3 ms·
Oh shit... am I the only one who thinks this can backfire in a very bad way? Like bubble popping material? I mean, they can't do what P&G, Unilever, Mars, and
by libertine 6y ago
Oh shit... am I the only one who thinks this can backfire in a very bad way? Like bubble popping material?
I mean, they can't do what P&G, Unilever, Mars, and many other umbrella brands did. It's just impossible, and the reason is simple: they can't have the share of voice and share of shelf these companies had, and that allowed them to be what they were.
They didn't just had a big portfolio of brands, they were literal bullies that left no room for competition, and they had built brands so strong - through buying millions upon millions of GRPs, through years, in a time where TV was the king of mass media - that they pushed their weight on retailers and won a lot of share of shelf (literally saturated shelves).
The times have changed, this doesn't work anymore. Now brands are more diluted, it's mainly built on small niches, consumers attention is extremely fragmented so you can't monopolize media space, and the weight lays on Amazon and retailers, not the other way around...
- maxerickson 6y agoA billion dollars is lots of money, but it isn't really a big deal for the broader economy.
- libertine 6y agoI didn't mean "bubble popping" in the sense of crumbling an economy, I meant in these circles of investments. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm pretty sure they are not the only ones, this probably has a long tail of companies doing this. Edit: but this could be a sign that a lot of these "gamble-like" investments could be taking place... and might be a symptom of something bigger.
- dublinben 6y agoIt's a symptom of capital running out of better places to chase a return.