very seriously. Please accept these coupons for a free small DQ Blizzard and these left over “They’re GRRRRRRRRRRRR-eat! bicycle stickers.

    Thanks again,

  84. sonicanatidae says:

    The problem w/ Kellog’s is when they add .1 mg of Vitamin C, its plastered all over the box like the second coming of jesus, but when the pendulum swings away from the customer, not a word is muttered.
    Like some of the other posters, I’d honestly rather them just raise the price, so I can make the decision between 16oz of Kellog’s “high priced flakes” or the knock-off brand sitting 2 feet from it..

  85. Ssscorpion says:

    Malt-O-Meal Frosted Flakes taste exactly the same as Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes for less than half the price.

  86. Infe says:

    It’s amazing how many people just stand up for companies no matter what they do.

    How is it NOT deceptive to keep the same size box (maybe slightly thinner), same price, but less inside the box?

    I’ve always priced by the ounce, but obviously, they think most people do not. That’s an individual’s fault for not paying attention, but if they weren’t trying to deceive, they would just raise the price.

    Same thing with the @#%@# airlines!!!!

  87. IamToddDavis says:

    @krom: Particularly if your receipt likewise says “CHEERIOS 21 OZ” — and that’s not what you got?

    Oh gosh, if I go to Wal-Mart, buy the Cheerios with the wrong size listed on my receipt am I going to have to pepper spray the receipt checker to get out of the store???

  88. CapitalC says:

    Dear corporate fat-cats,

    Thanks for nothing.

    John Q. Public

  89. atarisuicide says:

    You know, I remember about a year ago when Kellogg’s took a price increase, there was absolute public pandemonium about how ridiculous it was that the cereal companies were taking a price increase. So they took the price back down, and instead took down the size of the packaging.

    Now I come on this site and read people bitching about “grocery shrink-rays”. I don’t get it. You complain when there is a price increase, and you complain when the package size goes down. Neither one of these is deceptive. Cereal companies pay more for transportation and commodities, just like everyone else. What do you expect them to do?

  90. cabinaero says:

    Disclaimer: Hi I work in food packaging graphics. My nebulous corporate employer handles the Kellog’s account but our office has no business relationship whatsoever with Kellog’s. I’m not shilling for Kellog’s but do have an insider’s view on cereal boxes.

    I’d guess that they are NOT changing the package size, just reducing the amount of product inside.

    Not true. A downsize in the net weight in a carton is almost certainly going to entail a change in the size of the carton. Simply reducing the amount of product in a box leads to an immediate cost savings based for the product itself but is both offset by other costs and also lost opportunities. Less product makes for a smaller box. Smaller boxes mean less paper consumption and more boxes on a shipping pallet. (Shipping costs are by the cube, not by weight.) Smaller boxes means more boxes on a shelf; narrower box fronts can mean more boxes visible on the shelf.

    It costs too much to make, ship, and shelve a box where several cubic inches of product has been replaced by an equal volume of air.

    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.

    Any change in the weight of the product triggers multiple related changes for regulatory compliance and to avoid kinking the logistics. Everything from the net weight on the carton to the number serving in the nutrition facts panel to the UPC are updated to the reflect the new size. These are, depending on the design of the carton, frequently multicolor changes which require lots of prepress work and setup fees. (And cereal boxes and cartons in general run offset. Some run gravure and some lower-quality printing is done flexo, but most boxes you buy are offset.)

    The amount of retooling involved does get factored into the cost-benefit analysis. Easily can run tens-of-thousands of dollars per SKU.

  91. ceez says:

    I rather they keep the same size and then slightly raise the price due to inflation and the rest of the economic dillema….


    make less of it and charge me more so you gain the profit while my boxes have less of your product in it…

    oh corporate america and its greed!!!

  92. Nihon no Purin says:

    sometimes the consumerist posts things without really thinking them through.

    OMG CORPORATE GREED, CAPITALISM, OH NOES. why don’t you take a friggin economics class or social sciences class so you know how the world actually works, rather than just screaming blindly about how the man’s always trying to screw you over?

  93. @Nihon no Purin: Hey, why don’t you actually read the points of the other people in the comments so that you actually know what you’re talking about, hmm?

  94. hi says:

    If they were really trying to save money they would make the packages smaller as the items get smaller. That would save them money not only on the packaging but also on the shipping. It’s an obvious ploy and noone would know if it weren’t for the watchdogs here. Here’s my letter to all companies that do this:

    I’m not buying your products anymore because you choose to use deceptive advertising and marketing.

  95. RandomHookup says:

    Consumerist has joined the trend by decreasing the number of letters used to spell “Kellogg’s” in their headlines, saving countless pixels and boosting the bottom line of Gawker HQ.

  96. quieterhue says:

    I put my own spin on it. Enjoy! :)

    Dear Kellogg’s:

    I want to commend you for shrinking the size of your packaging while maintaining prices. Paying too much for cereal forced us to explore other options, and we realized that there are much healthier and cheaper alternatives out there, such as fruit, whole-grain breads, and oatmeal. We’re so thrilled to be free of your expensive, corn-syrup filled products that we’ve decided to tell our friends…all [insert # of consumerist readers here] of them.

    Keep this up, Kellogg, and Americans will be enjoying a cereal-free breakfast experience in no time. We can’t thank you enough for doing your part to prevent childhood obesity.

    Thanks again,

    The Consumerist

  97. Bsana says:

    Well, sugary cereals are a luxury these days. Thankfully, they are NOT a necessity in the healthy American diet, despite what their commercials will tell you. Actually, the healthier cereals are the least expensive. Maybe this is a good thing. It will encourage parents to wean their kids off the excess sugar, cheaps toys, and shiny boxes that they get with their cereals.