5 ms·

Home brands copying popular products is common in grocery stores, down to the artwork and label design (to show similarity). Does anyone argue that a grocery st

Home brands copying popular products is common in grocery stores, down to the artwork and label design (to show similarity). Does anyone argue that a grocery store is using, much less abusing, its monopolistic power by doing that? No. Anyway, Amazon renamed it (see the other comment's link to the 18-day-old thread) and calling it a "camera bag" probably nets them more than riding on a botique store's branding.

neolog 6y ago
> Does anyone argue that a grocery store is using, much less abusing, its monopolistic power by doing that? No. Grocery stores don't have anything like monopoly power.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  So the only grocer in town isn't a monopoly, but a web site that is one of dozens of popular sites, among thousands which deliver to me, is?
  - neolog 6y ago
    I suppose it depends on the grocer and the town
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      Isn't it a well known narrative about how Wal-Mart expanded, at least initially, by opening stores in less populated areas where they could offer dramatically more than any other business in the area? I know someone who lives out near the nature coast of Florida and Wal-Mart is a lot more important to their daily life than I'm used to.
legutierr 6y ago
There has never been a grocery store that has had the logistical dominance that Amazon does right now. In fact, for much of the 20th century, retail and wholesale distribution operations were legally obligated to be owned by distinct entities under anti-trust law, specifically to prevent the emergence of a combination like what we see now with Amazon. This is not a one-off for Amazon. New products need to sell through Amazon to get access to consumers without paying through the nose for that access; they can't be cost-competitive otherwise (close parallel here to the SO monopoly). Amazon frequently cherry-picks the most successful new products that they think they can manufacture themselves. This is bad for innovation in the consumer products space, because it kills the incentive that independent entrepreneurs have to innovate. Why innovate if Amazon is going to capture all your profits once you are successful? What branded grocery-store products ever face the same quandary due to the existence of similar white-label products being sold in the same store? In an environment where anti-trust principles were being enforced against Amazon, they would have listed the original product under the "camera bag" headline, increasing their sales, instead of stealing their concept and making it harder for them to build a sustainable business.
- bsder 6y ago
  > There has never been a grocery store that has had the logistical dominance that Amazon does right now. I challenge you on this. I think that both Sears and A&P had Amazon level monopolies for quite a long time.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    I'm not some newbie but who was A&P? Never heard of them. Regardless I'd disagree about the reach of Sears vs. Amazon. They kinda look the same as a retailer scope (Sears owned phone-order, Amazon monopolized online), but that's where the analogy ends.
    - cafard 6y ago
      Atlantic and Pacific is what it stood for. Wikipedia says it shut down in 2015.
      - mikestew 6y ago
        On top of the fact that it's probably been fifty years since I've stepped foot in an A&P grocery. They were hardly a monopoly even then. I'm truly surprised that they were still a going entity in 2015.
        perl4ever 6y ago
        I don't think I've ever been in one and couldn't have told you what states they were in. Nevertheless I heard of them somewhere, so I don't think they're the most obscure chain.
        mikestew 6y ago
        "Not obscure" is a loooooong way from "monopoly", which was the original argument somewhere upthread. Wikipedia says that at their peak, A&P had 10% of U. S. grocery sales. That's not even iPhone territory, let alone monopoly.
mc32 6y ago
That argument would make sense if Walmart served the grocery needs of 90% of the people AND they blatantly ripped off and copied branded goods’ products. In that case, yes, it would be a problem also.
codezero 6y ago
Many if not most of those home brands are manufactured by the brand name and relabeled. You’ll notice this if you frequently check the manufacture location of similar goods. This is to say that it is often more of a partnership to push more product at a cheaper price point than to push the competition out.
MikeUt 6y ago
> Does anyone argue that a grocery store is using, much less abusing, its monopolistic power by doing that? No. I do. Especially with how common it is for a single chain to have over 30% market share in some area. Often the chain's only contribution is packaging someone else's product in their own branding, so independent brands can't build consumer trust. And in my experience, they make sure the store-brand product is always well stocked, while others are allowed to frequently run out. Even when, if you look at the fine print, the manufacturer is the same.

neolog 6y ago

> Does anyone argue that a grocery store is using, much less abusing, its monopolistic power by doing that? No. Grocery stores don't have anything like monopoly power.

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
So the only grocer in town isn't a monopoly, but a web site that is one of dozens of popular sites, among thousands which deliver to me, is?
- neolog 6y ago
  I suppose it depends on the grocer and the town
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Isn't it a well known narrative about how Wal-Mart expanded, at least initially, by opening stores in less populated areas where they could offer dramatically more than any other business in the area? I know someone who lives out near the nature coast of Florida and Wal-Mart is a lot more important to their daily life than I'm used to.

legutierr 6y ago

There has never been a grocery store that has had the logistical dominance that Amazon does right now. In fact, for much of the 20th century, retail and wholesale distribution operations were legally obligated to be owned by distinct entities under anti-trust law, specifically to prevent the emergence of a combination like what we see now with Amazon. This is not a one-off for Amazon. New products need to sell through Amazon to get access to consumers without paying through the nose for that access; they can't be cost-competitive otherwise (close parallel here to the SO monopoly). Amazon frequently cherry-picks the most successful new products that they think they can manufacture themselves. This is bad for innovation in the consumer products space, because it kills the incentive that independent entrepreneurs have to innovate. Why innovate if Amazon is going to capture all your profits once you are successful? What branded grocery-store products ever face the same quandary due to the existence of similar white-label products being sold in the same store? In an environment where anti-trust principles were being enforced against Amazon, they would have listed the original product under the "camera bag" headline, increasing their sales, instead of stealing their concept and making it harder for them to build a sustainable business.

bsder 6y ago
> There has never been a grocery store that has had the logistical dominance that Amazon does right now. I challenge you on this. I think that both Sears and A&P had Amazon level monopolies for quite a long time.
- r00fus 6y ago
  I'm not some newbie but who was A&P? Never heard of them. Regardless I'd disagree about the reach of Sears vs. Amazon. They kinda look the same as a retailer scope (Sears owned phone-order, Amazon monopolized online), but that's where the analogy ends.
  - cafard 6y ago
    Atlantic and Pacific is what it stood for. Wikipedia says it shut down in 2015.
    - mikestew 6y ago
      On top of the fact that it's probably been fifty years since I've stepped foot in an A&P grocery. They were hardly a monopoly even then. I'm truly surprised that they were still a going entity in 2015.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        I don't think I've ever been in one and couldn't have told you what states they were in. Nevertheless I heard of them somewhere, so I don't think they're the most obscure chain.
        mikestew 6y ago
        "Not obscure" is a loooooong way from "monopoly", which was the original argument somewhere upthread. Wikipedia says that at their peak, A&P had 10% of U. S. grocery sales. That's not even iPhone territory, let alone monopoly.

mc32 6y ago

That argument would make sense if Walmart served the grocery needs of 90% of the people AND they blatantly ripped off and copied branded goods’ products. In that case, yes, it would be a problem also.

codezero 6y ago

Many if not most of those home brands are manufactured by the brand name and relabeled. You’ll notice this if you frequently check the manufacture location of similar goods. This is to say that it is often more of a partnership to push more product at a cheaper price point than to push the competition out.

MikeUt 6y ago

> Does anyone argue that a grocery store is using, much less abusing, its monopolistic power by doing that? No. I do. Especially with how common it is for a single chain to have over 30% market share in some area. Often the chain's only contribution is packaging someone else's product in their own branding, so independent brands can't build consumer trust. And in my experience, they make sure the store-brand product is always well stocked, while others are allowed to frequently run out. Even when, if you look at the fine print, the manufacturer is the same.