“Shrinkflation is officially affecting the girlies,” Jessica Backlund, a Texas-based TikTok creator, told her followers in a recent video. Backlund used TikTok to compare two versions of the Milk Makeup Lip and Cheek Cream Blush Stick. The original 1 oz size, introduced in 2016 for $24, has shrunk to 0.21 oz while the price has remained the same, according to multiple customer reviews. In Sephora and beauty subreddits, customers have aired grievances over the shrunken size. This trend has become increasingly evident as customers have taken to Reddit and various social media platforms to highlight the differences. For example, Milk’s Kush Mascara saw a 25% decrease in volume when reformulated, shrinking from 10 mL (0.34 fl oz) to 8 mL (0.27 fl oz), all while maintaining its $28 price tag. Multiple graphics from this product series have circulated, detailing the exact breakdown of product size reductions, the extent of these changes, and corresponding price stabilization. Whether this graphic was sourced from Milk Makeup or not, Milk Makeup declined to comment on this matter. But, other brands, including Benefit, Kylie Cosmetics, Pat McGrath, Too Faced, and Nars have been accused of apparently downsizing their products without lowering the price, according to product reviews as well.

Brands may downsize products due to escalating input costs, like ingredients, leading to an increase in production expenses. Consequently, producers find themselves selling their goods at elevated prices across all price points in order to ensure profitability. “The prices of materials and ingredients have definitely gone up. So many companies have to either choose between downgrading the quality or quantity of the product, increasing the price, or both,” says Kayla Greaves, a beauty expert, over Zoom.

Just earlier in February 2024, Italian beauty brand EspressOH announced that they would be increasing the prices of their products by 6%. In a letter titled, “Dear EspressOH community..” the five-slide post on Instagram detailed the increase of costs they were facing as a brand. Although they weren’t contributors to shrinkflation, they acknowledge that the reason shrinkflation might be happening to other brands is due to the increased shipping and material costs they and multiple other beauty brands are being faced with right now. Chiara Cascella, the CEO and founder, says over the phone, “The raising in prices comes from all of our suppliers, like packaging, formula, everything,” she goes on to mention that her brands suppliers had, on average, a “15% increase in all of our formulations.” Although they’ve been seeing the price increase for the past 2-3 years, they’ve just decided to match their prices to what their suppliers are charging as they’ve “absorbing those price changes for as long as they could.”

“There is a noticeable trend towards reducing the packaging and content in our products, driven by factors such as the raw material crisis, inflation, and an increased societal focus on sustainability,” says Juan Campdera, Market Analyst and CEO of Aktiva Creative Design Agency, over Zoom. However, there’s a potential risk of eroding trust among loyal consumers if they consistently receive less product.

“Since the economic impact of reducing the quantity of compound and packaging compared to the cost and selling price is not directly proportional, there comes a point where, no matter how much you reduce, it will not generate significant cost differences for the company,” says Campdera.

Campdera suggests that if reductions are done occasionally and not as a continuous policy, it may have a temporary impact on the brand and its image. With hopes of a reversal, brands might be able to save their image by “implementing promotions and recovering the lost volume.”

Although Milk Makeup is a brand widely recognized for its association with shrinkflation, it is not the only brand accused of reducing product sizes. according to customer reviews and photo evidence, The Benefit Hoola Matte Bronzer, which introduced its mini Hoola bronzer in 2019 with 0.14 oz of product, now, in 2023, features a mini size with 0.08 oz, indicating a 42.86% decrease in product while maintaining a $19 USD price point. Some instances of shrinkflation deviate from shrinking the exact product for the same or an increased price. Instead, products with the same function are re-released as “reformulations.” Market Analyst Devi Rampersad, over email, says “Some products have distracted their clients with shrinkflation by upgrading the packaging and container of their products. A majority of the time, clients can’t really tell that products changed in their sizing due to the change in packaging.” The former NARS, Dior, and Fenty Beauty employee goes on to mention, “For example, NARS reformulated their lip glosses, upgraded their tubes and applicators, and reduced the product by 0.1oz. With that being said, their glosses used to be 0.18oz, retailing at $24 USD while the new glosses offer 0.17oz and retail for $28.”

For a beloved brand like Fenty Beauty, consumers seem to be catching onto patterns of shrinkflation, recognizing that “reformulations” or “rereleases” feel just as gimmicky. “I bought the Fenty lip gloss five years ago, and I wanted to replace it because it’s old. But why does this new one look like the packaging is slimmer and taller?” says Tiktok creator @sunnyzlaw. And while their speculation comes off as knit-picky, they are mostly right. Although no consumer of Fenty is receiving less product by the oz or gram, and isn’t a victim of the traditional woes of shrinkflation, the product dimensions on the Fenty Gloss bomb ‘HEAT’ are 3.58 x 1.06 x 1.06 inches; 0.3 Ounces, while the dimensions on the ‘Universal Lip Luminizer’ are 3.58 x 0.98 x 0.98 inches; 0.3 Ounces. Most of the products we see within the realm of shrinkflation are bronzer, blushes, contours, and stick-based products, and that with each product shrink, consumers become more and more aware.

While many consumers may feel taken advantage of, some view the brand’s choice through the lens of sustainability practices advocated by the industry for years. Supporters of shrinkflation argue that for products like the 1oz Milk Makeup blush stick, the larger size often results in expiration before the product is fully utilized due to its shelf life. Concerning sustainability and wastefulness, many could expect that reduced product sizes could lead to increased purchases and consumer behavior. However, Campdera suggests that with shrinkflation, “The consumer can promptly accept a reduction in the quantity of the product, and greater awareness of sustainable use minimizes the problems generated by this trend.” He goes on to mention, “However, if this were to happen continuously, it would surely lead to a negative opinion and disengagement towards the product and brand.”

As shrinkflation continues to ripple through the beauty industry, shoppers are left questioning whether their favorite products are truly worth the price tags they once deemed a holy grail. While brands cite rising ingredient costs, sustainability efforts, and product shelf-life concerns, these explanations may not be enough to hush growing skepticism. After all, when reformulations feel more like rebranding tactics and “mini” sizes become the new normal, trust may start to waver. For an industry built on appearances, perception is everything—begging the question: will the industry’s shrinking products lead to shrinking trust?