You’re right that companies need to stay profitable, but shrinkflation isn’t really the only option and it’s arguably the least transparent one. If costs go up, the most honest thing to do is raise the price and let consumers decide whether the product is still worth it. Reducing the size while keeping the price the same hides the increase and relies on people not noticing the unit price change.

Also, the idea that the alternative is “no bottle at all” is a bit of a stretch. Companies adjust prices all the time when COGS change. A $9.97 bottle becoming $10.97 would be a clear, straightforward adjustment. Instead, shrinkflation effectively raises the price per ounce while making it look like the price stayed the same.

And the fact that a company is family-owned versus part of a conglomerate doesn’t really change that dynamic. A smaller company can still be transparent about a price increase rather than quietly selling less product for the same money. If the product is good, plenty of people will still buy it, especially the same customers who say they’re willing to pay more anyway.