A big difference is that you're not paying for the advertising of "name brands".
A big difference is that you're not paying for the advertising of "name brands".
I don't think people would disagree with you about advertising costs being a bit less on the no-name-brand items.
At the same time, you should not forget the lowered quality product, also -- that is involved in that "lower cost" factor, too... LOL...
As you've seen here, on this thread, many FReepers have noticed that lowered quality (including me), to the point where some have "banned" those products from their home -- in that it was so bad.
And yes, you'll find some products where you can't tell the difference, and other products, where you can tell the difference and it's lowered quality, but some people will take the lowered quality product for the price savings.
And then there are those who find it so bad that they wouldn't take it, if it were free... LOL...
That's why a lot of people go for name-brand products... those products "live or die" on the basis of whether people will keep buying it, so they have to be good, or else they will not be around any longer... :-)
BUT... notice that here in this thread, the issue that was being discussed was not whether no-name brands were worth it or not (it's okay if you want to mention it, but that's not what brought up the topic here).
What brought up the topic here -- was that Walmart has discontinued certain name-brand products, and has only stocked their own no-name brand -- only -- and thus, they have shoved certain of their customers "out of Walmart" and right into the hands of Walmart's competitors in order to get the name-brand product that Walmart discontinued.
That's the issue that the main article mentioned and that's the one where I said it was an extremely stupid marketing move on Walmart's behalf to shove their own customers into the hands of their competitors... :-)