Talk:Generic brand

Discussion

The big confusion in this page is between "store brand" and true generic. Store brand packaging conveys cheapness but is still bright and colorful. True generic has no graphics, no color, just white with dark lettering naming the product. I was hopeful for more history about true generic marketing. When I was young (mid 70s I believe, before the 1977 cited in the article for Jewel) our local Grand Union grocery store switched to all generic. Every single packaged good in the store was in plain black and white packaging - it was actually disorienting to walk up and down the aisles. This was not just store brand but name brand goods as well. The theory was that people would shop there because of the cost savings from packaging, but everyone hated it, it was a disaster and I think the store actually closed a couple months after the switch.72.66.40.110 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equal quality

Quote: "Generic brand products are often of equal quality as a branded product"

[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.30.245 (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Needed!

I realize it would be very hard to find, but if anyone can find a photo of the old style generic packaging, I think it would be very good for this article. 68.124.184.143 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In-house brand

I redirected In-house brand here. In-house brands are different from generic products and brands in that they try to give an impression of being branded. See for example Lidl. Petri Krohn 04:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. I guess Safeway's "Lucerne", as mentioned in the article, is an example of an in-house brand. But what the heck is the difference between being a product which is actually branded and a product having a label that looks exactly like a brand-label? Would Sears' "Kenmore" be considered an in-house brand? What's the difference? What about Sears' "Craftsman"?

Lucerne is a store brand. In-house brands are store brands and the redirect should go to the store brands article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.148 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between in-house brand and regular/"real" brand

The difference (as I see it) between e.g., "Lucerne" brand milk and "Craftsman" brand tools is that you can only buy them at one chain of stores, which is part of the same business that owns the label. You can't buy "Lucerne" milk at Albertsons or "Craftsman" tools at Home Depot. If you could, I would call these regular brands --- but since you can't, I call them house brands. hajhouse 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've seen Craftsman tools at stores other than Sears; one of the auto parts chains at least used to sell them. Maybe Sears owned that chain or something?

Another interesting tool example, and a grey area, is RIDGID tools. The only big box store that sells them is Home Depot, and they do have an exclusivity agreement with Ridge Tool to be the only big box to sell those tools, but they also sell their tools through tradesmen-only supply houses. For most consumers, Ridgid is a Home Depot house brand. But for professional plumbers, they're *not* a house brand. I'm really not sure whether we would consider Ridgid a house brand or not. Perel 22:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake?

"Patents may prohibit generic brand manufacturing. In the specific case of drugs, generic drugs are made chemically indistinguishable from the brand name products, to satisfy regulations." Surely this should read distinguishable? Please explain if not. 74.132.209.231 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and have removed that sentence. The Generic_drug article describes generic drugs as having bioequivalence to the brand name version, specifically noting that they might not be chemically identical. In any case, I don't think the sentence is particularly germane to this article, and the paragraph reads better without it. Perel 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same as "store brand"

The expression "generic brand" is not so common in the UK; I would assume from it having a separate article that it refers to *any* product where the brand is unknown (not just exclusively to a supermarket's "own brand"). However, the article does seem to verge towards describing "store brands"; was this the intention? Fourohfour 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this term may be regional in nature; hadn't realized it was. Basically, in the US, store brands are kinda-sorta a subset of generic brands. Generic brand refers to ANY unbranded product, while store brand refers to products branded for a specific store.

That's pretty much what I thought it meant, thanks. Fourohfour 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many US supermarket chains, to cite one example, have two sets of store brands: a low-cost, no-frills store brand that's basically a generic brand with the store's logo on it, and a high-end "premium" store brand that's a private label but competes with the name brands.

For example, three mac-and-cheese options at my local grocery store:

Kraft: name brand
~~Great Value~~: cheap generic store brand, competes on price (correction - wait, that's a different store.. but the point stands, it's called something along those lines)
Nature's Promise: premium store brand, not sold in any other chains, but positioned to compete with the name brands as a higher-end product (the gimmick on this one is that it's organic)

(And yes, I do realize that it's kinda silly to talk about high-end boxes of mac and cheese, but still..)

What are generics (that are not a store brand / own brand / private label) called in the UK? Perel 22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specific, AFAIK. IIRC I've (very) occasionally referred to them as "generic", but I probably picked that up from U.S. usage; it's not common here. I'm sure we've got ways of describing them, I just can't think of any because I'm trying too hard. :-/ Fourohfour 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genericized brands & generics

In Uk marketing circles it is common to refer to brands like hoover and other genercized brands as generics. Should this not be mentioned in the article, or at least dealt with by disambiguation? BuzzWoof 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surplus:

Surplus:Terrorized into being Consumers talks about Cuba and how the paste has no advertising - everybody knows that it's the state. I feel like this should fit in the article somehow.--Keerllston 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Filter Title of Record.jpg

The image Image:Filter Title of Record.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

generic brand assorted cookies

In the 1980's when I was a young girl in Utah, we had the no name or generic brand food. My mom would always buy the assorted cookies. They were in a big white bag and the words Assorted Cookies in black. That was it, plain and cheap but the best dang cookies I have ever had! Does anyone know what happened to them? Or where I can get these cookies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.187 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were a cute black girl. 124.197.60.79 (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.151.248 (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History section

I have removed this section. It looked dubious and two of the three citations were dead links. Zarcadia (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quality of generic drugs

The claim that generic drugs have the same quality as the name brand is an opinion, not a scientific fact. The quality of the manufacturing equipment can become a factor in the chemistry as with the supplier of materials, just like other generic products. Further, the citation for this claim is from a commercial discount online supplier, likely a peddler of generic drugs trying to make a buck. Both the citation and the claim should be removed. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if a better citation could be found. In most cases it seems the biggest difference between generic and name-brand drugs is psychological, same as any difference in taste between generic and name-brand foods. Of course there are exceptions to that, but I think it warrants a mention given that it contradicts what a lot of people will assume about generics. I found this article but it may not be broad enough to cover all drugs. --66.183.71.64 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Generic Cola Can Jewel.jpg

The file File:Generic Cola Can Jewel.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Generic Cola Can Jewel.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do they come from?

I would love if Wikipedia could educate us all on where all the food comes from. When you thik about it ... there is one Special K, and probably fifty imitators. That means there are vastly more brands of imitation cereal than there are the "real" thing, even if the name brand Special K sells more. Can it really be that there are fifty companies all producing the same exact product, or do some ofthem just buy from suppliers? I saw some suspiciously similar cardboard packaging once at two competing supermarkets, leading me to believe that those two stores, at least, are selling the identical product from the same supplier with just the inner package being different. I could imagine that with simple things like soda and water, there's really no reason to have fifty competitors with fifty different formulas each competing against each other. I havent really thought about applying it to generic OTC drugs, where there is even less room to make differences, and just as many stores since supermarkets sell drugs too. —Soap— 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I've found the answer. —Soap— 04:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imitation

I was wondering about this one statement about generics in the header of the article. Can it really be said that "generally they imitate more expensive branded products"?

I suppose that could be true for products that start as branded inventions and then become commonly produced commodities (band-aids, kleenex etc.); but a lot of generics you'll find in supermarkets are just basic products that were not "originally" branded - orange juice, olive oil, dish soap etc. In this case it's not so much that they're "imitating" branded versions of those goods, but rather that they're not choosing to brand themselves and instead relying on affordibility as a selling point. It doesn't seem to me like a no-name bottle of ketchup is imitating Heinz in any real sense, they're both just ketchup. Jaalke (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]