In an effort to boost their bottom line, brands often turn to subtle tactics that alter the consumer experience without directly raising prices. Shrinkflation, skimpflation, and spaving are three such strategies that businesses use to maximize profits, sometimes at the expense of customers. But how do consumers really feel about these practices? Are they effective in maintaining brand loyalty, or do they drive shoppers away? To find out, we surveyed 1,000 American adults.
Consumer response to shrinkflation
Shrinkflation occurs when a retailer or brand reduces the size or quantity of a product while keeping its price the same.
Three-quarters (75.6%) of consumers have heard of shrinkflation. Over half (57.5%) are familiar with shrinkflation and feel they know what it means, whereas 18.1% have heard of the term but don’t know what it means. About one quarter (24.4%) have never heard of it.
Here’s what those who have heard of shrinkflation have to say about it:
“This has been going on since I was a child everything is shrinking the boxes stay the same they look the same but there's not the same amount in them. For example a bag of potato chips used to actually have some weight to it but a large bag of potato chips is only 4 oz the bags huge but you get less product that is shrinkflation.”
“I probably get this mixed up or interchange it with skimpflation. But I would guess it's when a brand reduces the quantity of something and sells it for a lot more. First thing that comes to mind are videogames. Lots of big dev companies put out a game and it feels empty or too short and yet they charge full price if not more. And to add more 'features' they'll sell DLC when it's something that could've been included in the released product”.
In fact, many of those who say they don’t know what the term means demonstrate an understanding of the concept:
"When you pay the same for a product, but you're getting less than you used to."
"I believe it is when you get less for the same amount of money."
However, many aren’t sure at all. Several consumers guess that it is “the opposite of inflation” and may even be a positive thing.
Once consumers were provided with aytm’s definition of shrinkflation, they had a bit more to say about it. The feedback is overwhelmingly negative, with consumers thinking the practice is wrong, unfair, and misleading. Many feel it’s disrespectful to shoppers who are already having a difficult time affording necessities:
“It's deceptive. Shrinkflation can be seen as a way to mislead consumers. By making subtle changes to the product, companies can avoid the negative reaction that might come with a direct price increase.”
“I think it's deceptive and wrong. Consumers should be able to purchase products without deception.”
“People work hard for their money and that’s a rip off.”
A few respondents even feel that the practice should be made illegal:
“It is legalized theft.”
“I absolutely find it disgusting and should be illegal. I think its a form of theft.”
What they see
Most consumers (74.2%) have noticed shrinkflation in the past year in the brands and products they purchase. A portion (13.8%) aren’t sure if they’ve noticed it - which speaks to the sneaky nature of the tactic.
“This has happened to me on numerous occasions. I have noticed it in almost every product I purchase.”
Shelf-stable food and beverage products have offered the most noticeable shrinkflation, with 87.33% noticing it, followed by fresh food and beverage products (66.71%). Consumers also notice shrinkflation in grocery stores, where they experience reduced service quality and compromised product value. Consumers also see it within the household cleaning product (56.6%) and personal care (56.2%) categories.
How they feel
Consumers tend to underestimate how strongly they will react to shrinkflation. Among those who have seen it while shopping, the majority report feeling cheated (62.5%), disappointed (60.8%), frustrated (57.1%), and even angry (42.7%) about paying the same price for less. In contrast, those who have not yet encountered shrinkflation predict milder reactions, with only 50.4% expecting to feel disappointed, 46.5% feeling cheated, 36.8% frustrated, and just 26.4% angry. This gap highlights how much stronger the emotional response becomes once consumers experience shrinkflation firsthand.
Shoppers also underestimate the impact shrinkflation will have on their brand perception. Over one-third (34.5%) believe their perception would stay the same, while most (60.9%) expect it would worsen—36.0% slightly and 24.8% significantly. In contrast, 78.7% of consumers who have experienced shrinkflation report a worsened perception—43.0% slightly and 35.7% significantly.
“It angers me and makes me have negative feelings towards retailers and brands that engage in this practice.”
How they act
Regardless of whether they’ve yet to experience shrinkflation, many shoppers plan to take their business elsewhere if they encounter it. Nearly half of consumers (48.8%) say they would switch brands if they noticed shrinkflation, with 34.5% intending to buy a store-brand or generic version. Others predict they would choose a different type of product (31.8%) or purchase the same product less frequently (17.8%). Just
However, in practice, some actions are more common than predicted, such as buying store-brand or generic versions, while others, like switching brands, occur less frequently than consumers expect. Among those who have experienced shrinkflation, 44.3% switched brands, 39.6% bought a store-brand or generic, and 33.7% chose a different product altogether. Fewer consumers reported reducing their purchase frequency (28.0%) or seeking out discounts (39.8%). Just 10.8% bought the item anyway without taking any other action.
Consumer response to skimpflation
Skimpflation occurs when a retailer or brand reduces the quality or features of a product or service while keeping the price unchanged.
Far fewer consumers report having heard of skimpflation (26.5%), and only 12.5% feel they understand what it means. Meanwhile, a majority (73.5%) have never heard of the term before.
Despite this, many consumers accurately interpret skimpflation as brands lowering product quality while keeping prices the same. Some confuse it with shrinkflation, but overall, they feel it represents paying the same for less value:
"Companies making crappier products to save costs."
“Downgrading the quality of offering or services offered to customers.”
Once consumers are provided with a clear definition of skimpflation, reactions are strongly negative. Many feel it is deceptive, unfair, and a breach of trust that damages brand loyalty:
"Incredibly wrong, everyone wants good quality for their money, especially when the price stays the same but the product is getting worse."
“This is another deceptive practice. While I understand that brand's want to reduce their overall cost to increase revenue, it should not come at the cost of quality or removing features.”
“This I think is worse than shrinkflation, knowing that they would reduce the quality of the product is a lot worse. I would discontinue using the product or retailer.”
What they see
Once consumers are familiar with the term, many more report they have seen it in the past year in the brands or products they purchase (45.1%). A quarter (25.1%) have not noticed it, and a notable 29.8% aren’t sure. More than double the amount of consumers aren’t sure whether they have noticed skimpflation than shrinkflation, possibly because quality changes are harder to detect initially.
As with shrinkflation, shoppers most commonly notice skimpflation in shelf-stable foods and beverages (68.1%), fresh foods and beverages (59.0%), household cleaning products (48.6%), and personal care products (44.8%). Many recall noticing it generally across product categories:
“This is annoying and I see it all the time at the grocery store.”
“From power tools to high end appliances and many others, it doesn’t seem like anyone makes things with the same quality that there used to be.”
“I didn't know there was a name for this, but I definitely notice it. It seems like this is very prevalent in clothing/fashion.”
How they feel
Despite being less familiar with the term skimpflation compared to shrinkflation, shoppers experience the same emotions when they notice or imagine noticing it in their favorite brands and products: they feel cheated, frustrated, disappointed, and angry. Even more than with shrinkflation, consumers underestimate just how strongly they will react to skimpflation. While 55.4% expect to feel disappointed, 60.5% actually do when they encounter it. Similarly, 52.8% expect to feel cheated, but 63.6% do in reality. The same holds for frustration (43.2% predicted vs. 62.3% actual) and anger (38.3% predicted vs. 50.6% actual). Interestingly, twice as many shoppers feel surprised by skimpflation (11.8%) compared to shrinkflation (6.2%).
The vast majority of consumers report worsened brand perceptions after noticing skimpflation while shopping (82.0%), with 40.1% slightly worsened and 41.9% significantly worsened. Once again, reality hits harder than expected—slightly fewer consumers (75.0%) anticipated a negative reaction, with 35.3% expecting a slight decline and 39.7% expecting a significant decline.
“I feel anger towards the brand or retailer, as well as overall frustration.”
“No brand or retailer, nonmatter how big or small they are, should be allowed to do this to customers.”
How they act
When consumers anticipate encountering skimpflation, many expect to adjust their purchasing habits. A significant 60.3% say they would switch to a different brand, while 36.6% plan to opt for an entirely different product. Another 32.2% would turn to store-brand or generic alternatives, and 23.3% would seek out discounts or promotions. Only a small portion (8.6%) predict they would continue buying the product without taking any further action.
In reality, consumers' responses to skimpflation show some differences. While 54.1% did switch brands, fewer than expected, 40.6% chose a different product, and 35.3% bought a store-brand or generic version. More consumers (27.3%) sought out discounts than anticipated, and 20.6% reduced their purchase frequency.
"I stopped buying from certain brands and started looking for alternatives that were upfront about their product quality."
“This is a deal breaker for me.”
Consumer response to spaving
Spaving occurs when a retailer or brand offers discounts or sales to encourage customers to spend more money overall, making them feel like they are saving.
By far, the fewest consumers are familiar with the term "spaving" — 88.3% have never heard of it, while only 3.9% know what it means and 7.8% have heard of it but don’t know the definition.
Although the term itself is unfamiliar, the sales tactic is well-known and considered "typical." Perhaps due to this long-standing familiarity, consumers are far more forgiving of spaving than they are of shrinkflation or skimpflation. Many even feel that it is an acceptable marketing tactic:
“Yes, I've seen this many times. Buy two, get two free instead of buy one get one free. It's still a good deal, so I honestly don't mind.”
“I'm perfectly fine with this. Ultimately it's the consumer who decides how much they want to buy and spend. If you can afford it, and you need it, and it will save you money in the long run then why not?”
Some consumers even feel that the term "spaving" is unnecessary or silly, given how common the practice is:
"A new word for a not so new concept.”
“Pretty typical and something that has been around since the first person sold something to another person. Don't see a reason for a special word.”
Unlike the other two strategies, consumers feel they have some agency when it comes to spaving. The tactic appears more straightforward, and shoppers believe they can either take advantage of it or avoid it if they choose. Some even view it as beneficial, using it as an opportunity to "stock up”:
“A savvy shopper still knows how to work that situation to their advantage by buying only what is on sale, only what you normally use, and not overbuying.”
“I feel like a customer needs to take some responsibility and crunch the numbers to see if they are really getting a good deal or not.”
That being said, many consumers still find spaving misleading and off-putting:
“It's very underhanded and deceiving. People really need to slow down and think about what's being offered.”
“I feel like this is very scamming like behavior for companies to do this.”
What they see
A similar number of consumers have noticed spaving as they have shrinkflation (43.7%), while 26.8% report not having seen it, and 29.5% are unsure whether they’ve encountered it.
Once again, the same product categories are noted where consumers have noticed spaving. However, higher numbers are reported in other categories such as clothing and apparel, health and wellness, and home goods:
- Shelf-stable food and beverages: 70.7%
- Personal care products: 56.1%
- Household cleaning products: 55.8%
- Fresh food and beverages: 52.4%
- Clothing and apparel: 42.8%
- Health and wellness products (e.g., vitamins, medicine): 39.8%
- Home goods (e.g., bedding, kitchenware): 32.7%
“As a single person, I'm often frustrated by grocery deals that require you to buy a certain number of goods...when it would take me far too long to consume them.”
How they feel
Although some of the emotions consumers experience are similar to those with shrinkflation and skimpflation, they aren’t as strong. When encountering spaving, 30% felt frustrated, 26.8% felt cheated, and 25.6% felt disappointed. Unlike when seeing the other two tactics, a significant portion of shoppers felt accepting (27%), indifferent (21.1%), unbothered (19.5%), or understanding (14.4%). Far fewer consumers reported feeling angry (18.1%).
“I think this is all right to a point; the customer knows what they're spending and what they're getting.”
Spaving is a safer bet for brands when it comes to protecting consumer perceptions. Over half (52.4%) reported that their brand perception remained the same after encountering spaving. A quarter (25.2%) experienced a slightly worsened perception, while only 11.0% said their perception significantly worsened. Interestingly, 11.4% reported that their perception actually improved.
How they act
Compared to the 29.7% of consumers who thought they would switch brands after seeing spaving, only 19.7% actually did when they encountered it. This represents much less switching behavior than with shrinkflation (44.3%) or skimpflation (54.1%).
Instead, shoppers are more likely to look for discounts or promotions (38.0%), which aligns with the intended strategy. One-fifth (20.8%) opted to buy a generic version, while others chose a different type of product (18.8%) or purchased a bulk size (18.3%).
Consumers reject shrinkflation, favor spaving
Shrinkflation has been the most noticeable tactic for consumers over the past year, but that doesn’t mean they’re accepting of it. Both shrinkflation and skimpflation are viewed as deceitful and unfair, with many shoppers feeling that brands using these strategies are behaving unethically. As a result, these practices risk driving customers away and damaging brand loyalty.
In contrast, spaving is seen in a more favorable light. Consumers generally view it as a straightforward approach that gives them control over their purchasing decisions. While spaving encourages spending, shoppers appreciate the transparency and choice it offers. For brands looking to protect their reputation while boosting sales, spaving may be the safer strategy to employ to protect brand trust.
.png){kind=tracking}
.jpeg)
