Brand loyality

Brand loyality

How loyal are you to a specific brand. Do you find yourself fiercely defending your favorite brand. Or are you one of those people that buy whatever's best at the time, regardless of the brand.

Nah. Too commerical a mind stealer for me. I remain kind of varied in any particular food item.

Brands don't matter to me 90% of the time. Price is the most important factor, however there are a few items that must be "my" brand every time. Shampoo being the top of that list.

Is it brand loyalty or product loyalty? In the case of shampoo, no doubt you don't just by the same brand but even the same type. I presume for most people beverages would be another example. My mom always buys Pepsi, except when the restaurant only has Coke products. Which does raise the question - if the store is out of the one you always buy, will you buy something from the same company or whatever is most similar to your normal brand - or whatever is cheapest, just to hold you over?

For shampoo I do buy whatever is cheapest - but I'm a guy and also half-bald.

I've known some people who only buys Apple products. iPhone, iMac, etc and diss other products and OS'S and products.

you'll find that attitude common here in vehicles. GM vs Ford vs Mopar. or john deer vs new holland vs international.

That's John Deere, not John Deer ... though I still see people wearing hats and such for brands which no longer exist. (Farm tractors, if you didn't get it.)

Brands are weird entities, aimed to attribute "personality" to objects (also to services). And many people loves the fact of paying massive advertising costs so an object is supposed to have personality. Of course marketing calls it a matter of "image identity".

Brands are very much the spirits of the material world at consumeristic societies. Bad spirits, would say the Sioux.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

That's John Deere, not John Deer ... though I still see people wearing hats and such for brands which no longer exist. (Farm tractors, if you didn't get it.)

Brand lasts as long as it sticks to its original qualities. When brand changes and chooses to degrade its qualities it is dropped like a radioactive tomato. Supposedly, brand should let you know what you're getting. But ya can't depend on that. Too many brands have prostituted themselves. Alas. Well, at least there is the refund as long as you keep the reciept.

Sad and depressing. I don't like radioactive tomatoes.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

Is it brand loyalty or product loyalty? In the case of shampoo, no doubt you don't just by the same brand but even the same type. I presume for most people beverages would be another example. My mom always buys Pepsi, except when the restaurant only has Coke products. Which does raise the question - if the store is out of the one you always buy, will you buy something from the same company or whatever is most similar to your normal brand - or whatever is cheapest, just to hold you over?

Certainly product loyalty is the most important aspect, but if I like product X by brand A, wouldn't I be more likely to try product Y as well? But there's certainly no loyalty involved in that; loyalty would mean sticking with the brand/product even if it went bad. Why on earth would anyone do that?

I am fairly loyal to brands if they are amazing at what they make

Many brands are completely meaningless these days anyway, lots of companies just buy cheap crap made in china and slap their names on it.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

[…] loyalty would mean sticking with the brand/product even if it went bad. Why on earth would anyone do that?

I think your understanding of "loyalty" is confused, here. But –since you chose to take this topic seriously– I'd add that tried-and-true products may withstand competition from upstart competitors by virtue (yes, virtue!) of their longstanding history.

I think "brand loyalty" is a form of brainwashing.

im as branded as the next poster above me...

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

I think your understanding of "loyalty" is confused, here.

If the following was meant then I agree:

The American Marketing Association defines brand loyalty as:
"The situation in which a consumer generally buys the same manufacturer-originated product or service repeatedly over time rather than buying from multiple suppliers within the category" (sales promotion definition).
"The degree to which a consumer consistently purchases the same brand within a product class" (consumer behavior definition).[1]

In a survey of nearly 200 senior marketing managers, 69 percent responded that they found the "loyalty" metric very useful.[2]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty

However, I note that they're effectively defining brand loyalty as product loyalty, regardless of the precise definition of the word loyalty. It sounds to me like brand loyalty implies that if I like peanut butter by brand A, I'll also like their mayonnaise and ketchup. As I said before, I might be more likely to try it if I have good experiences with the brand, but in practice I think the ketchup by my formerly favorite peanut butter brand* isn't good at all, so I'd only possibly consider buying it if it were one of the cheaper varieties — if I bought and used ketchup, that is.

* The flavor changed, so I checked the label. As it turns out, they dropped the peanut content from 93% to 85%. The only reason I'm still being somewhat "loyal" is because I haven't found a suitable replacement yet, and it's also still the best at the most convenient location.

Gee, in this country I don't think we have an actual brand that makes both peanut butter and ketchup (ignoring store brands, which can be somewhat meaningless). Given the conglomerates we have I expect there's at least one company that has both, but they are sold under different brands.

Working for a major retailer, I can easily see who makes which product we sell, and I can tell you that we have dozens of companies that make our "store brand". Conversely though, I was surprised to compare the ingredients of our store brand cola to a generic - the generic looked like it came straight from a chemical company. Not that I drink colas anyway, but if I did I'd stay as far away from that generic as I could even if it did cost less than our brand. So perhaps stores do have standards for their brands even if they do come from multiple suppliers ... or at least, some stores.

But as far as conglomerates - one conglomerate I see fairly often actually has brands that compete with each other. They have 4 divisions which they refer to as "teams" and they refer to specific ones by colors. One team ("red") has one of the brands of frozen Mexican food we sell (burritos, taquitos, tamales, etc.) - among other products - while another team (sorry, I forget which color they are) has a competing brand. Hard to say what "brand loyalty" means in a case like that.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

Gee, in this country I don't think we have an actual brand that makes both peanut butter and ketchup (ignoring store brands, which can be somewhat meaningless). Given the conglomerates we have I expect there's at least one company that has both, but they are sold under different brands.

Well, so as not to be mysterious, I was talking about Calvé. They're probably best-known for their peanut butter, condiments (mayonnaise, yogonnaise, ketchup, mustard sauce, etc.), and dressings. Their peanut butter's been my favorite for many years, but just recently I noticed the flavor had changed, so I picked up an old jar, held it next to the new jar, and compared the ingredients. Since peanut butter isn't as big in Belgium as in the Netherlands, I've been trying various varieties of organic peanut butter from the organic store. It's a bit more expensive, but definitely good in flavor. I also like some convenience, however, so I'll look into this American-style organic peanut butter next. I'm typically not too fond of American style (it's too finely ground), but mixing the natural oils is a bit tiresome. Calvé's former 93% with some salt and no sugar with some of the oil replaced with palm oil was perfect for me, but 85% is apparently just too low on the peanut side.

Anyway, Calvé is owned by Unilever since probably before I was born. Unilever also has a major presence on the US market and I would be very surprised if they didn't sell similar products on the US market — under different brand names, of course. In fact my anecdotal evidence suggests the name Unilever is practically unknown in the US, even if Kraft, Unilever and Nestlé are probably behind the vast majority of brand names.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

Working for a major retailer, I can easily see who makes which product we sell, and I can tell you that we have dozens of companies that make our "store brand". Conversely though, I was surprised to compare the ingredients of our store brand cola to a generic - the generic looked like it came straight from a chemical company. Not that I drink colas anyway, but if I did I'd stay as far away from that generic as I could even if it did cost less than our brand. So perhaps stores do have standards for their brands even if they do come from multiple suppliers ... or at least, some stores.

That's funny: over here the generic store brands are usually healthier, by which I mean less added sugar in e.g. cereals, natural coloring etc. compared to the crazy list of ingredients you'll find on something like Kellog's.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

But as far as conglomerates - one conglomerate I see fairly often actually has brands that compete with each other. They have 4 divisions which they refer to as "teams" and they refer to specific ones by colors. One team ("red") has one of the brands of frozen Mexican food we sell (burritos, taquitos, tamales, etc.) - among other products - while another team (sorry, I forget which color they are) has a competing brand. Hard to say what "brand loyalty" means in a case like that.

Unilever and Kraft both do that here. I think it's probably mostly caused by takeovers. For instance, Unilever has its own Cup-a-Soup brand, which btw is sold under Unox in the Netherlands, Lipton in the US and as plain Unilever in Belgium, but more recently Unilever also took over another brand of instant soup here in Belgium. I've forgotten the name but I think I've got some in a cabinet. In any case, both brands are still competing against each other like it were twenty years ago, even though they've both been Unilever for over a decade. They are in fact different in composition, however, so I imagine they're keeping that product loyalty going.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Many brands are completely meaningless these days anyway, lots of companies just buy cheap crap made in china and slap their names on it.

I think that's exactly why branding is important. Two companies, selling the same crap with a different label, which do you buy?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I think that's exactly why branding is important. Two companies, selling the same crap with a different label, which do you buy?

The cheapest?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

The cheapest?

You would think so, wouldn't you?

Did you know that branded painkillers are more effective than unbranded ones? Even if they're exactly the same tablets inside?

I think you're conflating two things: there's http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-addiction/201101/even-when-you-know-its-fake-the-strength-the-placebo-effect and what you said, but to my knowledge the hypothesis that "branded works better even when you know it's both the exact same product" has never been tested. Besides, I don't think medicine comes from China much (yet), unless you include all the homeopathic nonsense. Perhaps there's some miscommunication there, but cheap stuff from China makes me think primarily of technology and clothes.

For cheap items like ketchup, mayo, soap, noodle, etc I tend to go with the cheapest (i.e. store produced generic labels). But for expensive electrical items, I go for the "brand name ones." Like I would avoid Avent PC as it is produced by PC World. However, I did bought an Amazon Basic HDMI cable and it is pretty good.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I think you're conflating two things: there's http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-addiction/201101/even-when-you-know-its-fake-the-strength-the-placebo-effect and what you said, but to my knowledge the hypothesis that "branded works better even when you know it's both the exact same product" has never been tested. Besides, I don't think medicine comes from China much (yet), unless you include all the homeopathic nonsense. Perhaps there's some miscommunication there, but cheap stuff from China makes me think primarily of technology and clothes.

The pain pill thing specifically was more of an aside - I wasn't specifically thinking about products that come from China, just cheap products generally that people respond to differently.

I was just illustrating that people can select what they choose to be the 'most effective' product based on the branding alone. Additionally, once that happens, they will tend to stick to it and rationalise the choice.

And, I would assume that none of the products come with a label saying, "exactly the same cheap crap as in the other manufacturer's packaging!" As far as the consumer is concerned, they're different products and will react to them differently.

Some stuff does say same "Same active ingredient as (brand name)", but since medicines don't list all the inactive ingredients it's hard to say they're the same. Things which may effect the way the person feels - buffers or things to slow down the release of the medicine (to make it last longer in the body) aren't listed.

Unilever as a company is certainly here, though not that particular brand. We have various kinds of peanut butter, the coarser grinds are usually found in the "natural" peanut butters. Of course, avoid any that contain partially hydrogenated oils (aka shortening) as it's bad for your heart.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

And, I would assume that none of the products come with a label saying, "exactly the same cheap crap as in the other manufacturer's packaging!" As far as the consumer is concerned, they're different products and will react to them differently.

Hey, it was your hypothetical situation, not mine.

I try to seek out the same crap without the brand name 'cause it's the same thing. For example, I recently came across something on Amazon that I liked:
http://www.amazon.de/mumbi-Silikon-Schutzhülle-Ericsson-Xperia/dp/B005MQQUHE/ref=sr_1_32?s=ce-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1335548930&sr=1-32

So I said to myself, let's search for that stuff straight(er) from the horse's mouth:
http://dx.com/protective-tpu-s-back-case-cover-for-sony-ericsson-st18i-translucent-gray-103463

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I was just illustrating that people can select what they choose to be the 'most effective' product based on the branding alone. Additionally, once that happens, they will tend to stick to it and rationalise the choice.

And, I would assume that none of the products come with a label saying, "exactly the same cheap crap as in the other manufacturer's packaging!" As far as the consumer is concerned, they're different products and will react to them differently.

Of course it's obfuscated, but in many cases it's actually there - with medication at least in the US of A there's a halfway readable list of active ingredients on the package, which you can use to compare products. I'm sure there's something similar in most other halfway civilized countries.
And to weed out homeopathic crap all you need to do is to look for the smallprint.
That's actually something I like better over here than back in Germany - the list is in a standardized format and spells out the ingredients, back in .de it was more free-form and more obfuscated ( well, that was 8 years ago and I didn't exactly buy a lot of medication either, might have changed by now ).

Originally posted by Macallan:

That's actually something I like better over here than back in Germany - the list is in a standardized format and spells out the ingredients, back in .de it was more free-form and more obfuscated ( well, that was 8 years ago and I didn't exactly buy a lot of medication either, might have changed by now ).

US labels are typically clearer than our labels on food, although I find the omnipresent contents per one serving thing deceptive at best for products where it doesn't equate to e.g. one or two cookies or an entire candy bar. What I find most annoying is that the panel breaking down the constituents isn't required here, so I can't properly compare e.g. various mustards to see how much sodium they contain. As I was saying above about the el cheapo generic brands often containing healthier ingredients, they are also often much more forthcoming about the precise breakdown of types of fats, salts, etc. I wouldn't really know about medicine because I haven't really seen any in over a decade, but I suppose something similar may apply.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Many brands are completely meaningless these days anyway, lots of companies just buy cheap crap made in china and slap their names on it.

On the other hand I recently bought a tomato with a "Grown in China" sticker that was actually grown in Oregon. Damned Oregonians!
.....
See here for details.

How do you know it's made in Oregon?

Originally posted by wikipedian:

How do you know it's made in Oregon?

I pried the "Grown in China" sticker away from the "Grown in Oregon" sticker.
.....
Some folks need to have the elementals explained!

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Macallan:

That's actually something I like better over here than back in Germany - the list is in a standardized format and spells out the ingredients, back in .de it was more free-form and more obfuscated ( well, that was 8 years ago and I didn't exactly buy a lot of medication either, might have changed by now ).

US labels are typically clearer than our labels on food, although I find the omnipresent contents per one serving thing deceptive at best for products where it doesn't equate to e.g. one or two cookies or an entire candy bar.

Yeah, whatever a 'serving' is seems to be rather arbitrary, seems to have more to so with whatever the marketing and/or legal department wants than anything else.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I wouldn't really know about medicine because I haven't really seen any in over a decade, but I suppose something similar may apply.

My wife works in a pharmacy

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Many brands are completely meaningless these days anyway, lots of companies just buy cheap crap made in china and slap their names on it.

On the other hand I recently bought a tomato with a "Grown in China" sticker that was actually grown in Oregon. Damned Oregonians!
.....
See here for details.

They're sneaky like that, aren't they?
I heard some chinese companies want to outsource their production to Alabama and Mississippi

Originally posted by Macallan:

Yeah, whatever a 'serving' is seems to be rather arbitrary, seems to have more to so with whatever the marketing and/or legal department wants than anything else.

What always worries me is when the ingredients list in another language, like French, doesn't quite correspond to the one in Dutch or English. I don't think you'll find that problem much in the US.

I was holding one such product just the other day. I forget what it was, but the ingredient list looked something like this

DE Bla, Blie, Rapsöl, Blu
FR Bla, blie, huile de palme, blou
NL Bla, blie, raapolie, bloe

All the other languages also agreed with the rapeseed oil; i.e., their words all had something like "rap" or "rep" in it.

Considering rapeseed oil is much better for your health and the environment than palm oil, it's certainly discomforting to see something like that on a label.

... or if the number of ingredients listed isn't the same in each language. I've seen that a few times around here.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Many brands are completely meaningless these days anyway, lots of companies just buy cheap crap made in china and slap their names on it.

On the other hand I recently bought a tomato with a "Grown in China" sticker that was actually grown in Oregon. Damned Oregonians!
.....
See here for details.

They're sneaky like that, aren't they?
I heard some chinese companies want to outsource their production to Alabama and Mississippi

I thought it was the other way around . Sneaky Chinese claiming to be made in big countries like US or Germany, etc. And shouldn't the Oregonions be proud of local produce. Many shoe companies stick the label made in USA as an attraction (my New Balance 991 I bought in the US says USA on the back).

Originally posted by Macallan:

... or if the number of ingredients listed isn't the same in each language. I've seen that a few times around here.

Another sneaky thing is to use numbers for unpopular and/harmful ingredients like Monosodium Glutamate (often listed as Flavor Enhancer (E621)).

Originally posted by Macallan:

... or if the number of ingredients listed isn't the same in each language. I've seen that a few times around here.

Still, huh? You'd think with less languages listed the chance of variations would drop considerably.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Another sneaky thing is to use numbers for unpopular ingredients like Monosodium Glutamate (often listed as Flavor Enhancer (E621)).

I don't know, is MSG unpopular? I'd think it's more with things that sound strange. (Also, everybody knows what E621 means. It's been in the media. ) Iirc there's a red coloring agent in the E100 range that's harvested from some bug or beetle, for instance, but you'll never find the words "bug coloring extract" on any product. Of course it's primarily fishy on something that should reasonably be vegetarian. Somewhat ironically most ham, bacon, chicken, and steak flavored chips are in fact suitable for vegetarians — apparently it's cheaper to emulate meat flavor than to use real meat powder.

Never heard of chinese restaurant syndrome where too much msg can cause nausea, headaches, etc. I sometimes feel nauseating after eating a lot of foods that contain msg (like boiled ramen) or at some chinese restaurants (heck I've seen one Chinese restaurant at Australian food court have a large sign that says no msg). I personally avoid msg as much as I can. Truthful products list monosodium glutamate but most says flavor enhancer (E621). If that's not sneaky, I don't know what is. Trying to hide ingredients using confusing enumbers. I didn't know what e621 was until I looked up msg on Wikipedia, where they listed the relevant enumber. And what is iirc, if I remember correctly?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Macallan:

... or if the number of ingredients listed isn't the same in each language. I've seen that a few times around here.

Still, huh? You'd think with less languages listed the chance of variations would drop considerably.

Yeah, it's only mexican spanish and canadian french around here - doesn't seem to matter.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Another sneaky thing is to use numbers for unpopular ingredients like Monosodium Glutamate (often listed as Flavor Enhancer (E621)).

I don't know, is MSG unpopular? I'd think it's more with things that sound strange. (Also, everybody knows what E621 means. It's been in the media. ) Iirc there's a red coloring agent in the E100 range that's harvested from some bug or beetle, for instance, but you'll never find the words "bug coloring extract" on any product. Of course it's primarily fishy on something that should reasonably be vegetarian. Somewhat ironically most ham, bacon, chicken, and steak flavored chips are in fact suitable for vegetarians — apparently it's cheaper to emulate meat flavor than to use real meat powder.

Then there's E338 == phosphoric acid which probably would freak some people out ( or already did if you look at the various coca cola conspiracy theories / scare stories - holy crap it's acid, we're all going to die!!!!!!one!!!eleven!!!! ) - just some kind of obfuscation I mentioned earlier.

I always wondered if it was disingenuous where for example whipped butter says 45% less fat per serving than regular butter. Because of the air whipped into it, a tablespoon (which is to say, 0.5 fluid ounces) has less actual butter in it. Or put another way, the weight of a serving is that much smaller.

(In English units, an ounce can be either a unit of weight - 1/16 of a pound - or of volume - 1/8 of a cup. When clarity is required, the unit of volume is referred to as a fluid ounce.)

I've seen bags of chips where "one serving" was listed as about 5 chips ... though the ones I have here (tortilla chips) have a somewhat more likely "about 12 chips".

You could choose to get Laid...or is it Layed?

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Never heard of chinese restaurant syndrome where too much msg can cause nausea, headaches, etc. I sometimes feel nauseating after eating a lot of foods that contain msg (like boiled ramen) or at some chinese restaurants (heck I've seen one Chinese restaurant at Australian food court have a large sign that says no msg).

How do you know it's MSG? Ramen is typically stock full of salt, too much of which is at least as likely a candidate, or for that matter it could simply be a negative placebo effect. Which isn't to say some people aren't sensitive to it, but just don't spread soy sauce all over your stuff if you are. I imagine at least as many people are sensitive to dairy products and you'd hardly call those unpopular. I do agree on general principle that I prefer less stuff added to products, but MSG is basically the same thing as salt or sugar. If anything I think you should be complaining about too much of those two in just about anything. For example, I can only buy salty pickles, salty sour pickles, or sweet & sour pickles. I just want sour pickles. Maybe a pinch of salt, sure, but they shouldn't actually be salty. The only place that still sells sour pickles is Aldi, and they only have stupid mini ones.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Truthful products list monosodium glutamate but most says flavor enhancer (E621). If that's not sneaky, I don't know what is. Trying to hide ingredients using confusing enumbers.

Is monosodium glutamate really that much more informative than an E-number? Most of these things I'd have to look up with or without an E-number. Also keep in mind that it may just be easier for the translator, or it could be very regular food industry jargon that should have been changed to regular people language but no one inside the company noticed: no devilish plan need be involved.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Then there's E338 == phosphoric acid which probably would freak some people out ( or already did if you look at the various coca cola conspiracy theories / scare stories - holy crap it's acid, we're all going to die!!!!!!one!!!eleven!!!! ) - just some kind of obfuscation I mentioned earlier.

It isn't good for your teeth.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

How do you know it's MSG?

MSG is now being found as an Allergy for some, and its easy to find out if your favorite snack has it. Taste one with and one without.

I always found it disingenuous when they say "No MSG*", then if you read the asterisked note it says "except for trace amounts found naturally in yeast extract". For those who are actually allergic (or otherwise respond badly), that's no help.

I know, legally "no" means less than half of the unit of measure (as in, it rounds off to 0), but sometimes that's not good enough.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

For example, I can only buy salty pickles, salty sour pickles, or sweet & sour pickles. I just want sour pickles. Maybe a pinch of salt, sure, but they shouldn't actually be salty.

(I'm just kibbutzing here:) What? You can't buy cucumbers?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

(I'm just kibbutzing here:) What? You can't buy cucumbers?

I love cucumbers: I buy them all the time. But unless you're suggesting I pickle them myself that's quite a different thing.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

What always worries me is when the ingredients list in another language, like French, doesn't quite correspond to the one in Dutch or English.

People are getting psychotic regarding labels, ingredients, expiring dates and the like. Human's five senses are more than enough for selecting food just as any other creature in Earth does. What a paranoia.

I'd argue sell-by dates aren't for customers but for grocery stores. That way I can't come in with some cheese I bought half a year ago and ask for my money back because it became moldy prematurely.

As far as ingredients go: if I know both types of oil taste fine to me, but one type of oil is healthier due to less trans fats or whatever, or one type of oil (e.g. palm oil and soybean oil) is worse for the environment than another type of oil (e.g. olive oil and rapeseed oil), then I'll certainly take that into consideration. And I repeat, my senses say that I don't like the cheapest variety of mustard because it has too much salt. It says exactly how much salt it's got, so I know I want less than that. Unfortunately, none of the more expensive varieties of mustard specify how much salt they contain, so their lack of specification makes it impossible to preselect on this flavor aspect. To suggest that I should buy all of them, even though I may not really like any of them, doesn't sound thought through to me.

You can't really see what's inside many of the packages ...

A lot of milk brands have gone to opaque containers, for example. They claim that light is actually bad for milk, and therefore a container that blocks light will keep the milk fresh longer (presuming the same level of refrigeration and all that).

But I do think people are overly-concerned with dates on milk. They'll spend 10 minutes looking through the milk display to find a container that has a later date. All that work for a difference of one day?

On the other hand, cheese does have dates on it too (usually about 6 months in the future), and I don't think I've ever seen anyone (other than me, because I have to - working for the store and all) looking at the dates on cheese.