John Laurie BUSA214 2.26.

2014
In order to meet increased competition, is it ethical for a marketer to shrink contents to achieve a price increase rather than raising the price or shrinking the package of the product?

in simplest terms. However. Often. However. all other ends are subordinate. will drop out of the market if the price of that product increases by any noticeable margin. A given business might have other goals. certainly. So how can businesses run profitably? The answer is plain. However. one that is less noticeable than a straight increase on the tag and therefore less likely to drive consumers away. A product shrinkage price increase is facilitated by holding price and packaging size constant. that a business must develop effective marketing strategies to draw in customers. those who perceive a given product’s utility or value as only slightly higher than its market price. Organizations that forget or disregard the primacy of profit find themselves waist deep in red ink. if they fail to adapt. they will drown. this is often easier said than done. This has given rise to a new profit-generation mechanism: product shrinkage. businesses strive to be profitable. this often results in a loss. then. But what is the ultimate end of all business processes? Why must a manufacturer provide good quality products at reasonable prices? What purpose is served by attracting new customers? How does a strong public image benefit an organization? To what end do businesses strive? Simply put. that a business must build a positive public image. raising prices drives away a business’s customer base and leaves them poorer. the difference between a company’s revenues and a company’s costs.Defining the Issue What must any business do to be successful? You might answer that a business must provide the right product at the right price. To increase profit. The simplest way that an organization can generate more income while keeping production costs stable is to raise the prices of their market goods. Profit is. profit reigns supreme. an organization must increase its gains or decrease its expenditures. while making a small content . Product shrinkage is a hidden price increase. The law of supply and demand states that marginal consumers.

14). studies show that consumers are much less likely to notice a decrease in volume than an increase in price. Consumers conclude that there are more Skittles in the box and are willing to pay the higher price that the movie theater charges. appear to be larger than the bags. This concept is best illustrated using an example. or at six dollars per half-pound and then asked them to explain the cognitive processes that led them to their decision. When asked why this was. Consumers. 2004. Dozens . pg. Eighty six percent of those interviewed stated that they would rather pay six dollars for a half-pound of coffee than twelve dollars for a full pound (Gourville. among them that people are willing to overlook a nominal decrease in volume since it “hardly seems to make any difference”. Movie theaters have made it their practice to sell Skittles in boxes rather than in the smaller bags that one usually encounters in convenience marts or grocery stores.reduction that the average customer will not notice. These boxes. However. The contents were disproportionate to the size of the package. upon opening the box. producers simply give the consumer less for each dollar spent. The effect is the same. the consumer discovers that it is nearly half empty. these tiny reductions in volume become more and more noticeable over time. pg. despite the fact that in each scenario the price per unit has increased. Rather than increasing profit per unit by using a straight price increase. However. However. Gourville (2004) posits a number of theories as to why this might be. 2004. He asked a number of consumers whether they would be more likely to buy coffee at twelve dollars per pound. 11) John Gourville of the Harvard Business School performed a series of tests on a number of consumer panels to explore consumer sensitivity to changes in both content and cost. they explained that they instinctively compared the prices before comparing quantities. (Gourville. Mars Corporation manufactures and sells Skittles. demonstrate a marked sensitivity to prices while remaining blissfully oblivious to changes in quantity. at first glance. for whatever reason.

but the two primary stakeholders are the producer and the consumer. The producer is concerned. The primary benefit that the producer enjoys as a result of product downsizing is increased profit. it’s important to consider who is affected by this trend and how they are affected. Subtle product downsizing will not necessarily damage an organization’s image. The question is: in order to meet increased competition. This leads to . These unsatisfied customers generate negative PR by word of mouth or via social media. the product develops a bad public image and the company’s sales start to see rapid decline. as stated in the introduction. pg. it is a battle of perceptions. The basic premise of modern marketing theory is this: marketing is not a battle of products. through gradual product shrinkage. and Proctor and Gamble baby products (Song. caused no small amount of tension in the marketplace. However. hidden price increases are dangerous. Wisk laundry detergent. made volume reductions of over twenty five percent while holding price at a constant level. This in turn discourages others from purchasing a product. Organizations enjoy higher profit margins if they can generate the same income while relinquishing less material assets. with generating a profit. There are a number of peripheral players who will be given consideration later on.of companies have. 1). It is near impossible for an organization to succeed if its public image is poor. but more heavy handed shrinkages upset consumers. Eventually. Producers feel that they have to tread very carefully around consumers so as to avoid losing their customer base to their competitors while consumers feel cheated and deceived. They feel that they are being swindled despite the fact that producers are well within their rights to make reductions in product volume without making it entirely obvious. This trend has. Among them are Dryer’s ice cream. as it has become more evident. is it ethical for a marketer to shrink contents to achieve a price increase rather than raising the price or shrinking the package of the product? To answer that question. 2003.

Product-shrinkage is an effective strategy when used carefully and sparingly. Are producers who utilize downsizing to increase profit margins operating within the scope of their legal rights? They certainly are. If corporations were to accompany reductions in content with reductions in package dimensions. consumers started to notice that every few months the can seemed to get a little lighter. It is also important to consider the legality of product-shrinkage before discussing the effects that it has on the consumer. Additionally. While the amount saved might not exceed the profit generated by product downsizing strategies.deficits and consequent financial ruin. Since the United States federal government does not own the country’s means of production. . their overly aggressive productshrinkage eroded their customer base and lost them the lead market share. otherwise it might prove to be a twoedged sword. to a degree. The alternative would be an invasion of private property rights. insofar as they do not infringe upon the rights of any other members of society. However. A fine example of a company whose product-shrinkage strategy hurt them more than it helped them is Pringles chips. they would require less raw materials to create the packaging material. inefficient. Product-shrinkage is also. the marketing practices of private businesses. Pringles brand potato crisps were once the best-selling chips in America. their wastedisposal costs would decrease. Eventually. are none of their concern. they might save a significant amount of money. Product shrinkage is nothing more or less than a business strategy. and the laws states that strategy is the prerogative of the manufacturer. First of all. package downsizing might serve the company well in the long run by improving production efficiency and bolstering the company’s image in the public eye. Marketing statistics indicate that nearly fifteen percent of expenses incurred during the production process can be accounted for by the cost of product packaging.

and this can make shopping a stressful experience.On to the consumer. Finally. There are several other parties who have a vested interest in the question of productshrinkage: retail stores. adding another factor to consider while evaluating alternative product choices might needlessly muddy the waters. marketers and legislators. Many lobbyists argue that packages that are disproportionately large when compared with the contents ought to be classified as instances of false advertising and dealt with as such. Consumers can never be entirely sure that they are getting exactly what they paid for. but perhaps it will happen at some point in the near future. Consumers often allow themselves to be misled by package size and shape rather than checking the volume or weight measurements on the label. many consumers see product shrinkages as a violation of their rights. How are an organization’s customers affected by product shrinkage? Firstly. it is one of the lead causes of impulse buys that customers regret later on. they do not get as much for their dollar. These are secondary stakeholders. consumers who purchase painkillers at drug stores are often surprised by the fact that the pill bottle is half empty. It’s a running joke that Lays has started putting chips in their bags of air. With the proliferation of choices that characterizes that marketplace today and the sheer number of products that consumers have to choose from. So far there have not been any laws passed making product-shrinkage a punishable offense. This is referred to as “consumer information overload” in the marketing community. there are a number of people in the America today who believe that hidden price increases ought to be illegal. In fact. For instance. Furthermore. The larger bottle led them to believe that they were getting a bargain when in fact they were paying a higher-than-average price for medicine. they feel the . due to downsizing. the consumer is burdened by an increased level of uncertainty in the purchase process.

It’s also easier to stock one hundred large boxes than two hundred smaller ones. it is getting harder and harder to avoid product-shrinkage strategies in the modern market. If a customer buys a product from a given vendor. However. lead to financial failure.effects of downsizing less than do producers and consumers. However. if handled delicately. It is the task of each retailer to decide whether or not their store will stock downsized products. They generate the same amount of profit as a product in the same size package with marginally more volume while weighing significantly less. They also realize that poorly managed product-shrinkage can spell death for a company’s public image which can. Downsized products are an efficient use of shelf and warehouse space. If the current trend continues. However. and legislators must decide whether or not they will heed the call of the thousands upon thousands of American consumers who decry product-shrinkage as a crime and as false advertising. they are still significant and their interests ought to hold some weight as we search for the answer to the question: is the use of downsizing as a hidden price increase an ethically acceptable marketing strategy? Retail store owners feel the effects of product-shrinkage in a powerful way. it will soon be impossible to remain . and to accept responsibility for whatever consequences may come of that decision. and becomes upset as a result. Marketers understand that. in turn. Marketers and legislators share the same burdens when it comes to product-shrinkage. retailers can also benefit from stocking products that have been downsized. Marketers must decide whether or not their marketing strategies will involve downsizing price increases. Stocking products that have been downsized by a noticeable margin can be dangerous for business. content reduction can increase profit margins and enrich stockholders and employees. he will develop a negative impression of the company that manufactured the “sub-standard” product as well as the store at which he purchased it. discovers that he has not received what he feels that he paid for.

The trouble for legislators is that no matter what they do. Each manager has an ethical “framework” that he employs when making decisions that have ethical implications.competitive without downsizing and deceptively inflated packaging. If they remain inactive. A framework is a lens through which a manager evaluates ethical issues. The remainder of this consideration of the ethicality of product shrinkage will consist of an explanation of the author’s own ethical framework. and systems of evaluating one’s ethical duties. it is important to examine the economic factors. and the ethical considerations that a manager must contemplate when making decisions in the business world. it can only be hoped that whatever choice they make turns out to be for the best. legal statutes. This framework helps managers remain true to their principles in difficult situations. They must decide whether it is within the bounds of their authority to take action against businesses that utilize downsizing to increase profits. . This framework is an amalgamation of the manager’s informed opinions concerning the aforementioned economic systems. Legislators understand that there will be significant backlash if they take legal action against private businesses in an attempt to eliminate product-shrinkage from the marketplace. but they’re also under pressure from their constituents to make a difference. there will be business owners lining up on the steps to the capital building. if an individual’s process for ethical analysis is overly ambiguous it becomes a powerful temptation to “tweak” it to fit any given set of circumstances. Their position is a delicate one. What Comes Next? Now that the stakeholders have been identified and the effects of product shrinkage on those parties have been enumerated. If they do pass laws declaring content reduction illegal. the legal environment. half the people are angry with them. as well as an analysis of the problem at hand using that framework and. they run the risk of losing constituency and losing reelection.

pg. a breach of the agreement that exists between business owners and their managers in the field. that “if the federal government were given control of the Sahara desert for five years. Friedman was a strong proponent of a free market economy with minimal government intervention and societal interference. and managers must be efficient and careful to “stay in the black”. an answer to the question: “In order to meet increased competition. Anything else was. Devoting valuable resources to the pursuit of philanthropy or charity dilutes the . He reasoned that if the federal government was several trillion dollars in debt. the entire world would experience a shortage of sand” (Ebenstein. champion the various “causes” which they espouse. He is reported to have said.finally. Milton Friedman. Many managers employ the economic analysis system developed by the famed American economist. Employees of corporations are agents of their superiors. He understood that businesses that were not free to operate as the owners and managers of those organizations saw fit were doomed to fail. The business world is a harsh landscape. 2009. namely the owners of the company. the first thing that a manager considers when examining an ethical issue is the economic consequences of the various alternatives. he argued. on his death bed. 141). it was not an efficient business and therefore ought not to legislate and regulate the activities of other businesses. and that this was best achieved by devoting their manpower and resources to the accomplishment of the tasks which were involved in their core industrial competency. in the workplace. thus increasing total societal wealth by providing valuable goods and services to the community of which they were a part. is it ethical for a marketer to shrink contents to achieve a price increase rather than raising the price or shrinking the package of the product?” Economic and Legal Considerations Typically. He was of the opinion that business existed to generate profit. It is not their task to.

239). The forces of the political left see Friedman’s system as a greedy. there would be no commerce or increase in wealth production. devalues stock. selfish one.business’ efficiency. Friedman saw things differently. an economic system of thought that sets profit as the summum finem of businesses everywhere and discourages corporate social activity is not “dressed to impress”. Business ought to be honest. and costs the company’s principals money. While he believed that “government solutions were typically more destructive and long-lasting than the problems that they were implemented to address” (Friedman. He writes. However. The first law of marketing states . That system is free-market capitalism. 2002. Yoplait yogurt has become increasingly profitable as they have donated more and more money to breast cancer research efforts. Tom’s Shoes has gradually acquired more and more market share as they have pledged to donate a pair of shoes to an underprivileged child in Africa each time someone buys a new pair in their domestic market. he also believed that unless all business owners were held to the same code of law. it will often drive a business out of the market. and without corporate sponsorship. successful corporations increase their profits by a significant margin. many noble philanthropic efforts would fail spectacularly. and profitable. “The problem of social organization has always been to establish a system in which greed does the least harm. in fact. At first glance.” (Friedman. Therefore. Friedman did not. preach anarchy in the streets. and to be honest in his dealings. Friedman’s model seems amoral and insensitive. 331) He goes on to write that oftentimes businesses that pursue charitable efforts are positively perceived by potential consumers. This “cause-driven marketing” has helped many large. His economic model can be effectively described using three words. He believed that it was the duty of every business owner and business person to abide by the laws that applied to his organization. however. pg. Profit has become a dirty word. 2002. pg. Hoarding is not the same thing as maximizing profit. lawful.

With a fuller understanding of the system of economic thought that the author espouses. deal honestly with their customer base and their stakeholders. remain within the confines of the law. the time has come to put the question at hand under the lens that is Friedmanian Economics. all the while preserving corporate integrity and remaining within the bounds of the law? As was stated earlier. and often provide aid to philanthropic organizations. Does the practice of product shrinkage help businesses increase profits. The Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act states that any product label must include three pieces of information: the identity of the product. Companies that are well perceived by the public are typically more successful than companies that are poorly viewed by the majority of consumers. at his core. they will fold. the net quantity of the product. It goes on to state that “The actual contents of packages must not be less. and makes man’s greatest weakness the market’s greatest strength. product shrinkage is not illegal. It uses it as a foundation. However. He is motivated by self-interest. and the name and location of the product’s manufacturer. 2001). but to treat their employees well. He understands what many economists do not: man is. Otherwise. not inclined to do good things. sometimes regardless of product quality. than the declared net quantity. Under Friedman’s system of economic thought. not products”.that “marketing is a battle of perceptions. . only a limited number of packages are allowed to contain less than declared quantity by more than the prescribed tolerance which is set out in Schedule I of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Regulations. when the problem was defined and the stakeholders were identified.” (Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. or “greed” as the political left has labeled it. on average. Friedman’s economic theory does not attempt to circumvent or ignore that basic truth. In addition. incremental decreases in product volume are by no means illegal as long as the manufacturer changes the information on the label. businesses are forced not only to maximize efficiency and sales.

It is. achieved volume shrinkages of twenty five percent or more without losing significant market share. If a company employs product shrinkage with a heavy hand. Product shrinkage is. It is not. it is subtly deceptive. and it does not tarnish his integrity. Vendors cannot be held responsible for consumer negligence. strictly speaking.However. As was stated earlier. a business strategy designed to increase profits. is product shrinkage honest? Most people would agree that the ethical waters are gray on that count. Friedman and his followers would conclude. that is not the responsibility of manufacturers or retailers. is product shrinkage profitable? There is no single right or wrong answer to that question. a “hidden” price increase. there are companies that have. it must be subtle to be effective. Businesses tailor their products to fit their consumers. by incremental steps. then they will make slight changes to their products that will increase their profit margins while keeping consumers satisfied. consumers would modify their behavior accordingly. rather caveat emptor. Finally. not a dishonest marketing practice. The advantage of product shrinkage over sticker-price increases is its inconspicuousness. The word hidden tends to indicate that the customer is being hoodwinked. that product shrinkage does not make the producer liable to any sort of litigation. ultimately. legality aside. in its essence. Similarly. overtly fraudulent. therefore. after all. if the contents of a single bottle of shampoo decreased by eighty percent. consumers would decrease their consumption of shampoo. However. The price increased five-fold. if their consumers are unobservant. . Surveys show that the average consumer has an incomplete and often erroneous idea of the actual quantity of the products that they are purchasing. It is. If the price of shampoo went from four dollars a bottle to twenty dollars a bottle. However. However. Consumers have determined that their valuable time is better spent doing something other than sifting through the information on product labels to determine the exact volume of what they are purchasing.

they have maintained product volume and have adopted the advertising slogan “Still a Pint!” This illustrates an important concept: if a business is operating in an industry in which product shrinkage is a popular strategy. Rather than “throwing sand” in the eyes of their consumer base. one pint containers of Haagen Dazs ice cream do not actually contain a full pint of product. Ben and Jerry’s Corporation has employed a different strategy. However. Once again. their inelegant implementation of content reduction cost them a large percentage of their customer base. What are some examples? As the bard wrote. consumers remain entirely unaware of this fact and continue to buy ice cream at the same price that they paid when they were receiving a much greater volume of product. with some detailed research and data analysis. They contain a “merchant’s pint”. only three quarters of a true pint. Many other ice cream companies have managed to increase profits using product shrinkage. There are dozens of articles online warning consumers away from companies that utilize product shrinkage in excess. one can discover that hundreds of companies have been utilizing product shrinkage for years without suffering any losses as a result. However. However. Ultimately.consumers will become dissatisfied and take their business elsewhere. it is no longer fulfilling its role . since successful product shrinkage is invisible. This is especially true in today’s information age. Businesses are often forced to offer consumers more product rather than less in order to gain an edge in the market. “here’s the rub”: very few people know which businesses those are. they can “steal” market share from their competitors by making consumers aware that their corporate practice is to actively avoid using “deceptive” marketing to increase their sales. product shrinkage can hurt a business if consumers become aware of it. At that point it has failed entirely. “greed” actually protects the consumer. However. The example of Pringles comes to mind once again. For instance. there are many companies who have successfully used product shrinkage to increase their product margins.

if employed correctly. overall harms. They proposed that any decision that anyone might make has the potential to cause benefits to some and harms to others and that ethical evaluation is a costs and benefits analysis in which the decision maker weighs the overall benefits. Bentham referred to this concept as the “principle of the greater good… the truest measure of right and wrong is the greatest good to all. product shrinkage is an ethical practice and one that is effective in business. This can occur if the shrinkage is too rapid or too noticeable.” (Bentham. it is a reflection of an individual’s informed opinions concerning his rights. The principles of utilitarianism were developed by the eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham. The last is what is referred to as an “ethical duties system”. as was mentioned before. it is simple enough. a difficult system to apply. The conclusion is a simple one: by the author’s economic standards and by the law of the land. and determines whether or not the pros outweigh the cons. and the inviolability of those rights. and one of his contemporaries named John Mills. or if competing companies draw the content reduction to the attention of the consumer in order to draw business to themselves.as a hidden price increase. and consumers see the producer as disingenuous. However. legal and economic considerations are only two of the three elements of an economic framework. Ethical Considerations One ethical duties system that many business people adhere to is utilitarianism. Business owners ought to . These two men believed that the ethicality of any given action was established post hoc based on the consequences it produced. When dealing with numerical data such as dollars and cents. at times. the fact remains that. product shrinkage fulfills Friedman’s final criteria: it is economically beneficial to the company and to the company’s owners. the rights of others. compares them. However. 1988) It is.

Ultimately. Consumers. He must examine each stakeholder. However. however. it is important to realize that the price increases that result from product shrinkage are typically minimal. and act accordingly rather than making reckless decisions without appropriate reflection beforehand. There are ten farmers who supply the citizens with corn. and adopt a course of action that distributes monetary remunerations fairly based on the magnitude of a given stakeholder’s interest while ensuring that the overall effect is positive. However. suffer some minimal harms. its consumer base. They receive less product for each dollar they spend. the retailers who stock its products. Envision a small town in twentieth century rural America. This is best illustrated using an example. or bad for society as a whole? First of all. Does product shrinkage have a net effect that is good for society as a whole. this concentration of capital is better for society as a whole. while the net profit increase for the corporation might equal millions of dollars. it cannot be measured perfectly. business owners enjoy monetary benefits from product shrinkage if they utilize if effectively. The fact that happiness is so difficult to quantify necessitates thorough and unbiased assessment by the decision maker. Many people argue that this makes utilitarianism and impractical ethical duties system. its marketing personnel. waters and harvests .weight the interests of their stakeholders appropriately. trying to measure a person’s “happiness” is much more difficult than measuring the monetary advantage that they might incur should a decision be made. carefully analyze the harms and benefits to each. Each consumer might lose ten cents. what parties have a vested interest in any given company’s decision to apply or to not apply this strategy? They have already been identified as the business’ owners. this is in fact one of the inherent virtues of utilitarianism. However. and the legislators who regulate its activities. each of whom owns a one acre plot which he tills. How are each of these persons affected by product shrinkage? As stated earlier. In fact. plants.

product shrinkage actually helps consumers since the consolidation of capital helps improve their society and their quality of life. libraries. make spreadsheets. If the venture is successful. Ultimately. and monitor the market closely to determine whether or not their plan has succeeded or failed. pooled their resources. one hundred dollars. They can then invest in the community by helping fund the construction of schools. Each farmer’s land is bordered by a fence. gather data. Concentrated capital is much better for society than widely distributed capital. Each of these farmers has one hundred dollars to his name. if the ten farmers tore down their fences. should their strategy fail. to his name. which they use to grow a cash crop such as tobacco. The benefits or harms that they experience hinge on their performance. become wealthy men. They split their profits ten ways at the end of each harvest.by hand. eventually. they could afford a tractor and automated husker. they are likely to suffer pay cuts or have their employment terminated. Suddenly. marketers are the men in the trenches. Eventually. each one is unable to increase his productivity by any significant margin in order to better himself monetarily and provide his fellow citizens with more food. What of the marketers who ultimately decide whether or not to employ product shrinkage as a strategy? Their fate is not definite. and undertook a joint farming venture. which naturally results in a waste of acreage. the owners of the company will reward them for creative marketing by giving them raises and bonuses. Each farmer has. and their net profit increases. However. . they save enough to buy another plot of land. they are able to grown more corn more quickly. On his own. However. and place their earnings in the local bank. They then develop a specific plan. Therefore. They decide whether or not to employ content reduction in order to increase market takings. They sell the tobacco to a nearby metropolis and. fire departments and hospitals.

since their profit margins are higher than other companies’. As Abraham Lincoln once said. Legislators are the only stakeholders who suffer definite harms when businesses employ this strategy. you can please all of the people some of the time. as was stated earlier. is product shrinkage an acceptable practice? Certainly. under the utilitarian system of ethical thought. They are to generate wealth. are able to charge retailers smaller sums for shipments of product. Those corporations. If the government fails to get involved. this is true of nearly every notable ethical dilemma in the business world. Similarly. they will likely suffer the displeasure of their customers. someone gets angry and retaliates. Producers. people complain that bureaucrats are lazy. but you can never please all of the people all of the time. So. consumers. If the government gets involved. do business. they are accused of sloth and apathy by the voter base that they serve. If they remain inactive. it is not the responsibility of corporations to see to it that the governing bodies that regulate their activities have a comfortable job and satisfied constituents.if they do their job well (which ought to be expected of them). If they stock products that have had their contents slashed by ten to fifteen percent. It is the responsibility of corporations to. Ultimately. “You can please some of the people all of the time. behave with integrity. However. it is the task of retailers to determine whether or not a given company’s products are a wise investment and whether they wish to stock them in their stores.” If legislators impede businesses’ economic progress by overregulating their activities. then they will accrue various and sundry benefits and suffer very few harms. they are likely to see violent opposition from the owners of wealthy corporations. allowing the vendor to increase his profit margins by a small degree. If they stock products from producers who utilize downsizing efficiently. and foster a respect for law and order. they will enjoy increased benefits. marketers and retailers all enjoy a number of benefits .

it was further established that product shrinkage is in no way illegal and therefore does not impugn a company’s right to do business in the market. their needs and wants are weighted more heavily than those of other parties. it was established that product shrinkage is in fact beneficial to society as a whole. Furthermore. and the benefits and harms to each were established. and it creates new wealth for producers and retailers. is it ethical for a marketer to shrink contents to achieve a price increase rather than raising the price or shrinking the package of the product?” Stakeholders were identified. and therefore. Using Friedman’s economic model. However. by utilitarian ethical standards. is product shrinkage an ethical practice? The author would answer with a definitive “yes”. So. It helps concentrate wealth in order to increase societal productivity. it was determined that product shrinkage is a profitable practice that does not violate the producer’s integrity. The net benefits outweigh the net harms. “In order to meet increased competition. Legislators are not so lucky. Finally. The author set out to answer the question. there is nothing unethical about the hidden price increases achieved by product volume reduction.if this strategy is employed effectively. upon examination of the relevant laws. they are caught between a rock and a hard place. and that spurs mankind on toward a more peaceful and prosperous tomorrow. product shrinkage is a viable market strategy that helps businesses and society grow and flourish. consumers and producers are the primary stakeholders. . that benefits producers and consumers alike. ultimately.

Principles of Morals and Legislation. Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. (Academic Journal) 8. Milton Friedman: A Biography. M. (Periodical) .2a. January 2003. P. Sec.gov 2001) 5. (Periodical) 4. March 2011. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Amherst: Prometheus Books. 7. (Academic Journal) 3. S. L. Chandon. January 2009. Your Time. June 2004. 7. The Shrink Rap. Advances in Consumer Research. Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition. Clifford. (us. Article 1. (1988). S. Song. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Friedman. (2009). Ebenstein. J. J. Food Inflation Kept Hidden in Tinier Bags. 6. Harvard Business School Marketing Research Papers.Works Cited 1. 2. Effects of Supersizing and Downsizing Packages on Consumption: Marketing and Policy Implications. (2002). Gourville. Downsizing Price Increases: A Greater Sensitivity to Price than Quantity in Consumer Markets. New York Times. Bentham.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful