Trader Joe's and their pattern of copycat merchandising

tastecooking.com

35 points·coloneltcb··4 comments

I really don't know what the answer is here, I think the practice of the store brand loosely copying the brand name's design to be an overwhelmingly positive thing. It's telling consumers that this product is intended to be a substitute and enables comparison shopping on the level of like-for-like.

I think it's hard to argue consumers are genuinely confused and think "That For Sure Isn't Butter" or "Trader Joe's Generic Foodstuff" is actually the brand name. Even in the article people weren't confused, they just thought the brand might have been contracted to make the generic like how people assume Kirkland Vodka is just Grey Goose.

I think foodstuffs is one of the industries that hasn't been wildly distorted by IP games thanks to some accidents of history. I would argue that the crazy amount of competition and variety that came from it is a property that should be emulated not eliminated.

> It's telling consumers that this product is intended to be a substitute and enables comparison shopping on the level of like-for-like.

For larger, nationally known brands, that makes sense. But for smaller brands like this article is about, TJ will expose many more people to the product than were originally exposed to the brand, leading the original brand to appear like a knock-off.

I believe the word they’re looking for is “competition”. Specifically, “copy cat” competition like this has been around since the dawn of markets, and especially since the advent of food stores/grocers/supermarkets.

While I generally agree with you, the claim that trade joes entered into negotiations in bad faith and cost the other brands money be asking them to make changes to recipes is a bit beyond just competition. Presuming that claim is true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com