While it might seem fair to blame the company here, I would like to point out that many people with limited budgets (and this includes children receiving allowances, not just adults with a weekly cap on their grocery budget) would prefer a smaller portion of something to not being able to buy it at all. I am not talking about the soda can scam I despise with the 7.5oz cans when you can only buy a 12oz can in a twelve-pack in many places instead of a six pack now (this annoys the crap out of me). I am talking about the fact that inflation raises prices, and raising prices often prices customers out of things.

Companies don't like losing customers, and loyal customers who like certain products do not like being forced to choose between two "less full" sized products, or one product this week and two next week (or whatever; imagine being able to buy either a bottle of cold brew or a carton of creamer, OR simply having to settle for less of both).

Keeping the price roughly similar might seem like a scam but if you're some random person who really really feels their day sucks without something, would you like being priced out of it instead of disciplining yourself without any interference to merely have it a day or two less per week?

I am pretty sure few people really believe they are getting the same amount after a week or two of that smaller cereal box or whatever.

Mars, Inc is a private, family-owned company. Presumably they still like making money, but the stereotype of daily stock price obsessed CEO doesn't apply here as there is no traded stock.

The real problems are that:

1) they're colluding to do this, or more accurately that they don't have to collude to do this, since the brands have all been bought up by monopolies. Shrinkflation would be obvious if it sat next to the original products on the shelves. Instead, Mars or Unilever etc. own almost entire categories of food and control how they are shelved.

2) They aren't being regulated to make the distinction clear to customers, and even allowed to intentionally obscure it by doing things like blowing more air into a less full chip bag, and

3) the fact that modern food companies are simply holding companies for portfolios of historic trademarks that they can use to trade on the history of those brands while cheapening the ingredients.

On 3), we've long since arrived in a period when the generic is usually better than the brand name, because the generic has to compete on cost for value, and the brand has assumed value from the brand-loyal that allows the ingredients to be cheapened without losing customers. It's the brand that is premium, not what's in the package.

I actually think the metric system offered a bit of concealment on shrinkflation - things were once sold in standard unit sizes, and sometimes selling them (especially the fancy ones) in metric unit sizes got people used to seeing strange long decimal standard unit sizes in things they were used to buying by the pound or the quart.

Gallons of milk didn't shrink, but I think the fact that a lot of us were drinking fancy imported coffees gave those room to go crazy with bag sizes. The flour I buy is still in a 5lb bag, but if flour sellers all decided to go 2 kilos one day at the same price, a lot of people wouldn't notice (or would get used to it.)