Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

Mars Bar from 1991 found – and it's 20g bigger than today's

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1j1kjy7gewo
Shrinkflation is all over. Burger buns at fast food places were more dense 20 years ago. The small burgers had 1/8th pound patties instead of the current 1/10th pound. It's hard to find a product that hasn't gotten worse or more expensive, even adjusted for inflation.
loading story #49247449
loading story #49247316
loading story #49246174
Which is why I say people claiming that inflation is at least 2x undercounted relative to lived experience are right. Everything diminishes, all across the board. Materials get cheaper. Service quality gets lower - and when it doesn't, all the incidentals around it get worse.

My go-to example: your local hairdresser may keep the same prices (adjusted for the official inflation or otherwise), but over the years, they may have stopped serving coffee and started offering only water. The salon used to be beautiful and stylish, and now looks dirty and furnished with cheapest bargain-bin business store furniture. Flowers are gone or replaced with cheap plastics. Toilets never have toilet paper in it, faucet always leaking. Waiting room sofas got replaced with cheap chairs. Even the magazines are gone, and in their place you just get leaflets. Etc.

Repeat the same for your local grocery store, parking lot, car dealership, bus stop, airport, cinema, everything.

The second half of the inflation is literally everywhere, in everything - it can be easily seen once you start looking for it. And after that, you can't unsee it.

Ice cream is 1.5 qt not 1/2 gallon. I don't know what they put into pizza "dough" but it's not real flour.

Everything has been spreadsheeted to death.

loading story #49247536
loading story #49246411
loading story #49246457
loading story #49246430
loading story #49248526
loading story #49254820
I'd be curious to know, with the reduction in size, if calorie density went up.

Because that would fit a lot of people's perception of how food is going: you get less, but what you do get is worse for you.

loading story #49245932
I'd be relatively surprised if the Mars bar's calorie density went up after it was ruined in 2002. The old Mars bar was a beast: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49245791 .
loading story #49249616
loading story #49245925
loading story #49245639
loading story #49245765
loading story #49250727
loading story #49246213
loading story #49245544
loading story #49251648
loading story #49250592
loading story #49251397
loading story #49250017
loading story #49248062
loading story #49246619
loading story #49246205
loading story #49248348
loading story #49246908
loading story #49250511
loading story #49248676
loading story #49245727
loading story #49251023
loading story #49246136
> A Mars spokesperson said: "Over the last 35 years, we have made a number of updates to our bar sizes and pack formats to reflect consumer demand, alongside considering wider external factors such as manufacturing costs and the price of cocoa."

I can guarantee you this is not “consumer demand”. Nobody goes to the store thinking “I wish shrinkflation was even more prevalent and that I’d get even less for my money”. Screw you corporate BS PR department, you’re not even trying.

loading story #49249773
loading story #49249737
loading story #49249755
loading story #49249934
I was surprised to learn the Mars bar familiar from my childhood wasn't a product of the original American corporation Mars Inc.

Frank Mars founded the American company. His son Forrest invented Milky Way, but then eventually quarreled with his dad and was removed from the business. Forrest moved to England, founded his own company, and the Mars bar was his first product: a European version of Milky Way.

Later he inherited the original American business and merged the UK one into it.

I'd love an HBO "Succession" style dramatization of this. I've always found family businesses so interesting. My first job was working directly for a perpetually "near-retirement" 70 year old man, that never stepped down. His son formed a rival agency, lawyers got involved. The old man carved out a niche from his agency and let the son run it (into the ground).

When the old man eventually died around 80 year old, he left the business 51% to his wife and 49% to his son, so the mom could keep him in check.

When she passed a few years later, the son got it all, and within a few years, they were completely out of business, and the son sold it for pennies.

All of this is secondhand from the head accountant (that had been there since the 80s) that the son fired immediately upon taking full control of the company. It really was a drama that should have been on television.

loading story #49247500
loading story #49246887
loading story #49247163
I have also wondered what sort of dramatizations could come out of Mars, Inc, though I also wonder if there are weird classified twists that won't come out easily. Or at least if you were writing the fictional dramatization there's a rich room to play with the idea of what was really going on in that Chocolate Factory. With Mars, Inc. a private family company headquartered in McLean, VA, it's almost hard not to imagine some complicated history with the CIA as well. The UK branch spin off sounds like a reverse Kingsman/Statesman plot if you assume some spycraft in the company's history.

(Rival Hershey's ties to Pennsylvania history/culture similarly leaves ideas for National Treasure-style conspiracies in the chocolate world in the early history of control over the national identity.)

Free silly plot ideas for Hollywood or a graphic novelist hoping for Hollywood adaptation opportunities.

loading story #49247192
loading story #49245445
We're tracking prices and packaging for food since 2012 at Open Food Facts, and we have a food archeology project: https://wiki.openfoodfacts.org/Project:Archeology https://world.openfoodfacts.org/open-food-facts-mobile-app

Feel free to add what you have in your attic ;-)

loading story #49248063
Food reporting is often framed like this, as if the smaller size was a bad thing, or the price / gram, pound or ounce is the relevant criteria. Esp in the case of candy, you would think smaller sizes would satisfy the other framing for food items, esp in America, that over-sized food leads to obesity. It is a lose-lose framing, with nutritional value completely ignored. Instead, the reporting is always how people are being ripped off or making an unhealthy choice.
loading story #49250451
loading story #49249926
loading story #49247155
loading story #49248718
loading story #49245586
loading story #49245573
loading story #49247283
What a world we live in, that someone finding a 35 year old candy bar while cleaning out a hoarder's house gets its own tier 1 news article.
loading story #49245332
loading story #49245408
loading story #49245246
loading story #49245459
loading story #49246299
Just my personal anecdata, it took my a while to put a finger on it, but it seemed like something started to change in products in the 90s. Bag of chips started to fill up with more air and less chips, candy bars got smaller, airlines started reducing seat sizes. Super huge discount? retail stores opened, that you usually needed a membership card. Walmart started offering the cheapest sourced product from around the world that was often just slightly inferior to what you use to be able to get, or the price on the higher quality item went up while the slightly lower quality item price went down. Washing machines started using all these cheap plastic parts that more easily wear down or break. Electronics started to get added to everything whether it is needed or not, usually for switches where the electronic part is cheaper than the mechanical equivalent.

And I realized, this is what people want, in the sense of this is what they will pay for, this is how they vote with their wallet. What I want is not this, but it is what society wants.

I disagree that it is what people want. Nobody wants a smaller chocolate bar for the same amount of money, more cramped seats, washing machines that break and need constant replacement, etc.

Massive corporate consolidation means that when you're looking at the rack of chocolate bars there's a good chance that just 2 companies made all of them. You have the illusion of choice.

None of this happened over-night. It's a slow steady financial optimization in all industries all at the same time. It's very hard to vote with your wallet when there's very little difference.

If there is a sustainable market for higher volume/quality/durability products for a higher price, it is in the interest of companies - new and existing - to capture it, as by definition they would profit from it.

Consolidation alone is insufficient to explain such a gap under the assumption of profitability.

Economic theory would work a lot better if humans weren't involved.

It's almost impossible for a new company to join most of these markets; the major players are so large that they have influence over the retailers, the suppliers, and everyone in the middle.

But every so often successful higher volume/quality/durability products do manage exist for a time but are eventually bought out and the brand destroyed. This has played out over and over.

The market optimizes for profit growth, not for customer satisfaction.

There is a spectrum of how good a product is between "doesn't work at all" to "falls apart in a couple uses" to "lasts five generations of your families lives."

Companies tiptoe this fine line between having something so shitty that people immediately reject it and so good that they never buy any more and the company folds. It has to be just shitty enough where they can guarantee future replacement sales but not so shitty to put people off right away.

Most of these durable goods products are therefore found in companies too small to satiate the demand of their entire market share too fast. And even then they fail all the time.

Customers are not perfectly-informed rational actors. The areas that companies are cutting costs on are precisely those that are most likely to escape the customer's notice - slightly smaller size, less durable, etc.

It turns out that it's more profitable to buy up an existing brand and slowly cheap out on the product (basically capitalizing the reputation) than it is to continue to produce a quality product.

> And I realized, this is what people want, in the sense of this is what they will pay for, this is how they vote with their wallet. What I want is not this, but it is what society wants.

I don't think you can really say they want it, because in many instances they are manipulated or have no other choice.

> Just my personal anecdata, it took my a while to put a finger on it, but it seemed like something started to change in products in the 90s.

The electronic spreadsheet.

{"deleted":true,"id":49245832,"parent":49245598,"time":1786379007,"type":"comment"}
This is what they discovered through the equivalent of A/B testing. People are disappointed in a 5% increase in price, especially if it crosses a magical threshold, but they will accept a smaller product. They will favor the smaller product over the larger one if it is given in the right container, such as a rounded carton of ice cream over a larger brick. They see the rounded container as evidence of higher quality. And on and on.

Needing a app to turn on a light, though, that's just weird.

I believe the change you're observing is the result of the widespread adoption of computers. This is what a data-driven society looks like. Corporations have the ability to finetune the margins of exactly how much anti-consumerism they can get away with before upsetting enough people that a given anti-consumer decision isn't more profitable than not doing it.

In a sense, it is the people's fault for their current level of tolerance, but at the same time, a data-driven society will converge on an equilibrium just within the razor-thin margin of what people will tolerate, in the name of 'efficiency'.

Bag of chips started to fill up with more air and less chips, candy bars got smaller, airlines started reducing seat sizes.

The phrase you're looking for is "value engineering."

There are also other factors.

Part of the reason that Pringles cans are mostly air is so that the soap company that makes them can sell fewer chips, but retain the same amount of visual space on the store shelf. The product is the billboard. Some brands pay for that space on the shelf, so they're going to use every bit of it.

Eh? Pringles cans aren't mostly air, except in a technical sense due to the spaces between the chips. They're stacked with chips from top to bottom.
Eh? Pringles cans aren't mostly air, except in a technical sense due to the spaces between the chips.

Different products in different stores, I guess.

Here, and in every other American city I've lived in for the last 20 years, the tall can of Pringles is 50% air.

Do a quick web search, and you'll see hundreds of people complaining about it.

I once complained to the soap company, and got the expected response: They're sold by weight, not volume.

Your posting history indicates that you're not in the United States, so perhaps store shelf space isn't as valuable where you live.

loading story #49254725
Basically any "brand name" product which isn't either family owned or privately run by an extremely idealistic founder/CEO ends up getting predictably worse over time. Once some private equity fund buys you out and determines you are not on the quality/price Pareto frontier and can manage to lose only .8% of your revenue making your product .9% cheaper, the die is already cast.
loading story #49248947
"20g" (actually 22.5g) hides the fact that it's 56% bigger than today's Mars bar...
Reducing the portion size for junk food is probably a good thing. This is a rare case where shrinkflation may actually be beneficial to all parties.
loading story #49245215
loading story #49246600
Since we are commenting in a tech website about chocolate bars, I'll say this. I bought one or more every day for years during my childhood from about 7 years old to 12 years old. Must have walked and rode my bike enough to stay fit. I also filled my lent box when I gave them up (Church donation, put the money you would spend on your daily fun into a box instead of spending it)
loading story #49255064
I’d be more interested in the ingredients. I would guess the 91 version has a lot less weird stuff in it?
loading story #49245278
loading story #49245748
loading story #49245434
Might have been more. There were a lot of food additives in use in the early 90s which the EU subsequently banned.
loading story #49245427
loading story #49245587
loading story #49245558
I am always reminded at a convenience store if I pick up a candy bar that some of my earliest memories include them costing 5 cents in the early 1970s that very quickly became 10 cents and by the late 70s, maybe 25 cents max for a standard size. Today, easily 10x this.
loading story #49250527
loading story #49249396
Well i mean yes shrinkflation is obviously a thing. But in this case... People are anyway eating too much sugar and processed food.

In the end it is like a sugar tax just that in this case the company itself did apply it and not the goverment.

I know people will buy it anyway also when its more expensive...

Just eat less processed food its harder to trick you and much more healthy.

Article could have profited by adopting a neutral tone instead of attempting to be comedic. Surely information on historical sizes has not been lost. As for the candy bar market: the ideal outcome for the consumer would be if a single candy bar ended up being a reasonable portion size, priced proportionately to cost to produce.
loading story #49245472
Checking Amazon UK[0], it seems there are 18g, 39.4 g and 51 g Mars bars (and 57 g Mars Protein bars). So it's not clear weather a 60 g Mars bar is that much of a good example of shrinkflation, but 40 g seems to be the wrong comparison.

[0] https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=mars+bar

loading story #49248050
Ironically you can barely find a single mars bar in the UK these days. Usually what's stocked is "Mars Duo": two mars bars in one wrapper.
loading story #49252312
loading story #49254555
loading story #49254348
And then we have the Freddo comparison [0] over here as well, not in skinkflation terms, but in a how is that going up in price terms (Although I've seen them at 39p recently, so probably out of date)

[0] https://thefreddoindex.com/

This does not surprise me. I noticed in the early 2000s that the Yorkie bar suddenly no longer had the 6 letters on the squares. Turns out... They sneakily reduced them to only 5! So the word no longer fit. If it weren't for the letters I might not even have noticed.

Also when I worked in a bar every year we got be beer glasses from the brewery. Every year they fit a little bit less. You could fill an old one to the brim, pour it into the new ones and yep it would overflow.

So sneaky and this has been going on year after year.

loading story #49254440
Shrinking portion sizes for junk food is probably the best thing we could do. Some 37% of Americans are obese. Back in the 40s and 50s, a normal amount of, say, Coca-Cola was a tiny-ass little bottle. Now you can get a half-gallon at the movies.
No, shrinking portions while also charging proportionally less would be the best thing we could do.
loading story #49254593
loading story #49251337
Scunthorpe mentioned!
loading story #49245461
loading story #49245834
Summary "In accordance to our customer feedback we decreased the package size and increased the price. "

The business would like nothing better than you to buy nothing but hot air.

Has BBC just discovered shrinkflation?
loading story #49245290
loading story #49245313
TBH chocolate bar shouldn't be too large because you usually eat it as a whole. But chips, butter, chocolate etc. shouldn't be downsized. It's simply cheating
loading story #49251111
Im not sure how it remained in even the same shape after 35 years. I would assume if you left a mars bar on a shelf for a few years it would rot in some fashion.

I guess perhaps we put a lot of shit on our bodies

Seems like I see sizes go up and down.

Slow shrinkflation, then one day "now bigger!" (with a price increase) and then repeat.

loading story #49254972
A lot of my family worked at the Veghel, NL factory 60s to 90s (maybe some of them still do but I do not know); all got boxes of the stuff to take home. The shrinkflation started a long time ago, but, according to my old-uncles not as bad as it is now.
my childhood friend's grandparents were mars testers, their whole basement was full of mars bars!
loading story #49245350
I bought a gatorade today after a run and it was 28oz. Pretty certain the big ones were 32oz for decades. I probably think this is a better size for me but pretty clear that is not why the change was introduced.
Gotta take making things away from the bean counters. Put product people back in charge, people who love what they make. "We don't make movies to make money. We make money to make movies." — Disney
loading story #49253419
Mars bar is not food, it is basically packaged trash. It fits well the place where it was found.

If you fed a lion the average American diet, it would die. And red meat isn't really the problem.

Don't kill yourself. Dont eat trash.

loading story #49246941
How can this be? I have been told all of my life that the market regulates itself and that is good for the consumer. So why don't we have bigger bars instead of smaller ones?
Cheez-Its: 1 lb, down to 13.7 oz, then 12.4 oz, now 7 oz. 100% cheese product is now just salt, whey, yeast powder blend (they're allowed to call that cheese).
Check out the post from the family that has been counting Quality Street tin candies every year for the last decade or two... very telling.
I recall from my childhood in the 70s and 80s in the UK that there was a brief arms race in chocolate bar sizes. Mars Bars peaked at 68g IIRC.
I was already disgruntled with 62.5g! I remember when they were 65g.

I think a few years older and I would have remembered 68g Mars Bars.

The older I get the less I worry and even like downsizing on junk food even at a higher price.
I knew it!

I have vivid memories of eating a mars bar as a kid and marveling at the weight written on the packaging.

Same for KitKat Chunky.

Americans: we used get the Mars bar, but it's basically the Almond Snickers now
I am curious how the composition of this chocolate bar has changed through the years .
Just like when the official kilogram ("Le Grand K") was losing weight!
Weird how the world has progressed, in many ways it is much better, from a standard of living, in others it is much worse.
I once read that Hershey has put a calories cap of 250 on a serving of their candy. That jives with what I see on the store shelves. I wonder if Mars did the same thing and perhaps the reduction in size was due (at least in part?) to that.
Let's just take a moment to appreciate the weasel who wrote this utter trash response. From the article:

> A Mars spokesperson said: "Over the last 35 years, we have made a number of updates to our bar sizes and pack formats to reflect consumer demand, alongside considering wider external factors such as manufacturing costs and the price of cocoa."

Translation: "We think you're stupid enough to believe this nonsense, when the fact is, obviously we, as well as all our competitors, have been working over the past 25 years to trick our customers in order to increase profits."

I’ve tried a few college treats like Hot Pockets and found they are really terrible. I was a bit ashamed that I could have possibly enjoyed something that bad.

The upside of shrinkflation is that you actually may have had great taste, it was the product that declined. It’s not just the portion size, the ingredients and flavor profile are much worse.

loading story #49247222
The real question was whether it is still edible 35y later :D
I hope that Costco continues to sell its $4.99 rotisserie chicken at loss of untold millions USD a year, I couldn't make it as good at 3x the price. I guess they make it up in volume :) Some things are still ok, but we are heading towards Soylent it seems.
Its always funny to me at the costco when they have their deli with the whatever 6.99 rotating turkey sandwich creation they are offering, standing along side the $1.50 hotdog. No one in that line is buying the damn $7 sandwich. I don't think I've seen that item ever sold, and I do frequent the costo food court for that hotdog with some regularity.
loading story #49247424
Grams don't measure size.
Like we hadn't noticed everything getting smaller and shittier. The stuff they sale look positively "cute" nowadays.
It’s well known they grow at approximately half a gram a year.
More than 50% bigger. 62g vs 40g.
Has someone ever adjusted the Big Mac index to account for shrinkflation? Seems like that should definitely be a part of it.
Ice cream is shrinkflated by whipping air into it. They can justify using the same size container, and allegedly selling the same volume, but much of it is just air now.

A side benefit: they can also sell it as "lower calorie" than it was before, since it's diluted with air.

EDIT: interesting to see this upvoted and then downvoted so much. Can someone who is downvoting weigh in? Seems relevant to the topic, and no one is saying it doesn't happen (or that it is happening and they like it).

its not 50 cents anymore either
That said, perhaps it's better for American's health that they shrunk the size... assuming they didn't add 20g of sugar to it to compensate
The modern version replaces a good chunk of the sugar in the old version with corn syrup and adds artificial flavor.
The old, pre-2002 https://www.just-food.com/news/uk-mars-re-branding-offers-co... UK Mars bar (not to be confused with whatever thing the US had) was both horrifying and glorious, an incredibly heavy and filling thing made of thick chocolate and thick caramel. A full-sized Mars bar and a glass of full-cream milk really was an entire meal. The post-2002 bar is a silty nothingburger, a variation on the Milky Way bar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way_(chocolate_bar) which has no business advertising itself as a Mars. I really hope that this one finds its way to a food-science lab so that its contents can be properly documented and recreated.
not sure if this is an unpopular opinion, but I really do not care about shrinkflation as it related to candy, chips, chocolates, and other junk food. Obesogenic foods should be more expensive not less, even if only because it's a price incentive against eating unhealthy.
is it good? never had them
Mars Bar from 1991 found

Is that some kind of achievement? Just look in the ads/coupons in the newspaper archive if you want to see the size of foods in the past.

In the United States, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks shrinkflation as part of the Consumer Price Index:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflati...

Mars bars in the 90s were too big. It was disgusting towards the end. Especially the mars bar. IT was heavier than others. Snickers, Raiders, Kitkats and Lions were all more crunchy, nutty and airy.

Those products are disapeearing anyways. People used to buy packs of bars and eat them as a quick snack in the afternoon. Not anymore. It became the thing you might get at a gas station cause you're on a road trip, and it is that or beef jerky.

paging the worseonpurpose bot to vomit out 3 paragraphs of claudeslop about how private equity stole our chocolate
> Billionaire candy heiress Jacqueline Mars avoided jail time after pleading guilty to misdemeanor reckless driving for an October 4, 2013, crash in Aldie, Virginia. Her Porsche SUV crossed the center line and hit a minivan, killing 86-year-old Irene Ellisor and causing the loss of an unborn child. She received a $2,500 fine.

Just a bad bunch huh??? Guillotine

loading story #49249163
Now I'm puzzled if whatever made Mars lose its primordial water oceans and dense atmosphere could be involved in Mars Bar losing 20g.
Are smaller portions of solid blocks of sugar considered a bad thing?
loading story #49245547
loading story #49245403
No, if price goes down accordingly.
Has anyone done the inflation adjusted math per gram, accounting for less cocoa or whatever?

Viral stories generally don’t come with any maths at all.

It has got to be bad. I noticed full size lays bags are now stamped for $7 and change. $7 for a bag of potato chips you'd think that was crazy bougie organic chip prices with some dill and Himalayan pink salt. But no, that's what lays and cheetos are going for.
loading story #49249962
loading story #49245305
This is a dumb/pointless headline + article imo. Its actually probably a GOOD thing that candy bars are smaller by default, for health reasons. What matters, and what the article fails to even mention, is the inflation-adjusted cost per gram. Not saying shrinkflation is not an issue, but this article does nothing at all to highlight it.
loading story #49247255
loading story #49246053
loading story #49246021