Apti Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 5:11am
post #1 of

If you still haven't heard, Betty Crocker mixes are now 15.5 ounces, NOT 18.5 ounces.

Here's what I wrote to Betty Crocker:

"I am an avid blogger and avid cake decorator. Shame on you for making your cake mixes smaller. Did you think we wouldn't notice?

There are quite a few forums and blogs running right now with photos of your "old" 18.25 box and your sneaky, underhanded, "cheat" box, 15.25 oz.

My family and I have been purchasing your mixes for 40 years, UNTIL NOW. This is not a good decision. Very unhappy, and VERY VOCAL BLOGGING consumer here."

THIS IS BETTY CROCKER'S REPLY:

"Thank you for contacting General Mills regarding our Betty Crocker SuperMoist cake mixes. I am sorry to hear for your disappointment. Your comment is very important to us and will be shared to the product team.

We are committed to making a difference in the lives of our consumers. Feedback such as yours is important to the nature of our business.

Consumer appeal and product re-alignment within a product category are some of the reasons this is done to our product packaging. This change helps us keep our cake affordable while maintaining the great taste of Betty Crocker cake mixes that consumers love. No ingredients have been added or removed in the formulation of the dry mix. Only the amount or weight of some of the ingredients already in the dry mix has been changed. This innovation bakes virtually the same size cake in the same 9x13 pan, while continuing to deliver great taste, high quality, and real value.

We appreciate your loyalty and the time you took to contact us. Again, please be assured that we will share your thoughts with the appropriate individuals.

Sincerely, Imee B. Roberts, Consumer Services"

Several people have contacted Duncan Hines and Duncan Hines has stated they have no intention of changing their mixes.

I don't mind products changing, but when those products have been specifically sized to fit bakeware for the past 50 years, that's a whole different story. Raise the price, don't reduce the product. I don't know if we can make a difference, but I'm not going to purchase Betty Crocker again.

23 replies
Kiddiekakes Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 1:22pm
post #2 of

Unfortunately this is exactly what alot of companies are doing...smaller sized product means more profits...you are seeing it everywhere now...It is your decision to do whatever you feel necessary but someday soon I'm sure DH and Pilsbury will follow suit.It is just plain clever marketing!

momg9 Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 1:36pm
post #3 of

I am not sure DH has not changed. I teach a kids class and on certain weeks I supply 6 inch cakes. I have always been able to get 3 out of one mix. This week I had to add a little extra batter to each pan to get a full 2 inches.

cabecakes Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 2:24pm
post #4 of

I am with you Apti. I am sick and tired of being silently scammed, because these large companies think I'm too stupid to figure the whole thing out. I'm tired of large company execs trying to figure out more ways to line their pockets while the small consumer is the one who bears the burden of an ever rising economy. Let's try to pass the word along. I will not purchase anymore Betty Crocker products (not just box cake mixes but all Betty Crocker Products).

Narie Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 2:30pm
post #5 of

I only used BC for two doctored recipes, so there is no way I am going to buy another BC box mix. In fact I have already returned one mix to the grocery store because I didn't realize I had purchased one of the new, smaller ones. I knew I wasn't going to risk wasting the other ingredients on the re sized product.

I too complained to General Mills and received the same canned reply. They don't care what we think. It is they are going to make a lot of money with the new sized product. The change in size is going to save them about $.30 a box.(retail)

mplaidgirl2 Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 3:18pm
post #6 of

I used BC for Wasc the other day.. the smaller box... Its yielded the same amount of cake... Almost seems like its a little fluffier. It even rose more even than normal. While it sucks that there is less in the box.. I liked the outcome better.. So I'm staying.

myslady Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 4:36pm
post #7 of

A lot of posters say they are willing to pay extra but to the company how many of these posters make up their customer base and purchase large quantities when the mixes arent on sale? The mixes are formulated for the occasional home baker and while the occasional home baker may notice the box is smaller but wont care as long as they get a 9x13 or 2 rounds. They arent running a business and depend on the mixes to be a certain size.

General mills has a mix for bakeries which probably hasnt changed.

KSMill Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 5:49pm
post #8 of

My issue with them is that not only did they reduce the size, but they also increased the price. I also have people who really like the flavor of the BC mixes (I modify the mix) and want to be sure I can still provide the same finished product.

jason_kraft Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 6:07pm
post #9 of
Quote:
Originally Posted by myslady

A lot of posters say they are willing to pay extra but to the company how many of these posters make up their customer base and purchase large quantities when the mixes arent on sale?



Exactly. Businesses are often happy to lose the most price-sensitive customers, since when you only buy their product on sale you aren't making them as much money as people who buy full price (and in the case of loss leaders you are costing them money).

As a bakery owner I increase prices by 3-5% per year to keep pace with increasing costs for ingredients, labor, and overhead. If my products are starting to price out of what my local market will pay, I will find other ways to compensate, including reducing product size. Businesses that don't follow this strategy will find themselves losing market share and could fail altogether.

mplaidgirl2 Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 6:48pm

I'm telling you try it before just don't buy it anymore. I really saw little to no difference...

scp1127 Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 6:51pm

I'm starting a line of 6" cakes. In many situations, an 8" or 9" is just not necessary. This helps the customer's budget and I may get a sale that I may not have otherwise gotten.

As for national brands, they know what they are doing. Their prices have increased too, so it is not necessarily true that they are lining their pockets. In this economy where prices of goods are rising for everyone, a company can only do a few things to protect their bottom line... increase price, decrease quantity, cheapen the product, or reduceexpenses. It makes sense that at virtually a $1.00 pricepoint, that the consumer for this product is budget-conscious. Cheapening the product would involve R&D, which is not cheap. They did exactly what the consumer wanted them to do.

And, by the way, this is America. There is nothing wrong with making a profit... as much as you can. We are all trying to do it. Don't begrudge the big companies who have developed, produced, marketed, and sold a product so popular that it went national. It's the American dream still alive and well even in this economy.

Spuddysmom Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 7:12pm

I'm confused. In the reply, is the company saying that the new, smaller size box yields the same result volume-wise (9x13 cake) as before? How can that be?

joknee Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 7:35pm

I, too, wonder how that can be. When I read the back of the box in the store, I was quite surprised to see that it calls for the same amount of eggs, oil, water, etc. So, again, how can that be?

myslady Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 8:00pm

They changed the amounts of the ingreedients to something that will give the same volume as before but at a different weight.

WillowsCry Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 8:32pm

I personally, don't use BC, but I imagine as others have said on here, that other companies will soon follow in BC's foot steps. Has anyone check to see if the ingredients have changed? Are they adding a filler that doesn't affect weight yet allows for there to be the same yield in the batter?

neelycharmed Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 8:38pm

I have bought it but haven't used it yet, but if you look at the ingredients, it calls for double the amount of oil and less water...
so i wonder if its going to be a different cake when done...
I hope not, I've used BC for years and years, so very icon_sad.gif when it looks like it changed!
Jodi icon_smile.gif

southerncross Posted 24 Sep 2011 , 8:58pm

Yeah...let's all start baking from scratch

TexasSugar Posted 26 Sep 2011 , 6:04pm

I just used a BC Triple Chocolate Fudge cake mix this weekend. It had right at 5.5 cups of un-doctored batter when mixed and made 24 cupcakes. It did seem like it might have been a little lighter and fluffier than before, but still tasted great and baked great.

Honestly you can get mad at BC, but they aren't the first company to make smaller packages with the same or near same price, and they won't be the last.

Panel7124 Posted 26 Sep 2011 , 11:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuddysmom

I'm confused. In the reply, is the company saying that the new, smaller size box yields the same result volume-wise (9x13 cake) as before? How can that be?




'Only the amount or weight of some of the ingredients already in the dry mix has been changed. This innovation bakes virtually the same size cake in the same 9x13 pan...'

They said virtually icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif sorry, I couldn't resist

KathysCC Posted 26 Sep 2011 , 11:45pm

I'm thinking that the average at-home baker will not notice if their 9 by 13 sheet cake is 1/4 to a 1/2 inch shorter in height and that is what the company is counting on.

For those of us who use doctored mix recipes though, it could be a problem. I still have the 18 oz packages in my cabinet but wonder what will happen to my recipes when I use the new size.

BizCoCos Posted 26 Sep 2011 , 11:53pm

Although I was aware of the change for weeks now, I picked up a BC cake mix this Sunday automatically assuming it was the old size. When I unpacked the groceries, I was taken aback by the shrinkage in packaging. first it was sugar, then ice cream, unfortunately all these companies are doing this. My sister just noticed that her favorite perfumed body wash was decreasded by 100ml. and they raised the price.

tiggy2 Posted 27 Sep 2011 , 12:02am

Bake from scratch and you wont have a problem.

BizCoCos Posted 27 Sep 2011 , 12:13am

I am a scratch baker, but after hearing so many people on CC rave about the mix cakes, I decided to try a few, they were ok, I doctored them so much, it's certainly not cheaper. I have one last recipe to try before I sgn off on mix cake recipes, lol no I'm p'od with BC and other companies

TexasSugar Posted 27 Sep 2011 , 4:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neelycharmed

I have bought it but haven't used it yet, but if you look at the ingredients, it calls for double the amount of oil and less water...
so i wonder if its going to be a different cake when done...
I hope not, I've used BC for years and years, so very icon_sad.gif when it looks like it changed!
Jodi icon_smile.gif




I'm not sure which flavor you bought, but the Triple Chocolate Fudge called for the same or very close to the same amount it always has. It called for 3 eggs, 1 1/4 cup water and 1/2 cup oil. That's not double the amounts before, in fat I want to say that is less water and oil (thinking before it was atleast 1 1/2 to 1 3/4ths cup water to 2/3rds cup oil).

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%