Haetae Confectionery has announced price increases across 25 of its product lines, including its best-known snacks, Oh Yes! and Home Run Ball. The move, declared on 18th September 2026, is widely seen as a bellwether for an industry in which rising input costs have become impossible to absorb.
Structural cost pressures underpin the decision
The company cited persistent increases in the prices of key raw materials—wheat flour, sugar and palm oil—as well as higher logistics and energy costs. Wheat futures have remained elevated since spiking after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, while palm oil supplies continue to be disrupted by El Niño-related weather patterns. According to the Korea Agro-Fisheries and Food Trade Corporation, the average cost of raw material procurement for South Korean food manufacturers rose by more than 30% between 2020 and 2025.
Those pressures have been compounded by rising minimum wages, higher packaging costs and increased financing costs in a prolonged high-interest-rate environment. Haetae's operating margin is reported to have declined in 2024 relative to the prior year, and industry observers broadly regard the price increases as an unavoidable measure to defend profitability.
Beloved national brands are not spared
Among the products affected are Oh Yes! and Home Run Ball—two snacks with decades of history that are embedded in South Korean consumer culture. Oh Yes! has been sold since 1987 and Home Run Ball since 1982; both command loyal followings across generations. Their inclusion in the price rise is significant precisely because such heritage brands tend to shape public perceptions of the cost of living.
Industry insiders warn that raising prices on iconic products carries risks beyond mere revenue calculations. "The more established the brand, the greater the consumer resistance to price increases—and the higher the likelihood of switching to alternatives," said one food distribution specialist, urging caution.
A domino effect may be coming
The decision is notable for the precedent it may set. Competitors such as Lotte Wellfood, Orion and Crown-Haetae face identical structural cost pressures, and in South Korea's food industry a price move by a leading player has repeatedly served as a signal for others to follow.
The pattern is well established. When Nongshim raised instant-noodle prices in 2022–23, Ottogi and Samyang Foods followed within months, adding to the burden on households. A similar cascade across the confectionery sector now appears plausible.
Consumers: fatigue sets in
For ordinary consumers, the announcement compounds a wearying stretch of rising living costs. South Korea's national statistics office reported that processed food prices rose by more than 5% year on year in 2025, with confectionery among the categories recording the sharpest increases.
The impact falls disproportionately on lower-income households and families with children, for whom snack prices are a tangible line item. Consumer groups have grown frustrated, noting that companies have rarely followed through on implicit promises to reverse price increases once raw material costs ease. "We have yet to see a single case where prices were actually brought back down," said one advocacy organisation, calling for greater corporate accountability in pricing decisions.
Shrinkflation: the alternative companies avoid disclosing
Globally, many food manufacturers have sidestepped outright price increases by quietly reducing pack sizes—a practice known as shrinkflation. A survey by the British consumer group Which? found that numerous major food brands had cut contents by 10–20% while holding headline prices steady, drawing accusations of deceiving shoppers. In Japan, confectionery giants such as Meiji and Glico have faced similar criticism for combining volume reductions with price increases over several years.
South Korea's Fair Trade Commission has previously flagged domestic shrinkflation cases. On this measure, Haetae's approach of announcing explicit price increases at least merits credit for transparency, though consumer groups remain sceptical about the company's broader pricing conduct.
Policy implications: the case for a more active state role
The episode underscores that structurally rising food prices are not merely a corporate concern—they bear directly on food security and consumer welfare more broadly. Experts are calling on the government to take a more interventionist stance: expanding strategic reserves of key commodities, diversifying import sources and providing cost-relief support to smaller confectionery producers.
There is also growing discussion around introducing a price-reversal mechanism that would require companies to cut prices when input costs fall. The broader warning is one that food companies would do well to heed: a pattern of repeated price increases, whatever its justification, erodes consumer trust and, over time, risks diminishing the very brand equity these long-established businesses depend upon.