Hi, all. I’m writing a paper and I need some input from some other brains. Can you give me reasons why people prefer to buy name-brand products over their generic counterparts? Thanks
Kristian
Is this for a scholarship? Just curious…
Probably for the perception (real or imagined) that the name-brand product has a higher quality than the generic. For instance, I prefer Apple Macintosh computers over generic Intel-based PCs, partially because Apple’s stuff is more durable, better engineered, and has a better resale value than the generic PC. Since this perception is borne out by years of actual experience using the product, I am nore likely to buy Apple computers again in the future.
Conversely, when I know there is no difference between the generic item and the brand-name, then I will probably buy the generic to save money. For instance, since I know that the supermarket’s “Colored Rings” cereal is the same as Kellogg’s “Fruit Loops” (to the point of being from the same assembly line), I can buy the generic without any worries about lowered quality. I don’t usually buy generic medicines because I don’t have a feeling of assurance that the generic is just as good as the commercial brand; if I did, I probably would.
(And this thread should probably be in IMHO, since you appear to be soliciting opinions)
I’ve always thought it was because people simply think that if they’ve heard of a product more, it’s likely to be better. “Oh, if the company can advertise so much, and if so many other people use it, this product has to be better than the others!”
The marketing folks I know use the term “perceived value” (which may or may not be related to value of other types). The perceived value to a brand-name product above that of its generic counterpart may be due to the belief that its made of higher quality material, that the quality control was higher during its manufacture, that it’s better backed in terms of returnability / warranty, all sorts of things.
I for one tend to purchase purchase brand-name cars, but generic computers.
I would say that the reasononing for me goes along the lines of “If a product is on the shelves long enough to develope what we perceive to be a “brand name”, it must obviously have a higher degree of quality than other similar products that are not yet as widely known. Inferior products are recalled, don’t sell, are removed, or changed.”
I think it’s an issue of trust and security. If I shop at a new grocery store and I see Jiffy peanut butter and the store brand, I KNOW shat I’m getting from Jiffy, but the store brand is and unknown. I don’t have to risk getting bad peanut butter.
Another issue is many people think higher cost = higher quality. This brand of frozen peas costs 20% more so they must put in 20% better quality peas.
Personally I buy store brands of almost everything.
Also, one may count on the quality of a name brand product being consistent regardless of where one buys it. A bag of Wise potato chips is the same from store to store, but WalMart’s chips may be very different than another store’s chips. Not to mention that I would expect a generic item to change suppliers more readily than a name brand. For instance, WalMart might change their chip supplier from year to year, Wise will not.
In rjung’s case, he would be bitterly disappointed if his supermarket changes cereal supplier and the colored rings don’t taste the same anymore.
People’s reasons vary, depending on the circumstances.
For example, when I do my weekly grocery shopping, I generally try to play it cheap. I buy generics and/or store brands, and I clip coupons. If I buy a name brand product, as opposed to a cheaper alternative, it’s because I’ve tried alternatives over the years, and have found that I like the name product better.
I mean, there’s no good reason to buy a famous brand of aspirin (or other pain reliever) when there’s a much cheaper generic using the identical formula. And in my experience, granulated sugar is granulated sugar, flour is flour, milk is milk, eggs are eggs… I can’t think of any good reason to pay more for a name brand in those cases.
But in other cases, taste enters into it. SOME people will insist that, say, the cola from Wal-mart or the local supermarket is “just as good” or “just the same” as Coke or Pepsi, but I think they’re insane. To me, Hebrew National hot dogs taste WAY better than cheaper brands, and they’re worth the extra cost.
There ARE times, however, when I’ll choose a “name brand” over an unknown brand simply because I’m familiar with the product. Example? Well, if I’m on a long drive through Texas, and pass through a town whose only restaurants are a McDonald’s and a Joe’d Diner, I’m likely to go to McDonald’s. The food won’t be great, but at least I KNOW exactly what I’ll be getting. If there are two gas stations, an Exxon and a generic convenience store, I’ll go to the Exxon station, even if it costs more, just because I KNOW what I’m getting.
I’d never select a higher-priced product simply BECAUSE it costs more, but I may well select a name-brand product I’m familiar with over a cheaper product by a company I’m NOT familiar with.
One is being comfortable with what I know.
I would prefer eating at McDonald’s and knowing what to expect, than to go to a strange restaurant that may serve better or worse food.
Two is knowing there’s support to back up the sale.
If I buy the no-name product, will they still be there a year from now when it breaks, will they have the resources to help me?
Like RJUNG, I go with name brand where I feel quality matters, and generic in other areas.
I recently purchased a HDTV and home theater system. Since I don’t know much about those things, but I didn’t want to get lousy quality, I went all Sony. Dunno if Sony is the best, but I have several of their products, all of which are good enough for me. Who knows if Panasonic or some ‘lesser’ name would have been good enough?
I think that is the reason we go with name brand: We know (or think we know), roughly, what we are getting.
Branding is one of the greatest powers a consumer has over business. A name-brand has value only if (through personal or common experience) the brand indicates quality.
And this value is immense, so the manufacturer has to maintain that quality. Because, if a brand becomes associated with poor quality, the company can’t regain that trust (and therefore make sales).
The Schlitz case is a prime example of this. Schlitz was a decent beer, with good brand identification. The manufacturers thought that the Schlitz brand reputation was sufficient, and changed the ingredients of their beer to cheaper inputs. Sales plummetted, and didn’t come back even after Schlitz changed their formula back - because the brand had become associated with poor quality.
Sua
I don’t think the difference in quality is always merely percieved; Heinz tomato ketchup is a superior product to a great many own-brand ketchups; Heinz make a big deal about the quality of ingredients (and the recipe itself - it typically contains a lot more tomato than other brands). Heinz have an interest in maintaining their position in the market; this gives them an incentive to prevent quality from slipping.
Another thing branding does, which was not noted yet, is give a product a personality, which allows us dumb humans to identify with it better. In other words, it allows you to view a product as something of a “trusted friend”.
By the way, I expect to be credited in your foot notes if you use that 
Wal-Mart and its affiliates buy vast amounts of Pepsi and bottle it themselves in the store brand cans. So does Food Lion. If you want Coke at a cheaper price, buy the store brand at Price Club/Costco. I’m sure many other stores that sell store brand cola do this, but I don’t know which supplier any others use.
WillGolfForFood wrote:
Is there such a thing as a generic car?
Will Sears slap a Kenmore label on it?
I have never heard of coke or pepsi allowing their product to be put in other “store brand” bottles. Do you have a cite on that? I’ve tried many store brands before and never had any cola taste anything like true Coke or Pepsi.
Reminds me of a comedian I once heard:
Redneck {or insert any other group that gets slammed} goes through a drive-thru, orders a dinner:
“I’d like a coke with that”
“What flavor?”
“Orange”
mostly stupidity
check the book: THE HIDDEN PERSUADERS by Vance Packard (c)1958
i read somewhere that $57 Billion was spent on advertising in the year 2000. the repetition of commercials programs cidcuits in people’s brains. if you consciously watch a commercial and ask yourself what logical information it provided to induce you to buy the product you will usually come up with nothing. TV advertising is psycho-techno-brainwashing. a series about TV in THE ECONOMIST magazine said only 4% of people used VCRs to skip commercials and and article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN said some people watch 20 hours of TV per week. that could be 4 hours of commercials per week. i’ve used a VCR to skip commercials ever since STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION came on the air. now i use PIP to switch to news channels when commercials come on in a program i’m watching and switch back when the commercial ends.
use technology to fight technology.
Dal Timgar
I would say quality.
Like, I buy brand name canned vegetables because when I bought the generic, I found them to be of lessor quality mostly. Now, I have noticed a difference in generic over the counter medications. Like I buy the generic Excedrin, and have found that it takes longer to dissolve in water than the real thing. Generic antacids usually are harder to chew and do not taste good. I do buy generic Motrin because I have found no difference there, except for the price being much cheaper.
I have bought generic prescription medications and found them as good as the brand name but a whole lot cheaper in price. In prescription medications, you pay a hell of a lot more for the brand name. Because of strict regulations, the generic has to be of equal quality to the original or brand name drug so buying generic there saves you a bundle of cash.