85% of US Consumers Say Brands Use Inflation to Excuse Unnecessary Price Hikes, Omnisend Survey Finds

Survey: 85% See Inflation as a Shield for Unfair Price Hikes

A sweeping survey from e-commerce platform Omnisend paints a stark picture of consumer sentiment: 85% of American shoppers believe brands and retailers routinely use inflation as a pretext to raise prices more than necessary. The finding, drawn from a recent poll, is the headline statistic of a study that reveals how much price actions are reshaping loyalty and household budgets. Two-thirds of respondents said price increases had changed their feelings toward once-preferred brands, and 56% had actually stopped buying from brands they previously trusted.

The survey dug deeper into what, if anything, consumers are willing to tolerate. Only specific, articulated trade-offs earned a degree of acceptance: better product quality (19%), improved wages for employees (16%), or rising ingredient or material costs (15%) were cited as acceptable reasons for higher prices. In other words, vague inflation talk no longer works. Marty Bauer, an e-commerce expert at Omnisend, noted in the release, “Consumers understand that costs change, but they want those changes to make sense.” He called shrinkflation—the practice of reducing package size while holding the price—a “definite insult” when households are scrutinizing every dollar.

Grocery emerged as the most painful category. Nine out of ten Americans reported encountering shrinkflation at least once; 59% see it regularly. Nearly a third of U.S. consumers described the current price of groceries as “out of control.” Beyond food, gas prices (20.3%), utilities (10%), rent/mortgages (9.2%), healthcare (5.6%), insurance (4.7%) and dining/takeout (3.4%) were also named as out of control—only 11.7% felt no category had spun beyond bounds. The financial strain is forcing concerning behaviors: more than a third (35.9%) have used a credit card for essentials knowing they may not pay it off right away, while others borrowed from family, dipped into savings earmarked for something else, or even took payday loans. Only 36.2% had not used any such tactic.

Notably, consumers spread the blame widely. While 45.1% put the current administration at the top, and tariffs (23.9%) and Congress (22.7%) also faced ire, only 11.8% blamed brands as the number-one culprit. Still, as Bauer warned, “brands shouldn’t think they’re let completely off the hook. Every price increase, smaller package, or unexplained fee becomes a test of whether a company is acting fairly.”

Where Brands Lose—and Can Rebuild—Consumer Trust

The Erosion of Everyday Brand Permission

The data shows that the license brands once had to pass through input-cost inflation without explanation has been revoked. Consumers are not rejecting all price increases—they are rejecting ones that feel arbitrary or cyclical. The fact that only a minority can be mollified by claims of higher ingredient costs signals that “trust me” pricing is over. The accompanying National Consumer Rage Study, cited in related reporting, found that almost 75% of Americans had a product quality or service issue in 2025—double the rate of 1976—which suggests that many resent paying more for less. When a once-trusted brand delivers a zipper that fails or a dish that cracks, a price hike becomes personal and politicized.

Why Grocery Is Ground Zero for Trust

Grocery’s status as the most cited category is logical: it is the most frequent, nondiscretionary interaction with price. Shoppers can’t defer buying bread. Shrinkflation, which 59% observe regularly, is especially corrosive because it is silent—consumers only discover it when they compare package net weights or notice a favorite cereal doesn’t last as long. Omnisend’s finding that 29% deem shrinkflation “the most unfair” pricing tactic reveals a deep procedural injustice; they feel tricked, not just overcharged. The category’s high visibility and the inability to opt out make it the place where a brand’s pricing narrative is most severely tested.

Who Stands to Gain and Lose

For national CPG brands, the risk is that loyalty erodes faster than they can repair it. With 56% of shoppers having already halted purchases from a previously trusted brand, private labels and smaller, transparent challengers have an opening. Retailers who can credibly promise everyday low prices or whose own brands communicate cost structures clearly could capture share. Conversely, brands that acknowledge the cost squeeze, visibly invest in quality or wages, and explain price moves may differentiate themselves. The Omnisend figures suggest a narrow but real window: up to 19% of consumers will accept a price increase tied to better quality—if the improvement is verifiable.

The Political Context Softens, But Does Not Solve, the Problem

Only 11.8% of respondents finger brands as the top villain, which suggests that the direct reputational heat is partly deflected onto Washington. However, the operational reality for a brand is unchanged: a shopper at the shelf still decides whether to pay the higher price or switch. The fact that politicians and tariffs absorb primary blame does not insulate a brand from the damage of lost repurchase. As Bauer’s remark emphasizes, every trip to the store can become a trust test. The long-term consequence is less about a single boycott and more about a cumulative shift in brand equity that shows up in share declines over quarters.

What Retailers and CPG Brands Must Do Differently

For retailers and CPG companies, the survey highlights specific, actionable changes to pricing communication and product strategy:

• Replace vague “inflation” messaging with itemized rationale. Explain precisely what drove a price increase: raw material indices, freight rates, or wage data. If only 15% of shoppers accept that ingredient-cost pass-throughs on their own, brands must make the cost chain visible to earn the tolerance the survey says exists.
• Eliminate silent shrinkflation; introduce “honest tradeoffs.” When material costs force a smaller package, tell consumers explicitly on the pack and offer a concrete benefit—e.g., “new concentrated formula uses less plastic” or “smaller size keeps this product under $X.” The 29% who feel shrinkflation is most unfair will appreciate agency over the tradeoff.
• Tie any price increase to a demonstrable quality upgrade. With 19% of consumers willing to accept higher prices for better quality, brands should announce a concurrent product improvement—stronger seals, thicker fabric, longer battery life—rather than raising price first and adding features later. The upgrade must be concrete and verifiable, not marketing copy.
• Audit private-label vulnerability in categories where trust is lowest. Since 56% have already stopped buying a once-preferred brand, CPGs should map their SKU portfolio against private-label encroachment and, where share is leaking, test a limited line of “explained pricing” products that state on the shelf why the price is what it is. Early movers may benefit from the trust deficit.
• Train retail associates and customer service to respond to price complaints with candor. Frontline staff should be armed with the specific production cost drivers behind price changes, not a scripted apology. The survey shows that even a minority of empathetic, factual responses can prevent a brand from entering the “no longer buy” column.