Correspondence Regarding Store Brand Discovery
A product was purchased. The product was not the preferred brand. The product was better.
To: The Name Brand From: The Subject Re: Store Brand Discovery, July 2022 Date: Today, which is three days after the discovery
This correspondence acknowledges the completion of an unintentional comparative product evaluation conducted under conditions of supply constraint, namely that the preferred name brand was out of stock, and the subject purchased the store brand as a temporary measure while intending to replace it at the earliest opportunity.
The store brand is better. The name brand has questions to answer.
Background
The name brand in question is a staple household item the subject has purchased without reassessment for approximately seven years. Seven years is a long time to purchase a product without investigating alternatives. The subject was aware of the store brand. The subject had not purchased the store brand because the store brand did not appear in the mental category of products the subject purchases.
The mental category is not based on evidence. It is based on habit and a vague premise that name brands are better, which is the premise the name brand's marketing department has spent seven years reinforcing at a cost passed to the subject through the pricing differential.
The Discovery
The store brand was purchased. The store brand was used. The store brand performed at a level that is, by direct comparison, equivalent to the name brand in all functional dimensions and superior in one specific dimension the subject considers important and will not disclose here because the product category does not require specification.
Forensic Analysis
Investigation reveals the following. The store brand has been manufactured in the same facility as the name brand for an indeterminate period, which is not information the name brand has an interest in distributing. The active ingredients are identical by label. The packaging difference is significant and entirely cosmetic.
The subject had been paying a premium for the packaging, the placement, and a trust relationship that was never verified.
The Governing Rule
Brand loyalty is an investment that benefits the brand. The subject invested for seven years. The return on that investment was consistency and the elimination of the small decision cost incurred at the moment of purchase. These are real benefits. They are worth approximately forty cents per unit, not the full premium.
Consequence
The subject now purchases the store brand. This has created a small new problem: the subject has begun applying the same scrutiny to other name brand staples, which takes more time at the grocery store than previously allocated.
Three additional store brand substitutions have been identified as viable. Evaluation is ongoing.
Status
The name brand has lost a seven-year customer. The name brand has not been notified. The name brand will not notice.