After watching the recent Four Corners documentary regarding the Big Two, it was mentioned Coles had something like 260 private label wines.
How on earth can someone choose an independent label in a bottle shop? You have to know which bottle shops are supermarket owned, and then which are the supermarket owned labels. Very interesting segment in the above doco regarding some fakery on wine bottles that went on with Coles (which has since been amended). Imagine going into a bottle shop and nothing in it was independent, but you were completely unaware?
To me the quality and value for money is more important than who owns the brand. Many of the name brand beverages that were once created by family companies and were genuinely home grown and owned are now owned by big national or international brands. Individual products differ but I can’t see how the ownership in itself makes any difference. Its what’s in the bottle that matters not the fine print on the back label.
The same applies to many known brands. Most multinational companies own more than one brand which appears on the supermarket shelves, even in the same product category. Take Nestlé for example. It owns multiple product brands in the same food category. Likewise Kellanova an others. It is likely most consumers aren’t aware this is the case.
Multinational food manufacturers do this to try and maximise their market share. If they have multiple offerings of different brands in the same food category, it increases the market share they own and their company value.
All retailers do the same with their store branded products.
Sorry, if I’m walking into a store like Kmart, where almost everything is Anko brand, then I know exactly where the money is going, and if I want a particular item, then that’s on me. Same as when Target had their own brand, etc.
But if you’ve watched the Four Corners doco, there was quite a level of deception going on-and that was just one label.
I’m not asking for a massive ‘Coles’ or ‘Woolworths’ label on the front of an item, but a bit of transparency (as shown in the bleach label above) at least lets you make a more informed decision. Imagine going to purchase a bottle of wine, and having to Google every manufacturer/grower to find out if it is or isn’t grown by the duopoly. You’d potentially be there for hours. Otherwise researching independent wineries-and then having to find out if they’re stocked anywhere near you before you ventured out
So yes, I am bothered by sneaky labelling.
If the supermarkets/liquor retailers are made to do this, all food manufacturers should be required to do likewise. Otherwise it could be seen as penalising store branded products to the advantage of big businesses with multi brand products. These big business are equally ‘sneaky’ for not disclosing ownership. Examples being Lion Nathan, Fonterra or Treasury Wines which own well know brands. Many consumers would no know this is the case, and some might think their brands are boutique or locally owned in the case of Lion Nathan or Fonterra.
The liquor industry is possibly worse than supermarkets. An example being there are a limited number of multinationals which own most known beer brands. Likewise with wines with the common brands. Most consumers won’t know which companies own what brands, no differently to which are multinational company brands or store brands.
Spotlight stands out since it has a diverse range of products and brands. Some are multinational, others not to be found outside Spotlight. One needs to read the fine print on the packaging?
‘https://www.spotlightstores.com/brands
Koo is a Spotlight brand. (Not to be confused with Koo a brand name used in SouthAfrica)
Why would you do that? How would it make any difference to the content of the bottle or the price?
For those who care here is a cheat sheet of who owns what. It says it is up to date as of last month. It does not show volumes or value of sales and it does not include small independents. Many of the brands listed used to be smaller/family businesses but no more.
This site tells us more about size and ownership relationships but it is 5 years out of date. You see will similar patterns in that big name winemakers remain as a brand, Penfolds (Grange etc) for example, but are now owned by conglomerates.
In a slightly different direction two conglomerates (Lion and CUB, both Japanese) make a large majority of Australian beer between them but the local brands and labels still exist.
And then there are small local wineries and craft beer makers who I patronise if I like their products and prices, and if I can get access to their products.
For both wine and beer I buy what I enjoy and what is value, the relationship between the label and the ultimate owner can be obscure but I don’t actually care.
Not exactly On Topic per se, but not completely different.
There are made up brands created by grocers/companies to appeal to certain demographics, but do most consumers know how few ‘brand owners’ they are actually dealing with for the brands they recognise?
If one knows who owns what and they like the product does it change buying habits? In some cases possibly, especially for those who think they are supporting a local or a ‘small business’ and are faced with corporate reality.
I reckon the biggest difference between name brands and house brands is how much is spent on advertising and establishing their market position, including tweaking their product accordingly.
Over the past year I have noticed a few new brands pop up on the shelves that appeared to be local or regional companies in every way, and some were, until their true ownership was deciphered. An example, Olina’s Bakehouse, part of Gourmet Food Holdings Pty Ltd, now a Mondelez owned company.
As previously opined, the proof is whether it is good or not although some consumers will forever be label conscious, or want to preference real locals just because. The top level conglomerates focus more on P/L and how to improve it than nurturing a business operating at less than top efficiency and profitability.
It may be a surprise to some that a favourite tipple or condiment has been sold, restructured and absorbed several times during their life but I will bet that did not stop them buying it in very many cases.
I have to think that in most cases we are not aware of the ultimate owner of the brands we buy, especially in the world of food and drink, nor if they are a home brand that is but a label in front of something made by another. Discovering this ignorance seems to have more influence on talking behaviour than buying behaviour.
I do feel annoyed by this practice, perhaps for a slightly different reason to other comments.
For example - a supermarket sells a product labelled as ‘SuperDuper’ brand instead of their home brand. The supermarket can source the product from different manufacturers, and still sell them under the SuperDuper brand (like they do for home brand). If you bought the SuperDuper brand not realising it was a home brand, you think if you buy it again next time you will get the same product. But you could get a different product from a different manufacturer.
Therefore it is misleading in my opinion.
