Why Small Packaging Changes Matter More Than You Think

Many consumers cannot immediately distinguish between subtle differences in packaging, but recognizing those differences can be crucial. In today’s crowded marketplace, shoppers rarely have the time or patience to analyze every detail before making a purchase. Decisions are often made in seconds, guided by shape, size, color, and familiarity rather than careful inspection. Savvy companies understand this instinctive behavior. Packaging isn’t just a container—it’s a silent salesperson, designed to communicate value, quantity, and trust in an instant. Even slight alterations in design or size can have significant consequences.

Small differences matter more than most people realize. A few ounces less product, a subtly modified container, or an opaque design choice can shift a consumer’s perception of value without them ever understanding why. These changes are not always accidental. When they involve widely trusted household brands, the ripple effect can extend far beyond a single sale. A recent legal dispute in the spice industry illustrates how minor packaging decisions can ignite major controversy.

At the heart of the dispute is a clash between McCormick & Company, a household name, and smaller competitor Watkins Incorporated. Surprisingly, the conflict was not about quality, flavor, or sourcing—it was about container size. McCormick quietly reduced the amount of pepper in one of its popular products from roughly eight ounces to closer to six ounces—a roughly twenty-five percent reduction—without significantly changing the exterior packaging. On store shelves, the container looked familiar, full-sized, and visually equivalent to its previous version.

Watkins contends that this creates a misleading visual impression. While the contents were reduced, the physical container remained largely unchanged. Consumers who relied on visual cues to gauge quantity were unlikely to notice the difference. The issue is exacerbated because McCormick’s containers are opaque, hiding the actual amount inside. The only disclosure is the net weight, printed in small text that many shoppers overlook.

By contrast, Watkins sells its pepper in smaller, clear containers that allow shoppers to see the contents directly. According to Watkins, both brands now contain similar amounts of pepper by weight, but McCormick’s opaque packaging creates the perception of greater value. The dispute isn’t merely about legality; it’s about perception. When two products weigh the same but one appears larger, customers are naturally drawn to the visually bigger option.

For consumers, the consequences are both financial and psychological. Most people rely on visual cues when assessing value, especially for everyday items like spices. A taller, wider, or heavier-looking container signals abundance, even if the contents have been reduced. When McCormick and Watkins products sit side by side, the visual impression favors the larger-looking container, creating an unintentional—or in Watkins’ view, intentional—advantage. Over time, such misperceptions can influence buying habits and erode consumer confidence.

McCormick’s defense centers on technical accuracy: the net weight is clearly printed on the label, and consumers are responsible for reading it. Legally, that argument has merit. Practically, critics argue it overlooks how people actually shop. Brands invest heavily in design because they understand that consumers rarely scrutinize labels line by line. The visual impression is deliberate—it’s precisely the point.

The dispute escalated when McCormick customers filed a class-action lawsuit, claiming the packaging misled them. They argue they continued purchasing the product under the assumption it contained the same quantity as before. Now, the case has moved to federal court, where judges must consider not only the technical disclosure but whether the overall presentation misrepresented the product.

Beyond the courtroom, the issue underscores a deeper concern: trust. Brands like McCormick have earned consumer confidence over decades, sometimes generations. That trust is fragile. When shoppers feel misled, even subtly, goodwill is lost, sometimes irreparably. A company may prevail legally yet still suffer reputational damage.

The controversy also highlights a broader trend: “shrinkflation,” quiet redesigns, and incremental reductions have become increasingly common across industries. Each change may seem minor, but collectively they can erode consumer confidence. Customers begin to question not just one product, but the integrity of the entire brand.

The McCormick versus Watkins dispute is a reminder that transparency goes beyond fine print. Honest communication means aligning a product’s appearance with what it actually delivers. When presentation and reality diverge—even slightly—consumers eventually notice. And in a marketplace where trust is already limited, the smallest differences can make the biggest impact.