4 ms·

Thanks, I didn't know that about vaccines, where can I find out about this? For DT, there is one generic label [1]. I don't see the commonality of the few other

Thanks, I didn't know that about vaccines, where can I find out about this? For DT, there is one generic label [1]. I don't see the commonality of the few others that are generic as well [2]. So the FDA regulation will be interesting to see. Combined with the daunting financing challenges with vaccines [3], that might explain why there are no white label vaccines? In a couple of my previous links, some of the more modern formulations like Humalog came off of patent protection in the US around 2017, but no one outside the manufacturer has picked up white label manufacturing. A lot of times house branding just seems like market segmentation to me based around packaging when the original manufacturer is making the same product, but many times I've picked up a house brand and a name brand packaged food for example, and find sugar is higher up in the ingredients list in the house brand (and the nutritional panel reveals it is a significant ranking change). Thus house brands seem like an obfuscation of the market to my uninformed eye so far. They seem to act in the macro scale as a way to prevent real competitors from arising and taking away real revenue and margin, by stuffing the distribution channel with SKU's that give a slightly larger cut to the distributors in exchange for maintaining the same vendor count (thereby making it much more difficult for a competitor to gain shelf space). Those incentives probably all change around with an ecommerce site like Amazon. I just find this aspect of free markets fascinating as a layperson. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/dtap-tdap-td/hcp/about-vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/dtap-tdap-td/hcp/about-vacc... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/vaccines-list.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/vaccines-list.html [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221811/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221811/

gamblor956 6y ago
some of the more modern formulations like Humalog came off of patent protection in the US around 2017, but no one outside the manufacturer has picked up white label manufacturing. For drugs, generics still need to prove that their own product meets safety standards and is the equivalent to the drug coming off patent protection. It's not cheap. For biologics like insulin, it's even more expensive. Thus house brands seem like an obfuscation of the market to my uninformed eye so far. They seem to act in the macro scale as a way to prevent real competitors from arising and taking away real revenue and margin, by stuffing the distribution channel with SKU's that give a slightly larger cut to the distributors in exchange for maintaining the same vendor count (thereby making it much more difficult for a competitor to gain shelf space). That's not how retail works. Stores are more than happy to put new products on the shelf, especially if they sell well. They don't "maintain vendor count," they allocate shelf space based on actual sales. If a product doesn't sell well, it loses space to better-selling products on a daily or weekly basis (depending on the store). New products show up all the time, and depending on the arrangement with the manufacturer have between a week and a month to show their selling power. (New products are usually on a consignment basis so the manufacturer only gets paid if units sell.)
- yourapostasy 6y ago
  > That's not how retail works...they allocate shelf space based on actual sales. Thanks for explaining what goes on behind the scenes! I don't have the terminology for this since I'm not in the domain, so what is it called when a Wal-Mart or Home Depot or grocery chain purchasing department selects a vendor for a product, but will not consider another similar vendor, because physical shelf space is finite? For example, I see Lincoln welding machines, but not Miller, Fronius, or some white label from China at Home Depot, and every Home Depot has the same amount of shelf space set aside for welding machines, but all Lincoln. There isn't even experimentation with an alternative brand with one model. Based upon your description, that finite physical limitation is not able to be strategically used by incumbents to take the oxygen out of the room for other vendors. One way to suck the oxygen out is to sell more. But if I'm an incumbent, and I get a chance to sell exactly the same product in house brand packaging for slightly less margin with a greater chance that a competitor won't get to see the same shelf, I'll take those reduced margins all day long. For a marginal loss in profit, I block shelf space without having to grow my sales by some commensurate amount to take up the same blocked shelf space. So why won't that work in the real world?

gamblor956 6y ago

some of the more modern formulations like Humalog came off of patent protection in the US around 2017, but no one outside the manufacturer has picked up white label manufacturing. For drugs, generics still need to prove that their own product meets safety standards and is the equivalent to the drug coming off patent protection. It's not cheap. For biologics like insulin, it's even more expensive. Thus house brands seem like an obfuscation of the market to my uninformed eye so far. They seem to act in the macro scale as a way to prevent real competitors from arising and taking away real revenue and margin, by stuffing the distribution channel with SKU's that give a slightly larger cut to the distributors in exchange for maintaining the same vendor count (thereby making it much more difficult for a competitor to gain shelf space). That's not how retail works. Stores are more than happy to put new products on the shelf, especially if they sell well. They don't "maintain vendor count," they allocate shelf space based on actual sales. If a product doesn't sell well, it loses space to better-selling products on a daily or weekly basis (depending on the store). New products show up all the time, and depending on the arrangement with the manufacturer have between a week and a month to show their selling power. (New products are usually on a consignment basis so the manufacturer only gets paid if units sell.)

yourapostasy 6y ago
> That's not how retail works...they allocate shelf space based on actual sales. Thanks for explaining what goes on behind the scenes! I don't have the terminology for this since I'm not in the domain, so what is it called when a Wal-Mart or Home Depot or grocery chain purchasing department selects a vendor for a product, but will not consider another similar vendor, because physical shelf space is finite? For example, I see Lincoln welding machines, but not Miller, Fronius, or some white label from China at Home Depot, and every Home Depot has the same amount of shelf space set aside for welding machines, but all Lincoln. There isn't even experimentation with an alternative brand with one model. Based upon your description, that finite physical limitation is not able to be strategically used by incumbents to take the oxygen out of the room for other vendors. One way to suck the oxygen out is to sell more. But if I'm an incumbent, and I get a chance to sell exactly the same product in house brand packaging for slightly less margin with a greater chance that a competitor won't get to see the same shelf, I'll take those reduced margins all day long. For a marginal loss in profit, I block shelf space without having to grow my sales by some commensurate amount to take up the same blocked shelf space. So why won't that work in the real world?