I have a “sister” post to this question in MPSIMS or what ever it is. But I think a General Question can be formed from it. (I also noticed the What can I buy in Canada that I cant buy in US post elsewhere… same vein, but different enough.
Why on Earth do companies Re-invent the wheel depending on where they are located at the time?
Why Does Circle K gas stations own 76 gas stations… Does Shell own Texaco?
But even non-gas companies do this.
Why are there Carl Jr.'s and Hardee’s?
Why is there Best Foods and Hellmanns?
Why on earth do companies do this? It seems to be a waste in money in bradning this or that for one state or location only.
I think I deduced that Checkers Hamburgers and Rally’s are the same when just this problem occured.
Best Foods and Hellman’s were separate brands, belonging to separate companies. They have tremendous brand loyalty in their respective markets, and the owners would be incredibly stupid to discard that.
The same thing applies to any branded product; some people just won’t buy a new brand, even if it’s the same stuff with a new name.
In most cases, there was an existing brand in a particular market that got bought out by some other company. Instead of going through the trouble of rolling out a whole new unknown brand in those markets, they use the “brand equity” of the old brand to market their new stuff- in other words, they take advantage of the brand recognition and trust of the old brand to sell the newer products.
Both brand names are owned by one company, Unilever Best Foods, a division of Unilever.
However, the rest of what Nametag said is key. People will stick with a brand name, even as companies buy and sell each other, merge, etc. Companies play on consumer loyalty (and ignorance), selling the exact same product under different names, and often, different prices.
This same concept applies to “house brands” or no name products. Many people think no name brands are inferior products because of their no name labeling, cheaper prices, whatever. In some cases this is true. In many other cases it is not. Case in point. The no name brand teflon-coated shaving razor blade cartridges I buy cost me $2.50 for ten. You can buy the exact same blades under the brand name for $15.00 for five cartridges.
I’m sorry, Duckster, but unless I’m missing something, doesn’t the last paragraph of your quotation prove that Nametag’s statement is true? They were separate brands, made by separate companies, until, as you quixotically point out, 71 years ago.
Thanks for the interesting info, though. I didn’t know that about Richelieu’s chef or the derivation of the word.
Don’t know if it is true (a guy I know who works at Jewel Food told me) but when Albertson’s bought out Jewel Foods (Also Osco Drugs) they tried to convert their Sav-On stores to Osco and the public resisted.
But also brings rise to the thread in reverse. Why do some companies change a stable brand. For instance when British Petroleum bought Amoco. They changed the Amoco stations to BP. Amoco is quite an established brand.
ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco seem to be keeping their brands seperate. (though to complicate things Texaco was to be rebranded Shell but that agreement didn’t go ahead full force.)
Unilever is a past master at branding. E.g. in the UK it has at least 6 high profile brands of washing liquids, the casual consumer would think that they were actually from different companies. It is to give the illusion of choice and swamp the opposition. E.g if Unilever and Procter & Gamble say had one high profile washing powder then they would probably get 1/2 of the business each. By Unilever having so any brands, they may increase their share of the market to say 6/7 in the above example.
I think this, along with the “artifact of multiple brands/regional brands being conglomerated,” is the explanation. scm1001’s point also implicitly goes to one of the big issues for retail consumer products, which is shelf space. No store is going to give 6/7 of their total detergent space to one brand (if nothing else, consumers would think it was stupid – though having read about some of the chicanery that goes on as far as de facto bribes for shelf space,
Some companies do it to appeal to a slightly different public. Marshalls and T J Maxx are the same company and a lot of what they have is the same(though Marshalls seems to be slightly higher scale) but I’ve known people who always go to Marshalls who would never go to T J Maxx.
As far as gas stations go a lot of that was laws way back when that prohibited oil companies from using the same name in different parts of the country.
I remember when I was a kid EXXON spent buku dollars to change their name to one they could use nationwide. They chose the double x because it existed in only one language so the chance of coming up with a word that offended someone were minimized.
The classic case of dual-branding, which no one has even mentioned, are cars. Ford/Mercury and all the GM brands. It doesn’t seem like it would be worth the trouble, but hey, I’m not a marketing genius.
Well, strictly speaking the cars aren’t completely identical. There are small differences, and a whole, valid strategy behind it. I think we’ve had a lot of discussions about “badge engineering” here on the SDMB.
Hardee’s was also a separate company until bought by CKE Restaurants (Carl’s Jr.). As already observed, the acquiring company would be foolish to throw away the brand in many cases, although they probably hope to streamline the business to make money from it by using common suppliers with their other brands, etc.
A very good example would be Cadbury-Schweppes, which owns an enormous number of overlapping soft drink brands - they are essentially on a mission to dominate the non-cola soft drink market, letting Pepsi and Coke battle over the colas. They own:
RC (they have SOME colas)
and a few more, along with a whole stable of fruit juice companies like Mott’s, Snapple and Nantucket Nectars. They would have been absolute fools to have killed brands as they acquired these various companies (some of which were already composite companies with multiple brands when they bought them - A&W bought Squirt, and was in turn bought by Dr Pepper/7 Up before Cadbury Schweppes got to them, for instance).
They made the same blunder when they bought out Sohio.
The laws haven’t changed. The fact is that after the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911, several different companies had rights to the name “Standard Oil” (or any name incorporating such, such as “Esso”) in different parts of the country. If any of those companies wanted to expand to another Standard’s territory, they would have to come up with a new name. In order to be able to use one name for all their operations, they eventually all changed –
Standard Oil of New Jersey --> Eastern States Standard Oil (Esso) --> Exxon --> ExxonMobil
Standard Oil of New York --> Socony --> Mobil --> ExxonMobil
Standard Oil of California --> Chevron --> ChevronTexaco
Standard Oil of Ohio --> Sohio --> BP America --> BP Amoco
Standard Oil of Indiana --> American Oil --> Amoco --> BP Amoco
Continental Oil --> Conoco
Atlantic Oil --> Atlantic Richfield --> Arco --> Sun
There is nothing “back then” about the trademark laws that made this come about. Trademarks are restricted by geography. Even today there are many businesses that have rights to the same trademark in different geographical areas. If any one of them is going to start moving into another’s territory, it’s going to face the issue of having a competitor who has superior rights to your name in a new territory.