Pack Size Learnings
Smaller packs may backfire – for suppliers in terms of volumes, for consumers in terms of calorie intake
Downsizing: smaller packs hurt volumes
Over the last decade, smaller pack sizes (often cheaper in absolute price but not per ml/g) have become fashionable to respond to the growth of small households, to offer treat-sized portions, to control calorie intake – or to hide price increases.
For shoppers these smaller packs offer an opportunity to limit spend. Looking at brands in one European market over a period of three years we compare brands which experienced an increase versus a decrease in the average pack size consumers chose: we find a similar loss of buyers and little change in frequency for both groups. But there was a big difference in volumes. Beware these consequences of down-sizing!
Small pack sizes may be bad for you!
You may be familiar with this sequence: A small chocolate bar is a justifiable and well-deserved treat because calories per serving are so much lower compared to a regular bar. It sure is OK to consume a second or a third, right?
A study testing calories-per-serving information on packs finds:
- Lower than expected calories per serving backfire: you eat more unhealthy snacks, especially with small serving sizes.
- Especially consumers who actively monitor their calorie intake increase their intake of unhealthy snacks if they come in small packs.
- Doubling serving size has an unexpected effect: Consumers (whether calorie-conscious or not) decrease their actual consumption of indulgent snacks.
Why does this matter? Actual food intake per occasion is obviously a more accurate indicator of unhealthy food consumption than the calorie information provided by manufacturers (which, for small sizes, is often low). Especially for unhealthy snacks, the FDA calls for changing standard serving sizes to levels that reflect actual consumption behaviours. This would help consumers to make more informed choices and reduce calorie intake.
National Brand vs Private Label pack sizes
Comparing the actual sizes offered and purchased between NB and PL in a category we see that NB sizes on offer tend to be smaller than PL sizes in a slight majority of categories. In a clear majority of categories, however, the PL sizes chosen are larger than the NB sizes chosen.
Given the price premia of NB versus PL it comes as no surprise that consumers lean towards smaller NB pack sizes, especially if the focus is on the actual amount spent and not on potential savings that a larger pack size might provide per g/l.
