fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) (09/16/85)
[]
it was while i was in grad school (77-79) that generic products came
into vogue. for tight budgets, they were a boon. i was therefore surprised
to read (MacLean's in Canada? sometime in 78) of some study on buying practices
where the investigators found that middle class folk bought generics (and/or
store brands) while lower income folk stuck with name brands.
the investigator's opinion on this phenomena was that middle class
people would take the "risk" of the product maybe being deficient, while the
lower class could not afford to take the risk.
i would have opined that the lower class is more susceptible to
advertising hype by the name brands.
does anyone know of any recent studies on this? results?
--
<< Generic disclaimer >>
Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?") @ Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ
UUCP: {seismo!terak, trwrb!flkvax, utzoo!mnetor, ihnp4!btlunix}!mot!fred
ARPA: oakhill!mot!fred@ut-sally.ARPA AT&T: 602-438-3472bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (09/18/85)
> where the investigators found that middle class folk bought generics (and/or > store brands) while lower income folk stuck with name brands. > the investigator's opinion on this phenomena was that middle class > people would take the "risk" of the product maybe being deficient, while the > lower class could not afford to take the risk. > i would have opined that the lower class is more susceptible to > advertising hype by the name brands. > does anyone know of any recent studies on this? results? It has been a while since my marketing classes in college but as I remember one aspect of the above statement is that on the average the middle class is better educated and picks the genertic brand for value. While the lower class is less educated and by buying the brand name they are trying to reach acceptabilty (sp) and not showing the public in the store they have to pinch pennies. Thats what they taught me in school and not my opinion. Bob Nebert sdcsvax!bmcg!bobn
etan@tellab1.UUCP (Nate Stelton) (09/20/85)
In article <271@mot.UUCP> fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) writes: > ... the investigators found that middle class folk bought generics (and/or >store brands) while lower income folk stuck with name brands. > the investigator's opinion on this phenomena was that middle class >people would take the "risk" of the product maybe being deficient, while the >lower class could not afford to take the risk. > i would have opined that the lower class is more susceptible to >advertising hype by the name brands. > does anyone know of any recent studies on this? results? These are just my own theories: 1. Lower class (economically speaking) people seem to generally be more "class conscious", and don't like to be included in that category. Buying generic items is a way of "admitting" to belonging to that class, which may also explain why oftentimes poorer people purchase new cars and expensive clothing, while middle-classers claim they can't afford it. In other words, it's a social statement. 2. Generic items are not that much cheaper, so the savings are more obvious to those who budget. I have never met a lower-class person on a budget, which is probably why they are in the lower class anyway. -etan