Inflation preference - higher prices or smaller sizes?

As inflation bites with things, which do you prefer as a Consumer on set-size items like packaged foods - a price increase for the same amount of product, or, a reduction in product size to keep the price the same.

For example, this week saw a reduction in packet size for Red Rock Deli chips, from 185gms to 165gms... but staying the same price.
So, would you prefer the pack size to stay the same and go up in price every few years, or, would you prefer the pack size to shrink a little so that it doesn't feel like the price has changed?

http://www.toycollectors.com.au/blog/b768.jpg


On the left, under the yellow sale tag, the old size is noted as $2.26 per 100gms, while on the right, under the "new" tag, the new size is noted as $2.54 per 100gms.
Just like when the size of Doritos dropped about 20gms at the start of 2012, the stores have put up "new" tags (as if these are brand new products) and have the entire range on sale, so that people are less likely to notice the change of size (and price per 100gms).
http://www.toycollectors.com.au/blog/b767.jpg

I'd prefer more honesty from the companies who produce the products.

I understadn that they need to make profit, but how hard is it to be honest and say "due to blahblah reasons, we have had to change the size/portions/price of our product."

Sure beats the smoke and mirrors.

I voted for higher prices. I would assume that a proportion of society are able to negotiate for themselves wage rises each year of around inflation (2.73% is the last 10 year average) so while goods and services are getting more expensive, in theory so should your income be rising which negates this price increase.

Due to the nature of this wonderful thing called inflation, if we opted for smaller sizes to keep the same price point then the size of the toy will basically be ever decreasing as inflation rises until it was not viable to make any more.

Of course, keep in mind that this is all purely based on the assumption that the company in question is only putting up prices/decreaing product size to deal with inflation and to not increase their profit margin.

I think you'll be surprised, or unsurprised to find that they do both.

every once in a while they do what you see here, changing the size of the box while maintaining the price, later down the track you'll see them introduce a new larger pack at a higher price. That pack will then begin the cycle of reducing in size every once in a while.

It's quite noticable with breakfast cereal.

Of course, once a pack gets to a point where it's encroaching on another "size class" it just dissapears without any fanfare.

Higher prices. That way it's easier to keep track of how much more you're paying.

Reduce the Australia tax, after that i will talk about paying more for less.

Higher prices - same size. The cost of a single small bag of chips is crazy these days. Sometime for about 30c more I can get a bag double the size!

Generally, I'd prefer the pack size to stay the same, especially if it is something you buy often, so you know how long it will last, or how many people in the family it will cover.

But when it comes to junk food like chips, confectionery and franchise fast food... the smaller size portions would actually be a good thing. As it would cut down on the bad stuff like calories, fat, sugar and sodium. Unfortunately that will only go so far, because if it shrinks too much, you would then be more likely to buy two to satisfy your hunger.

I would say Id prefer higher price to keep the pack size the same. But for junk food the increased price is not attractive as they are already overly expensive. I almost 95% of the time only ever buy junk food when it is on some kind of special, so an increase wont affect me if the special price is still good. They know this is probably how most people purchase junkfoods, so they reduce the amount in the packet to ensure they maintain their profits. For me this makes sense really, but I prefer packaging to stay the same size.

For fast food like Mcdonalds, damn their burgers are small!, the portion size of chips at KFC is ridiculously small! they call these meals when really they are just a snack!!! :eek:

I voted reduce package size.

While it's not the same for everything, I do agree with griffin for snack foods. One thing that annoys me with chips is that the servings of the flavours I like are inevitably the larger packs only - I don't really want 200gm, so 150gm (for arguments sake) suits me better. Yes it's inflation & a trick to hide the price rise, but it suits me nicely.

I also prefer it for Transformers; Hasbro have a tendency to make larger toys with more gimmick rather than more "transform" for the extra $$; so I prefer smaller toys anyway.

Age of Extinction Optimus Prime says, "¿Porque no los dos?" -- pay more, get less! :p