[Viewpoint] Whose Trick Is Shrinkflation?

When we notice that the number of side dishes or the ingredients in the food have decreased at a restaurant we often visit, we usually stop going there. This is because there are many other places to have lunch besides that restaurant. The restaurant owners are also aware of this, so they carefully consider decisions to raise prices or reduce ingredients even slightly. This is not a big story but a natural principle of how the market works.

It is understandable that consumers get angry at marketing tactics that indirectly raise prices by reducing quantity without raising prices (shrinkflation) or lowering quality (skimpflation), and it is also understandable that there are voices criticizing such companies. Recently, these behaviors, mainly by food companies, have come under scrutiny, prompting even the Deputy Prime Minister for Economy to warn that “this is not an honest sales practice.” Ultimately, consumer anger has been properly directed toward companies.

It would have been better if changes in quantity or quality had been transparently disclosed. While it can be criticized as a breach of business ethics, the root cause of this issue is fundamentally the rising costs, and the companies are not at fault here. It would be ideal if companies could openly raise prices without resorting to deceptive methods, but since the government has appointed “Bread Inspectors” and “Milk Officers” to watch closely, there was no other choice.

Of course, it cannot be said that the government is entirely responsible for the significant rise in prices. However, the primary responsibility for price management lies with the government, which handles monetary policy. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the current controversy as a result of the government’s failure in monetary policy or the side effects of artificial market intervention. When we look at shrinkflation, before thinking of it as a “corporate trick,” we should also point out the “government’s trick” to divert public dissatisfaction toward companies and avoid blame amid worsening public sentiment.

In the United States, where the inflation rate has stabilized recently at 3.2% after hovering around 9%, there has been no talk of a “Hamburger Minister” or “French Fry Deputy Minister.” Despite various hardships, this is a well-known result of forcefully pushing strong tightening policies and properly managing the money supply. We are also maintaining a high-interest rate stance, but since inflation is not being controlled, it is the government’s responsibility to come up with additional measures.

When asked whether we should just leave corporate trick marketing as it is, I want to answer like this: That is why we have the media and civic groups. If a company secretly removes one hot dog from a package, our “Hot Dog Reporter” will find out and inform consumers. Whether a can of tuna is 10g lighter or the orange juice content remains the same, it is more effective for public officials to spend their time on monetary policy concerns rather than checking supermarkets.

Even if it was an unavoidable choice, such deceptive marketing should be restrained by companies because it can distort price indicators and cause government policy failures. The Consumer Price Index is based on unit quantity rather than per-item price, so shrinkflation is reflected in price indicators, but it is not easy to detect skimpflation.

In a desirable market, companies should be mindful of consumers, not the government. The reality where companies revise marketing strategies based on every word from high-ranking government officials is essentially the same as collusion between power and capital, causing the same market distortions.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.