Beware that sneaky new packaging, you could be getting less bang for your buck

In this weekly segment of bite-sized chunks of useful information, consumer journalist Wendy Knowler summarises news you can use:

Is it more affordable or just less bang for your buck?

Greg alerted me to the latest in a very long list of “shrinkflation” examples. That word refers to the practise of reducing a product’s amount or volume per unit while continuing to offer it at the same or similar price. So instead of putting up the price of an existing pack — which would be a transparent way of doing it — manufacturers repackage it in a slightly smaller pack in the hope consumers don't notice. They call it “more affordable” but we’re not getting a bargain; we’re getting less product for our spend.

The practise is not illegal, as long as the correct weight or volume of the product is revealed but, naturally, the sneakiness of it doesn’t sit well with consumers.

“Some years ago cat food pouches were 100g each,” Greg said. “Then the industry shrank them to 85g.

"And now it’s happening again. I recently bought a box of 20 Catmor cat food sachets, marked as a special. When I opened the box I saw the sachets were only 70g — another 15g less. Utterly shameful.

“A 70g sachet is not enough to feed an adult cat twice daily.”

Manufacturer RCL Foods agrees. “If a cat is being fed wet food exclusively, the minimum amount that constitutes a complete meal is about 190g, and no wet cat food manufacturers claim one pouch/serving constitutes a complete meal,” said corporate communications manager Virginia Horsley. “Should a cat be exclusively fed Catmor sachets, our packaging recommends that three pouches constitute a complete meal.”

It’s all about selling each “pouch”, a partial meal, at a price point which consumers consider “affordable”, apparently.

“Catmor strives to offer consumers an affordable price point relative to other wet cat food pouches on the market,” Horsley said.

So after 18 years of 85g pouches, “rising inflation and input costs” have been passed on by means of a smaller pack.

With differing cat food pouch sizes on sale, it pays to make unit prices your friend. They’re those per kg or 100g prices displayed on Pick n Pay, Shoprite and Checkers shelf labels, and they enable you to do proper price comparisons no matter the size of the pack.

So you think reading the fine print is a hassle? Try not reading it

The online directory scam is still catching an awful lot of small businesses seven years on.

From medical practices and service stations to guest houses, couriers and beauty salons, they continue to fall victim to the “just sign the form to confirm your Telkom directory listing, it’s free” scam. Then comes the demand for about R15,000 for a year’s subscription to an undisclosed online listing, and if they don’t pay, their “debt collectors” demands begin. It was all set out in the form’s small print, which they didn’t read.

I hear from at least one of these victims every day.

Luci’s e-mail is fairly typical. “Our company has been taken by the directory scam. We signed the contract and we have now been told if we don't pay we will be blacklisted in our personal capacity and as a company.

“The case is being handled by ITC Summons.”

My advice for Luci was cut-and-paste simple: do not engage with that lot and do not pay, no matter how dire their threats become.

They never follow through on any of them and they have no authority to make them in the first place.

ITC Summons and its director were registered with the Council for Debt Collectors from August 2021 until last month, when they were found guilty of improper conduct in terms of the Debt Collectors Act. They failed to pay the fine the council imposed and their registration was suspended, meaning the company has no legal right to engage in debt collection activities.

If ever there was a case which demonstrates the need to read the small print — especially the very small print — this is it. The scammers rely on most people’s aversion to doing that.

Buying online? Best you know your rights

Jen had a feeling she was being given a raw deal when she wanted to return an online purchase. And she was right.

“I believe the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) states that if you buy something online you can return it without any penalties. I bought a monitor online. When it was delivered, I connected it and found the display was pathetic. So I tried to return it. I won’t go into how difficult that was but, eventually, I managed to get it done by driving to the nearest physical store and handing it over,” she said.

“They refunded me 80% of the purchase price, charging a 20% handling fee. I think that was wrong.”

It was. It’s not the CPA which provides consumers with a week’s cooling-off period in which to return goods for a full refund when buying online — it’s the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. And it entitles us to send back an unwanted product, for any reason, at our cost for a full refund.

The company can legally take up to 30 days to refund, but they can’t charge a handling fee.

So Jen is entitled to a refund of that 20% “handling fee”.

• GET IN TOUCH: You can contact Wendy Knowler for advice with your consumer issues via e-mail: consumer@knowler.co.za or on Twitter: @wendyknowler.

Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.