Can You Tell the Difference? Many People Can’t, but It’s Important

In a fast-paced retail world, shoppers rarely pause to analyze every label. Most decisions happen in seconds, guided less by math and more by what looks familiar, substantial, or trustworthy at a glance. Packaging shape, size, and shelf presence quietly influence perception, especially in everyday purchases where habit replaces scrutiny. A recent legal dispute in the spice aisle shows just how powerful those subtle signals can be.

At the center of the case are McCormick & Company and smaller rival Watkins Incorporated. Watkins claims that McCormick reduced the amount of pepper in one of its best-selling containers—shrinking it from roughly eight ounces to closer to six—while keeping the external packaging nearly identical. According to the lawsuit, this visual consistency may lead shoppers to assume they are buying the same quantity they always have.

Visibility is a key point of contrast. Watkins sells its pepper in clear containers, allowing consumers to see exactly how much product they’re getting. McCormick’s containers, however, are opaque. When placed side by side on a shelf, McCormick’s packaging appears larger and more substantial, even when the actual quantity inside is comparable. Watkins argues that this creates an uneven playing field, where visual impact outweighs transparency.

For consumers, the concern goes beyond price. Many people instinctively associate larger-looking packages with better value, particularly for routine items like spices. In a quick shopping trip, visual cues often overpower fine-print details, shaping choices without conscious deliberation.

McCormick has responded by stating that its labeling meets all regulatory requirements and that net weight is clearly disclosed. Critics counter that companies understand how real people shop—quickly, visually, and with limited attention—and that packaging decisions are rarely accidental. Similar arguments have surfaced in class-action lawsuits across the grocery industry, challenging where efficiency ends and deception begins.

Beyond the courtroom, the dispute highlights a deeper issue: trust. Brands thrive not just on legal compliance, but on long-term credibility. Even technically lawful changes can damage that relationship if customers feel misled rather than informed.

In the end, the McCormick–Watkins case isn’t really about pepper. It’s about perception, transparency, and the unspoken signals that guide consumer behavior. It raises an important question for modern retail: is honesty defined only by what’s printed on a label, or also by what packaging implies at first glance?

Have you ever noticed a product shrink without looking smaller? Share your thoughts in the comments and join the conversation.