The Pros And Cons Of Retail Brands

During the second half of our trading period we focussed massively on the private label market and found our niche there. We had realized that the minimum cost of the product wins the market share so we started experimenting with S/Q Ratings and percentage of superior materials to come up with the best product with the least cost price. Adding minimum profit margin to the cost price we were able to seize a massive chunk of the private label market. Attached are a few snapshot highlighting our success in that market.

Stores are also competing in other forms in order to secure loyal customers. Some of the forms are product range and quality by which stores are offering privately-labeled products that are primarily used in the commodity lines at lower prices.(Australian Government, Department of Agriculture) This has caused a significant shift in the industry, thus allowing players like ALDI who started with a private labeled product early on to gain and improve its market share. Another major form is convenience where several non-price factors such as opening hours, strategic locations, parking area, distribution options (delivery or in-store pickup) and online shopping comes into play. (Australian Government, Department of Agriculture)

Low product differentiation and economies of scale: There isn’t much product differentiation at play in the retail industry as there are well known manufacturers whose products are offered for sale, which leaves price to compete on. Current well established retailers with thousands of stores enjoy the economies of scale to control their cost that a new entrant might not be able to replicate after immediately entering the industry.

For Target to have their own private and designer label like Mizrahi and Missimo for apparel, Calphalon for cookware, Philippe Starck for seating products, and Sonia Kashuk for Cosmetics are strong holds. These private labels make Target a stronger company and shows how they are still working towards great quality products. Target also expanded its internal product development unit, which developed relationships with external vendors, some of which simply supplied Target with goods, other who collaborated with Target design and product development. Later on Target also developed their own private label of grocery products to earn higher margins and have greater control over product development. These strong holds make Target move attractive and show the dedication that the company wants to grow.

This left a segment open for new entrants to come with no competition from incumbents.  Private labels also did not do product proliferation and were focused on limited popular brands at low costs. This helped them save costs in R&D of new products and also save costs by not experimenting new products. They did not compete with the Big 3 on all possible niches. Also, from the table below, we see that the total costs of the private label are 40% less than the Big 3 brands, which helped them to target the price sensitive customers. They are several strategies that the private labels applied which resulted in reduced cost structure. First of all, they did not use coupons, which had accounted for 23% of the total costs for Big 3 brands. The private label also offered higher margins to retailers (15%) in comparison to Big 3(12%) in order to get premium shelf space and signage. The private labels reduced packaging costs by supplying cereals in clear plastic bags. They also used less labor intensive manufacturing process and fewer expensive fruits and nuts.

In the mid-19th century, retail stores started to establish themselves within the diverse American economy. Some of these retail stores gained massive popularity, which led to chains of establishments with names that almost anyone can recognize; for example, Target, Walmart, Best Buy, Barns & Noble, etc. The name, “big-box” was given to these kinds of stores. With regards to the nationwide expansion of these stores, a valuable question to ask is: are big-box stores good for North America? Evaluating the pros and cons of how they compete, I think that the existence of big-box stores is beneficial; therefore, to keep the reasons simple, I will focus primarily on Walmart (which is the largest big-box store).

By not needing to maintain a high profit margin on the fooditems, this has allowed the supercenters to keep their food prices down in comparison with mosttraditional supermarkets.The recession, which started in 2008, has helped drive the need for private-label products,or as they are more commonly called, store brand products. These private-label productsgenerally cost the consumers about twenty-five percent less than the major national brands thatare offered. Throughout the supermarkets and other types of food retailers, the private-labelsales grew by more than 9% from 2008 to 2009, and these types of private-label sales accountedfor about 35% of Kroger’s overall sales. Most stores do not operate their own processing plantsfor these private-label items; Kroger does however operate their own plants for the private-labelproducts.

The retailers are motivated to promote private label goods because of their lower costs and greater profit margins.

In 2000, Unilever decided to reduce 1,600 brands down to 400 and then select a small number of them to serve as “Masterbrands”. One of the reasons to have fewer brands is to decrease control issues. It is harder to manage so many brands, especially when each one has its own particularities. As Deighton pointed, Unilever’s brand portfolio had grown in a relatively laissez-faire manner. In other words, the company’s brands were created without large interference.

To understand the role of H-E-B’s Own Brands, we need to understand the role of private labels to a retail store. Retailers manufacture carry private brands since retail gross margins in the private labels are relatively high. Retailers are able to realize cost advantages since they do not have additional advertising and distribution costs associated with private labels. In addition to increasing profits, store brands help to attract and retain customers. Retailers however need the critical procurement revenue from national brands for ad space and displays on stores and hence need to maintain a balance between their Own Brands and national brands.

Branding is a tool to make the goods of one producer different from another producer (Keller, 2003). Carroll (2008) asserts that branding is a sign of quality, and it is helpful to increase

The Big 3 had high advertising to sales ratios of 10-14%, also deterring entry, because average first year advertising cost for a new brand was over $20 million. We can conclude that total costs related to producing private label products are lower than new branded products. Private label products can offer greater margins to grocers and still sell at lower prices. They have a considerable competitive cost advantage over the new branded products.

In addition to this supermarkets are increasingly developing their own label range and investing further in the convenience format.

The first alternative is to reduce price in the entry–level paper to compete with private labels. From the case, it indicated that the retailer’s margin are 20%. Also this target customers are already driven by big companies such as Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark, who can generate higher operational efficiencies as a result of their large global business. In addition, lowering the price would not consist with the value of the Renova brand as a pioneer in the product innovation field. Firms should consider not to overinvest in the area that wouldn’t reveal its strengths and generate revenue. Ultimately, to do so would have negative impact on brand image and make it difficult to implement long-term goal.

Branding is all about differentiation. Stephen King said; “A product is something made in a factory; a brand is something bought by a consumer. A product can be copied by a competitor; a brand is unique. A product can be quickly outdated; a brand is timeless.” This is the very root of why companies should brand their products. Brand equity is a massive asset to the company. It is relatively easy for a company to replicate another company’s physical assets as well as their logo and packaging etc. However it is the brand equity that cannot be replicated. This is where the competitive advantage stems from. A perfect example of this is Pepsi and coca Cola. In a blind taste test, the result indicated that the majority of Americans, in fact, favour Pepsi over Coca Cola. Coca Cola is the number 6 brand in the world and Pepsi doesn’t even reach the top 50. Coca Cola’s huge success is entirely to do with its effective branding which has lead to massive brand equity and it’s bottom line results speak for themselves.