People use the word “inflation” to refer, of course, to actual inflation, but I also think it means something broader, along the lines of “I’m paying for garbage that has gotten a lot worse and costs more.”
Skimpflation. And yes, it’s yet another aspect of traditional inflation, just like shrinkflation is:
- traditional inflation - higher cost, same amount of goods, same quality
- shrinkflation - same cost, lower amount of goods, same quality
- skimpflation - same cost, same amount of goods, lower quality
Due to the nature of digital goods and services, enshittification typically results into skimpflation.
The smartphone in its current form is a mistake. Social media in its current form is a mistake.
Aye. Can’t help but agree with it.
I’ve not seen it referred to as “skimpflation” before, but I do think that this phenomenon is widespread enough that having its own word would be useful.
I saw a piece a while back that looked at this in detail in terms of groceries, and how (paraphrasing heavily) it has a sort of gaslighty effect on consumers who keep being told that inflation isn’t that bad actually and the economy is doing well. It feels really insidious.
In my country, for example, one of the major brands of chocolate was bought out by a larger one, and now the chocolate tastes worse. Only subtly though, and I can hardly remember what it used to taste like. It’s so gradual you don’t notice it, and more importantly, it’s everywhere.
Various analysts have suggested that the recent US election results may be in part due to Democrats talking about how the economy is doing well actually (which implies sentiments like “so therefore your suffering is your own fault”), and also that Trump’s inflammatory, anti-establishment persona made people feel seen, at least. I think weariness from years of skimpflation and enshittification probably contributed in ways more than what many analysts have considered.
Edit: that last sentence is clunky. I mean that it really sucks that currently I’m spending 50+% of my income on rent on housing, but the thing that really gets to me is being an eternal tenant in shitty properties where the landlord doesn’t care and everything is shabby, even when it’s expensive. Even when things aren’t broken, it doesn’t feel nice. It’s because every thing that could be cheaped out on has been, because even a saving of pennies is a lot when multiplied by the masses of properties owned by my conglomerate landlord. Similarly, I feel the sting when checking out at the grocery store, but the thing I really feel is wistfulness for the chocolate I half-remember. For better or for worse, humans are silly and irrational creatures. Skimpflation is talked about less because it’s hard to put a number on it, but it hits hard in a way that numbers can’t.
Skimpflation is talked about less because it’s hard to put a number on it, but it hits hard in a way that numbers can’t.
I think that this is spot on.
In my country we got hyperinflation some 40~30 years ago. I was too young to get it, but Gen X got it fully. And one thing that I notice among those Gen X’s is a “better buy it now” mentality, as if afraid that things will get more expensive and their money goes to waste.
Skimpflation might have similar social effects - but instead of “better buy it now”, it would foster a “what’s the point? It’ll turn into crap later anyway” mentality. And this might be tied with your USA example, of people not voting on democrats because they felt that it was pointless.
And one thing that I notice among those Gen X’s is a “better buy it now” mentality, as if afraid that things will get more expensive and their money goes to waste.
Ooh, the long term effect is a really salient point that I hadn’t considered. I think you’re right that there’ll be a “what’s the point, it’s all crap” mentality, but I think there’ll also be the polar opposite of overly fetishizing high quality.
I’ve been thinking about this a bunch since I watched a video[1] recently from a fashion critique, who looked at how people try to codify “high quality” by saying stuff like “high quality jeans are made with selvedge denim’”, but even if that were a useful rule of thumb once upon a time, ‘selvedge denim’ has become such an overhyped marketing term that he’s less likely to buy something with that label; for many, ‘selvedge denim’ means “poor quality product that’s trying to mislead people into paying hundreds of dollars for a crappy pair of jeans”.
He went on to sort of debunk other myths around high fashion and overall argued that fetishizing high quality isn’t how we actually get high quality products, and that we can’t rely on short hands. His conclusion was that for him, the only consistent and reliable way to get high quality stuff is for there to be care put into the making of a product, at every level; people making clothes in sweatshop conditions for example can’t afford to care about their work because that’s not an environment that cares about its workers or their craftsmanship. But actually researching enough to be confident in a brand takes a lot of work because even paying a huge price tag doesn’t guarantee quality. Care is a thing that has to be cultivated, and that is a difficult take for even him, a full time fashion critic, has trouble consistently gauging what is “high quality” or not.
The video was obviously about fashion, but many of his points were generally applicable, and I certainly have seen the kind of fetishism that he described. People pick a few things to care extremely about and research lots of, because it makes them feel more in control I think. And then in other domains of their life, they may succumb to decision fatigue and say “fuck it” and not care about the crap. But yeah, the long term effects are gonna stay with us.
[1]: the video was “What does High Quality mean in High Fashion?” by Bliss Foster. It is 42 minutes long. I’m linking in a footnote because often a linked video implies “you should watch this video”, but my point doesn’t depend on the video itself. It was a decent watch though, even though I don’t know much about fashion and hadn’t seen any of Foster’s work before
1 ↩︎
The difference between Netflix and its predecessors is that the older studios had a business model that rewarded cinematic expertise and craft. Netflix, on the other hand, is staffed by unsophisticated executives who have no plan for their movies and view them with contempt. Cindy Holland, the first employee Sarandos hired, who eventually served as vice president of original content, once compared Netflix’s rapacious DVD acquisition strategy to “shoveling coal in the side door of the house.” This remained true as Netflix ramped up its original-film production. In researching this essay, I was told by sources about two high-level Netflix executives who have been known to green-light projects without reading the scripts at all.
Such slipshod filmmaking works for the streaming model, since audiences at home are often barely paying attention. Several screenwriters who’ve worked for the streamer told me a common note from company executives is “have this character announce what they’re doing so that viewers who have this program on in the background can follow along.” (“We spent a day together,” Lohan tells her lover, James, in Irish Wish. “I admit it was a beautiful day filled with dramatic vistas and romantic rain, but that doesn’t give you the right to question my life choices. Tomorrow I’m marrying Paul Kennedy.” “Fine,” he responds. “That will be the last you see of me because after this job is over I’m off to Bolivia to photograph an endangered tree lizard.”)
I’m so guilty of this. But it’s usually bad anime.
It should be said: that part’s not new. This is why soap operas are soap operas. They’re junk-food television for people who aren’t looking to be hooked or challenged. Famously, it’s what killed Police Squad: ‘the problem is that you have to watch it.’ Moving the series to theaters as The Naked Gun let all the visual gags land.
