Let’s get the confession out of the way: I’m a shrinkflation sympathiser. It’s a confession, but not an apology.
The reason suppliers continuously reach for this solution is because it’s very often the right one. It’s fast, it’s operationally simple and it protects the shelf price shoppers see, enabling an affordable purchase of their favourites when price increases would prevent that.
The massive stigma attached to this legitimate value lever is down to wrongly blaming suppliers for attempting to mislead consumers, and it has now been spun way too far. I have personally been asked many times over the past decade to wade in on the negative angle by various media groups who make a sharp retreat when my supportive views are clear to them.
Shrinkflation shouldn’t be a toxic issue
With input business costs soaring, and consumer pockets empty, retailers relentlessly demand “value”. Buyers are pushing for price freezes and shoppers are trading down. Suppliers hold back as long as they can by leveraging efficiencies, simplifying packaging or promoting to change mix by revenue management. But eventually, they are left with two levers: raise the price or change the product.
Creative new product launches at premiums aren’t available to every category. When formulation change is risky and expensive, and cost price increases push the rsp beyond a round-pound price point out of reach of the shopper, downsizing a pack is the only way to keep a product on-shelf without collapsing margin or cutting quality.
Shrinkflation is commercially rational, yet the way it is portrayed has made it reputationally toxic. It’s not greed at all, but big supply business is repeatedly lumped in with political mistrust. Shoppers don’t see the margins, but they notice when a ‘sharing’ bag is really for one or when a cereal box empties faster – and that creates mistrust.
Once trust is damaged, it’s hard to rebuild. Not just for the brand, but for the category and retailers who get dragged into the story as well, even though one supplier made the call. Everyone loses.
Shoppers understand fairness
We need a better way to manage downsizing to protect margin without torching trust.
Stop pretending it isn’t happening. If you change size, communicate it clearly and treat it like a product change, not a magic trick. The industry’s instinct is to minimise the conversation, but that’s exactly why it becomes a scandal when it surfaces. Transparency doesn’t remove shopper frustration, it reframes it: “Costs changed; we changed the pack; here’s why.” That’s a grown-up trade-off.
Shoppers might not see margins, but they do understand fairness.
Supplier and retailer should align on the communication. Suppliers hate being blamed, yet they push the communication responsibility to the retailer. Agree principles upfront: when pack size changes are acceptable, how they’re communicated, and how promotions will be handled, so the shopper doesn’t feel misled.
Shrinkflation isn’t evil. It’s a valid instrument used in a delicate environment. Manage downsizing openly in 2026. Shoppers don’t see margins, but they are ready to trust.
David Sables is CEO of Sentinel Management Consultants
No comments yet