August 10, 2026
tonodiaz/Depositphotos.com
If 85% of US Consumers Believe Brands Are Using Inflation as a Scapegoat For Price Hikes, What Can Be Done To Restore Trust?
Consumers are getting quite fed up with governments, retailers, and brands, if the latest Omnisend data is to be believed. According to recent survey results, a massive majority (85%) of American shoppers believe that brands and retailers “often use inflation as an excuse to raise prices more than necessary.” Further, two-thirds (67%) of respondents indicated that price hikes have altered their feelings towards once-preferred brands, and just over half (56%) indicated they’d halted purchases from brands in this basket.
On the other hand, American consumers are showing some degree of tolerance for certain price hikes — more particularly, those enacted with concrete results in terms of better product quality (19%), improved wages for employees (16%), and acceptance of increasing ingredient or material costs (15%).
“Consumers understand that costs change, but they want those changes to make sense. Shrinkflation creates the opposite impression: that a company is hoping customers will pay the same and notice less. In many cases, it can definitely feel like an insult. When households are already watching every dollar they spend, transparency around price increases matters more than ever,” said Marty Bauer, ecommerce expert for Omnisend, via the survey results.
Other notable data points presented by the survey results:
- Grocery is a problem category: A full 89% of Americans polled said they’d experienced shrinkflation at least once, and 59% said they observe it on a regular basis. More than one-quarter of shoppers (29%) said shrinkflation is “the most unfair” example of price hiking. Nearly one-third (30%) of U.S. consumers described the current price of groceries as “out of control.”
- Gas, utilities, housing also hard hit: While groceries were the category most cited as being out of control, gas prices (20.3%), utilities (10%), rent and/or mortgages (9.2%), healthcare costs (5.6%), insurance prices (4.7%), and dining out or takeout prices (3.4%) followed. Only 11.7% of those polled said that no categories felt like they were “out of control” in terms of prices.
- Borrowing for essentials is becoming normalized: When posed the question of whether they’d used a variety of financial instruments or tactics to cover essentials such as groceries, gas, utilities, rent or medical expenses over the last three months, more than one-third of American respondents (35.9%) said they’d used their credit card, even when “knowing I might not pay it off right away.” Smaller yet still notable cohorts said they’d borrowed money from family or friends (13.8%), used BNPL (12.7%), had dipped into savings allocated for something else (16.2%), had delayed paying a different bill (9.3%), had taken out a payday loan or cash advance (8.4%), or had utilized a store payment plan (7.6%). Just 36.2% said they had not used any of the above to pay for essential expenses.
- Brands only shoulder some of the blame: And while brands are suffering from consumer wrath, only 11.8% of respondents blamed put brands at the No. 1 position in terms of the blame game. The current Trump administration was the most common response in this regard (45.1%), followed by tariffs (23.9%), Congress (22.7%), a confusion as to who to blame (17.3%), and supply chain or shipping costs (12.2%).
“The general sentiment currently is that of distrust. Yes, politicians are the ones receiving the most blame, but brands shouldn’t think they’re let completely off the hook. On the contrary, consumers judge the economy through everyday experiences, including what they see on shelves and receipts. Every price increase, smaller package, or unexplained fee becomes a test of whether a company is acting fairly. Brands should take note of this. Losing trust is easy. Gaining it back takes much more time and effort,” Bauer added.
From a zipper jam on a nearly new coat to a casserole dish cracking in the oven on its third use, Americans are finding that the quality of many once-beloved name brands are declining. Three-quarters of Americans had a quality or service issue in 2025, the National Consumer Rage…
— Evan Kirstel #B2B #TechFluencer (@EvanKirstel) August 10, 2026
Critics Claim Activist Investors Pressuring for More Profits, Private Equity and Big Conglomerates Hollowing Out Once-Trusted Brands To Blame
Beyond the Omnisend results, reportage from The Guardian’s Heather Timmons — citing the National Consumer Rage Study — found that almost 75% of U.S. consumers had faced a quality or service issue in 2025, double the rate of the survey’s inaugural 1976 findings.
Those cited within the reportage largely indicated that activist investors pressuring for at-any-cost shareholder returns sacrificing product quality and service — as well as “big conglomerates and private equity buying up ‘trusted brands and riding that reputation out until it was a husk of what it was,’” according to one outspoken critic — were largely responsible for the increased friction between once-trusted brands and consumers.
BrainTrust
Perry Kramer
Managing Partner, Retail Consulting Partners
Gene
Professor, International Business, Guizhou University of Finance & Economics and University of Sanya, China.
Mani Subramaniam
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Do you believe that it is fair for U.S. consumers to place at least some of the blame on brands for price hikes? Why or why not? What can brands do to alleviate these sentiments?
Do you believe the data to be accurate regarding grocery products being the most vulnerable to perceptions of price gouging? How can grocery CPG brands avoid negative association with shrinkflation or undue price increases?
What is your biggest takeaway from the data presented? Are there any areas the data may have missed or misrepresented?
Poll
Consumers do not like price rises and, in our tracking data, most have not fully accepted the new normal – particularly in categories like grocery. That automatically makes them inclined to try and pin the blame somewhere, and retailers are one of the most visible parties. However, what consumers think on a survey does not always equate to the truth. In aggregate, retail margins are 19 basis points lower now (2026 so far) than they were back in 2019. So, overall, price increases have been used to cover higher costs (including tariffs). Sure, there are individual exceptions where margins have been padded, but in those cases, consumers can – and do – vote with their wallets.
As for how to deal with it, I don’t think retailers should really address it at all. For three reasons. First, because correcting a misapprehension is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. Second, because – despite what the research says – hardly any consumers want detailed breakdowns of price increases, and this does virtually nothing to make a higher price more palatable. And third, because the correct path through all of this is to ensure that the value of individual products is justified by making them desirable, great quality, and so forth – people are less resentful about paying for things they want or enjoy.
Consumers are getting battered at every turn, and there’s lots of blame to go around. If every player in the value chain is seeing higher costs, inevitably these get passed down and compounded by the time they hit the shopping cart or gas tank. It’s not surprising that grocery is especially noticeable since it is an unavoidable cost that virtually every consumer sees. Gas would be a close second. The biggest takeaway from the data: it’s bad and it’s hard to see it getting better anytime soon. Yes, brands need to take responsibility to offer value and justify their prices, but whoever touches the consumer last will be seen as responsible by the consumer. And shrinkflation is simply deceptive marketing and any brands that do this should be rewarded with a meaningful drop in market share.
I do believe consumers notice when a box of cereal shrinks to 8.9oz for $3.99 !!
For consumers to trust a brand or store, they need to feel the store is doing their level best to run their business honestly & efficiently (yet without going to below-wage help).
The discussion seems to border on being tautological – are price rises to blame for inflation? – so to make any sense of it, we need to ask more fundamental questions: do brands take consumers for granted? do consumers enable that behavior by not shopping more wisely? I think the answer to both is “yes” to some extent. And it’s one consumers can solve themselves
Suggestions for “shopping more wisely” within the limits of a 24 hr day?
As stores go to digital shelf tags, consumers pre/trial buy groceries via a shopping cart (then abandon) to know the prices before going to the store (to avoid delivery fees).
Apps check for gas prices. People can group errands/gym/etc into trips by direction… or divided by family member heading that direction.
One way of seeing this.. is the frustration of having to do more & more to “save” just to get to where prices were a few months ago. Mental exhaustion as well as physical.
Then with digital, consumers can also see – topline- how much in billions of $$ stores have to spend on mergers or C Suite hirings.
The folks who were already at the low end (doing all the “saving” tricks/apps/ cash back sites) must be losing hope for the future. The most wise shopping they can do re: grocery… is to only buy fresh food at grocer & big box the rest of products. (That of course hits back at grocer margin)
You’d have to be blind not to see shrinkflation in the grocery store, and the happy talk from our “administration” and industry groups won’t have an effect. Between that and stories about “dynamic pricing” expect consumers to be wary.
Some blame is fair because pricing decisions are split between manufacturers and retailers. A CPG brand may change list price, pack size and trade funding. The retailer controls shelf price and promotion. Shoppers see one number and cannot separate those choices.
Grocery is especially exposed. People buy it often, remember familiar pack sizes and can compare private label immediately. Brands should disclose pack-size changes and work with retailers to display unit prices consistently. They should also track switching to private label after each price or size change. This shows where perceived unfairness is causing real lost demand.
The 85% finding tells management how deep suspicion has become. Unit-price history and sales volume are needed to test pricing behavior. Repeat purchase and private-label switching can show whether the problem lies in communication, product value or price architecture. Boards should examine how pricing and pack-size decisions affect trust and switching. Customer lifetime value deserves the same attention as next quarter’s margin.
Consumers are blaming the wrong people for the right crime. When private equity or activist-pressured management systematically harvests margin from established brands while shrinking product value, the “inflation excuse” complaint is structurally accurate, even if misdirected. The Guardian finding in this article deserves the headline. Brand trust isn’t being eroded by bad communication. It’s being liquidated by deliberate capital allocation decisions made well above the marketing department. No transparency campaign fixes that. Consumers won’t be talked out of something they’re experiencing in their grocery carts. The governance model has to change before the messaging can mean anything.
And should consumers have to be reading WSJ to make up a supermarket list?
People go to work and are expected to do their job, without blaming all the assistants, all the vendors and all the middlemen… but to take responsibility for the final output/service.
Consumers (more than 300 million in USA) could not take on the burden to look under the hood of the company. Worse yet, what makes the news is the BIG $$ valuations… not a relatable issue at all.
A store like Kohls gets hit hard by activists, but also had many years of internal poor choices (aka hair salons, over reliance on beauty, etc). So if price hikes are not shown/called out/proven to be higher quality… what are consumers to likely know?
Brands/stores may be over estimating the mental real estate they have in consumers’ heads.
Inflation is not good for consumers. But I smile, as I lived through the inflation of ’75 to ’85, when it exceeded 10% a year three times.
C’mon. Don’t blame it on the retailers. Costs go up, prices go up. Why should they or any business be expected to cut their margins? That isn’t the way business works…at least American business. Change any of the cost lines in a P&, hold the margin, and the price goes up.
But not everyone is suffering. Stock market gains have been excellent. Oil companies are making record profits. Banks are making more on penalties and interest. Investors love inflation. And sadly, it supports the continued K-economy. Sad for the citizens and, in the long term, detrimental for the country.
If you can remember back years. Then others can recall the covid era… when every retailer seemed to scream (correctly or crying wolf) of supply chain issues. Yet those issues seemed to be for every product (no matter origin) for months or years.
Consumers wondered if they relied on the wrong stores/brands…
They remember clearly the start of the “supppply chain” cost increase,
but was there ever a definitive announcement of ending that emergency crisis?
The pain came fast & loud & widespread… but the relief was a muffled trickle.
It started to sound familiar when the POTUS declares an immediate emergency with every country and near ever category…costs up… with even worse optics & no tactical data to back up the POTUS’ whims. Consumer trust disintegrates.
re: stock market- gains are only for those who sell off, or those who can cover the taxes.
The wealthy do not even see those transactions… as they pay $ for others to make $$$
Trust is in short supply these days for consumers. The government is fostering an environment in which mistrust, conspiracy, and widespread skepticism are the norm.
And when prices skyrocket- it’s natural to look for blame, especially when you’re putting a $6.50 box of cereal in your basket that was $2.75 18 months ago.
But while consumers can be mad about skyrocketing prices, it’s a straightforward cause-and-effect that they get. When they buy a 1/2-gallon of ice cream that’s actually 2/5 of a gallon, they feel like they’re being hoodwinked, which provokes anger.
For grocers, the best plan is to be as transparent as possible with their pricing and packaging. Consumers understand the macro drivers of inflation. Grocers should position themselves as partners to consumers, be honest about their pricing, and avoid obscuring price increases with packaging tricks and bogus offers.
“partners to consumers”… that might come in the format of trying to level the price swings of necessities. When a gallon of milk swings up & down by $1.10 per week ..with the coupon applied… then it feels like a game consumers never asked to play.
Consumers spend a lot of time trying to save money.(eg weekly digital coupons for 2-3 markets. Comparison of BOPIS or standard. What items count towards cash back sites)
Wealthy spend that same time making more money.
Consumers are at the very end of the supply/inflation train. They see the increased cost of Raw materials, production costs, transportation costs, labor costs and compliance costs all added to their purchase price. Gaining back trust is not going to be easy or happen for a long time. Specific to the CPG brand avoiding a negative association try and explain to a customer how P & G had a net profit of ~$16 Billion last year…..and they are not alone, There are continued opportunities for retailers to make a difference with private label.
If demand for the product is negatively impacted based on a price increase, the manufacturer will typically adjust the price, particularly if there is room in the margin.
Basic economics.
Nobody likes to pay more. When prices rise, is it because of inflation, or are retailers using inflation as an excuse to pad margins?
Some retailers aren’t. Costco and Walmart have built their strategy around consistently low margins, even when costs climb. That strategy makes them competitive and also sets a pricing standard. When two of the biggest retailers refuse to pad margins, everyone else competing for the same shopper has to think twice before they do.
That doesn’t mean every consumer will shop for the lowest price, but there is a limit to how much more they are willing to pay for similar or the same items.
Brands and retailers test the boundaries of margins, price points and shrinkflation packaging even in the calmest of political times. Add in political turmoil and illegal tariffs and it gets downright messy. Distrust and sometimes outright cynicism are often totally appropriate. Almost always a safe bet towards government (lately), but evaluating individual brands and retailers is a little trickier. I’ve been reading about some of the tariff refunds being distributed, but I have not yet read word one about how any brand is bouncing any of that money back to customers. Maybe that’s not possible in a micro level, but I at least expected some kind of macro promotion that would be an attempt at demonstrating good will toward the consumer. I probably shouldn’t get my hopes up.
I sat on the consumer goods side of these pricing rooms for 25 years, and the trust damage rarely comes from the price decision itself. It comes from the gap between what was agreed in the revenue growth management meeting and what the shopper actually meets at the shelf. A grammage change is a legitimate RGM lever when it is communicated, and it reads as deception when the only place the shopper encounters it is a smaller pack sitting in the old facing at the old price. Then add price integrity: in the shelf audits I have seen across markets, a meaningful share of price tags do not match the system on any given day, and every one of those mismatches is experienced as gouging rather than as an operational error. So Neil is right that margins are genuinely compressed and Mark is right that it looks deceptive, and both can be true at the same time. My practical suggestion is that brands and retailers measure price and pack compliance at the shelf with the same discipline they measure share, because trust is lost in execution long before it is lost in strategy.
More Discussions
How Can Grocers Lock In Loyalty As Nearly Half of Americans Show a Lack of Preference?
What competitive or service-level levers can grocers use to reignite customer loyalty, if any?What Needs To Change For Old Navy (if Anything) as it Gets a New CEO?
Can Old Navy keep doing business as it has in the past?Is the Carhartt / NFL Partnership an Easy Win for Both Parties?
Does the Carhartt / NFL partnership have natural synergy?
Consumers do not like price rises and, in our tracking data, most have not fully accepted the new normal – particularly in categories like grocery. That automatically makes them inclined to try and pin the blame somewhere, and retailers are one of the most visible parties. However, what consumers think on a survey does not always equate to the truth. In aggregate, retail margins are 19 basis points lower now (2026 so far) than they were back in 2019. So, overall, price increases have been used to cover higher costs (including tariffs). Sure, there are individual exceptions where margins have been padded, but in those cases, consumers can – and do – vote with their wallets.
As for how to deal with it, I don’t think retailers should really address it at all. For three reasons. First, because correcting a misapprehension is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. Second, because – despite what the research says – hardly any consumers want detailed breakdowns of price increases, and this does virtually nothing to make a higher price more palatable. And third, because the correct path through all of this is to ensure that the value of individual products is justified by making them desirable, great quality, and so forth – people are less resentful about paying for things they want or enjoy.
Consumers are getting battered at every turn, and there’s lots of blame to go around. If every player in the value chain is seeing higher costs, inevitably these get passed down and compounded by the time they hit the shopping cart or gas tank. It’s not surprising that grocery is especially noticeable since it is an unavoidable cost that virtually every consumer sees. Gas would be a close second. The biggest takeaway from the data: it’s bad and it’s hard to see it getting better anytime soon. Yes, brands need to take responsibility to offer value and justify their prices, but whoever touches the consumer last will be seen as responsible by the consumer. And shrinkflation is simply deceptive marketing and any brands that do this should be rewarded with a meaningful drop in market share.
I do believe consumers notice when a box of cereal shrinks to 8.9oz for $3.99 !!
For consumers to trust a brand or store, they need to feel the store is doing their level best to run their business honestly & efficiently (yet without going to below-wage help).
The discussion seems to border on being tautological – are price rises to blame for inflation? – so to make any sense of it, we need to ask more fundamental questions: do brands take consumers for granted? do consumers enable that behavior by not shopping more wisely? I think the answer to both is “yes” to some extent. And it’s one consumers can solve themselves
Suggestions for “shopping more wisely” within the limits of a 24 hr day?
As stores go to digital shelf tags, consumers pre/trial buy groceries via a shopping cart (then abandon) to know the prices before going to the store (to avoid delivery fees).
Apps check for gas prices. People can group errands/gym/etc into trips by direction… or divided by family member heading that direction.
One way of seeing this.. is the frustration of having to do more & more to “save” just to get to where prices were a few months ago. Mental exhaustion as well as physical.
Then with digital, consumers can also see – topline- how much in billions of $$ stores have to spend on mergers or C Suite hirings.
The folks who were already at the low end (doing all the “saving” tricks/apps/ cash back sites) must be losing hope for the future. The most wise shopping they can do re: grocery… is to only buy fresh food at grocer & big box the rest of products. (That of course hits back at grocer margin)
You’d have to be blind not to see shrinkflation in the grocery store, and the happy talk from our “administration” and industry groups won’t have an effect. Between that and stories about “dynamic pricing” expect consumers to be wary.
Some blame is fair because pricing decisions are split between manufacturers and retailers. A CPG brand may change list price, pack size and trade funding. The retailer controls shelf price and promotion. Shoppers see one number and cannot separate those choices.
Grocery is especially exposed. People buy it often, remember familiar pack sizes and can compare private label immediately. Brands should disclose pack-size changes and work with retailers to display unit prices consistently. They should also track switching to private label after each price or size change. This shows where perceived unfairness is causing real lost demand.
The 85% finding tells management how deep suspicion has become. Unit-price history and sales volume are needed to test pricing behavior. Repeat purchase and private-label switching can show whether the problem lies in communication, product value or price architecture. Boards should examine how pricing and pack-size decisions affect trust and switching. Customer lifetime value deserves the same attention as next quarter’s margin.
Consumers are blaming the wrong people for the right crime. When private equity or activist-pressured management systematically harvests margin from established brands while shrinking product value, the “inflation excuse” complaint is structurally accurate, even if misdirected. The Guardian finding in this article deserves the headline. Brand trust isn’t being eroded by bad communication. It’s being liquidated by deliberate capital allocation decisions made well above the marketing department. No transparency campaign fixes that. Consumers won’t be talked out of something they’re experiencing in their grocery carts. The governance model has to change before the messaging can mean anything.
And should consumers have to be reading WSJ to make up a supermarket list?
People go to work and are expected to do their job, without blaming all the assistants, all the vendors and all the middlemen… but to take responsibility for the final output/service.
Consumers (more than 300 million in USA) could not take on the burden to look under the hood of the company. Worse yet, what makes the news is the BIG $$ valuations… not a relatable issue at all.
A store like Kohls gets hit hard by activists, but also had many years of internal poor choices (aka hair salons, over reliance on beauty, etc). So if price hikes are not shown/called out/proven to be higher quality… what are consumers to likely know?
Brands/stores may be over estimating the mental real estate they have in consumers’ heads.
Inflation is not good for consumers. But I smile, as I lived through the inflation of ’75 to ’85, when it exceeded 10% a year three times.
C’mon. Don’t blame it on the retailers. Costs go up, prices go up. Why should they or any business be expected to cut their margins? That isn’t the way business works…at least American business. Change any of the cost lines in a P&, hold the margin, and the price goes up.
But not everyone is suffering. Stock market gains have been excellent. Oil companies are making record profits. Banks are making more on penalties and interest. Investors love inflation. And sadly, it supports the continued K-economy. Sad for the citizens and, in the long term, detrimental for the country.
If you can remember back years. Then others can recall the covid era… when every retailer seemed to scream (correctly or crying wolf) of supply chain issues. Yet those issues seemed to be for every product (no matter origin) for months or years.
Consumers wondered if they relied on the wrong stores/brands…
They remember clearly the start of the “supppply chain” cost increase,
but was there ever a definitive announcement of ending that emergency crisis?
The pain came fast & loud & widespread… but the relief was a muffled trickle.
It started to sound familiar when the POTUS declares an immediate emergency with every country and near ever category…costs up… with even worse optics & no tactical data to back up the POTUS’ whims. Consumer trust disintegrates.
re: stock market- gains are only for those who sell off, or those who can cover the taxes.
The wealthy do not even see those transactions… as they pay $ for others to make $$$
Trust is in short supply these days for consumers. The government is fostering an environment in which mistrust, conspiracy, and widespread skepticism are the norm.
And when prices skyrocket- it’s natural to look for blame, especially when you’re putting a $6.50 box of cereal in your basket that was $2.75 18 months ago.
But while consumers can be mad about skyrocketing prices, it’s a straightforward cause-and-effect that they get. When they buy a 1/2-gallon of ice cream that’s actually 2/5 of a gallon, they feel like they’re being hoodwinked, which provokes anger.
For grocers, the best plan is to be as transparent as possible with their pricing and packaging. Consumers understand the macro drivers of inflation. Grocers should position themselves as partners to consumers, be honest about their pricing, and avoid obscuring price increases with packaging tricks and bogus offers.
“partners to consumers”… that might come in the format of trying to level the price swings of necessities. When a gallon of milk swings up & down by $1.10 per week ..with the coupon applied… then it feels like a game consumers never asked to play.
Consumers spend a lot of time trying to save money.(eg weekly digital coupons for 2-3 markets. Comparison of BOPIS or standard. What items count towards cash back sites)
Wealthy spend that same time making more money.
Consumers are at the very end of the supply/inflation train. They see the increased cost of Raw materials, production costs, transportation costs, labor costs and compliance costs all added to their purchase price. Gaining back trust is not going to be easy or happen for a long time. Specific to the CPG brand avoiding a negative association try and explain to a customer how P & G had a net profit of ~$16 Billion last year…..and they are not alone, There are continued opportunities for retailers to make a difference with private label.
If demand for the product is negatively impacted based on a price increase, the manufacturer will typically adjust the price, particularly if there is room in the margin.
Basic economics.
Nobody likes to pay more. When prices rise, is it because of inflation, or are retailers using inflation as an excuse to pad margins?
Some retailers aren’t. Costco and Walmart have built their strategy around consistently low margins, even when costs climb. That strategy makes them competitive and also sets a pricing standard. When two of the biggest retailers refuse to pad margins, everyone else competing for the same shopper has to think twice before they do.
That doesn’t mean every consumer will shop for the lowest price, but there is a limit to how much more they are willing to pay for similar or the same items.
Brands and retailers test the boundaries of margins, price points and shrinkflation packaging even in the calmest of political times. Add in political turmoil and illegal tariffs and it gets downright messy. Distrust and sometimes outright cynicism are often totally appropriate. Almost always a safe bet towards government (lately), but evaluating individual brands and retailers is a little trickier. I’ve been reading about some of the tariff refunds being distributed, but I have not yet read word one about how any brand is bouncing any of that money back to customers. Maybe that’s not possible in a micro level, but I at least expected some kind of macro promotion that would be an attempt at demonstrating good will toward the consumer. I probably shouldn’t get my hopes up.
I sat on the consumer goods side of these pricing rooms for 25 years, and the trust damage rarely comes from the price decision itself. It comes from the gap between what was agreed in the revenue growth management meeting and what the shopper actually meets at the shelf. A grammage change is a legitimate RGM lever when it is communicated, and it reads as deception when the only place the shopper encounters it is a smaller pack sitting in the old facing at the old price. Then add price integrity: in the shelf audits I have seen across markets, a meaningful share of price tags do not match the system on any given day, and every one of those mismatches is experienced as gouging rather than as an operational error. So Neil is right that margins are genuinely compressed and Mark is right that it looks deceptive, and both can be true at the same time. My practical suggestion is that brands and retailers measure price and pack compliance at the shelf with the same discipline they measure share, because trust is lost in execution long before it is lost in strategy.