I read the article- maybe you should read more carefully. I was making a general statement about companies raising prices AND shrinking sizes, in repsonse to the 2 posters, NOT commenting on the shampoo.

See my comment to Packer- prices go up all the time. I expect to yearly pay a little more for things- but shrink it AND raise the price? Criminal. @chiieddy:

I'm sorry, when did I ask to get something for nothing? I understand I'm dealing with a business, but when they downsize containers, bottles, etc. and then jack up the price ( or downsize the container and jack up the price) they're ripping off consumers- the people who keep them in business. You want to raise prices? Fine, then don't downsize the regular container. That's like a store advertising a B1G1F sale, and then the night before doubling the shelf prices on everything to still make a running profit ( Safeway does this with 18 packs of eggs- who pays $6.39 for an 18 pack of eggs?).
I participate in a consumer panel for a major company- they send me pkgs. of products and I try them and then fill out an online survey or do the survey by phone. I noticed that one of the laundry products they sent me was 8 oz. less than normal, and when they asked me if I would purchase the product I said "nope." The lady on the phone seemed surprised because I had just said it smelled great and seemed to work well. I told her I wasn't going to pay the same or more for less product! After I explained that to her, she thanked me and said she was going to look for the "shrink ray" when she shops from now on.
Honest, I'm just tired of being ripped off- everyone has the right to make a profit, but price gouging should be against the law.@PackerX:

Be honest, raise the price, don't try and sneak it by hoping we won't notice and wasting a bunch of resources at the same time!

Beat me to it.

It doesn't cost as much as you might think. White Rain is owned by Huish Detergents [biz.yahoo.com] , a company that makes a number of products. They already have the bottle designers on the payroll. It may have a cost associated insomuch that the designer is working on that bottle instead of another bottle, but ultimately he's getting paid either way. Prototyping costs are pretty negligible, especially when you consider it's a $167M company. Even if it costs a total of $2,000 to get a prototype, that's nothing and would just come out of budget assigned to R&D the previous year.

The only thing that would really cost would be setup charges. Having new molds, dies, etc. made would cost tens-of-thousands of dollars. If there were machinery modifications involved as well, we're now talking around $100k. But they're using less plastic (I'm willing to bet the new bottles are ever-so-slightly thinner as well) and filling them with less shampoo. Their shipping costs are also reduced. It wouldn't take long to recover those setup charges and that product line would be once again turning a profit in under a year.

The thing I keep wondering every time I see a shrink ray post is:
Doesn't it cost money to redesign and produce the new shrunk packaging??? and from there:
How much are they actually going to profit from it once you factor in all the extrinsic costs? It will take the contents from nine shrunken bottles (58 mL per bottle x 9) to make one extra shrunken bottle. Last time I looked at white rain it was like 99 cents a bottle. There cannot be a heap of profit margin in it.

i don't remember the exact size of this smaller bottle but i know that it exists because on several occasions before the shrink ray i have bought it and thought, "wow this bottle sure seems small for my buck." I noticed that this smaller bottle never has the 33% more label. It all depends on where you buy your shampoo.

@stevejust: Aren't cosmetics and cleaners for the body covered by the FDA, not the EPA?

I always preferred my rain to be transparent, but that's just me. Perhaps it's 33% more white?

anyway, it's obviously 33% more than they wanted to give you in the first place, so quit yer bitchin!

@AMetamorphosis: Definitely. Here in Canada, Alberto shampoo just changed to a different bottle (shampoos, conditioners, styling products) and claims to have new 'formulations' on the commercials. The hairspray holds the same, smells the same as it ever did... I base this upon my love/hate relationship with the brand- the hairspray holds forever but smells like rotten fish covered with old-lady perfume.

Its the deceptive nature that's pissing people off. Any reasonable person understands that gas prices affect everything and there will be higher costs. Tricking someone into buying your product does not make long term customers.

@mbz32190:

I submitted the photo, and what you can't see due to the blow up is that both of them state the same thing: "Extra Body/Maximum Body." The one on the right, the new package, has the same words, only with switched in placement. I get it because it's the only shampoo in the "White Rain" brand that's unscented. I've been using it for years, ever since I moved out of my parent's house, and always bought it from Walgreens, and it's always been 19.95 oz because that makes it 33% larger than standard shampoo bottles.

Correction, the 18 oz / 532 ml IS 33% exactly more than 400 ml. So they just changed from 33% more than 15 oz to 33% more than 400 oz.

As a coupon clipper who is not brand loyal, I have purchased White Rain, Suave, Soft Soap, etc ... buying soley on weather or not I had a coupon that when doubled would make the price cheap.

That being said, I've noticed all of the lower priced brands have switched bottle and lid shapes repeatedly over the past two years. I believe this is another deceptive method used to make the product sold smaller while appealing to our sense of it being "improved" since its in a fancier bottle.

Anyone else notice this with packaging lately ?

Before buying cheap shampoo, you might try reading the book Toxic Deception by John Fagin and Mariann Lavelle, and then check out the ingredients list on your shampoo. I don't know about White Rain in particular, but that's my general admonition on cheap shampoos for the day.

Unfortunately, there's a reason why they're cheap, and if you think the EPA is protecting you from dangerous products on the grocery shelves... oh boy.

@bcsus83: Nope, that would be 50% more. Obviously 18 oz is 33% more than the industry-standard 13.5338 oz / 399 ml bottle. (/sarc)

Funny how the 19.95 is exactly 33% -- not 1/3rd, 33% -- more than a 15 oz bottle. No extra 1/20th of an oz for you!

Same price . . . it just disappears faster and unfortunately no longer satisfies the cravings of my cheezy snack hole.

If the bottles went down in size they really should either take the label off, or advertise "8% less!"

There's sneaky and then there's just flat out lying and I think leaving that label on the packaging is a bit unethical.

What we are arguing against is the deceptive and misleading practice of the grocery shrink ray, especially in cases where labels or well-crafted new containers hide the decrease in product. I am fully aware that businesses need to raise prices. But instead of assuming we are idiots, or trying to cheat us, a simple price increase or a "Due to rising packaging costs, we have been forced to decrease the size of our product containers" would be lovely.

@johnarlington:
I can happily go to my grave never having to hear the phrase "salty snack hole" ever again, thanks. :-)

@bobosgirl:
Why can't we ever get what we're paying for?

You always get what you pay for...sometimes it's just less than you used to get for the same amount. It's called inflation. The so-called Grocery Shrink Ray is a method companies use to protect their bottom line against inflation, rather than raising prices. It is used because the consumer is less likly to notice a change in amount of product vs. listed price. Companies are just as allowed to adjust the relative value of their product as you are to not purchase it.

That said though, why the hell does it still have that "33% More" still on there?

But the OP's statement of "It's a dollar a bottle. It's always been a dollar a bottle" kinda makes the shrink ray argument silly in this case. Seems like it being $1 a bottle is the point in this case, and to keep this marketing position, the size had to be cut.

This is different than the sneak ray.

I'd bet if they raised the price to $1.10, someone else would have written in "It's a dollar a bottle. It's always been a dollar a bottle. They shoulda shrink-rayed it"

Look, the shrink ray is definitely sneaky and underhanded, but the businesses still have to make money. A lot of people act like they're entitled to getting more while paying less and that's just not how things work. It's a free market. In the end, all that matters is the money changing hands. Put your money in someone else's, but don't act like you should be given everything with no consideration that ultimately you're dealing with a business.

Thats really deceptive. How can they state 33% more and have it not mean anything. I guess I'll be leaving 100% of it on the shelf.

You can find the older size bottles at any Dollar Tree store- I'm so sick of the shrink ray. Why can't we ever get what we're paying for?

For $1 can you really complain?