(Roughly) Daily

… or inflation is when you get less for the old price. Mark Dent on America’s most egregious case of shrinkflation– an investigation he began with a purchase from eBay…

… It’s everything I hoped for: a factory-sealed four-pack of regular Charmin Ultra toilet paper produced in 1992.

I look at the fine print and gasp…170 sheets per roll!

These days, a regular Charmin Ultra Soft roll, if you can find one, has 56 sheets. Even the roll they market as “Double” doesn’t have 170 sheets — it has 154. And the 1992 rolls are hardly the largest — the back of the package includes a note from parent company Procter & Gamble explaining these rolls have fewer sheets than a previous version.

Toilet paper is shrinkflation at its absolute worst. Imagine if Chipotle spent decades reducing the size of its burritos until they looked like tacos.

How far does the downsizing go? And why has the industry managed to make its products so small with barely any scrutiny?… I called Edgar Dworsky to help unroll the mystery of toilet paper shrinkage.

Dworsky, a Massachusetts-based consumer advocate who runs the consumer education websites Mouse Print* and Consumer World, is perhaps the only person in the US who reads the fine print, and he’s certainly the only one who’s consistently tracked changes to the sizes of products like cereal, snack chips, frozen pizza, and coffee mix, becoming the go-to shrinkflation source. As companies sought to avoid price hikes during the last couple of years and opted for shrinkflation, Dworsky’s decades-long work was profiled by the New York Times and praised by John Oliver.

When it comes to downsizing products, Dworsky tells me that toilet paper, along with paper towels, “probably come in first place.” And my 1992 toilet paper is just the tip of the iceberg…

[Dworsky helps Dent (and us) understand just how far shrinkflation has gone (e.g., a regular Charmin roll, 56 sheets today, had 650 sheets in 1974), why (the full range of) manufacturers are acting so aggressively (spoiler alert: it’s garden-variety greed, but also other forms of self-interest), and how they market less-for-more…]

… While it may seem deceptive to shrink toilet paper with little notice aside from the fine print — and to compare “Mega” and “Double” rolls to basically nonexistent products — it’s not against the law. Companies can shrink their product and charge the same amount, or more, while doing nothing to warn consumers aside from updating the fine print.

The new publicity around shrinkflation has at least caught the attention of legislators. Two new shrinkflation bills have been introduced this year. One would give the FTC power to punish shrinkflation and another would force companies to notify consumers when they shrink products while keeping the price the same. France enacted a similar law a few months ago.

Absent new protections, though, toilet paper will keep getting smaller and rebranded with deceptively larger names that actually contain less product. “There is no end,” Dworsky says.

He’s already spotted Charmin’s latest stunt: The company has swapped out “Super Mega” rolls for “Mega XL,” a rebrand with the same number of sheets. Dworsky suspects Charmin fears running out of descriptors and wants to save the mother of all superlatives, “Super Mega,” for the next time its shrinkage has gone too far.

“I mean, seriously, what can you do to Super Mega? Become Super Super Mega? Super Mega Plus?” he says.

The toilet paper companies will find a way. They always do…

“Why toilet paper keeps getting smaller and smaller,” from @mdent05 in @TheHustle.

* Sam Ewing

###

As we compare, we might send carefully-calculated birthday greetings to two important economists, both born on this date in 1954:

Katharine G. Abraham, a professor at the University of Maryland, served as the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1993–2001 and a member of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2011–2013.  She laid the groundwork for the American Time Use Survey, and (germanely to the piece above) testified repeatedly before Congress on the shortcomings of existing methodology of the Consumer Price Index in the 1990s (and the necessity of making revisions based on objective research) and expanded coverage of the prices of services in the Producer Price Index.

source

Sanjiv M. Ravi Kanbur, T.H. Lee Professor of World Affairs, International Professor of Applied Economics, and Professor of Economics at Cornell University. worked for the World Bank for almost two decades and was the director of the World Development Report. In May 2000, Kanbur resigned as director and lead author of the World Development Report, following the publication of the initial draft of the 2000/2001 report on the internet. Kanbur’s resignation came a year after the resignation of the World Bank’s senior vice-president and chief economist, Joseph Stiglitz…

Kanbur’s initial draft argued that, “anti-poverty strategies must emphasise ’empowerment’ (increasing poor people’s capacity to influence state institutions and social norms) and security (minimising the consequences of economic shocks for the poorest) as well as opportunity (access to assets).” The final version of the report still contained the three central pillars of: (a) empowerment, (b) security and (c) opportunity, however the order was changed to (a) opportunity (with emphasis given to market-driven economic growth and liberalisation as ways of reducing poverty), (b) empowerment and, (c) security. The World Bank denied that US treasury secretary Larry Summers or anyone else had influenced the report to make it less radical…. (source)

source