- Dunkin’s leaked “ice policy” went viral, revealing that consumers’ tolerance for shrinkflation is waning
- In a market where 79% of consumers are trading down, trends like these can erode consumer trust & loyalty
- A recent study by McKinsey found price pressure is global consumers’ no.1 concern
LAST week, a laminated store notice at Dunkin’ Donuts allegedly instructed staff to fill iced drinks with more ice and less liquid. On anonymous Facebook groups and Reddit forums, furious customers accused the chain of trying to deceive customers by cutting corners.
Whether the directive was local, experimental or widespread hardly mattered. In a climate of high prices and low trust, the image touched a nerve. Consumers, already bruised by years of shrinkflation, “skimpflation,” and opaque pricing tactics, now seem primed to interpret any change – however minor – as corporate trickery.
“This wasn’t a shift in consumer sensitivity,” says Mark Stiving, Founder of Impact Pricing. “It was a misunderstanding of value perception on Dunkin’s part. Shrinkflation only works when the change goes unnoticed. If there are fewer chips in a bag, most people don’t realise it. But when a drink that used to be filled to the top suddenly isn’t, the loss is visually and emotionally obvious.”
“A noticeable reduction in value is experienced the same way as a noticeable price increase. Both register as a loss, and people hate losses. The rule is simple. Cost savings that are invisible to the buyer are smart. Cost savings that are detectable are dangerous. If a company must change quantity or quality, it has to be accompanied by a clear explanation or a structural change that reframes the experience. Otherwise, it trains customers to distrust future interactions.”
For Dunkin’, the timing could hardly be worse. The cost-of-living crisis has made consumers more vigilant in what has been dubbed “the Uneasy Decade.” According to McKinsey’s “State of the Consumer 2025” survey and report, rising prices continue to be the number-one cause for concern among consumers across all 18 markets surveyed. 79% of global consumers are trading down, while more than half are looking for deals on every purchase.
Price elasticity – the corporate comfort zone that once allowed brands to quietly shrink portions while raising prices – has reached its social limit.
Many companies have already learned that lesson the hard way. In a market where inflation has run hotter and longer than expected, consumers are far more intentional about where they spend their money and far more vocal when they feel deceived. This has left brands walking a tightrope: needing to protect margins while avoiding the perception of stealthy price hikes.
Dunkin’s ice directive, even if mundane from an operational standpoint, reads to many as a symbolic confirmation of a growing suspicion: that big brands now rely on tactics designed to preserve profits while hoping customers won’t notice – until they do.
“Dunkin’s shrinkflation controversy revealed that the value equation has become emotionally charged, not merely transactional,” says Danilo Zatta, Head of Sales, Pricing & TopLine Strategies and Partner at Valcon.
“A small decrease in product volume generated disproportionate backlash because consumers today are more informed, more vocal, and more empowered by social visibility. In an era when people measure value not only in dollars but in fairness, dignity, and transparency, even marginal reductions in perceived value feel like breaches of trust.”
“Instead of calculating shrinkage strictly through efficiency metrics, companies must now consider the intangible but financially meaningful cost of eroding goodwill. This moment signals that consumers will forgive a price increase more readily than a hidden reduction, because honesty maintains equity while concealment dissolves it.”
A market held together by frosting
Shrinkflation is hardly new. From coffee to tissues to yogurt and dish soap, products’ packaging is shrinking without losing price tags.
But the post-pandemic era sped the practice from corporate contingency to standard operating procedure. Supermarkets and FMCG giants alike have played the same game: smaller portions, higher prices, more “air,” fewer crisps. One study looking at shrinkflation in the US retail market finds that approximately 1.92% of products have been downsized.
In the US, the Business Insider has coined it “the Ozempification of American food”– referring to a combination of the rising popularity of Ozempic and increasing food prices leading to businesses profiting from offering people smaller portion sizes.
Consumers tolerated it when inflation felt temporary. But after three years of rising food costs and stubborn supply-chain challenges, tolerance has frayed. In Britain, the Competition and Markets Authority found that some supermarkets increased prices far beyond what their input costs required in 2023, effectively widening margins under the cover of inflation – a practice that has been coined as “greedflation.” In the United States, the Groundwork Collaborative thinktank published a report that found that half of US inflation was due to high corporate profits.
Consumers are catching on, and at their limit. PWC’s Voice of the Consumer 2025 survey and C-suite insights for the food industry recommends that brands “capture the market with value-based product offerings,” suggesting that “relying on price increases or reducing package sizes to drive growth is unsustainable in the long run.” Strategies that deliver both affordability and added value are cited as the winning formula.
Dynamic pricing, once reserved for airlines and Uber, has now crept into restaurants, retail, cafés and even fast food apps – fuelling the perception that prices change not because they must, but because they can. Skimpflation – higher prices paired with worse service or lower quality – adds insult to injury. And brands’ attempts to frame downsizing as sustainability (“less packaging!”) or health-consciousness (“calorie-friendly portions!”) often land with a thud.
“Tactics like shrinkflation, dynamic pricing, and simplification are not inherently good or bad,” says Mark. “They succeed or fail based on whether customers perceive them as fair – and fairness only exists in the buyer’s mind.”
“When Uber introduced surge pricing, it was hated at first. But the company invested heavily in explaining why it happened and how it worked. Once buyers could connect cause and effect, it became more tolerable, even if they still disliked it. The difference was perceived logic.”
“No one believes that increasing profits is a fair reason for change. But buyers will accept changes that are tied to clear, understandable realities such as cost increases or real-world constraints. When a company cannot or does not explain a change in a way that feels justified, the tactic stops being a revenue lever and starts becoming a reputation problem.”
Dunkin’s icy controversy captures all these tensions. A single policy card posted at one franchise became a proxy for widespread economic frustration. That is because it coincides with a cultural inflection point: big brands that once enjoyed immunity from criticism now face a public eager to police them.
“The threshold is reached when customer frustration rises faster than revenue, when sentiment around fairness weakens, when consumers increasingly comparison-shop, and when past loyalty no longer outweighs irritation,” says Danilo. “At that point, the tactic is still mathematically profitable in the short term but corrosive to long-term willingness to buy.”
“Revenue teams watch margin per unit, but rarely measure trust elasticity, which can collapse abruptly when sentiment reaches a cultural tipping point. Brands need to integrate perception tracking, social listening, elasticity testing, and small-cohort experimentation into pricing governance. When pricing levers start to shift the consumer narrative from ‘this brand is worth it’ to ‘this brand is taking advantage,’ the damage becomes far more costly than inflation itself.”
The coffee sector is especially exposed. Starbucks is contending with its own crisis: unionisation efforts gaining steam, strikes across major cities, and allegations of retaliatory behaviour that have attracted lawmakers such as Zohran Mamdani. The brand – once shorthand for progressive corporate culture – now stands as a warning of what happens when consumer goodwill evaporates.
Consumer revolt – or revolution
Coffee may seem like a trivial battlefield, but it is often a leading indicator of broader consumer sentiment. The Financial Times finds that everyday items like coffee, eggs, and petrol have become modern symbols of inflation.
Americans drink 491 million cups a day. Most will notice when a latte tastes weaker, when a cup holds more air, or when the ice ratio tilts suspiciously. And increasingly, they refuse to shrug it off.
Consumer activism is rising across all income levels, and it’s shaping corporate strategies. Some say it will only increase in 2026, with Gen Z taking the lead. Public pressure is especially targeting large multinationals, scrutinising their practices to hold them accountable. Consumer advocacy has entered a new phase of cross-border collaboration, with organisations now forming strategic partnerships that reach beyond national boundaries to tackle the growing complexity of consumer protection in a globally connected marketplace. Some monitor shrinkflation and pricing by “webscraping” – trawling the internet to make sense of changes and deceptions.
Younger generations in particular see pricing deception as a political issue, and seek out “valuespending.” A Lightspeed survey of 2,000 consumers across the US and Canada found that 96% of Gen Z consumers say they shop intentionally, with 66% noting that it’s important their purchases reflect their values. Interestingly, 32% of Gen Z shoppers say they fear being judged for buying from the “wrong” brands – showing that purpose and peer pressure are reshaping the retail space.
“Younger consumers are not only more price-sensitive – they are more transparency-sensitive,” says Danilo. “They’re willing to pay premiums, but only when they feel a brand has earned it through quality, ethical behavior, or experience. Large chains must therefore transition from a one-price-fits-all mentality to a system where value is customisable, flexible, and clearly justified. Tiered product sets, better loyalty ecosystems, and experiential upsell opportunities can create revenue lift without degrading the baseline offering.”
“In a public arena where pricing is debated openly and brand behaviour is always on record, value must be proven, not implied. Future revenue growth will come not from hiding cost pressure but from visibly creating value that customers feel part of. The brands that thrive will treat pricing as relationship design, not just financial engineering – and they will win because consumers believe they want to be fair, not just profitable.”
This shift coincides with economic fatigue. Rising rents, stagnant wages and high interest rates have left consumers not merely thrifty, but combative. They no longer accept brand assurances at face value. They expect transparency and will punish companies that violate it. Mark remains skeptical.
“I don’t buy the idea that younger consumers are more value-conscious,” he says. “They tend to have less disposable income, which makes them more price-sensitive. They are also more connected and more vocal, which means perceived unfairness now travels much farther and much faster.”
“Social media hasn’t changed how people judge fairness. It has magnified the consequences of getting it wrong. Pricing tactics that once might have caused moderate, local frustration can now trigger widespread backlash in hours. There is still a place for tools like dynamic pricing, shrinkflation, and product simplification. The difference today is that there is far less margin for sloppy execution. The tactics are not the problem. Poor implementation, in a highly visible world, is what makes them expensive.”
Dunkin’ and Starbucks sit squarely in the crosshairs. Both chains rely heavily on loyal, habitual customers – exactly the demographic most sensitive to perceived betrayals of value. A single scandal can spark boycotts or drive traffic toward smaller chains, independent cafés, or at-home brewing.
But the real story is not Dunkin’s ice. It is what the outrage signals: the end of consumer passivity.
Brands can shrink products, adjust recipes, and quiet-quasi hike prices only so long as consumers remain distracted. But when economic pressure tightens and household budgets contract, customers become auditors who compare, measure, and organise online.
The lesson for corporations is clear: price elasticity has a moral dimension. There comes a point when consumers decide enough is enough.
Coffee Intelligence
Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter here.
