Hacker News Reader

Comment by cgriswald | Hacker News Reader

As a kid, the grocery store's generic brand came in yellow boxes with black letter that stated what was in the box (e.g. "Corn Flakes"). There were no other markings.

I can't see Amazon letting a cereal box sit in front of someone while they eat and not try to sell them a Kindle.

View on HN

That sounds like loblaws/superstore's "no name" brand: http://imgur.com/aEkQBfx

It's actually a really great instantly recognizable brand, for all its generic-ness.

hey look, it's https://xkcd.com/993 in the real world!

One of the best parts of the movie Repo Man (1980s) was this exact thing: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5583664de4b088692d5198...

Also just an all around fantastic movie in general.

I must confess that I am old enough to remember that this was based on an actual brand, "Plain Wrap", which was the store brand of the long-defunct Alpha Beta supermarket chain: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CU25MNEU8AAbnvx.jpg

They actually used to stock all the Plain Wrap items in a single aisle, and the effect was like a consumer sensory deprivation tank.

I never realized Qaddafi was in that!

Another item for the list!

https://euri.ca/2013/xkcd-is-the-new-donald-duck/index.html

IGA / black and gold comes close, but with yellow packs: http://www.catalogueaus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/iga_p...

Oh God, please yes. If I ever saw such products in my supermarket, I'd be buying them all. This is exactly how packaging should look like; what we currently have is ridiculous and only serves as an example that advertising isn't about informing people anymore.

The Swedish Coop chain of food stores did that for very many years: https://fredrikedin.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/blavitt.jpg

Ah, good ol' Sans Nom. So generic that it becomes unique.

Different stores had different color generics back then I remember one having blue packaging (used to call the stuff the blue food) - I think Safeway was one that used Yellow as thier generic label color.

I love generics!

Rewe in Germany is an interestingly punishing example of house brand design. Very simple design but with the word "Ja!" prominently displayed on each package. One can flip through the pdf on this page to see every single product:

http://www.rhein-verlag.com/en/david-kuhne/ja-buch-hardcover...

God, I had to hunt down some Rewe Ja! Trauben-Nuss-Müsli (page 27 for those interested!) for a German friend last week; I guess their marketing works, because this muesli looks boring as hell!

"No Name" translates to the French "Sans Nom" (dual language English/French packaging is pretty standard in Canada).

Sans = No.

Nom = Tasty (from the modern usage of "Nom nom nom").

Sans Nom = No Taste.

At least the way I read it.

But I kid. The No Name stuff is perfectly good. Their potato chips are actually really good.

I hope they use the fire branding on their breakfast cereal. Amazon Fire Flakes, Frosted Fire-Wheats, Honey Nut Fire-os.

Fire toilet paper would be bad.

Some feminine products may be worse.

Don't get me started on their eye drops

I'm just waiting for Fire Toast Crunch.

So long as they don't revive the defunct "No Frills" brand, maybe they'll have a chance. I don't know why store brands skimp on branding and presentation. All they need is one intern churning out design and keeping a fresh look, rather than a set it and forget it approach where you have the housebrand look the same way it did when it debuted even decades later. Maybe they worry about cannibalization into higher profit brands?

> All they need is one intern churning out design and keeping a fresh look

I think changes to packaging requires market testing before you roll it out. Something as simple as a font change can confuse a customer into thinking the same product is now something completely different.

Even if the design intern is cheap, market testing isn't. I bet they stuck with the same simple packaging to keep costs down and recognition high.

Maybe, but I would think they also risk their housebrand becoming really stale. I mean, while the contents might be the surplus/castoff from a branded producer (so quality-wise not bad), the bland packaging induces the product to languish unnecessarily and even become a liability if it doesn't move(limited space for goods).

I've wondered if it's because poor people instinctively reach for the cheaper looking brand. I've done that during the times in my life when it was necessary. I've also occasionally found that the cheaper looking brand isn't actually the cheapest brand, and wondered of someone's been capitalising on that instinct.

The point of a house brand in most supermarkets is to appeal to bargain-hunting buyers. The most important part of the branding, then, is to communicate that the product is no frills.

Dated-looking branding probabky actually helps with that, which may be why even when store brands are new or updated, they are bith plain and dated-looking from the start. This also means that they don't really have a lot of reason to.keep them "fresh" most of the time.

I think the 'value' house brand's plainness also helps to nudge less price-conscious customers up to the next level up of own-brand stuff. Tesco used to have three levels of own-brand: the blue-and-white-stripe "Tesco value", a more "normal" looking Tesco own-brand, and the premium "Tesco Finest". I suspect the dated plain look of the 'value' range helped it avoid cannibalising sales of the mid-range versions of the same items.

"plain and dated-looking"

Full on retro would be an interesting concept. Reusing box art from 1960, assuming its still in a vault somewhere, is cheaper and faster than trying to upgrade 2005 box art to 2016 current fads. And it would be kinda cool looking.

Two problems: Stealth inflation by shrinking package means the "one pound style" package will now be huge next to the current "one pound style" packages that are down to only 11 or so oz now. I suppose scaling in photoshop is pretty well understood. The other problem is the sports athlete on your 1961 Wheaties cereal box might have turned into a serial (cereal?) killer sometime in the last half century, need to research and censor some famous personalities.

In the UK, Tesco had the brand "Tesco Value" (picture [0]) from 1993 - 2012. It became one of the best selling brands in the UK, and is deemed responsible for allowing them to become the biggest supermarket in the country.

[0] http://api.ning.com/files/TpvqSYo3L8j4*3QBoyqNr*zPPYYtbPvcSz...

Oh god, in Poland Tesco Value (or any like-brand) stands for absolute bottom feeder junk that is "healthy" and edible enough to not kill you outright. Sure it sells, since ~50% of population can't really afford anything else (as they work for Tesco for min wage)

It's interesting how Amazon can distance itself from such connotations

Similar thing for "Price First" at Wal-Mart.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=price+first+walmart&FOR...

Must be a regional thing, for it's Great Value here in SW Missouri, where Wal-Mart opened its first big store in the '70s: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=great+value+walmart&FOR...

We have both here, with Price First being even cheaper and with a smaller selection of items than Great Value.

Walmart/Great Value has been heading toward this as well. For a while they had fancy images on their products now they're just stating what they are.

White boxes with black letters? Used to great effect in the movie "Repo Man".

AmazonBasics products don't do that, why would their generic cereal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com