3 ms·

That example is always brought up, but honestly? I don't think that's a fair thing either. I think that particular form of abuse is mild enough and has existed

by mabbo 4y ago

That example is always brought up, but honestly? I don't think that's a fair thing either. I think that particular form of abuse is mild enough and has existed for long enough that we don't even think about it. A law that stops tech companies from this abuse should also stop grocery stores from doing the same thing.

akersten 4y ago
I would really not like to double my grocery bill by being excluded from buying the store brand items. I actually like Great Value because it's half the price, same as Amazon Basics. I think they are both fine things to exist.
- mabbo 4y ago
  The best way to keep prices low is strong competition. Amazon Basics undercuts competitors by having no cost to sell on the Amazon marketplace. Then once the competitor they're imitating is out of business, they can raise prices, and you wind up paying more. I think it would be perfectly fine if the Basics brand existed as an independent company and paid the same fees as everyone else. But real competitors can't sell at a loss indefinitely just to win over the whole market.
  - sithadmin 4y ago
    >Amazon Basics undercuts competitors by having no cost to sell on the Amazon marketplace. Amazon branded products have an advantage through access to analytics, not cost of doing business. Amazon issues internal chargebacks to subsidiaries and business units for use of their platforms.
    - supercheetah 4y ago
      That's still an unfair advantage to Amazon Basics that competitors can't get.
    - mabbo 4y ago
      Good points. Still, even with those charges, Amazon can just choose to take losses knowing they aren't really losses. They can run that brand unprofitably and if the losses are coming from distribution fees being charged internally, well, the company still comes out ahead. And the internal analytics is really a much worse abuse. I suspect that grocery stores make their internal brands the same way, and again, I'm strongly opposed to that being allowed.
rocqua 4y ago
I think a significant difference is that supermarkets don't make significant money on their own branded items. They are more like loss-leaders.
- tssva 4y ago
  Aldie and Lidl operate by selling almost exclusively, recent supply chain issues have at least temporarily changed this some, their own store brands. If whole chains survive by selling cheaper store brands I assume the other supermarkets are making decent money off their store brands.
Cerium 4y ago
It's often not fair. Trader Joe's has a reputation for bringing in new and popular name brand items. Once they determine market fit with their customers and build demand they clone the items and replace with their own brand.
scarface74 4y ago
The dirty little well known secret is that store brands are created in the same factories as the name brand and are often the same companies.
car_analogy 4y ago
> I think that particular form of abuse is mild enough How mild is it, really? Consumers might not feel it, but for all we know manufacturers (at least the smaller ones) are getting anti-competitively slaughtered.

by mabbo 4y ago

akersten 4y ago

I would really not like to double my grocery bill by being excluded from buying the store brand items. I actually like Great Value because it's half the price, same as Amazon Basics. I think they are both fine things to exist.

mabbo 4y ago
The best way to keep prices low is strong competition. Amazon Basics undercuts competitors by having no cost to sell on the Amazon marketplace. Then once the competitor they're imitating is out of business, they can raise prices, and you wind up paying more. I think it would be perfectly fine if the Basics brand existed as an independent company and paid the same fees as everyone else. But real competitors can't sell at a loss indefinitely just to win over the whole market.
- sithadmin 4y ago
  >Amazon Basics undercuts competitors by having no cost to sell on the Amazon marketplace. Amazon branded products have an advantage through access to analytics, not cost of doing business. Amazon issues internal chargebacks to subsidiaries and business units for use of their platforms.
  - supercheetah 4y ago
    That's still an unfair advantage to Amazon Basics that competitors can't get.
  - mabbo 4y ago
    Good points. Still, even with those charges, Amazon can just choose to take losses knowing they aren't really losses. They can run that brand unprofitably and if the losses are coming from distribution fees being charged internally, well, the company still comes out ahead. And the internal analytics is really a much worse abuse. I suspect that grocery stores make their internal brands the same way, and again, I'm strongly opposed to that being allowed.

rocqua 4y ago

I think a significant difference is that supermarkets don't make significant money on their own branded items. They are more like loss-leaders.

tssva 4y ago
Aldie and Lidl operate by selling almost exclusively, recent supply chain issues have at least temporarily changed this some, their own store brands. If whole chains survive by selling cheaper store brands I assume the other supermarkets are making decent money off their store brands.

Cerium 4y ago

It's often not fair. Trader Joe's has a reputation for bringing in new and popular name brand items. Once they determine market fit with their customers and build demand they clone the items and replace with their own brand.

scarface74 4y ago

The dirty little well known secret is that store brands are created in the same factories as the name brand and are often the same companies.

car_analogy 4y ago

> I think that particular form of abuse is mild enough How mild is it, really? Consumers might not feel it, but for all we know manufacturers (at least the smaller ones) are getting anti-competitively slaughtered.