I Feel Sort Of Dirty

I don't consider myself part of the "blogosphere" or whatever ridiculous title those in the "traditional media" give to those who comment on them. Yes, I have a blog. But, those of you who know me (and I'm guessing, from my visitor logs, that most of you that read this site know me) know that the only reason I post this here is because you are there and not here - otherwise I would just tell you these things. Trust me, if you were here, there'd be no need to post this stuff - ask Erin - she gets the long version of most of these post topics (despite the fact that she's probably tired of hearing it by now!).

Today, I'm going to depart a little from my normal course of rambling though. This article in the Washington Post piqued my interest. The basic gist of the article is this: some folks in Washington DC ("Democrats Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon, who gained political fame for their role in electing Jimmy Carter 30 years ago, as well as Doug Bailey, a media adviser to former president and representative Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.). They are being joined by former Maine governor Angus King, an independent") finally realized that the reason Americans don't turn out to vote is not because they aren't interested in politics, or because they don't care, but because they are sick of the political system as it has devolved through the two-party system. These folks, so the article posits, have created a new forum to give most of us in the center a new way of interacting with the political system.

In theory, this website, this movement, called, for now, Unity08, would provide forums for discussion and debate amongst those with opinions - a gathering point, if you will. When (Presidential) election time rolls around they will have what amounts to a royal rumble style vote to determine who the candidates will be. The candidates will not be limited to either party or, indeed, any party - eveyone is fair game. The article is unclear how they would go about persuading such a person to accept the nomination, but let's leave that alone for the moment. In any event, the issues this person would support, or the platform of the candidate - those issues which the candidate addresses would be those of interest to the people, not the party heads with bought and paid for interests. The candidates would be those who the people trusted to make decisions, not those who the party heads felt would most easily kow-tow to the whims of the biggest donors.

So, I go check out the website. It's at http://www.unity08.com. First off everything is very vague. And while I can certainly understand that they haven't exactly been up and running for a long time, there are very few specifics on how they envision themselves, or what they see their place as being. Most of the site is "preaching to the choir." Second, the game is really really lame. Third, and perhaps most interestingly, the "Founder's Council" is run mostly by college students. Now, I don't have anything against college students - I was a college student once (OK, three times), and to be fair college students are probably the ones most interested and with enough time to devote to such a cause - but I can't say it exactly helps the credibility.

Most importantly, though, I think I disagree with their beliefs and their division of "crucial issues" from "important issues"

In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.

I'm not sure I understand why the national debt is "more important" or "crucial" while "gay marriage" is merely "important." I think that their "important" issues are just issues that affect the individual, while the "crucial" ones are ones that affect the nation as a whole. But I'm not sure that this distinction necessarily makes an issue more important than another. And what do you do about, say, Welfare and/or social security? Welfare affects the nation (we all pay for it), but it also affects individuals (not all of us receive it). And it seems that saying "abortion" is an "important" one and "health care of all" is a "crucial" one ignores the fact that abortion is a health care issue for many, many people.

Moreover, I'd like to see this organization be more aggressive. I think by limiting themselves to just candidates for '08 Presidential election, they will run into two problems, both of which are related: 1) they will have a hard time convincing citizens they are legitimate; 2) they will have a hard time convincing politicians they are legitimate. I understand that the Presidential election is "easier" - it's only one candidate and it has national appeal. But it's also an "all or nothing" deal - either you succeed or you don't - there is no opportunity to take the idea for a test drive and kick the tires, so to speak. Whereas, if they looked at the intervening minor elections, or even local elections, they might be able to tweak their ideas a bit so that the Presidential process runs smoothly.

I'm not sure I've really said anything here. But I can say that I am frustrated by the current political process and parties. So, I'm willing to try anything I guess because I believe in our democratic system and this nation (yeah, I know, sappy - but it's true - no other country in the world has the options and choices that we have - and I mean "we" not just those who can afford to have options). In any event, I just wanted to make y'all aware of this thing and you can form your own opinions. I've thrown my name on the mailing list, so we'll see what comes of it. I promise to keep you updated.

Is This Not Setting Off Some Red Flags??

The House is preparing a bill to make online gambling illegal.

Sponsored by Robert Goodlatte of Virginia and Jim Leach in Iowa. Man, they must really hate gambling. I mean, there's not a single casino in Iowa (there's 16 of them). But, I suppose it would have been just a little too obvious to have a representative from New Jersey or Nevada sponsor the damn thing. Clearly it's Las Vegas that stands to lose the most from online gambling - I mean there's no way people would go to a real casino if they can just gamble online ($10 billion in gambling revenue in 2005 in Las Vegas alone).

It seems a little odd that the nation's most corrupt industry is getting protectionist legislation and not a single person is saying a damn thing other than to note that it might be a little silly. And, I'm a little baffled at what they hope to accomplish. It's the idiots that go online and "get their feet wet" that end up filling up the Las Vegas (and Indian) Casino blackjack and poker tables.

I live sort of close to a casino (there's one in Milwaukee) where I COULD go to play poker. But I can't play a nickle-warm-up game there like I can online. The advantage of online play is that makes it cheap to play, so I feel comfortable going to the casino and blowing my money there. For a lot of "newbies" the online experience takes away a lot of the apprehension of walking into that poker room for the first time. I'd be willing to bet that if this thing passes and the feds are able to enforce it, that the Casinos will see a decrease in money earned from their poker operations.

So, I guess I'm not really sure what they're hoping to accomplish. Bob Goodlatte may dislike gambling, but there's hundreds of casinos all over this country - what does he care about online gambling just adding to the fray? My guess is because all of the online casinos are off-shore thus not going into his pocket. So - instead of making it illegal, they should be passing legislation to regulate online gambling inside the United States. Simple. Elegant. Done, problem solved (because we all know that the online casinos will just be run by the Las Vegas players, so they'll be getting their money they're so afraid they're losing).

The Greek Ideal

I was in the gym the other day, just finishing up and about to leave when I got into a conversation with a 51-year old grandfather. We were talking about what makes life good. We both agreed that something like the Greek ideal of a good life was close to correct. This is the idea that the good life consists of a balance of intellectual, physical, and spiritual challenges. Now, I'm an atheist, so for me "spiritual" means, perhaps, "moral and aesthetic," but anyway I'm on board. We were also talking about the need for challenge, the need for adversity. People grow when they are challenged. People not only need to be challenged, bu they need to be challenged in multiple non-overlapping ways. Roughly: physically, mentally and spiritually (though I'm not sure these categories are exhaustive, or even very good; some set of sub-categories may be better).

This means to me that we need to structure society to present these sorts of challenges. First, maybe we give kids intellectual challenges in school, but at least the kinds of broad critical thinking skills that generalize well are being under-emphasized in favor of more easily testable skill sets. To me this is ridiculous: who is it exactly that thinks that ease of testing is good indicator of intellectual value? This is a fallacy so absurd that I will not even bother to refute it here. So, my point is that we are failing in this society to give our children the kinds of intellectual challenges that they need to grow. Second, P.E. is also being tossed out in many school districts. This is amazing. There are societal benefits to teaching children the value of exercise (i.e. less obesity and all of the economic woes that derive from it), but moreover, it's screwing the kids out of another of the sets of challenges that they need to grow into well-rounded, healthy adults! Facing a little bit of self-imposed physical pain helps you to know yourself better, to know what you're capable of. It can breed confidence and strength, and conduce to emotional stability. None of these claims are new, and many of them are heard in reference to the movement to encourage young girls to pursue sport activities. But now, not only are girls not getting enough physical activity, but everyone is getting screwed!

OK last one: "spiritual" growth. Like I said, I see this as "moral and aesthetic" growth. Some might argue that moral teaching ought to be the sole domain of the parents (and their church, of course). Setting aside the loss of art programs, which fits in to the aesthetic side, I want to address the idea of helping kids achieve moral growth in state-sponsored activities like public school. I think it's silly to say that only parents should teach their kids right from wrong, etc. The state, and we all, have an interest in seeing that children are taught certain values that are necessary to the existence of a democracy. These include, but are not limited to, tolerance, respect for others, a sense of civic duty, an appreciation of diversity, and so on. I absolutely think that the parents are, and ought to be, the primary moral instructors (how could they not be? They have unmitigated access for the first 3-4 years). But the parents alone aren't necessarily even able to provide all of the challenges necessary for a child. It is a different situation to be surrounded by your peers and asked to make decisions than to be told by your parents what you should do. Further, I think that certain kinds of peer-group activities can lead to feeling a sense of civic duty (e.g. the responsibility to vote, to understand the governmental process, to be an active member of various community projects, committees, and so on), in a way that purely local family interaction may not be able to provide. Our schools currently provide, if any, only the barest introduction to the process of government, and how to participate in it. It is this kind of moral instruction that I think is needed in schools. Arguments can be made for "peer mediation" programs and such, for groups of kids who tend to be disruptive and aggressive, but that's not my focus here. That is the kind of thing that I think parents need to provide, and when they don't, I'm not sure that any school can systematically correct it. It looks like to me the kind of thing that takes dedicated, focused effort for each kid, not any kind of general algorithmic-type program.

My point is that, if anything like the Greek ideal is right, we are currently failing to provide the children of this country with any of the three general sorts of challenges that they require in order to grow into well-developed, happy adults.

The World Cup

On June 9 the World Cup starts. 90% of this country could care less. There's about 10% of us that are truly interested in watching the games. I won't get into an argument about watching soccer on television. It's like baseball - some people get it, some people don't. I can understand if you're one of the people don't - but there are another 3 billion people in this world who do, so trust me, YOU are the one in the minority. You can laugh and snigger all you want, but I'm not the one watching 30 cars make left hand turns for 3 hours.

In any event. It's a simple request. I want to watch the games of the world's most popular sporting event. It's only held once every four years. It shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. But, here's the problem. I don't have cable. ABC is only showing like 11 games - my guess is the 4 US games, then semi-finals and finals games, and possibly a few Mexico or other random games. ESPN and ESPN2 are showing the remaining 53 games. So, I won't get to see any of those.

I called to check on just subscribing to ESPN and ESPN2 (and OLN just for kicks so I can watch the Tour de France). See, I subscribe to "local" cable - as I think I've mentioned before. I get ABC/CBS/NBC/WB/UPN/PBS/WGN and also CSPAN a few shopping channels, a religious channel and a spanish channel (univision - we'll come back to this in a minute). I pay about $11/month for "cable" now - if I want the minimum cable package that includes ESPN and ESPN2 I have to pay $49/month. I'm sorry, but ESPN is not worth $38/month. So, now I'm back to the same problem.

I look around the internet to see if maybe there's an internet video thing I can subscribe to. NBA, MLB, and NFL all have packages that I can watch games live over the internet. I thought the World Cup might. It turns out they do. In Israel and Brazil. And both are blocked to non-residents. And while I'm sure I could figure out some hack to fake them into thinking a resident, I'd rather not have to do that. So back to the drawing board.

I started thinking - you know what? The Mexicans are huge soccer fans. I've seen soccer on Telemundo and in Mexican restaurants. I wonder who is broadcasting for the Mexicans. Turns out - Univision! 58 of the 64 games. Unfortunately, I don't speak Spanish. Have you ever watched soccer in Spanish, though? It's AWESOME. They get so much more excited about it than the Americans. I don't understand a goddamn word, but it's fun. So. I'll be watching the World Cup in Spanish this year. Except for some weekend games which I'll get to see in English on ABC. Most likely I'll watch the Mexican broadcast anyway.

So, now the problem is finding a way to record the games. I got rid of my VCR years ago. And I heard that WalMart was going to stop selling them. So, I've got to make a decision - get a VCR and throw it away when I'm done with it. Or get a DVD Recorder. The VCR is cheap - but I can't do anything with it when I'm done. I'm uncertain about timing for the DVD recorder. My concern is that I won't be able to get enough time on a DVD Recorder. With a VCR on low settings I can record 8 hours - plenty of time to record 2 or 3 games a day. With a DVD Recorder I think I'm going to be limited to 2 hours TOPS.

Anyway. All y'all electronics geeks out there (Brian, Aveh, Pete?!) help me think this one through. Any great ideas? You know the limits - and no, get a "TIVO" is not an option ($20/month for the ability to record 25 channels? I don't think so). I have thought about a TV Tuner/Recorder for my computer so I can record to hard-drive. But, given the age of my computer, I don't think I have enough empty slots for one. But it IS an option.

Brian, I know you have an ORB account - any chance of you recording to your computer and me grabbing your feed?

Don't Let Anyone Patent This Idea Because It's Now In The Public Domain

Does this ever happen to you? You're in a meeting and you hear, from outside the meeting someone's cell phone ring. You think "God damn inconsiderate bastard." And then you think "Shit! Thank god it wasn't MY phone." So, you reach into your pocket (those of you who always have your hands in your pockets, you can just skip to the next step) and grab your cell phone and turn off the ringer. Phew. Disaster averted.

Then, the next morning you go to put your cell phone in your pocket and you notice you have missed a call and have a voicemail. Then it dawns on you. You never turned the ringer back on.

Someone should invent a ring-tone timer, so that way you can just turn off the ring-tone for like 2 hours, then it automatically turns itself back on. That way you can't forget. Simple, easy to do. Quite frankly, not really sure why it hasn't already been done.

But let's take it a step further. Movie theaters have been threatening to jam cellphones for years. It sucks when a phone rings in the middle of a movie and some jackass doesn't realize it's their phone. But jamming the phone is not the solution. I've been to movies with Dr. Aveh when he's received important calls during a movie (of course, he should actually leave the theater to answer the phone, but that's another admonishment for another day). And, I'm sure, parents would want to receive a call from the babysitter.

But, what if there was a signal that could be sent to the phone that would set the phone in silent (vibrate) mode while the movie was playing? That way the call can come through, but the phone doesn't ring out loud.

There is one complication. This idea would be contingent on all the cell carriers adopting a ring-tone trigger standard, which will never happen because each of them would want THEIR OWN trigger standard to be adopted. So then the companies would have to get lobbyists in Washington to try to get a "ring tone trigger standard" legislation passed. Inevitably some silly consumer rights group would argue that turning off the ringer remotely would be invasion of their right to leave the ringer on whenever they god-damned felt like. So then you'd have a counter-ring-tone-trigger organization to tie up the legislation. Ultimately nothing would get done, but our cell phone rates would increase to pay for the lobbyists who didn't actually accomplish anything.

So, maybe I'm just better off remembering to turn my phone back on.

And Now For Something Completely Different...

In the Chicago Tribune today there is a story about private labeling in grocery stores that I think deserves some thorough commentary. I hope the Tribune, and John Schmeltzer, will forgive my fair use of their article as I copy it in its entirety for purposes of this commentary. I will put my in-line comments in a different color. I apologize in advance for the length.

Some introductory comments first. Erin and I were actually just talking about this the other day. When was the last time you saw a black-and-white generic food product? Think hard, because I can't remember the last time. I clearly remember them from when I was a kid. I think I remember them in early college when I was poor and eating macaroni and cheese and ramen on a daily basis. But, I don't really remember the last time I saw an honest-to-god generic package. From a consumer's perspective this is troubling - it acted as a sort of 'negative' brand recognition. I knew when I saw the black-and-white, that the product in question was the generic. It was the baseline for comparison. I wasn't paying any extra for marketing, I was getting the cheapest product I could buy. And I mean that in every way possible. But, for some people, and in some circumstances, that's exactly what we, as consumers, want. Sometimes it's all we can afford. Sometimes we just don't care. In any event, we don't want to pay for marketing, we don't want to pay for 'prestige,' we don't want to pay for anything other than a cheap product.

And it kept the other brands honest. As consumers we knew how much the food 'really' cost because we could compare it against the generics. We still, for the most part, willing paid the premium, because frankly Kraft mac-and-cheese tasted a hell of a lot better than the generic. I could tell that just by looking at the labels and I could recognize it as such. That's the purpose of labels - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I didn't buy the generic mac-and-cheese the second time. I gladly paid the premium for Kraft.

Anyway, with that out of the way, on to the story:

Generics heat up battle of brands

By John Schmeltzer
Tribune staff reporter
Published May 9, 2006

Once relegated to the bottom shelves where only the thriftiest of shoppers found them, generic foods are shedding their drab, functional black-and-white wrappers and going top shelf, so to speak.

Yes. Functional. As in "serving a function" - in this case, the aforementioned 'negative' product recognition.

From cookies to oatmeal, and just about every food category in between, "private-label" products are evolving into premium products.

This is a bit misleading. They aren't "premium" as in "better," they are just "premium" as in "cost more." Have you ever had Kroger's "Premium Select" mac-and-cheese?? It's just as vile as the generic crap.

They are commanding the attention of shoppers who are willing to spend more money for them, while giving the grocery industry an important weapon in its ongoing battle for survival, industry analysts say.

How about a better weapon like "more efficient layouts." How about a better weapon like "more informed staff." How about a better weapon like "local produce." These are all things that local groceries can offer over the big-boxes. Differentiate on service and leave the products alone.

One big sign of the transformation emerged this week at the Food Marketing Institute show at McCormick Place, where an entire pavilion and several seminars are dedicated to the topic--the first time at a show for FMI, where grocery manufacturers showcase their newest and best products in front of retailers from all over the world.

Shoppers see other signs of the shift everywhere--organic oatmeal under the "O" label at Dominick's, Whole Dairy cream cheese at Whole Foods and pasta with a red bull's-eye on the box at Target.

He should have put "organic" in quotations. Have you looked at that label?? Hardly "oats right out of the ground" that one would expect from a oatmeal product labelled as "organic." Which leads to another problem in the grocery business - false, or at least mildly deceptive labelling. Anymore, what constitutes "organic" is unknown. The FDA's definition of "organic" is extraodinarily loose. You'll notice that it merely requires that any one ingredient in the package to have been grown "without the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizer, hormones, antibiotics, or artificially-derived chemical additives." Only products labelled at least "100% organic" or "certified organic" are assured.

Where generics represented 1 or 2 percent of a grocery store's sales in the 1970s, they now account for an average of 17 percent, representing $107 billion in spending in the United States. That's expected to grow to more than $130 billion by 2010, according to ACNielsen.

Some of this was due to a loss of stigma attached to generic products. In the 1980s, due maybe in part to more wide-spread availability of big-box groceries (remember, until the 1970s most grocery stores were not huge over-blown affairs because of poor refrigeration - most groceries were relatively small, family owned operations), due in part to reduced discretionary spending in the middle class, due in part to increase consumer awareness of what they were paying for, middle-class consumers bought generics instead of paying for Kraft's marketing.

This represents a serious problem for big food companies like Glenview-based Kraft Foods or Downers Grove-based Sara Lee, whose business models are based on the idea that shoppers will pay a premium for a widely known product. Both companies are restructuring their businesses to remedy flat earnings growth and sagging stock prices.

While generics have traditionally been cheaper, price doesn't appear to be driving shoppers toward them now. Consumers have shown a willingness to pay as much or more for an upscale generic than for a nationally advertised product.

Or maybe it's just that consumers have duped into buying generics. Again, the product hasn't changed, the groceries are just putting a different label on the box. And, if you go somewhere like Kroger, they misleadingly price everything with their damned "store card" shenanigans that the store brands always appear cheaper, even though they aren't. More on this later. I promise.

"Sales of private-label foods are no longer limited to the historic profile of the low-income and middle-income blue-collar shopper," said Todd Hale, an executive with market research firm ACNielsen. "It is now spreading to high-income households."

Again, see my above comment about increased consumer awareness. Why pay more for a boxed product that is just going to one part of a larger meal where you can't taste the difference in quality? If I'm making beef stroganoff does it really matter if I buy the generic egg noodles? No. I'm not really going to taste them anyway - the cream and butter and ground beef are going to override any taste of the noodles. So why pay a premium for Kraft egg noodles?

In fact, many private-label products are created to be higher-quality options than the national-brand competition, according to Peter Brennan, president of Stamford, Conn.-based Daymon Worldwide, which closely tracks sales of store brands.

"What has changed is the quality of the product," he said. "This is where grocers will have to move if they are to compete effectively."

Horseshit. Prove it. I've had Kroger's Premium Select brand. It's shit. Grocers aren't improving the product, they are re-labelling and re-pricing the old product. And, even if they are improving the old product - WHY?? Consumers want the cheap crap - particularly for low-end, bulk products. And, you know what? Fine, make your fancy "premium" store brand - but leave me the cheap generic so that I can buy it if I want it.

Growing percentage of sales

With the wider customer base that comes with targeting both premium and low-cost shoppers, private-label sales at some mass supermarkets represent as much as 35 percent of sales, according to Brennan.

So? The financial gap in this country is growing. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting (relatively) poorer. Marginal discretionary income is dropping. Workers are losing real money to inflation and cost-of-living increases all around the country. So, consumers are getting smarter with their money. So what? He also doesn't address deceptive pricing by the likes of Kroger and the other large grocers with their "store cards."

Some grocers, such as Cincinnati-based Kroger Stores and San Antonio-based HEB, have diligently developed store brands in an effort to help them take back market share lost in recent years to Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Costco and Trader Joe's--all of which have invested in private labels.

Ninety percent of the products sold at Aldi Foods are private label, while 70 percent of Trader Joe's sales are of private-label products. Two German billionaire brothers own both stores.

Have you ever eaten anything from Aldi? Have you ever been into an Aldi? 90 percent of all Aldis are in economically depressed and blighted areas. Before private brands existed, a stroll through Aldi was only generics. That's what Aldi's is, that's what they do. They sell generics. Except now they put pretty pictures on the box.

With so many retailers in the game, U.S. sales of store brands have more than doubled the growth rate of manufacturer brands--5 percent compared to 2 percent--in the last two years, according to Nielsen.

It's called market saturation. Are you familiar with the concept?

Currently, 25 percent of the U.S. population buys 50 percent of the private-label products being sold. But that is quickly shifting.

And the trend is expected to continue for at least the next five years, Hale said, noting that rising oil prices are going to begin squeezing more than just those people living on fixed incomes.

"Value retailing is winning today and it will be the driving force for the next three to five years," he said.

Hmmm...a semi-intelligent comment. I knew you had it in you.

Retailers that have strong private labels will be able to compete and hold their own against the big boxes, Virginia Simmons, a consultant with McKinsey & Co., told an overflow crowd of supermarket executives at one of the many private-label sessions staged by FMI and Daymon Worldwide.

"Private label is a brand in its own right and needs to be marketed just as the brands," she said.

"Compete and hold their own against big boxes." Let's look at that a little bit. Why are grocers trying to compete against big boxes? Just because Wal-Mart puts food in the store doesn't make it a grocery store. Have you looked at the products in a Wal-Mart? More sodium and shelf-stability than any one person should ever have to consume. That crap will, literally, rot your insides. And grocery stores want to duplicate this? I went in to a Kroger recently and they were selling porch swings. Who the FUCK buys a porch swing at Kroger?!?

Marketing costs also soar

But the need to spend on marketing eats up some of the modest difference in the profit margins. The average profit margin on private-label products is 33 percent before store expenses, while the average profit margin on brand-name products is 29 percent.

Ah. My favorite part - private label pricing; I could write a whole post on this, but I'll try to keep this part short. Let's look at how Kroger does this. You go into Kroger to buy something, let's call it "cheese." I live in Wisconsin (at the time I lived near Wisconsin) so cheese is a pretty popular item. You go find their cheese aisle. And here's what you find: most of it is "Premium Select" brand. Let's say I was looking for a cheddar cheese - it's a semi-soft cheese, that should have some give in the texture, but should be firm. It should have basically two ingredients: milk and yeast. The "Premium Select" brand is soft. Not just "some give" but like firm pillow soft. The "ingredients" are extensive. I manage to find, in the back, a single Wisconsin brand cheese - it is one of the cheaper, lower-quality cheeses, but it looks and feels like real cheddar - and it only has two ingredients. So, I compare the prices. They are priced identically. BUT, the "Premium Select" has a "price reduction" for using the "store card" (you know, that card where I give them all of my personal data so they can track everything I buy and inundate me with crap that I might want because Erin bought some Tampax using my card one day? It's also the personal data that they sell to the highest bidding "partner"). This "price reduction" makes the "Premium Select" cheaper than the Wisconsin brand. I would estimate that 80-90% of humanity will purchase the cheaper of the two - whether through ignorance, or not caring, or some ill-conceived notion of "value" (I mean, they are the same weight, look similar, there doesn't appear to be a difference - only someone who knew what it was supposed to look and feel like in the first place, and cared would even know that they weren't the same). But, if I go to an independent grocer, like "Woodman's" or "Treasure Island" (I know, Woodman's and Treasure Island aren't truly independent, but it's as close as you're going to get these days), you will see that the identical Wisconsin cheese is priced at the exact same price as the "Premium Select" brand with the discount. So, Kroger is over-charging on their non-store-brand products and getting to people to buy their store brand by offering "discounts" via the "store card." So, why do people go to Kroger? Because it's usually closer and people are lazy.

Regardless, private labels are likely to keep growing, if markets in European countries are any indication. European private labels represent 23 percent of sales, on average, or about $246 billion in spending. ACNielsen projects that will grow to $317 billion in 2010.

In Switzerland, 45 percent of the products sold by that country's food stores are private label. In Germany 30 percent are.

Why, particularly, would markets in Europe be any indication? Are they more advanced grocers than us? They don't refrigerate eggs there. Why would I trust what they do in their grocery stores as indicative of what will happen here??

With the growth of private labels growing around the world, many foodmakers are starting to produce for both markets. Mainline manufacturers including Sara Lee Corp., ConAgra Foods Inc., the spicemaker McCormick & Co. and Associated Brands, which manufactures Knox Gelatin, are producing foods bearing labels other than their own.

This should be illegal. Perhaps some other day, I will detail why. Suffice to say if product A and product B are both the exact same product, they should bear the same label to prevent consumer confusion.

Ray Borooah, president of Anaheim-based Harris Tea Co. said all the major supermarket chains are now counting on high-quality private-label products, including tea, to drive their profitability and build customer loyalty.

Rather than the typical Lipton, Celestial Seasonings or Twinnings, Safeway and Kroger have their own specially blended teas, he said.

"Their own specially blended teas"??????? Has the author tasted that crap?? Blending tea leaves with sawdust does not make it a "special blend!"

"The Safeway green tea has a Japanese blend, while Kroger's is from China," he said. It's one way stores try to tailor their blends to their customers' tastes. But experts warned that grocers should not attempt to just copy what the brand names are putting on the shelves of their stores.

"It is not about duplicating brands, but it is about truly innovating," said Simmons. "Distinctive private labeling is a weapon in driving store loyalty."

How about driving store loyalty by offering a knowledgeable, friendly experience in a store where I can buy high-quality, local foods at a reasonable price? I know it can be done - there's a shitload of trucks at every farmer's market in the country that proves it.

----------

jschmeltzer@tribune.com