Store Brand vs. brand Name loyalty

[tripletopper]

Attn: Mods

 

Please delete this thread.

Edited September 8, 2018 by tripletopper

[Flojomojo]

The question is baffling and assumes the audience (who were mostly children when the Sears etc branding was relevant) were the decision makers. I would think that the store-branded items were more for distribution and marketing convenience than brand loyalty. No matter the rationale, I don't think you'll get enough of a response to learn much you haven't already guessed.

 

When you go to the supermarket, do you buy the store brand of canned corn or beans for 20% less, or the national brand of known quality? Or do you get whatever is on special that week? Or do you just not give the matter much thought at all?

 

As a 1970s child, I would GUESS that the national brand (of games, cereal, cookies, toys, whatever) would be more desirable than the store brand, if for no other reason than TV and print marketing ("for the Atari Video Computer System!"). Unless your family spent a LOT of time and money in the store. Either way, what kid is going to turn up their nose at new video games?

[akator]

Store branding is usually about the store sourcing the same or comparable product cheaper than the name brand. The store can then offer a larger markup and still undercut the price of the name brand.

 

Store pays $1 for Brand but 0.50 for generic. Store sells Brand for $1.10 and generic for 0.90. Store makes 0.10 off Brand and 0.40 off generic. Consumer saves money and is happy, store makes higher profits and is happy.

 

However, a lot of the early video game systems were different. Sears had early deals with Atari to exclusively buy XXX,XXX units, guaranteeing that Atari had the funding capitol for manufacturing. Sears got an exclusive, Atari got the money in sales it needed.

 

Plus Sears and their catalog were a cornerstone of US retail. Having stuff in their catalog reached mail order consumers and a wide audience. That was good money for Atari (or any company) even if their name wasn't on it.

 

The only credit card many consumers had back then was a Sears Card. As a store card it was only good with Sears. Want that expensive video game under the Christmas tree? Better use the Sears Card, otherwise it simply won't be there at all.

 

Store credit cards were also a big factor at Montgomery Wards and other department stores. VISA and MC weren't everywhere yet, store cards were much more common.

 

Tandy Radio Shack is yet another story. They had one of the biggest retail networks with thousands of stores, far more than anyone else. In those early days they sold more computers, games, and electronics than anyone else, too. You had to drive 1-2 hours to a Sears but a Radio Shack was only 30 minutes. For years their computers and electronics were unique, but eventually a lot of what was in the store was Tandy branded merch from other manufacturers. It worked because their number of stores guaranteed local business. Once Walmart and other big box store expanded into more markets, TRS couldn't compete as well and eventually not at all.

[tripletopper]

Toopic moved to http://atariage.com/forums/topic/282719-store-brand-vs-name-brand-game-and-movie-media/ with appropriate poll. And mods, please merge the 2 similar sounding ptopics. My main quesiton is did more people avoid a non-Sears 2600 games because they had a Telegames, or did more people avoid Sears Telegames media because they had a non-Sears 2600?

 

That's why Sears later got into the general credit card business by being the main investor in Discover Card, because store cards were starting to become passe.