News

[lolotehe]

Long ago, back during my married days, I was at the grocery store with him and he said we needed to get some NyQuil. I instinctively reached for the store-brand.

"No!" he whined. "That won't work. It has to be NyQuil."

I said that was wonderful news, because it meant he wasn't actually sick. You see, the store brand had the exact same active ingredient in the exact same levels, so if that wasn't going to work, it wasn't the drug that actually made him feel better, but the fact that he was taking something out of a NyQuil bottle.

"We can just pour the store-brand in the old bottle and it will work perfectly."

He disagreed and I made him put back a bottle of Ragu pasta sauce, as that would make up the $2 difference between NyQuil and the store-brand.

This was a huge fight.

Anyway, the news here is: "when it comes to products like over-the-counter drugs like aspirin, or pantry staples like sugar or baking soda, which are virtually identical to their generic competitors, consumers are indeed more likely to pay up for a brand name if they're poorly educated about what they're buying."

More here.

Comments

[obliterati.livejournal.com]

[mousit.livejournal.com]

I thought this was pretty standard for most any brand name item, pharmaceuticals or clothing or otherwise. Also hardly an American thing. Seems to be human nature to go with what we're familiar with, even if that familiarity is only a name via advertising. Which makes sense, since the linked article points out if the consumer is familiar with the ingredients the brand means less.


Reminds me of a Modern Marvels episode, of all things. About bottling. One sequence was about a particular bottling plant that did juice. The narrator happily explained that that one bottling line produced 28 different labels, including Welch's. So it wasn't just that the store brands were "similar", it's that they were literally off the same production line in the same bottle. Just a different label slapped on it.