Supermarket price wars mean nothing when young shoppers keep paying more for less

Yet for many households, particularly younger people, students and young families those shifts rarely translate into meaningful savings.

The simple truth is that while retailers compete aggressively on headline prices and loyalty offers, the underlying pressures of sustained food inflation, rising production costs and volatile global supply chains mean that any efficiencies are absorbed long before they reach the checkout.

Market share may move, but the real-world impact on consumer budgets remains stubbornly limited. Younger households, already managing hollowed-out budgets and higher living costs, feel this disconnect most acutely; they see the supermarket wars unfold, but their weekly bill still creeps up.

One of the biggest frustrations for these shoppers is the rise of shrinkflation. Products that used to last a week now run out in four days, packets that once fed a family now barely stretch to a single meal, and everyday items quietly lose 10–20% of their contents while prices stay the same or even rise. For those living on a weekly wage from one week to the next, this isn’t an annoyance; it’s a direct hit to their ability to plan, budget and stay afloat.

At the same time, we’ve witnessed declining quality in some own-brand ranges that were once the cornerstone of budget-conscious shopping.

Students and young families increasingly report that the cheaper options don’t stretch as far, don’t taste as good and sometimes generate more waste, undermining the very reason they switched in the first place.

Layer onto this the stealth price changes, where products jump by 5–10p every few weeks rather than in one go, and it becomes clear why so many people feel they’re being squeezed from all sides.

You can shop smart, trade down and use loyalty cards, but if the system is quietly eroding value at every turn, consumers are left constantly playing catch-up.

This raises an important question: should the government intervene to ensure greater price fairness and transparency? I believe there is a strong case for doing so.

At the very least, we need clearer, more consistent unit pricing so that shoppers can genuinely compare value, especially across loyalty-scheme pricing, promotional offers and multi-pack deals.

Right now, the lack of transparency makes true comparison almost impossible, and it disproportionately harms those with the least time and money.

Beyond that, there is a broader debate to be had about whether certain essential goods, staples such as bread, milk, pasta and baby formula should be subject to targeted controls or monitored price caps during periods of prolonged inflation.

This doesn’t mean distorting the entire market but rather ensuring that basic nutrition remains accessible.

Supermarkets will always promote competition as the answer, but when the outcomes for consumers don’t improve, government has a responsibility to step in.

With clearer pricing, stronger oversight and a closer eye on essential goods, we can begin to rebalance a system that currently leaves too many young people and low-income households paying more for less and feeling powerless to change it.

_______________

Consumer Champion Martin Newman has spent over 4 decades advising some of biggest and best loved brands from a consumer perspective. www.martinnewman.co.uk

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk