General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKellogg’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 Im out of luck
because Im not a box of cereal. Reader Panda discovered that this amazing change has come to Kelloggs 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/
gopiscrap
(23,764 posts)Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)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)"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)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.
Good catch and my first observation. It also takes up less shelf space as a footprint. Height is airspace, footprint is everything.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)you are not going to notice the thinner box.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)I would still begrudge them and want my ounce back though.
Lex
(34,108 posts)it became $4.60 a box.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)I think for a brief while, I'm thinner, too.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)riverbendviewgal
(4,253 posts)I bet Kelloggs goes back to the old box and weight.
bearssoapbox
(1,408 posts)half gallon ice cream and juice containers.
durablend
(7,464 posts)Try 48 ounces (standard size these days). I'm expecting it to be cut to 1.25 qts soon.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)it's all gmo's.
alfie
(522 posts)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)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)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)Triscuits just shrunk recently to a size that struck me as cute. The price - not so cute.
ThirdWayCowplop
(40 posts)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)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)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)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)It is listed as 1LB (15.5 oz)
Our new "1LB" canister is now down to 11.8 oz
CrispyQ
(36,509 posts)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.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)CanonRay
(14,112 posts)yodermon
(6,143 posts)please??