theguardian.com
Woolworths Doubles Brut Deodorant Price Despite Smaller Size
Woolworths is selling a smaller 50g Brut deodorant stick for \$10, double the unit price of the previous 75g \$7 version, highlighting 'shrinkflation' and sparking consumer concerns amidst a cost-of-living crisis and existing accusations of deceptive pricing practices.
- What regulatory changes or industry practices could be implemented to prevent similar occurrences of shrinkflation and ensure greater transparency for consumers?
- The Brut deodorant case reveals a potential trend of supermarkets leveraging shrinkflation to offset rising production costs. The lack of clear in-store notification regarding size changes suggests a need for greater regulation or industry transparency standards to protect consumers. This incident may pressure consumer advocacy groups to push for mandatory labeling changes or price-per-unit displays.
- What are the immediate consequences of Woolworths selling a smaller Brut deodorant stick at more than double the unit price, and how does this impact consumer trust?
- Woolworths, Australia's largest supermarket chain, now sells a smaller 50g Brut deodorant stick for \$10, double the unit price of the previous 75g stick sold for \$7. This significant price increase, despite a smaller product size, highlights the controversial practice of 'shrinkflation'. Consumer Rachel King unknowingly purchased the smaller stick, illustrating the lack of transparency in this practice.
- How does Woolworths' justification for the price increase compare to similar practices by other supermarkets, and what broader implications does this have for consumer spending?
- This incident exemplifies how supermarkets utilize shrinkflation to increase profits during cost-of-living crises, avoiding direct price hikes that could attract negative customer attention. Woolworths defends the price increase by citing a supplier's 'reformulation' and increased costs, while facing accusations of deceptive discounts. The practice raises concerns regarding transparency and consumer protection.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately highlight the 'extreme' example of shrinkflation, emphasizing the negative impact on consumers. This framing sets a critical tone and focuses on the price increase rather than the potential reasons for the change from the supplier's perspective. The inclusion of consumer Rachel King's experience reinforces this negative framing. While the article presents PharmaCare's explanation for the price increase, the emphasis is still on the consumer's negative reaction.
Language Bias
Words like "extreme example", "massive increase", "doubled the price", and "rubs against" create a negative and critical tone towards Woolworths and the pricing strategy. The use of "deceived customers" (in the context of separate court claims) further strengthens the negative sentiment. More neutral alternatives could include "significant price change", "substantial increase", "increased cost per unit", and "is subject to".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on Woolworths' pricing of the smaller Brut deodorant stick but doesn't explore the broader economic factors contributing to shrinkflation, such as increased manufacturing costs or supply chain disruptions. While it mentions these factors in the context of PharmaCare's statement, a deeper analysis of the systemic issues driving this trend would provide a more comprehensive understanding.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing by contrasting Woolworths' actions with claims of price gouging. While the focus is on the significant price increase despite the smaller size, it doesn't fully explore the complexities of pricing decisions in the context of a cost-of-living crisis and competitive market dynamics. The article also implies that the only choices are either accepting the price increase or foregoing the product, while ignoring other factors and potential actions by the consumer (e.g., switching brands).
Gender Bias
The article uses a female consumer, Rachel King, as the primary example of negative impact. While her experience is valid, using only one example could create an impression of a limited perspective and should include a more gender balanced perspective. More diverse examples of consumer experience would make the analysis more gender neutral.
Sustainable Development Goals
The practice of shrinkflation, exemplified by the Brut deodorant case, disproportionately affects low-income consumers who are more sensitive to price changes. The increase in price without a clear indication of size reduction exacerbates existing economic inequalities.