In a lot of cases (notice "a lot", not all) the difference between house brands and name brands is the cost of advertising the name brands.
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peter Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: OT: ...they're good for your heart... (was Re: OT: PayPal alternative > Hi, > > Monday, December 1, 2003, 6:32:51 PM, you wrote: > > > Have you ever bought a supermarket's own brand baked beans? > > > The supermarket is making a profit on both the sale and manufacture of the > > beans, whereas if you buy a brand name, the profits are split between the > > two companies. > > > But does this make it wrong or immoral for the supermarket to do this? > > Rather surprisingly, supermarkets don't make a profit on beans (I know > this doesn't affect the point of your reply). The cost of handling > each tin, including scanning and packing at the checkout, is more than > the markup. Competition is so fierce that they can't raise the price > to a profitable level, or decide not to stock them, because nobody > would shop at a supermarket that didn't sell beans, or sold them for a > lot more than their competitors (I exclude places like Fortnum & > Mason here). This is true for a surprising number of other items, too. > > -- > Cheers, > Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, > because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. > We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some > things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns the ones we don't > know we don't know." > > ---Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/footinmouth.html) > >
