Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
off-brand food products are less expensive mostly because they lack a marketing cost component, where Heinz or Hunts may spend a lot of money on that. ..... It's sometimes better quality ingredients, more advertising, etc.
....
lack of jobs? really? on what basis is it better to have no competing products to the brand? what about the jobs that exist at the companies that manufacture off-brand products?
Exactly, another good point. Spending on advertising. This creates jobs as well.
Are you suggesting that Heinz is not a competitor of Hunts because it's not offbrand? You can have brand-name competitors. Take a look at two companies named Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.
As for me, I use a variety of brand name/generics. F'rinstance, I use Splenda-type sweetener. WalMart has a Great Value brand and it's half the price of the name brand. Guess which one I'm using. Splenda has been on the market long enough now that the higher price has paid for the R&D. Move on.
Locally, we have Wegman's markets and their store brand is as good as most of the name brands. For the most part.
Medications - I use generic because I have never had a problem with any of them. I did, however, have a problem with a branded drug once, and I was not alone. Seems the manufacturing process had gone awry and the dosages weren't accurate. It has since been corrected, I believe, but I'm still down with the generic.
Coffee, I'm pretty particular and I stick with the brand I like, buying when it's BOGO and if I have a coupon, (I usually do) even better.
As to brand manufacturers producing goods for generic sellers, it was well-known that Sears brand, Kenmore, was contracted out and for a time, Maytag was the supplier.
As far as choosing brand over generic because the brand manufacturer has done the R&D, for heaven's sake, what's so R&D about tomato soup? Or canned corn? Or quick-cooking oatmeal?
When there is only one company making a product because they've done the work, that becomes a monopoly and with no competition, they can charge whatever they want.
I'm not saying don't buy Walmart brand products or Wegman brand products . All I'm saying is think about the consequences. I understand that they make good products... especially Wegmans. I'm not arguing against that.
The R&D part wasn't really directed at things like tomato soup. It was directed at products like Splenda, and it's inventor, Lyle & Tate.
Exactly, another good point. Spending on advertising. This creates jobs as well.
Are you suggesting that Heinz is not a competitor of Hunts because it's not offbrand? You can have brand-name competitors. Take a look at two companies named Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.
so store brand cola kills jobs at Coca-Cola and PepsiCo?
Heinz and Hunts are competitors, but what's wrong with there being more than two? A duopoly isn't much better than a monopoly. And why can't "Great Value" be the third "brand"? What makes a brand anyways? Answer: Advertising/Marketing.
so store brand cola kills jobs at Coca-Cola and PepsiCo?
Heinz and Hunts are competitors, but what's wrong with there being more than two? A duopoly isn't much better than a monopoly. And why can't "Great Value" be the third "brand"? What makes a brand anyways? Answer: Advertising/Marketing.
so store brand cola kills jobs at Coca-Cola and PepsiCo?
Nope. I never said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
Heinz and Hunts are competitors, but what's wrong with there being more than two? A duopoly isn't much better than a monopoly. And why can't "Great Value" be the third "brand"? What makes a brand anyways? Answer: Advertising/Marketing.
There are more than Huntz and Heinz. There's hundreds of ketchup companies... lot of them are not big brands and have their own twist on the product.
The concern here is not that generic brands don't bring great value... the issue is that buy purchasing them, you are taking money that you could give to innovators and companies that have desires to move society forward, rather than those who are just interested in making profit by undercutting.
There are more than Huntz and Heinz. There's hundreds of ketchup companies... lot of them are not big brands and have their own twist on the product.
The concern here is not that generic brands don't bring great value... the issue is that buy purchasing them, you are taking money that you could give to innovators and companies that have desires to move society forward, rather than those who are just interested in making profit by undercutting.
Scenario: There is one company making - let's say, catsup. They have R&D'd the daylights out of the tomato and are now growing the one tomato that makes the best-tasting catsup you ever wrapped gums around. There is no competition because nobody else is allowed to use a tomato to make catsup. It's all tied up by the Bestdamcatsup co. inc. But we are in a recession. There are no jobs. Except for the folks at the Bestdamcatsup co, inc. But there's no competition so the employees over there are working for whatever the Bestdam etc. is willing to pay them. Because there is no competition, (and no work) the catsup is so high priced that no one can afford to buy it. Soon, Bestdam will go belly up and the tomatoes will rot in the fields and what will poor Robin do then, poor thing?
You didn't read the part about Splenda having been around long enough to recoup its R&D costs.
Besides, how do you know for a certainty that some little old chemist, working alone in a broom closet at a small food plant in East Japip, wouldn't be able to come up with a Splenda knock-off all on his own? Nobody has a lock on R&D. Just some companies are willing to pay more and devote every waking minute to it so they can be first on the market, establish the "brand" and charge more for it long past the stage when the expenditure has been recouped.
By your reasoning, there should only be one brand of anything, and we should all be driving Fords.
I say, hurrah for Yankee ingenuity, and building a better mousetrap. Or at least a cheaper one.
Scenario: There is one company making - let's say, catsup. They have R&D'd the daylights out of the tomato and are now growing the one tomato that makes the best-tasting catsup you ever wrapped gums around. There is no competition because nobody else is allowed to use a tomato to make catsup. It's all tied up by the Bestdamcatsup co. inc. But we are in a recession. There are no jobs. Except for the folks at the Bestdamcatsup co, inc. But there's no competition so the employees over there are working for whatever the Bestdam etc. is willing to pay them. Because there is no competition, (and no work) the catsup is so high priced that no one can afford to buy it. Soon, Bestdam will go belly up and the tomatoes will rot in the fields and what will poor Robin do then, poor thing?
You didn't read the part about Splenda having been around long enough to recoup its R&D costs.
Besides, how do you know for a certainty that some little old chemist, working alone in a broom closet at a small food plant in East Japip, wouldn't be able to come up with a Splenda knock-off all on his own? Nobody has a lock on R&D. Just some companies are willing to pay more and devote every waking minute to it so they can be first on the market, establish the "brand" and charge more for it long past the stage when the expenditure has been recouped.
By your reasoning, there should only be one brand of anything, and we should all be driving Fords.
I say, hurrah for Yankee ingenuity, and building a better mousetrap. Or at least a cheaper one.
How did you get that from me saying that there's several brand name ketchups?
The little chemist who develops a product in his broom closet is welcome to package his product and sell it as a competitor to splenda. There's nothing wrong with that. It's when someone comes a long and sells a splends knock-off for cheaper, by just copying the ingredients.
As for bestdamcatsup inc, if there's a demand for the product, there will be competition for it. Someone (potentially one of bestdamcatsup's employees who has learned the insides and outs of condiments) will start up on their own to discover a better product and present it as a competitor. The competition will drive down prices.
Let's focus on increasing the competition among brand-name products and eliminate generics.
"Brand-name products" is improperly used, but I could not think of a term that is everything other than generics. So in my statement above, assume Brand-name products" includes all uniquely developed products in a given space regardless of whether they are the "famous brand".
Just jumping in here. I usually buy generics whenever I can, I find no difference in the quality of the product and a tremendous savings!
Many times the only difference is the packaging. However, the packaging does sometimes matter. Once I bought a generic hand cream in a pump. the pump didn't work, and most of the cream was stuck in the bottle. I couldn't remove the cap and just dig it out, because it was all one piece, no cap to remove, and couldn't get the pump off. So, essentially, it was wasted. So, sometimes the packaging does make a difference.
I find Walmart brand OTC medicines to be a money-saver, especially things like cough and cold remedies. I saved $4 on a bottle of cough syrup by buing generic at Walmart, that's a significant savings for anyone
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
