3 ms·

Not sure why the cases you cite are alarming. I actually think there are two levels of signalling in these cases 1. what the brand promises - and the corporate

Not sure why the cases you cite are alarming. I actually think there are two levels of signalling in these cases 1. what the brand promises - and the corporate owner will usually want to protect that and 2. The reputation of a P&G or Unilever. I think problems often happen when the big corporate owners sell to private equity who are more often interested in boosting short term earnings.

lordnacho 5y ago
1) Multiple brands for one producer: something bad happens, we cut the brand loose, move the staff who caused the problem elsewhere, or replace them, nobody knows. If it's really bad the mother co has enough money to place everything on the brand, with PR. The financial news will know it's P&G or Nestle or whatever, people on the street will see "Something Crunch is unhealthy and is discontinued". 2) Unknown holding company: yes, people can have general knowledge and to a degree it's their own fault for not knowing. But it also isn't, nobody has time to read about what thousands of brands are out there. > I think problems often happen when the big corporate owners sell to private equity who are more often interested in boosting short term earnings. Absolutely. I remember going to Ed's Diner here in the UK. They made a great burger in SoHo before I left the country for a few years. When I came back, they'd expanded across the country, which was a bit surprising to me, but I went in to eat there because of my previous experience. I took one bite, it was terrible, and I immediately told my wife "this tastes like private equity". I go on google, guess what, it was indeed bought by PE and they'd totally changed the burger. This is a form of lying to people that should not be tolerated but of course is a grey zone because it not easy to define when you've changed the burger so much that you can't call it the same thing.
- klelatti 5y ago
  I remember Ed's Diner in Soho going downhill! One of the great malaises of the UK high street is that almost every mid range restaurant chain is owned by PE. They buy an upcoming chain, expand massively using debt, try to sell at the top and if not when recession comes they cut costs to make the experience awful and then go bust. I think we probably mostly agree on the whole brands thing. My point was really that P&G / Unilever are probably better than most in practice at being decent stewards of the brands they own.
- diveandfight 5y ago
  > 1) Multiple brands for one producer Was literally in a conversation just a couple months ago where I was expressing that I had finished deleting facebook for privacy-related reasons. They chimed in with, "I know right! That's why I only use Instagram..." I think the me of a few years ago would have discounted point 1). Today, I think it's a fairly salient point, with regards to actual market effects. Albeit, I'm not advocating for any action(s) to be taken with regards to it.

lordnacho 5y ago

1) Multiple brands for one producer: something bad happens, we cut the brand loose, move the staff who caused the problem elsewhere, or replace them, nobody knows. If it's really bad the mother co has enough money to place everything on the brand, with PR. The financial news will know it's P&G or Nestle or whatever, people on the street will see "Something Crunch is unhealthy and is discontinued". 2) Unknown holding company: yes, people can have general knowledge and to a degree it's their own fault for not knowing. But it also isn't, nobody has time to read about what thousands of brands are out there. > I think problems often happen when the big corporate owners sell to private equity who are more often interested in boosting short term earnings. Absolutely. I remember going to Ed's Diner here in the UK. They made a great burger in SoHo before I left the country for a few years. When I came back, they'd expanded across the country, which was a bit surprising to me, but I went in to eat there because of my previous experience. I took one bite, it was terrible, and I immediately told my wife "this tastes like private equity". I go on google, guess what, it was indeed bought by PE and they'd totally changed the burger. This is a form of lying to people that should not be tolerated but of course is a grey zone because it not easy to define when you've changed the burger so much that you can't call it the same thing.

klelatti 5y ago
I remember Ed's Diner in Soho going downhill! One of the great malaises of the UK high street is that almost every mid range restaurant chain is owned by PE. They buy an upcoming chain, expand massively using debt, try to sell at the top and if not when recession comes they cut costs to make the experience awful and then go bust. I think we probably mostly agree on the whole brands thing. My point was really that P&G / Unilever are probably better than most in practice at being decent stewards of the brands they own.
diveandfight 5y ago
> 1) Multiple brands for one producer Was literally in a conversation just a couple months ago where I was expressing that I had finished deleting facebook for privacy-related reasons. They chimed in with, "I know right! That's why I only use Instagram..." I think the me of a few years ago would have discounted point 1). Today, I think it's a fairly salient point, with regards to actual market effects. Albeit, I'm not advocating for any action(s) to be taken with regards to it.