Terms Which Have Disappeared

[BlueTrain]

That's another problem: it isn't often clear who makes the store brand products or the products sold under another brand name, such as you describe. Typically, however, the lower priced store brand is not made by the same company that makes the more expensive and higher priced brand. But when that sometimes happens, it may not be exactly the same product. Sometimes products with the same name sold in different places are even not the same.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Athletes as a "brand" is an interesting phenomenon, and it started with Michael Jordan. Athletes have been endorsing products since there have been athletes, everything from shaving cream to cigarettes to panty hose. But Nike and Jordan creating the distinctive Jordan brand was truly revolutionary in the marketing circles. You're not just buying Nike basketball shoes, you're buying "Air Jordans"...or "Tiger Woods Golf" apparel.

"Babe Ruth Underwear" was popular in the twenties, although that wasn't really athletic wear, except perhaps for Babe Ruth himself....

It came in sizes for men, boys, and girls. I'd like to see what "Babe Ruth" brand girls underwear would have looked like.

 

[Fading Fast]

I had a small nightmare with "reverse branding" on my last tractor. It was green and yellow alright, but it was made by Yanmar specifically to be sold under the John Deere badge. The problem was years later both companies effectively disowned these models, JD saying "we didn't make that, it just had our name on it" and Yanmar saying "hey, we made that for JD, take it up with them". Not that's there's anything wrong with either John Deere or Yanmar, only that getting parts and service on their little joint venture is now next to impossible.

That is a nightmare - and bad on both companies.

And I bet you both companies have things like "do the right thing," "stand behind our products," and / or "being the most respected company..." in their corporate values or mission statement or whatever the heck they call it.

These companies can't seem to connect those values with their actions. Some do and, I believe, are rewarded for it over time, but many just write them down - repeat them internally - and then make decision based on next quarter's earnings. Shortsighted, stupid and sad.

Growing up in the '70s, there were several brands that many people were willing to pay more for as those companies had reputations for service and quality - Maytag and Sony were two. My "not willing to part with a $ easily" dad, would buy both brands for just that reason and, again, he did not part with a dollar easily, but believed it was worth it to get a better product from a company that would quickly address a problem if you had one.

Today, I buy Apple products for that reason - not that they are always the best, but their service / support is so far beyond all the others that I don't even price out other brands.

 

[Fading Fast]

"Babe Ruth Underwear" was popular in the twenties, although that wasn't really athletic wear, except perhaps for Babe Ruth himself....

nice

 

[Fading Fast]

Pretty much any household consumer appliance you buy today with an Era-vintage "American-made" brand name is an example of trick branding -- RCA, Philco, Westinghouse, Crosley, GE (depending on the item), Zenith, anything like that, are all ghost brands made by obscure overseas companies who bought or leased the rights to the logos from whatever consortium controls the IP rights today. The trouble starts when you own such an item, something goes wrong with it, and you want to track down the manufacturer for parts. Not that anyone ever does that anymore.

That's another problem: it isn't often clear who makes the store brand products or the products sold under another brand name, such as you describe. Typically, however, the lower priced store brand is not made by the same company that makes the more expensive and higher priced brand. But when that sometimes happens, it may not be exactly the same product. Sometimes products with the same name sold in different places are even not the same.

Agreed on both points and that is part of the reason so many things are disposable - it isn't worth it to both spend the money and time involved in fixing something.

I think I posted recently that my Dad bought a color TV a Motorola back in '64 and kept it 'till he passed away in '90. It was repaired or "serviced" many times.

That said, he paid about (ballpark from my shaky memory) $400 then, while I just paid $700 for a flat panel earlier in the year. Based on an inflation calculator, he paid $3200 in today's dollars (vs my $700); hence, fixing it made a lot more sense for him. Today, if mine breaks in the first year, it gets replaced by the company (if they are still there), after that, I'm on my own. But if it breaks in year five and cost $200 or $300 to repair (with shipping or a service call fee, plus parts, plus labor) - it doesn't take long for just buying a new one to make sense, sadly.

 

[HudsonHawk]

That's another problem: it isn't often clear who makes the store brand products or the products sold under another brand name, such as you describe. Typically, however, the lower priced store brand is not made by the same company that makes the more expensive and higher priced brand. But when that sometimes happens, it may not be exactly the same product. Sometimes products with the same name sold in different places are even not the same.

There retailers who market a product carrying a well-established brand name, and which is "exclusive" to that retailer...only that particular model is not made by the established brand, but rather made by a cheap someone else, and the retailer has simply licensed the well established brand name for their "exclusive" model.

I'm confused.

 

[Trenchfriend]

"Babe Ruth Underwear" was popular in the twenties, although that wasn't really athletic wear, except perhaps for Babe Ruth himself....

It came in sizes for men, boys, and girls. I'd like to see what "Babe Ruth" brand girls underwear would have looked like.

 

[BlueTrain]

Sears is a company that has lost its reputation, although not necessarily because the products have been cheapened (which may have happened). In particular, Craftsman tools were a well-known brand of tools, yet there was never a "Craftsman Tool Factory" owned and operated by Sears. But some may be made in other places now.

What I was referring to earlier is the claim that certain well-known clothing brands have different lines for sale in their regular stores and others for sale in their "outlet" stores. But I don't really know if that is true or not or if the different lines are made in different places or even how they might actually be different.

In both of these cases, what the company is doing is the result of a management decision to something and obviously, it may not be a good decision. Sometimes a large company, such as Sears, will go through a crisis period when the original owner passes on or otherwise leaves the company. The new management may not have the flair the founder had and things change, which is inevitable anyway. Anyway, large corporations are very complex organisms and there would never be a single thing that would cause a company to fail, usually, but rather a long list of bad decisions. They may not be bad for the person that made them but for the company, it can even be fatal. People either forget or never know the reason for the company's existence and everyone has their own point of view.

In theory, or at least, this is what they teach in business school, the object of a corporation and its employees is to "enrich the residual owners," who would usually be the stockholders. But management instead acts to increase their own wealth. In no case is the object of a corporation to provide employment for the masses or to somehow provide for the common welfare of the community. That sounds mean but it's a hard world. Ultimately, however, in spite of those various ideals, the first business of a corporation is--to stay in business. The ultimate failure, then, is to go out of business.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Right now the only thing keeping Sears alive is its "brand portfolio," which is licensed out to companies having nothing to do with Sears. That's the reason you see "Die Hard" brand flashlight batteries around -- because people in their fifties remember that once upon a time Sears Die Hard car batteries were high quality and reliable.

 

[Fading Fast]

Right now the only thing keeping Sears alive is its "brand portfolio," which is licensed out to companies having nothing to do with Sears. That's the reason you see "Die Hard" brand flashlight batteries around -- because people in their fifties remember that once upon a time Sears Die Hard car batteries were high quality and reliable.

This is the proof of a point I try to make a lot here: investing in the long-term value of your company / brand by truly doing the right thing - putting out a quality product at a fair price and standing behind it (even if that means taking an earnings hit for several quarters, or whatever) pays off in 1. customer loyalty 2. employee pride (every study shows people want to work for companies they genuinely respect) and 3. revenues, earnings, stock price - all that good stuff.

Sears did it right for so long that, even now, decades after the brand has done anything notable, there still is enough reputation / good will to keep the embers glowing just a bit. Go past the headlines on Wells Fargo, they put short-term goals ahead of long-term respect and integrity and ended up with a gigantic mess - customer loyalty down, employees demoralized and (when it's all done) tons of costs, expenses, fines and revenue hits.

The thing I am amazed at is that doing the right thing - the moral thing - is the best long-term business decision (how great is that), but short-term greed constantly gets in the way. I advocated my long-term view for three decades in Corporate America and was rebuffed much more than embraced (even if that wasn't always said outright).

 

[LizzieMaine]

No matter what evil Wells Fargo gets involved in, when someone says the words the first thing I think of is stagecoaches. That's pretty impressive brand equity if they could figure out what to do with it. Same thing with Western Union -- everybody knows the name, even though there's no longer any particularly good reason to know it.

Brands have a way of losing that recognition value over time. A hundred years ago, people all over the world knew Pebeco toothpaste, but it's a brand absolutely meaningless today. Fifty years from now "Kenmore" will mean absolutely nothing to anyone, and "Apple" will probably be a ghost brand used for a line of cut-rate novelty "nostalgia" toys. But the exception, if there is one, will be Coca-Cola, which will somehow remain a recognizable logo until the last surviving human tips over into the slime of a fallen civilization.

 

[vitanola]

In theory, or at least, this is what they teach in business school, the object of a corporation and its employees is to "enrich the residual owners," who would usually be the stockholders. But management instead acts to increase their own wealth. In no case is the object of a corporation to provide employment for the masses or to somehow provide for the common welfare of the community. That sounds mean but it's a hard world. Ultimately, however, in spite of those various ideals, the first business of a corporation is--to stay in business. The ultimate failure, then, is to go out of business.

Thhis "Shareholder Theory of Value" would have been alien to a businessman in the Golden Age. It was only introduced in a polemic published by Friedman in 1970. Being a superior justification for selfishness it caught on quickly and became downright faddish in the 1980's and 1990's. After having destroyed thousands of erstwhile successful firms and affecting tens of millions of lives this pernicious doctrine appears to finally be falling out of fashion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede...ds-dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/#63f074e7214c

 

[BlueTrain]

Predicting the future is always chancy but it goes without saying that protecting and promoting your name is of vital importance to the company, even if you're on top. It doesn't mean doing something immoral or illegal, either. The competition is just the competition, not the enemy. Sometime you just might have to ask them for a favor.

 

[Fading Fast]

No matter what evil Wells Fargo gets involved in, when someone says the words the first thing I think of is stagecoaches. That's pretty impressive brand equity if they could figure out what to do with it. Same thing with Western Union -- everybody knows the name, even though there's no longer any particularly good reason to know it.

Brands have a way of losing that recognition value over time. A hundred years ago, people all over the world knew Pebeco toothpaste, but it's a brand absolutely meaningless today. Fifty years from now "Kenmore" will mean absolutely nothing to anyone, and "Apple" will probably be a ghost brand used for a line of cut-rate novelty "nostalgia" toys.

True story. I ran a trading desk in San Francisco out of NYC and the first time I went out to visit the desk, I flew in, dropped my bag at the hotel and walked about five blocks to the office. On my way, I passed by the Wells Fargo headquarters and saw from the street an original stagecoach in a small lobby "museum."

I looked at my watch, knew I didn't really have the time and against my character (I hate being late to anything - disrespectful to those you are meeting with) popped in to look at it. The lobby guy told me they didn't close 'till five, so I knew I could come back and I trotted at a pretty good pace to my meeting, but still, I had to pop in to see it (and went back later that day - stagecoaches are bigger and more technologically complicated than I had known).

And, like you, Western Union, to me, still means something - I see telegraph poles stretching across the country providing the first real-time coast-to-coast communication. You can't get that kind of brand recognition from a jingle or viral ad.

 

[BlueTrain]

Thhis "Shareholder Theory of Value" would have been alien to a businessman in the Golden Age. It was only introduced in a polemic published by Friedman in 1970. Being a superior justification for selfishness it caught on quickly and became downright faddish in the 1980's and 1990's. After having destroyed thousands of erstwhile successful firms and affecting tens of millions of lives this pernicious doctrine appears to finally be falling out of fashion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede...ds-dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/#63f074e7214c

No, it was being taught before then and there's nothing wrong with the idea. I never said that it always works like that and gave the reasons. Another problem is in confusing short-term and long-term objectives. I also never said it was easy making good decisions. Remember also that a company exists in a world in which is does not have control of everything. For example, I worked in photofinishing for twenty years. The industry is practically extinct today and it wasn't because it was doing something wrong.

What is your idea of the purpose of a corporation? If it wasn't a corporation, say, if you ran the corner gas station, what would your object be and why would it be different?

 

[Trenchfriend]

How long is the USA into the third phase of economy, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_sector_of_the_economy? Since the 50's?

Germany West was starting into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_sector_of_the_economy at the 80's.

I think, that's just the normal way of economy. The improving electronic-communication-technologies effects, that the wholesale/retail-trade overruns the producing industry!
'The main business comes into "make or buy" and more and more changes to trading/servicing-business.

So, the POWER concentrates at the trading-business AND the classic brands are just fading away. Storebrand makes the business for the masses and that's true Win-Win-situation for trade and consumer.

But now, market-saturation kills market-economy. And online-auctions and second-hand-stores kills it, too.

The industry and it's natural follower, the classic department-store are disappearing at your own country. In the social-market-economy the process is happening much slower, of course.

 

[BlueTrain]

That may be true but it ignore the fact that "brands" as we understand the term is a relatively new thing, although some brands pre-date the Civil War and many others are quite old. That's what it can be surprising when we see recognizable brands (usually canned goods) in old photos. But another trend, which I had mentioned previously, is to brand things that are frankly generic products. That has been successfully done my fruit sellers. None of this has anything to do with the origin of the product, of course.

Another thing worth mentioning here, although it really only applies to large economies, or more accurately, to large countries, is that economic conditions and problems are not the same everywhere and to a large extent, they are exactly the same as the problems we speak of in international terms. For example, we buy cars here where I live but they don't make them here. As far as we are concerned in the state where I live, all cars are imported. On a smaller scale, imagine a little town where most of the people worked in another town across the river. Same state, different state, doesn't matter. But everyone that worked in the other town spent all their money in that other town, too. There wouldn't be any local businesses, would there? Of course, that's an exaggeration to make a point but you should understand what I'm saying.

You understand these are complex issues and no solution, assuming there is a problem (there always is), will fit on a bumper sticker. But that's all the average person will ever see.

Here's another thing that has happened and people who live in New England should understand, because it happened there. It happened where I'm from, too, but in both cases it happened a long time ago.

Let's say some enterprising individual wants to open a factory to make shoes (or wants to operate a coal mine). He isn't doing it because the country needs shoes or because the country needs coal. He's doing it to make money, same reason people are will to work in a factory or in a mine. Anyway, he builds the factory and starts hiring people and lo! People flock there to find work. There wouldn't be enough people there already to satisfy the labor needs, so instead of importing shoes or coal, he imports people.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The eternal debate, production for profit or production for use. Unfortunately, where one stands on the question becomes more a matter of faith than anything else.

 

[MisterCairo]

Holy roller.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Is "(my) homies" still said, in the US?