Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonRedwood

(4,359 posts)
Sun Sep 1, 2013, 10:15 PM Sep 2013

Kellogg’s Crunchy Nut Loses One Ounce, Box Gets Taller

I wish I could lose 7% of my body mass and get taller at the same time, but I’m out of luck…because I’m not a box of cereal. Reader Panda discovered that this amazing change has come to Kellogg’s Crunchy Nut cereal. It was hit by the Grocery Shrink Ray, but at the same time sustained a hit from the Box Growth Ray. Which might be a thing.
In all of these photos, the older, larger box is on the right.

?w=610
more at ; http://consumerist.com/2013/08/30/kelloggs-crunchy-nut-loses-one-ounce-box-gets-taller/

32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kellogg’s Crunchy Nut Loses One Ounce, Box Gets Taller (Original Post) DonRedwood Sep 2013 OP
yup one more way to rip off the consumer gopiscrap Sep 2013 #1
I may be very late to the game on this one but Marie Marie Sep 2013 #2
Repeat after me DJ13 Sep 2013 #3
It didn't really get taller, it got thinner. Atman Sep 2013 #4
This. flvegan Sep 2013 #7
Looking straight at it from the grocery aisle itsrobert Sep 2013 #12
Slick, is it not? Jamastiene Sep 2013 #30
Cereal lost me when Lex Sep 2013 #5
Trader Joe's Joe's O's: $1.99. nt onehandle Sep 2013 #11
TJ's corn flakes are less than that--organic too. n/t cprise Sep 2013 #15
I always stand a little bit taller when my nuts get crunched. customerserviceguy Sep 2013 #6
! Jamastiene Sep 2013 #29
lol Liberal_in_LA Sep 2013 #8
Sadly, they pay someone big bucks to think of how to fuck the consumers. nm rhett o rick Sep 2013 #9
facebook and You tube it riverbendviewgal Sep 2013 #10
And Don'tcha just love those 59 ounce bearssoapbox Sep 2013 #13
59 ounce ice cream? durablend Sep 2013 #21
you don't want to eat that shit anyway hopemountain Sep 2013 #14
How much does it cost to make that change? alfie Sep 2013 #16
It's a significant cost but trivial compared to the savings from shrinking the amount of product. Gormy Cuss Sep 2013 #31
You just noticed? Food companies have been reducing their amounts and making the container appear kelliekat44 Sep 2013 #17
Indeed. Some of the downsizing has been downright laughable. reformist2 Sep 2013 #18
Most people as evidenced by corporate changing of packaging sizes know most do not know how to shop ThirdWayCowplop Sep 2013 #19
What I hate are the mayonnaise and peanut butter jars Cairycat Sep 2013 #20
In the bar/restaurant business they are called 'cheater glasses' or 'cheater cups' PCIntern Sep 2013 #22
Industry has some of the best talent available working every day to devise sneaky little Zorra Sep 2013 #23
I have an old coffee canister that we use for sugar RandiFan1290 Sep 2013 #24
My favorite facial toner went from an 8 ounce bottle for $10 CrispyQ Sep 2013 #25
Potemkin Cereal Boxes. KittyWampus Sep 2013 #26
A creative way of dealing with (read: hiding) inflation. Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #27
Good thing there's no inflation CanonRay Sep 2013 #28
Please tell me that things like this actually *are* factored in to official inflation calculations?? yodermon Sep 2013 #32

Marie Marie

(9,999 posts)
2. I may be very late to the game on this one but
Sun Sep 1, 2013, 10:57 PM
Sep 2013

when did the standard 5lb bag of sugar become 4lb? We are all aware of the ever decreasing product/cost ratio but I totally missed this one until I picked up my last bag of sugar and noticed the weight. Guess they got me on that one.

DJ13

(23,671 posts)
3. Repeat after me
Sun Sep 1, 2013, 11:16 PM
Sep 2013

"theres no inflation... theres no inflation... theres no inflation..."

And dont get me started on ice cream containers shrinking every year or Ritz crackers recently going from 16oz down to 13oz.

Atman

(31,464 posts)
4. It didn't really get taller, it got thinner.
Sun Sep 1, 2013, 11:28 PM
Sep 2013

The height difference is minimal. But it is significantly thinner. This is so the reduced content still fills up the box. Same outcome, I know, but the box really isn't much taller.

flvegan

(64,413 posts)
7. This.
Sun Sep 1, 2013, 11:46 PM
Sep 2013

Good catch and my first observation. It also takes up less shelf space as a footprint. Height is airspace, footprint is everything.

durablend

(7,464 posts)
21. 59 ounce ice cream?
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:00 AM
Sep 2013

Try 48 ounces (standard size these days). I'm expecting it to be cut to 1.25 qts soon.

alfie

(522 posts)
16. How much does it cost to make that change?
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 05:49 AM
Sep 2013

I see the contortions they go through to shave an ounce or two off a package and wonder how long it takes to cover the costs of retooling (or whatever they do) to make a different package, different weight measurement, different size shipping box, etc.

Gormy Cuss

(30,884 posts)
31. It's a significant cost but trivial compared to the savings from shrinking the amount of product.
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 11:06 AM
Sep 2013

Companies generally try to avoid changing the packaging for as long as possible but when the volume reduction is too big to hide anymore they'll retool the packaging --- and the new packaging is designed to give them fudge room for the next volume reduction.

 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
17. You just noticed? Food companies have been reducing their amounts and making the container appear
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 05:59 AM
Sep 2013

either the same size or larger for decades. They charge the same price or more for less and less product. This is why so many families are suffering. The money doesn't buy as much food, wages have decreased, and food stamps have been cut. The food industry will continue to this until their is as much outrage about their practices as there is about NSA revelations, Obama golfing, and union busting, gay marriage, and Manning. Meanwhile, millions of American families are on the brink of starvation and falling into poverty and homelessness. Few close attention to how they are being screwed by corporations and other businesses...they don't have time to pay attention they are trying to live from day to day. And no one out their with the megaphone is bringing attention to this shameful situation.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
18. Indeed. Some of the downsizing has been downright laughable.
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 06:32 AM
Sep 2013


Triscuits just shrunk recently to a size that struck me as cute. The price - not so cute.
 

ThirdWayCowplop

(40 posts)
19. Most people as evidenced by corporate changing of packaging sizes know most do not know how to shop
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 06:33 AM
Sep 2013

for food. Most people do not shop by price per ounce, pound, gram, etc...they shop by packaging.

It costs money to change the packaging sizes for the corporations and it is not trivial undertaking either. Corporations can easily count on the ignorance of the American Consumer to keep them in then green.

The majority have forgotten how to cook and properly eat in this country, want proof look at all the packaged corporate food people buy at the grocery now days it is the majority of the items in people shopping baskets today.


Cairycat

(1,706 posts)
20. What I hate are the mayonnaise and peanut butter jars
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 08:50 AM
Sep 2013

with the indented bottom so they can have less product in a jar that looks the same - it makes it difficult to scrape that last bit out, even with a rubber spatula. So really it's a double ripoff.

PCIntern

(25,578 posts)
22. In the bar/restaurant business they are called 'cheater glasses' or 'cheater cups'
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:10 AM
Sep 2013

because if yoou take a really good look at the container, it is rigged. Take a Coca Cola cup in a fast food place and notice that often, the bottom of the cup is recessed dramatically. This can save an enormous amount of money for the establishment over a year. Bar glasses are not only thick, but the false bottom reflects the liquid prismatically so it looks like the glass is full. Or dessert dishes for ice cream are tapered and very thick. Find the formula for the volume of a cone as opposed to a cylinder and you will see why. Some of the tricks are ingenious. With french fries, the cardboard front is scooped out in the fast food establishments so you see more fries, but it is an illusion AND the container is tapered. I will say though, that at least when I worked there decades ago, the boss told you to ensure that the fries were vertical so that there was no air space between them. The customers would get mad if they saw that.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
23. Industry has some of the best talent available working every day to devise sneaky little
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:23 AM
Sep 2013

tricks to cheat us in every way possible without us realizing it.

Make another dime in profit on a million items and you keep yourself in yacht fuel for 6 months.

It's the capitalist way.

RandiFan1290

(6,242 posts)
24. I have an old coffee canister that we use for sugar
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:42 AM
Sep 2013

It is listed as 1LB (15.5 oz)
Our new "1LB" canister is now down to 11.8 oz



CrispyQ

(36,509 posts)
25. My favorite facial toner went from an 8 ounce bottle for $10
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:45 AM
Sep 2013

to a 3.4 ounce bottle for $15. I wrote to them & complained about a 353% price increase & their response was that the new formula is more concentrated. Really? 353% more concentrated? It's back to witch hazel for me.

yodermon

(6,143 posts)
32. Please tell me that things like this actually *are* factored in to official inflation calculations??
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 11:10 AM
Sep 2013

please??

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Kellogg’s Crunchy Nut Los...