I think we’ve pretty well established that in most cases when it comes to ARs and accessories the claim that someone that buys a Colt or a Noveske is “only paying for the name” is entirely hogwash. Same can be said for Aimpoint, and other accessories and gear for guns where frankly nobody makes better for cheaper.
Got me wondering about other things. I’ve tried Kraft and I’ve tried the store brang, and Kraft definitely has the lock on boxed, dry, mac & cheese for sure. I can go to Old Nave, Gap, and Banana Republic and I can show you why each successively costs more than the other. When Chevy makes a Tahoe that is as nice as the Escalade they call it the Yukon Denali and it costs the same amount.
So where did this term come from, and what DOES it apply to since there are so many cases where it does not apply at all.
True, but I still consider those all within the “normal human” price bracket. Once you get up into designer wear and people are paying hundreds of dollars for a pair of jeans, they’ve usually gone far past any potential increase in quality and are quite literally paying for the name.
My kitchen has a mix of generic and name brand products. There are certain types of foods where I can tell the difference, and some where I could never tell in a true double-blind.
It would be one thing if all product costs were material/labor based, but there are plenty of line items that offer you no quality increase, advertising being the major culprit I can think of.
most of the time these store branded things are exactly the same thing as the brand name one just sold with a different lable. It makes no difference to the producer as they sell their product either away.
Nah, not a total fallacy. I think it comes from instances when a known top tier company is bought out for the name/logo/branding; and the shit company that bought it will come in and change everything but said name. Like springfield Armory; the old and new springfield armory is apples to oranges; but some still buy because they know the name Springfield Armory.
Colt is one where the product is still high quality, but some people still buy them for the name and subsequent higher resale value associated with the name. Not to say they aere only buying for the name; but that may be the deciding factor when comparing them to other manufacturers.
Thats why people make crap nock-offs, to sell the name on the product, not the actual product itself. I’ve seen plenty of $100.00 “Aimpoint” Comp M2’s on Ebay…
Shit, some people actually chnage the name of the brand because of known lesser quality products associated with the name (Jimenez, jennings, bryco, etc…)
It applies differently to the individual circumstance/product/name; as there are too many variables to quantify everything into black and white.
Spot on. I can think of several products sold under multiple names/brandings/packaging.
Also, there can be small differences between how each establishment serves individual products as well; such as coca cola tasting different from McDonalds becuase they add more corn syrup to the mixture before dispensing it. I think it has approx. 2 times the amount of sugar found in the original recipe from coke, and a bit less carbonation as well.
Yep, that is definitely the case for some of the products, but seemingly not for others (or in some cases the store brand is probably just an unlabeled version of a different name brand which I don’t like). Definitely an area in which advertising budget is a major factor.
Another big line item cost is research and development. Depending on the product and what intellectual property protection it might have, sometimes the off-brands are 99.9% the same product but at greatly reduced cost.
I think Noveske lowers are way over priced. I remember when they sold lowers for like $140 or so, and then all the sudden they bumped up to almost $250+ just for a stripped lower. They don’t even make them. Its the same lower you could get from the actual manufacturer. So in that case you are paying for the Noveske name because there is no difference in quality.
If you buy a complete gun adding the complete lower and sights adds $995 to the cost of the gun. Minus the taxes and sights…thats a damn expensive lower that doesn’t even having anything like an SSA trigger in it. Just a basic USGI type. Seems wildly expensive when you can get many other complete lowers for far less including LMT and BCM. Hell even the KAC lowers were/are being sold for 650-700 which includes a good 2 stage trigger, unique ambi lower, SOPMOD stock, ect.
Me: You are telling me that those Christian Louboutin’s for $1200 are that much better than that Guess show for $95?
G/F: Ummmmm, but its a Christian Louboutin!
Case closed!
With clothes, its easy to see when you get to a point where the product is no better than its compeditors, simply costs more because of who’s name is printed on it.
99% of my work cloths come from Express, and I can understand spending $79 or $99 on a pair of wool pants, but I can not understand spending $400 on a pair of wool pants that look exactly that same but say Dolce and Gabbana.
Some things just are top notch quality and will more than likely be passed down to children and so forth.
For a wedding present my in laws bought me a really nice Rolex Submariner and my wife a full set of Louis Vuitton luggage, approx 8k for the LV, and my watch I think at the time retailed for around 4-5k. Now is name branding part of the associated cost. Hell yes, but are the the type of items that are made to last decades…YES. My MIL has a LV trunk that was given to her by her grandmother, it is at least 100 years old and still in excellent condition. But am I going to pay inflated prices for common items no way. Only a select few items get the nod to pay top dollar.
PS my 12 yr old son has already laid claim to all my firearms and jewelry(watches, tie clips, money clips, cufflinks), he is counting the days I fear.
I learned more about “lying” and “deceiving” in my marketing classes than any other class or life experience.
The easiest way for me to equate it is this;
Nike sells a shoe for $250. New Balance sells a shoe for $75.
The Nike shoe is featured on a TV commercial that reaches 500 million people. It has a superstar athlete telling you it is better than any other shoe. You see signs on the highway that this shoe is the best ever. You feel warm and fuzzy inside for buying it.
The New Balance shoe does the same thing as the Nike, but it doesn’t have the sideshow, so they don’t have the higher price. You are happy with your shoe, but don’t display it to all of your friends.
However, Nike makes sure you know you have the best shoe, and you can then brag that you have the best shoe. Like so many things, it’s all in perception.
The longer I have been around, the more I believe that you get what you pay for most of the time. In a consumer free market, people will flock to a product for its superiority based on a balancing of appealing factors. The exception would be in disposable goods such as trendy clothing, tennis shoes, and other items that generally don’t last more than a year. The product isn’t expected to last very long, so most people never put the product through the wringer to test its quality. When it comes to durable goods, you do indeed get what you pay for. Also, you tend to get a better overall product when it comes to buying name brand food goods.
Food items tend to be better when higher in price. Particulary with additives and fillers. The more healthy you eat the more it will cost typically. Example for me is I cook with wine…a lot! One time I had my wife ask me after we were recently married ask why I use the wine we usually drink in cooking. She was like why not use cooking wine or cheaper wine. I said to her, “If I am not willing to drink it in a glass, than why in the hell would I put it in my food”. Needless to say that was the last time she questioned my cooking methods. I suppose the determining factor is what is acceptable to you and what you are accustomed to either from childhood or peer group.
Most if not all of the store brands I buy have disclaimers on them that “this product is not manufactured by or distributed by [Insert Name Brand Here], makers of [Insert Branded Product Name Here]” or very similar.
It seems to me that the idea that “generics” or “store brands” of normal products are re-labeled brand name products is in many (most?) cases not true.
That does not make them any less of a product and many store brand products are re-labeled for each store. For example, I bought baby powder at Wally World and at Target. Both were obviously from the same manufacturer (based on codes and stuff on the bottles) but labeled differently. Both also claimed to not be made by Johnson & Johnson, makers of Johnson’s Baby Powder…
