Skimpflation’ Could Be the Sneakiest Consumer Grift | Everybody's Business

Summary

The episode examines skimpflation: lowering a product’s quality or replacing ingredients with cheaper alternatives while keeping its price unchanged. Unlike shrinkflation, which reduces quantity, skimpflation can be difficult for shoppers to spot—and may be more damaging to consumer trust.

Business context and company options

Inflation has put pressure on both buyers and manufacturers. According to figures cited in the episode, U.S. grocery prices are about 32% higher than before the pandemic, while companies’ costs for ingredients and raw materials are up about 45%.

Consumer-rights advocate Edgar Dvorsky describes three common responses to rising costs:

1. Raise prices, risking consumer pushback.
2. Reduce package contents while preserving the package’s appearance—a practice known as shrinkflation.
3. Use less expensive ingredients, a practice known as skimpflation.

An anonymous survey of 300 major food and beverage brands found that nearly two-thirds had changed at least six recipes. The episode also notes that some products once made mostly or entirely with olive oil now use blends.

Consumer trust, disclosure, and product development

The central business risk is not simply changing a formula, but doing so without clearly telling customers. Consumers often assume familiar products are unchanged and may feel misled when they notice a difference.

A study cited in the Journal of Consumer Research found that consumers are more annoyed by skimpflation than shrinkflation. However, clearly communicating product changes significantly reduces negative reactions.

Sensory consultant Gail Vance Civil says companies may spend years and millions of dollars testing substitutions to preserve a product’s signature taste and appearance. Her team works to identify flavor compounds that can replicate qualities such as chocolate’s roasted, caramelized, and nutty notes.

Actionable takeaway: Treat recipe changes as both a product and communications decision. Test whether customers notice, explain what changed, and avoid implying that a product is “the same” when its quality or composition has materially shifted.

Examples and responses

• Reese’s and Hershey: Brad Reese, grandson of Reese’s founder H.B. Reese, says some products no longer match the taste and ingredients he associates with the brand. He posted an open letter to a Hershey manager and received hundreds of supportive messages from consumers who said they had also noticed changes. Hershey said its core Hershey’s chocolate-bar and Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup recipes had not changed, while also saying it continually reviews recipes to reflect changing preferences. A company representative said a small portion of the remaining Hershey’s and Reese’s products would return to classic milk- and dark-chocolate recipes in 2027.
• Labeling and standards: The episode notes that U.S. labeling rules distinguish products such as chocolate and ice cream from substitutes. It cites a threshold of at least 15% cocoa-bean content to call a product chocolate and says peanut butter with less than 90% peanuts may be labeled “peanut cream.” Some products now use terms such as “chocolate candy” or “frozen dairy dessert” rather than traditional category names.
• Entenmann’s Little Bites: Bimbo Bakeries USA said the products had always contained real chocolate and that their ingredient composition had not changed. The company said it restored the original labeling after consumer feedback.
• Smart Balance margarine: The product’s oil content reportedly fell from 64% to 39%. After consumers complained in large numbers on ConAgra’s website, the original formulation was restored, according to the episode.
• Pringles and Oreos: Marketer Neil Chohan posted examples of perceived product changes, including Pringles becoming smaller and Oreo filling no longer reaching the cookie’s edge. Mars, which owns Pringles, denied reducing the U.S. product’s size and said chip dimensions can vary due to manufacturing while the stated net weight is maintained. Oreo’s owner did not respond to a request for comment.
• Mondelēz in Germany: A chocolate bar reportedly shrank from 100g to 90g while keeping the same packaging. A German court said consumers could reasonably expect the same product when the package looked unchanged and required warnings on packages for four months after a content reduction.

Business and organizational lessons

• Product changes are a trust-management issue: Customers may accept higher costs or altered products more readily when companies explain the reason and the change.
• Public feedback can reverse decisions: Consumer complaints, social-media posts, and advocacy can pressure companies to restore formulations or revise labeling.
• Legal and regulatory exposure varies: Some product categories have formal composition and labeling standards. Others—such as seasoning levels, detergent dilution, or cooking-oil quality—may offer fewer visible signals for consumers.
• Packaging and claims matter: Keeping a product’s presentation identical after changing it can create the expectation that nothing has changed. Proactive disclosures may help avoid backlash and, in some markets, potential legal challenges.

Presenters and sources

• Host: Stacey Vanek Smith, The Big Take (filling in for David Gura and Sarah Holder). The opening also identifies her as a co-host of Everybody’s Business with Max Chafkin.
• Guests and interviewees: Brad Reese; Greg Rosalski of NPR; Edgar Dvorsky of Consumer World; Gail Vance Civil of Sensory Spectrum; and Toronto marketer Neil Chohan.
• Other sources cited: Hershey, Bimbo Bakeries USA, Mars, the Journal of Consumer Research, U.S. labeling standards, and a German court decision involving Mondelēz.