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?

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; that a business must develop effective marketing strategies to draw in customers; that a business must build a positive public image. 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, businesses strive to be profitable. A given business might have other goals, certainly. However, profit reigns supreme; all other ends are subordinate. Organizations that forget or disregard the primacy of profit find themselves waist deep in red ink; if they fail to adapt, they will drown. So how can businesses run profitably? The answer is plain. Profit is, in simplest terms, the difference between a companys revenues and a companys costs. To increase profit, then, an organization must increase its gains or decrease its expenditures. However, this is often easier said than done. The simplest way that an organization can generate more income while keeping production costs stable is to raise the prices of their market goods. However, this often results in a loss. The law of supply and demand states that marginal consumers, those who perceive a given products utility or value as only slightly higher than its market price, will drop out of the market if the price of that product increases by any noticeable margin. Often, raising prices drives away a businesss customer base and leaves them poorer. This has given rise to a new profit-generation mechanism: product shrinkage. Product shrinkage is a hidden price increase; 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, while making a small content

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

of companies have, through gradual product shrinkage, made volume reductions of over twenty five percent while holding price at a constant level. Among them are Dryers ice cream, Wisk laundry detergent, and Proctor and Gamble baby products (Song, 2003, pg. 1). This trend has, as it has become more evident, caused no small amount of tension in the marketplace. 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. The question is: 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? To answer that question, its important to consider who is affected by this trend and how they are affected. There are a number of peripheral players who will be given consideration later on, but the two primary stakeholders are the producer and the consumer. The producer is concerned, as stated in the introduction, with generating a profit. The primary benefit that the producer enjoys as a result of product downsizing is increased profit. Organizations enjoy higher profit margins if they can generate the same income while relinquishing less material assets. However, hidden price increases are dangerous. The basic premise of modern marketing theory is this: marketing is not a battle of products, it is a battle of perceptions. It is near impossible for an organization to succeed if its public image is poor. Subtle product downsizing will not necessarily damage an organizations image, but more heavy handed shrinkages upset consumers. These unsatisfied customers generate negative PR by word of mouth or via social media. This in turn discourages others from purchasing a product. Eventually, the product develops a bad public image and the companys sales start to see rapid decline. This leads to

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

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

effects of downsizing less than do producers and consumers. However, 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. If a customer buys a product from a given vendor, discovers that he has not received what he feels that he paid for, and becomes upset as a result, 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. Stocking products that have been downsized by a noticeable margin can be dangerous for business. However, retailers can also benefit from stocking products that have been downsized. Downsized products are an efficient use of shelf and warehouse space. They generate the same amount of profit as a product in the same size package with marginally more volume while weighing significantly less. Its also easier to stock one hundred large boxes than two hundred smaller ones. It is the task of each retailer to decide whether or not their store will stock downsized products, and to accept responsibility for whatever consequences may come of that decision. Marketers and legislators share the same burdens when it comes to product-shrinkage. Marketers must decide whether or not their marketing strategies will involve downsizing price increases, 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. Marketers understand that, if handled delicately, content reduction can increase profit margins and enrich stockholders and employees. They also realize that poorly managed product-shrinkage can spell death for a companys public image which can, in turn, lead to financial failure. However, it is getting harder and harder to avoid product-shrinkage strategies in the modern market. If the current trend continues, it will soon be impossible to remain

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

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

business efficiency, devalues stock, and costs the companys principals money. Friedman did not, however, preach anarchy in the streets. While he believed that government solutions were typically more destructive and long-lasting than the problems that they were implemented to address (Friedman, 2002, pg. 239), he also believed that unless all business owners were held to the same code of law, there would be no commerce or increase in wealth production. He believed that it was the duty of every business owner and business person to abide by the laws that applied to his organization, and to be honest in his dealings. His economic model can be effectively described using three words. Business ought to be honest, lawful, and profitable. At first glance, Friedmans model seems amoral and insensitive. Profit has become a dirty word, and without corporate sponsorship, many noble philanthropic efforts would fail spectacularly. Therefore, 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. The forces of the political left see Friedmans system as a greedy, selfish one. However, Friedman saw things differently. He writes, The problem of social organization has always been to establish a system in which greed does the least harm. That system is free-market capitalism. (Friedman, 2002, pg. 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, successful corporations increase their profits by a significant margin. Toms 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. Yoplait yogurt has become increasingly profitable as they have donated more and more money to breast cancer research efforts. Hoarding is not the same thing as maximizing profit; in fact, it will often drive a business out of the market. The first law of marketing states

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

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

consumers will become dissatisfied and take their business elsewhere. This is especially true in todays information age. There are dozens of articles online warning consumers away from companies that utilize product shrinkage in excess. The example of Pringles comes to mind once again; their inelegant implementation of content reduction cost them a large percentage of their customer base. However, there are many companies who have successfully used product shrinkage to increase their product margins. What are some examples? As the bard wrote, heres the rub: very few people know which businesses those are, since successful product shrinkage is invisible. However, with some detailed research and data analysis, one can discover that hundreds of companies have been utilizing product shrinkage for years without suffering any losses as a result. For instance, one pint containers of Haagen Dazs ice cream do not actually contain a full pint of product. They contain a merchants pint; only three quarters of a true pint. However, 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. Many other ice cream companies have managed to increase profits using product shrinkage. However, Ben and Jerrys Corporation has employed a different strategy. Rather than throwing sand in the eyes of their consumer base, 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, 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. Once again, greed actually protects the consumer. Businesses are often forced to offer consumers more product rather than less in order to gain an edge in the market. Ultimately, product shrinkage can hurt a business if consumers become aware of it. At that point it has failed entirely; it is no longer fulfilling its role

as a hidden price increase, and consumers see the producer as disingenuous. This can occur if the shrinkage is too rapid or too noticeable, or if competing companies draw the content reduction to the attention of the consumer in order to draw business to themselves. However, the fact remains that, if employed correctly, product shrinkage fulfills Friedmans final criteria: it is economically beneficial to the company and to the companys owners. The conclusion is a simple one: by the authors economic standards and by the law of the land, product shrinkage is an ethical practice and one that is effective in business. However, as was mentioned before, legal and economic considerations are only two of the three elements of an economic framework. The last is what is referred to as an ethical duties system; it is a reflection of an individuals informed opinions concerning his rights, the rights of others, and the inviolability of those rights. Ethical Considerations One ethical duties system that many business people adhere to is utilitarianism. The principles of utilitarianism were developed by the eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham, and one of his contemporaries named John Mills. These two men believed that the ethicality of any given action was established post hoc based on the consequences it produced. 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, overall harms, compares them, and determines whether or not the pros outweigh the cons. 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. (Bentham, 1988) It is, at times, a difficult system to apply. When dealing with numerical data such as dollars and cents, it is simple enough. Business owners ought to

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

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

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

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

Works Cited 1. Bentham, J. (1988). Principles of Morals and Legislation. Amherst: Prometheus Books. 2. Chandon, P. January 2009. Effects of Supersizing and Downsizing Packages on Consumption: Marketing and Policy Implications. Advances in Consumer Research. (Academic Journal) 3. Clifford, S. March 2011. Food Inflation Kept Hidden in Tinier Bags. New York Times. (Periodical) 4. Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, Article 1, Sec. 7.2a, (us.gov 2001) 5. Ebenstein, L. (2009). Milton Friedman: A Biography. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. 6. Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 7. Gourville, J. June 2004. Downsizing Price Increases: A Greater Sensitivity to Price than Quantity in Consumer Markets. Harvard Business School Marketing Research Papers. (Academic Journal) 8. Song, S. January 2003. The Shrink Rap. Your Time. (Periodical)