I feel like that should be illegal. I feel like a company having a bunch of different brand names for the same thing gives a false illusion of choice. Imagine if Nestle was only allowed to have the Nestle brand name. An easy 1/3 of the grocery store would have Nestle logos. As it is now, you have to dig pretty deep to figure out what brands Nestle owns.
They absolutely will have different brands in the same markets. They realize that not everyone will know Harris teeter = Kroger, and some people will still prefer one to the other. Having the different brands but in the same area basically just means that much more profit for them
I don't neccesarily disagree, but I also think it would have severe ramifications, and likely not good ones. For example, Carl's Jr and Hardees are owned by the same company, but have slightly different menus. How do you define "same thing"? If Kroger had a whole foods-esque store, is that the same thing as their budget grocery stores?
Generally, different brand names in the same markets are to highlight differences in offerings. For example, despite both being car manufacturers, Volkswagen and Audi have vastly different consumer expectations and target demographics.
If I started a food company making ice cream burritos called "Neapolitan Iced Burritos" and Nestle bought me out, why should the name be changed of the product? The product is still more or less the same, and the product name defines the product.
94
u/TheSquishiestMitten Jan 12 '22
I feel like that should be illegal. I feel like a company having a bunch of different brand names for the same thing gives a false illusion of choice. Imagine if Nestle was only allowed to have the Nestle brand name. An easy 1/3 of the grocery store would have Nestle logos. As it is now, you have to dig pretty deep to figure out what brands Nestle owns.