5 ms·

The inhouse brands are quite often cheaper for the consumer. That's worth something.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
They're cheaper because they're not "brand name". That doesn't mean the not brand name option needs to be owned by the retail store.
- scarface74 6y ago
  And then they would be more expensive because they have to advertise and have their own supply chain. How does that help consumers?
  - p49k 6y ago
    There are grocery stores which sell cheaper off-label products that aren’t their own. The makers of those products don’t advertise and thus pass those savings to the consumer. It’s a system that’s already proven to work.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Are we trying to protect consumers?
- Cerium 6y ago
  I'm not sure about this. I think a lot of why store brands work is because you trust the store not to cheat you. If the product is bad you know who to blame. The store wants the product to be good because they will loose customers of they make bad house brand products.
  - p49k 6y ago
    A store that sells third party off-label products can still do quality control on those products and can take responsibility for what they sell, just as they would remove faulty brand-name products to protect their reputation.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      They could remove it. But if consumers have a choice between Advil and CVS brand Ibuprofen, they must trust the CVS brand but not some other brand. But the question remains - is the consumer being harmed? Store brand OTC drugs have existed for decades and have been cheaper than brand names.
      - delfinom 6y ago
        A long time ago, in organic chemistry we had a lab where we decomposed multiple brands of acetaminophen pills including tylenol to measure the content of acetaminophen . And well, Tylenol is the only drug that 20 or so independent groups that was even close to its labeled dosage. The off brands were as bad as 60%. But there's alot of shady as fuck shit that goes on in the OTC and generic market where they are produced largely overseas in labs that intentionally cut corners and the FDA doesn't give a shit. In fact, the FDA announces their inspections ahead of time which allows the labs to cheat. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/16/723545864/the-generic-drugs-youre-taking-may-not-be-as-safe-or-effective-as-you-think https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/16/7235458... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/opinion/sunday/generic-drugs-safety.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/opinion/sunday/generic-dr... (One FDA inspector ended up quitting because of his consistent findings in unannounced inspections he made and the FDA not giving a shit and reducing violations)
        scarface74 6y ago
        So are you saying that pharmacists are making a bad decision when they buy OTC products? Are they that uninformed? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-save-1-billion-without-even-trying-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-save-1-billion-witho...
        srtjstjsj 6y ago
        No, pharmacists know the precise dosage is not very important. But domestic companies are held to a higher standard than imports.
- neltnerb 6y ago
  Given the margins it might be that the only reason they're cheaper is they any discount from selling it under a store brand isn't reversed by having to pay profits to a pointless middleman. I don't see a problem with them selling their own banded stuff, or even if it's cheaper, in most senses. I do see a big problem with using what most people consider to be an open market that you can get anything on (even whole computers!) and specifically using that power to inhibit competition by having different advertising policies. It's not like those products were pulling an epic and refusing to give Amazon a cut of the sale, or doing something illegal -- just being banned from visibility is ridiculous abuse of monopoly power.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    I always thought store brands are cheaper because they don't need any marketing spending like the name brands have to keep doing.
    - neltnerb 6y ago
      Every little bit helps... these margins are tiny.
- zeroonetwothree 6y ago
  Part of the reason they are cheaper is they are owned by the store and thus get cross-subsidies. This is probably bad for the brand name products but very good for consumers.
Ensorceled 6y ago
The in-house brands are cheaper because they are double dipping on margin and can afford to under cut their competitors. This is only good for consumers in the short term and bad for the health of the market place overall.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  It's also because I'm not paying for a $1 advertising for my $3 box of cereal.
  - Ensorceled 6y ago
    That is also true. It's the other huge advantage the store brands have... there is little need to advertise Kirkland to get sales.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > can afford to under cut their competitors. Undercutting is good though. It lowers prices. Undercutting should be encouraged.

They're cheaper because they're not "brand name". That doesn't mean the not brand name option needs to be owned by the retail store.

scarface74 6y ago
And then they would be more expensive because they have to advertise and have their own supply chain. How does that help consumers?
- p49k 6y ago
  There are grocery stores which sell cheaper off-label products that aren’t their own. The makers of those products don’t advertise and thus pass those savings to the consumer. It’s a system that’s already proven to work.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Are we trying to protect consumers?
Cerium 6y ago
I'm not sure about this. I think a lot of why store brands work is because you trust the store not to cheat you. If the product is bad you know who to blame. The store wants the product to be good because they will loose customers of they make bad house brand products.
- p49k 6y ago
  A store that sells third party off-label products can still do quality control on those products and can take responsibility for what they sell, just as they would remove faulty brand-name products to protect their reputation.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    They could remove it. But if consumers have a choice between Advil and CVS brand Ibuprofen, they must trust the CVS brand but not some other brand. But the question remains - is the consumer being harmed? Store brand OTC drugs have existed for decades and have been cheaper than brand names.
    - delfinom 6y ago
      A long time ago, in organic chemistry we had a lab where we decomposed multiple brands of acetaminophen pills including tylenol to measure the content of acetaminophen . And well, Tylenol is the only drug that 20 or so independent groups that was even close to its labeled dosage. The off brands were as bad as 60%. But there's alot of shady as fuck shit that goes on in the OTC and generic market where they are produced largely overseas in labs that intentionally cut corners and the FDA doesn't give a shit. In fact, the FDA announces their inspections ahead of time which allows the labs to cheat. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/16/723545864/the-generic-drugs-youre-taking-may-not-be-as-safe-or-effective-as-you-think https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/16/7235458... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/opinion/sunday/generic-drugs-safety.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/opinion/sunday/generic-dr... (One FDA inspector ended up quitting because of his consistent findings in unannounced inspections he made and the FDA not giving a shit and reducing violations)
      - scarface74 6y ago
        So are you saying that pharmacists are making a bad decision when they buy OTC products? Are they that uninformed? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-save-1-billion-without-even-trying-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-save-1-billion-witho...
        srtjstjsj 6y ago
        No, pharmacists know the precise dosage is not very important. But domestic companies are held to a higher standard than imports.
neltnerb 6y ago
Given the margins it might be that the only reason they're cheaper is they any discount from selling it under a store brand isn't reversed by having to pay profits to a pointless middleman. I don't see a problem with them selling their own banded stuff, or even if it's cheaper, in most senses. I do see a big problem with using what most people consider to be an open market that you can get anything on (even whole computers!) and specifically using that power to inhibit competition by having different advertising policies. It's not like those products were pulling an epic and refusing to give Amazon a cut of the sale, or doing something illegal -- just being banned from visibility is ridiculous abuse of monopoly power.
- triceratops 6y ago
  I always thought store brands are cheaper because they don't need any marketing spending like the name brands have to keep doing.
  - neltnerb 6y ago
    Every little bit helps... these margins are tiny.
zeroonetwothree 6y ago
Part of the reason they are cheaper is they are owned by the store and thus get cross-subsidies. This is probably bad for the brand name products but very good for consumers.

Ensorceled 6y ago

The in-house brands are cheaper because they are double dipping on margin and can afford to under cut their competitors. This is only good for consumers in the short term and bad for the health of the market place overall.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
It's also because I'm not paying for a $1 advertising for my $3 box of cereal.
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  That is also true. It's the other huge advantage the store brands have... there is little need to advertise Kirkland to get sales.
stale2002 6y ago
> can afford to under cut their competitors. Undercutting is good though. It lowers prices. Undercutting should be encouraged.