Hacker News Reader

Comment by rootusrootus | Hacker News Reader

Maybe we should pass some kind of regulation that forces every business to clearly label the ultimate owner of the company. So instead of going to Fred Meyer, it should say "Fred Meyer by Kroger". And let's extend that to all the random brands that litter grocery store shelves trying to look like they came straight from a local farm. Consumers should be reminded that they're just buying factory food in a pretty container.

I'm only kind of kidding.

View on HN

What exactly will that change? People will go to the store that is most convenient for them regardless of whether it is called Kroger or Albertsons or Safeway or "Kroger by Albertsons by Safeway".

Eliminates the illusion of competition. Genuine competition is not about creating different brands with slightly different characteristics in order to attract different market segments, but about different brands competing for the same market segment.

Much of the American Myth is predicated on the idea that capitalism produces competition and therefore people can trust that what is available is the best quality at the lowest price. If people aren't fooled into thinking that there's actually competition, they'll be willing to go farther afield to find a competitive option.

I think that would be great, why are you kidding about it?

Where do you stop in the ownership chain? I brand-name that is just a department of a registered company? A fully owned subsidiary? What about majority stakes in public companies? What about ownership stakes in holding or investment firms? What percentage of ownership is interesting to note at each level?

SEC uses 5%.

It would probably work fine for the stated purpose (not missing many important owners, not listing overly many).

So you list up to 20 names on every storefront and package?

You'd stop at the point where no single entity owned more than 5%, is I think the idea.

Of course that would probably mean every store was just called "BlackRock"...

then you realize you'd just be wasting paper printing

* blackrock

* vanguard

* fidelity

* state street

* t. rowe price

* most major banks

* some random asset managers

on like 90% of products? why tf bother? that doesn't actually mean anything to most people and nobody really cares.

Ralph’s is full of Kroger branded products. I don’t even get why they are called Ralph’s. Just be Kroger.

People are creatures of habit and some would stop shopping at Ralph's if it became Kroger even if nothing inside changed. At a store I worked at as a teen, we had two vendor supplied quarts of milk with the same UPC code but different brand labels because some of the shoppers had been drinking one brand since their childhood and refused to buy anything else. They had long ago been bought out by a competitor and it was the same milk in both brands' cartons but the customers wouldn't listen if we tried to explain that. Sometime one brand would run out and the customer would simply come back another day even though the exact same milk, from the exact same company was right there on the shelf, just with a different brand on it. As far as store inventory was concerned, they had the same SKUs and UPCs, but we had to ensure enough of each carton brand was delivered by the vendor or risk unhappy customers.

Rebranding costs money for very little gain. There’s no sense doing it unless you have to.

A quick search online answers this question without the need for legislation.

That is a good point. Maybe I will write a mobile app where you can scan a UPC code and it will tell you who really makes it. And something similar for all the big stores.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com