mouse
Go to Homepage


Subscribe to free weekly newsletter

Mouse Print*
is a service of
Consumer World

Support us by using:

Deal Alerter
Visit our sister site:

Consumer Reporters & Advocates in Media


Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

July 24, 2006

Tide: Same Box, 17oz. Less*

Filed under: Downsizing,Food/Groceries,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 6:34 am

Tide smallThese boxes of Tide look identical, but they are not. One has 17 ounces less detergent than the other, and costs the same price. How can this be?  It is called “downsizing.”

Product downsizing has been a fact of consumer life since the nickel candy bar. Rather than pass on a price increase directly to consumers, many manufacturers simply and inconspicuously make the product a little smaller, while keeping the selling price the same. Effectively, this is a hidden price increase. Historically, paper towels, detergent, candy bars, toilet paper, coffee, and tuna fish have been common items that keep shrinking in count or net weight.

Manufacturers virtually never call the consumer’s attention to the fact that you are getting less for your money. In fact, they often direct the grocery shopper’s attention away from the small net weight statement by proclaiming something new about the product, like a new fragrance or improved formulation.

Tide powder appears to have just downsized the contents of its boxes significantly, while leaving the packages the exact same size.

*MOUSE PRINT: Old box: “87 OZ (5.43 LB)”; New box: “70 OZ (4.37 LB)” [Packages on store shelves July 8, 2006. Click on packages above to read net weight statements. ]

Despite the fact that you are getting over a pound less of product for the same price in the same size box, you still somehow get “40 uses” from each package. Did they make the scoop smaller?  Did they fluff up the powder?  Did they change the formula? Does it still work as well?  Tide customer service responds:

“You are still getting the same number of uses per package of Tide. By removing non-necessary materials in the manufacturing process, we improved the solubility and improved the cleaning performance. The changes we have made are so that less weight can do more. Keep in mind, you aren’t measuring the amount by weight. You are using a volume measurement on the scoop. If you fill the scoop to the lowest fill line (the amount recommended for an average wash load), you will get the number of uses printed on the package.”

Also surprising is that except for the inconspicuous change to the net weight statement in the bottom right-hand corner of the box, the packages are absolutely identical in size, wording, and graphics. Unless you are in the habit of checking the net weight of the product every time you shop, you could easily have been completely unaware that over a pound of Tide had inconspicuously been removed from the box.

The lesson: check the net weight and net count of products you regularly buy so you can spot these sneaky changes.

• • •

39 Comments

  1. It’s the same thing for Kleenex facial tissues, except the box is almost 1″ shorter in length than the old box. I switched to another brand because Kleenex became too small
    This is downsizing practice is becoming an epidemic. Buyer beware.

    Comment by Bob — July 24, 2006 @ 7:21 am
  2. Tide is an overpriced product to begin with and if they truly have taken out unnecessary ingredients then the product should be cheaper and by the way what were these non essential ingredients?, fillers I would suppose.

    Comment by gene tate — July 24, 2006 @ 11:43 am
  3. Appears that the “customer service” rep is full of crapolla.

    Comment by Bob Sheehan — July 24, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
  4. Ice cream is also a recent victim to downsizing… the containers may look the
    same, but manufacturers have stolen a cup of the frozen dessert from the
    consumers… a package used to contain a half gallon (8 cups), now it’s 1 3/4
    quarts (7 cups).

    Comment by John Morris — July 24, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
  5. Shame on Procter and Gamble!They should at least be honest.

    Comment by Shelby Robinette — July 24, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
  6. I’m surprised that mouseprint.org would print this nonsense. Historically, detergent boxes, especially in the US, were unnecessarily large. Manufacturers intentionally made consumers use a full cup or several cups of detergent while Europeans got to use more concentrated cleaners that worked equally well. The manufacturers put appearance over substance, and marketing trumped common sense.

    Eventually, the US market caught on. One manufacturer put the powder in a bottle to market it as if it were a liquid that had been concentrated down to dry form. Eventually, most of the large boxes went away. Now you want them back? The rest of the bulk consisted of unnecessary fillers to begin with that were put there to make you think you were getting more for your money. The actual results were that you paid for the extra fluff, cardboard and shipping costs and paid more in the long run.

    If this makes Tide more competitive, this should help consumers in the long run. It’s too bad that they didn’t make the box smaller too and add an “and now even more concentrated” message to it.

    Next time, let me know when there’s real deception.

    Comment by Hagrinas — July 24, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
  7. So, I check the weight of the product, which I do very frequently. So what? I still have no choice if I like the product and I buy it anyway.

    Comment by Nina — July 24, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
  8. Thanks for the information that is why I switched from tide to
    Gain with it I get 200 fluid oz in a 48 laundry load bottle.
    It also smells better. Thanks for the infomation on tide it is
    much more expensive to buy and now the people who buy it get
    less. Gain is cheaper smells better and you get more for your
    money . Now that what I call smart shopping. To all the people
    who use tide read your lables it isn’t really a good idea to
    spend more money on less product now a days .

    Comment by Josie — July 25, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
  9. The intermediary distributors of manufacturers products to supermarkets use database software that is not flexible enough to be updated properly. With packaging size changes pricing is not necessarily updated. Shelf unit pricing labels do not get updated showing packaging size changes and pricing for the new packaging. So even when the store managers report customers’ concerns about shelf unit pricing labels to their regional offices information technology divisions the database entries are not checked and updated in a timely manner.

    Comment by don warner saklad — August 7, 2006 @ 7:49 am
  10. I think we need to lobby to standardize ounces for all items
    large and small. WE are getting ripped off big time on paper
    towels & toiletpaper. They have regular size, double size,
    jumbo size. Try and Figure out what your buying and if your
    getting a good deal or not. Lets contact our senators to get
    tings started. Now watch the lobbist start coming out of the
    woodwork.

    Comment by Darl Daw — August 27, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
  11. Bottom line – it STILL does the same number of washes as the older / larger box -
    just more concentrated. This change is NOT really mouseprint material.

    This is very different from the shrinking mayonnaise, potato chip and
    facial tissie boxes.

    I often buy books of 6 tickets to a local movie theater.
    They used to be 2.5″ x5″. They have revised the booklets so they still contain
    6 tickets at the SAME PRICE but are now 2″ x 4″.
    I CERTAINLY would not report this to ‘Mouseprint” even though I am getting less
    paper.

    Comment by L. Kaplowitz — September 5, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
  12. Very good comment L. Kaplowitz…Most people don’t realize that they are really
    paying for a product by USE, not by weight or volume. If I pay $7.00 for a movie
    ticket and only get 90 minutes, it is worse than paying $7.00 for a 110 minute
    movie?
    Mouseprint needs to study this issue and stop trying to scare the consumer.
    Maybe Mouseprint needs a disclaimer too!

    Comment by Craig — September 26, 2006 @ 9:02 am
  13. More knee-jerking. Some of you folks are just insane. “The rep is full of crapola”? Because she gave a reasonable and legitimate answer? She explained it clearly: the powder has less non-soap components in it, therefore less is needed to get the same amount of cleaning power. It’s not that hard of a concept for non-retards to understand. If you don’t get it, you probably don’t need to worry about it since your mom is still doing your wash anyway. Products getting smaller is not deception. Prices go up, not down, get over it. They have for a thousand years.

    Comment by Dave — September 26, 2006 @ 9:05 am
  14. I always check the price and weight when I buy items. I’ve been caught too often in the more content, less per ounce falsehood. And I follow the directions on the detergent box for amount. I’ve discovered more soap doesn’t mean cleaner clothes.

    Comment by RHerman — September 26, 2006 @ 9:13 am
  15. I don’t really measure ounces etc. when I buy a product but watch the price and size of con-
    tainer and try to stay within my budget and when I get home and open the box and it is only half full, I
    never buy that product again. As for detergents, it depends on the load of washing that I am doing–
    I use smaller amounts than it says on the label and let them soak for a few minutes and rinse
    everything twice. A person has to use common sense and quit worrying about the small stuff. We have eyes
    and we can use them instead of getting ulcers worrying over every little thing. As for mayonaise, I don’t
    stand over everyone and weight how much they are putting on their hamburger bun.

    Comment by Ella Harelson — September 26, 2006 @ 10:13 am
  16. This helped me since I wouldn’t have realized that I needed to add less to my wash, mouseprint or not.

    Comment by Lara — September 26, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
  17. Anyone else see the other issue here? Check out this line:
    “If you fill the scoop to the lowest fill line (the amount recommended for an average wash load), you will get the number of uses printed on the package.”
    The vendor knows well that many customers will assume the scoop is the standard size and use that amount, irrespective of instructions that say what amount to use. Does the consumer have responsibility to read and understand directions? Sure… but at the same time, what amount of product is used incorrectly because of this not-so-unintentional design? 10%? 20%? 30% It adds up to a lot of profit for the company.
    Don’t kid yourself, nothing is accidental in marketing.

    Comment by Arthur Fontaine — September 26, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
  18. this is a fascinating question!

    many of the responders tend to assume that the formula has been scientifically improved, even though they have no evidence to suspect so (besides the company’s assurance).

    others assume that they are being exploited unfairly by marketing strategies, though they have not tested the product’s quality on their own.

    is it possible that all consumer experiences can be concentrated? can i get the same flavor from a smaller block of younger cheese? could i have the same cathartic emotions from a shorter song played less loudly? can i be sated as easily by a smaller, but new and improved, portion of tuna?

    the detergent box historian, kaplowitz, knows that bigger isn’t always better. in fact, we’re all aware that the reverse trend, “product upsizing” occurs as well – SUVs for instance, are inflated to gain value.

    but why trust the company, kaplowitz? hear their board members shout when sales plateau. imagine the investments in social scientists studying consumer behavior. in the fickle volatility of the attention-deficient stockmarket. whan everyone knows that brand loyalty is based on image instead of quality for the majority of the consumer audience.

    why would you assume they are actually researching to improve product quality?
    and not researching, for instance, how to “not significantly reduce” product quality, while making it more economically efficient?

    Comment by marraffino — September 26, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
  19. Yes. This is a non-issue. Most detergents are now “double” concentrated. Target’s exclusive brand Method just came out with triple concentrated. Volume isn’t important. Cleaning power is. As for most people use more than the bottom line. Yes, that is intentional. They expect you to not really look and just fill up the scoop. We actually use less than the bottom line since we find that even less still cleans the clothes perfectly fine. So, don’t blame Tide because they improved their product and the consumer didn’t really read the instructions.

    Comment by Tom — September 26, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
  20. “many of the responders tend to assume that the formula has been scientifically improved, even though they have no evidence to suspect so (besides the company’s assurance).”

    Well, I suppose I can bust out my mass spectrometer and analyze it myself at home….

    If the company makes that kind of claim through official channels, we have to assume it’s true. Why would it be foolish to do so? Because corporations are “evil” and we should assume they are trying to cheat us? That if it wasn’t for that pesky “cash” they would be free to just go ahead and collect our firstborn for payment?

    Here’s a secret for you folks out there: corporations exist to make money. Actually, I think that’s the definition. So when the cost of materials goes up, they have two choices: give you the same for more or less for the same. People bitch when the price goes up, so they protect their sales by doing the less obvious. And protecting their sales now means less price increases/procuct reductions in the future. Do you realize if it wasn’t for corporations with their massive research budgets and mass production facilities we wouldn’t *have* most of the things we do now? You’d still be banging your clothes against rocks. I hate this backlash against corporations because they are out to get money. What kind of jobs do you people have? Would you do it for free? Would you take a pay cut because the cost of operations for your business when up? No, you’d expect your bosses to raise the price of your product instead.

    Comment by Dave — September 27, 2006 @ 9:55 am
  21. According to 1 responder I am required to read the instructions
    on everything I buy regularly every time just in case they have gotten a
    wild hair and decided to change their product without any
    indication of doing so. If Tide was not trying to deceive then
    why did the box stay the same size. If I used Tide and they
    did this change entirely for my benefit why not make the box
    smaller so it would not take up as much space in my tiny
    laundry room? Corporations make changes for 1 reason only, to
    make money. That is not a bad thing. We would not have the
    goods we need without them. I am not going to make laundry
    detergent or anything else without making money. Are you? It
    becomes bad when we are deceived.

    Comment by Spring — September 27, 2006 @ 10:55 am
  22. Spring makes a vaild point, why read when we can assume? Heck, back in the early 1900′s when a majority of the population was illiterate and we all grabbed the bigger box because bigger must be better, life was definately of a higher quality, right?

    Or perhaps it could be that what’s inside really does matter and consumers are expected to do their part in being informed. Perhaps I missed something, but ever since I knew clothes needed to be washed, I’ve seen a scoop included the box of laundry detergent. I don’t tend to get too attached to any one disposable plastic scoop, so I use the new one that is included. Every time I have looked at such a scoop I have noticed that it have various lines for suggested use on various sizes of loads. The same multiple lines are on scoops from the big name brands as from the generic brands. The important thing is truly that you are getting the same value for your dollar and that claims being made are true.

    If you bought a can of concentrated juice that made 2 quarts for $1, does it matter if the can is smaller or bigger as long as the concentrate included, when mixed with the right amount of water still gives you the exact same 2 quarts of juice? I know I don’t care f I have to add 3 cans of water or 4 1/2 cans to my concentrate to make the final product, as long as I get the same amount. The same rule applies here. If you use the scoop they so generously provide, and use the amount for your load size, then what does it matter if the amount of detergent for your load size is less because it has less fluff? Noq if tide had added a 4th line to their scoop for an even smaller laundry load and started using that SMALLER load size to define how many loads per box you get, THEN it would be deceptive, because you are getting less value for your money.

    As for the argument of why they didn’t decrease their box size, I think we should look at the arguement in the mayonaise post. Just as one reader there mentioned about how much it must have cost Hellmans to make a new, smaller bottle, and change their production line to meet it, why should Tide spend extra money completely re-creating their box when the current one still works, and still washes the same quantity of clothing? In effect that would then cause an increase in the production price that would then be passed along to the consumer, rather than them providing the same exact value, for the same price.

    Comment by Scooter — September 27, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
  23. Fact is, 90% of people use too much detergent anyway!! Read the info on your detergent box, then read the info in your washer manual! Any appliance repairman can tell you that on average, people are using at least 25% too much detergent. Not to mention that what is in the box is not the only factor. You should increase or decrease the amount of detergent based on how hard you water is. Perhaps if people paid attention to what they should do to get “40 uses” they would realize how wasteful they are being in the first place!

    Something REALLY funny?? Consumers have been taught to believe that bubbles mean cleaning power! You know, High Efficience detergent has had the “sudsing” agent (unnecessary in the cleaning process) removed so that it works better with less used?

    People SHOULD do their research. Anyone who trusts blindly in industry that is there to make money is a fool.

    Comment by Angel — September 27, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
  24. You people are driving me crazy by excusing the companies so easily. You get the same use # because they trick you in the first place to use more to buy more. Now you use less. companies always trick the consumer with tools from colors that trigger an emotional responce to price( $.99 is not convenient it’s misleading. )You people excusing the corporation and beleiving their lies of “It’s better” and “independant testing” are the same people who voted for Bush after they lost their jobs and found out they had no pension or SS due to Bush’s buddies robbing the funds. Idiots!

    Comment by me — September 27, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
  25. A Company definition “is to make money”. I totally disagree with that. Let’s start from the diccionary definition of the word: 1. A number of individuals assembled or associated together. 2. A number of persons united or incorporated for joint action. NO WHERE in the 16 definitions you find the word “money”.(look in dictionary.com). The fact that you do NOT make “profits”, does not mean you do not have an actual company.That is why there is a group of companies called Non-profit organizations. They have the same elements of a For-profit corporation, but their goal is not the money. Is to have a social impact which by the way you should learn from and apply in your marketing campaigns (We see here) to sell anything. The end DOES NOT justify the means, especially when the end is called “money”. Remember.

    Comment by Leo — September 27, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
  26. Good comments on both sides of the argument. I agree with Arthur Fontaine that although a smaller amount of the “new and improved” product
    may function as well as less of the old product, the manufacturer is TRICKING consumers by making the scoop bigger than required for “the number of
    washloads specified on the package.

    In my opinion Proctor & Gamble is NOTORIOUS for this type of product downsizing. Remember the issue a few years back whem all of a sudden Pampers
    began putting in fewer diapers in each “standard” package.

    Also I believe that Folgers was the first coffee brand to redefine the “Pound coffee can” as less than 16 oz. (13 oz. or even less). Unfortunately
    most all brands followed the scheme in order to remain competitive. I use Chock Full o’ Nuts coffee almost exclusively because they were one
    of the last major brands to spring this charade on consumers.

    This is why I AVOID PROCTOR & GAMBLE products, (where there is an alternative) and try to support competitive brands. If enough consumers did this the major companies would rethink their deceptive marketing practices.

    I am a Marketing guy by the way, but not in the consumer products industries.

    Comment by Gary M — September 27, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
  27. I take exception to being called an idiot for suggesting that people should inform themselves, thater than take the easy way out by blaming someone else. I got my information by working for an appliance company, but it is all right there on the box and in the manuals for everyone to see. What you are excusing is laziness and nievety. Nobody need believe “claims” because we have access to ways of learning if they are true or not, even if just by asking other people.

    Yes, corporations use “tricks” like getting the nieve consumer to believe that bigger is better; but recall the old saying “Trick me once, shame on you, trick me twice, shame on me”

    Comment by Angel — September 27, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
  28. Dolly Madison Bakery is the same- below is the email I sent them. I buy these snacks for my familys lunches. —-

    I was wondering if you noticed that your Zingers (vanilla frosted) are SHRINKING?!! I thought maybe you might have had some kind of malfunction at the plant or something because they are 1/3 of the size they used to be BUT the same price?!! Maybe it was just the box I bought, I don’t know. You guys should really look in to this because, you don’t want consumers thinking you are cheating them, do you?

    Comment by Connie — September 27, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
  29. hey DAVE we heard you the firs hundred times

    Comment by connie — September 27, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
  30. There may be slightly less of it, but I’m sure the new Tide is still just as effective at performing its
    main function: causing a horrible rash!

    Tide should have a warning on the label all right, but not because there is less of it. The less Tide,
    better!

    Comment by john alan elson — September 27, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
  31. my question is: when the product suddenly “downsizes,” why assume improvement for one product (soap), and not for another (mayonaise)?

    if many brands quietly shrink, couldn’t we assume they are all doing it for the same reason? a subtle price increase?

    Comment by marraffino — September 28, 2006 @ 1:32 am
  32. The reason is the “uses per”. Now, for sure, by reducing the additives, Tide IS getting a subtle price increase, but in this case, it is not one that should not effect the consumer. They are taking the “fluff” out. They win, and no one suffers. Mayo, on the other hand, you are no longer getting the same # of “uses per”.

    It is not really an “improvement” for the detergent, just taking away the stuff that was added a long time ago to fit with the “bigger is better” mentality. Between the improvements in washers and the change in mentality, the time was right. (If you knew what all those fillers leave in your clothes and washer, you would be demanding they take them ALL out! lol)

    Comment by Angel — September 28, 2006 @ 11:36 am
  33. Products like detergents are often bulked up with inactive ingredients thsat make them easier to use by controlling flow, clumping, measurement, etc. Sometimes these can be replaced by materials which can be used in lower amounts or which weigh less. Thus it’s entirely possible that a detergent could be reformulated and weigh less while providing the same cleaning power.

    That’s not to say that some companies may not use such agents (in liquid detergents, shampoos, or soaps it’s often just water) to increase the weight of the product to make it look like a better value.

    A store near us sells two versions of the same brand of powdered non-chlorine bleach. One box is both bigger and weighs more, but the product in the larger package requires a cup of bleach per load and that in the smaller package only 3/4 cup.

    The bottom line: on laundry cleaning products, pay attention to the loads per box claim. On other detergent products, like dish soap or shampoo, you’re pretty much on your own.

    By the way, some detergents DO clean better than others; see Consumer Reports for tests. Whether your laundry needs this extra cleaning power and whether you’re willing to pay for it, is up to you.

    Comment by JonK — October 2, 2006 @ 10:18 am
  34. i’ve been wondering about the last box of tide i bought. until i read your
    reasons, i thought i had just gotten a bad batch. those changes to the formula
    seems to be more serious to me. tide does not clean nearly as well. it cannot
    be rinsed as easily. and just switching to another product verifies this for me.

    Comment by Calvin — October 18, 2006 @ 10:43 am
  35. I remember back in the 90′s a person I know went to Mexico on trips (yah to buy drugs, the prescription kind though, about six months for what he would be paying here for 1 month) and he would bring back a large container of detergent for me, I could use Teaspoons of this product to do what a cup of the stuff they sale here, and I do mean the concentrates!!!!!!!! Need to go down there myself and bring some more back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by matrix — October 18, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
  36. I guess the less weight per box would be an issue if you were eating it??? It does the same amount of laundry? Or should the mouseprint be the load sizes? It still does 40 loads, but the loads are 30% smaller? If the load sizes are the same, I would think most people would be happy not having to carry that extra 17 oz.

    Comment by Dave — November 3, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
  37. This isn’t a rip-off at all. It’s a basic chemistry problem. It can clean the same amount with less mass (filers). Maybe some of you need to brush up?

    Comment by Jay — February 12, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
  38. Did anyone compare the size of the scoops and the location of line 1? Fillers or not. If the line is in the same place and it’s the same amount of material leading up to line one on both boxes. Then it would be impossible to get the same amount of loads out of both boxes with differing amounts of materials. If they’ve lowered the line on the box with less amounts then, yeah it’s possible to get 40 out of both. If the line is in the same place then one must also check the diameter of the scoop. Nice try Tide, I’m not buying that bogus filler explanation.

    Comment by Dave — June 21, 2007 @ 9:23 am
  39. The reason downsizing is so offensive is the underlying fact that manufacturers are hoping that the consumer will not notice any change and continue to buy their product. They do not want us to change brands, so every attempt is made to hide the price change. They will often leave packaging the same and reduce contents, change packaging leaving the size the same, then at a slightly later date reduce the size, flash some buzz words like “New Improved Scent” or “No Preservatives” to distract us, and even change the font size and location of the package’s weight. For most of us the change continues unnoticed until the day we discover that roll of toilet paper is being changed way too fast.

    The example of Tide is maybe not one of the best to use as many detergent changes get same results using less of the contents. There are many examples where the reduction does not give you the same usage. As I mentioned above toilet paper is a prime example. While assisting a cleanup at a friend’s deceased aunt’s house, we can across a misplaced package of toilet paper from pre 1980′s. The STANDARD SHEET count was 480 per roll. I am old enough to remember standard counts of 400 per roll but missed the 16% sheet reduction. We must also keep in mind that a 16% reduction will require you to spend an additional 20% to get the sheet lost back (80 sheets / 400 sheets/roll * 100=20%) I find it funny that today a 400-sheet roll is referred to as a double roll as it is smaller than an old single roll.

    Today I went to buy some yogurt. The brand I USED TO BUY was $2.50 for 750 grams. The same product is on the shelf today for $2.50 but contains only 650 grams. There was no packaging change to the yogurt except the weight is lower and the words “No Fat” are 50% larger. In short, to get the 100 grams back I will have to pay an additional 39 cents (100 grams / 650grams/pkg * 100 =15.38% increase)

    The downsizing problem is wide spread and most people will say there is nothing we can do about it. Basically they are right, but we do have some control on the package laws. Have you ever notice when a product provides what the manufacturer deems as an improvement, a good portion of the packaging indicates this to you? NEW BIGGER SIZE … MORE RAISINS …. and my favorite “FEWER CALORIES” … a chocolate bar that is ½ the size but sells for the price of the full bar (the full bars almost doubled in price a couple of weeks later ). I cannot remember a company ever flashing “NEW LOWER VALUE” … “NOW HIGHER PRICED” … “LESS FOR YOUR DOLLAR” and maybe it is time to force them to do this!

    I believe packaging laws should ensure consumers are aware of changes in a products value. Packing laws should impose a 3 month notice placed on any product that changes its size. The notice should be visible on the front of the package, have predefined color and sizing to indicating the change. Three border colors should be used:
    - Green, when a manufacturer increases the contents you get
    - Yellow, when a manufacturer decreases the contents but the same usage can be obtained, such as when a laundry soap improves its cleaning power and requires less per load.
    - Red, when the manufacturer decreases the content size.

    I am sure some manufacturers would argue that a change to include this indication would be unfair, but they could always include comments somewhere on their package explaining the reason for the change. I buy a lot of lumber and have seen numerous price increases, but a standard sheet of plywood is still 4 feet by eight feet. I cannot even image buying a standard sheet of plywood and getting a sheet 6 feet by 3 feet. Why manufactures feel downsizing is acceptable is beyond me and whenever possible I stop supporting them. Inflation will always drive costs up and consumers have a right to expect increases to be clearly visible.

    Comment by Bruce — November 17, 2007 @ 2:35 pm

Comments RSS

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPressPrivacy Policy
Copyright © 2006-2014. All rights reserved. Advertisements are copyrighted by their respective owners.