Lidl > Waitrose -All your Shopper are belong to us

[Ttaskmaster]

What I said is your analogy wasn't relevant not that I didn't understand it

And what I still say is that you didn't understand it, because you missed the point being made with it.
Unless you're trying to tell me you think it's irrelevant because you actually know who makes which cars, while you only think you know who may make various food brands, which may or may not be of the same recipe??

Actually I feel a little richer for it through saving money but then I always had a thing against marketing during the past 30 years.

Ah, so trying to justify your choice to me, then?
I've already said there are things I prefer about Waitrose over all the others, but you're seemingly trying to prove to me your choice is better because it does what you want rather than what I want... For the record, I shop at Waitrose because it's nicer than Tesco, Asda, Lidl, Aldi, Morrisons, Sainsburys, Co-Op and all the others. M&S is just as fancy, if not fancier, but it's also up its own backside. Budgens is pretty nice, but our local is too small. Cost isn't really a factor as I find most of them are the same price on most things - Benefits of price-matching.

Lidl reportedly spent £78m on advertising in 2015, by the way. Aldi spent £62m, Tesco, Asda and Morrisons spent £64m, £77m and £44m respectively. Good job stickin' it to them!

I didn't need anyone to tell me what's good/bad

And yet you throw the blind taste tests at me... ?
Keep them. I'll decide for my own self, thanks.

I enjoyed my time shopping at Waitrose long before it became popular

Yes, you're the trendsetter. Good for you. How is this relevant? Does shopping at places before they become popular afford you some kind of authority to tell others where they should shop for their own needs?

I just enjoy being ahead of the game just that more.

Who said it was a game?
Maybe that's where your problem lies... You think you're winning because you're better at your game than the people who aren't even playing your game?

I wouldn't class myself as a middle class snob but I've always eat healthily from a young age and enjoyed playing competitive sports.

How is this in any way relevant to what I require and how/where I go about getting it?

Of course, but M&S marketing budget is around £200m.

And Waitrose reportedly spends about £25.8m.... Still feeling richer?

There wasn't a discussion on where you shop related to healthy eating. All what I said is that I was into healthy eating from a young age.

But there was an attempt to skirt around the point being made by dismissing the food named because you don't think it's healthy...

The Waitrose Canary Wharf is probably the best Waitrose store around. I'll be interested to find out if there's a better one for.

Any of them closer to the distribution centres. I understand there's one in Bracknell, which would account for why ours are excellent.

[g8ina]

OK, stop winding each other up, or else.

Last warning.

[Top_gun]

Perhaps instead of assumptions, i should have said "presumptions" ...

"Perhaps" some people define "good at shopping" differently to you. "Perhaps" people shopping at Aldi/LIDL "delude themselves" into thinking their shopping geniuses for buying inferior products at low prices and making themselves feel good about it. Or perhaps not. Perhaps assuming/suggesting/postulating that people shopping at Waitrose are deluded is itself delusional.

I shop at Waitrose for reasons that work for me, as I'm sure most of their customers do without being in the slughtest delusional, and if you don't like shopping there, then don't.

I remember having a conversation with a fashion stylist who said 90 per cent of people are not very good at shopping after being a model for one of her students.

I also had a few issues with work colleagues asking where I buy my clothes from. My standard answer is from the shops but they got really agitated. The most fun came when I ramped up my spending on new clothes and saw my work colleagues' mouth foaming up each time I wore something new. I was also shocked when a woman stamped her stilettos into my shiny new trainers. So I guess watching other people's envy is confirmation that I'm a good shopper.

Still, it quite easy to slander someone as delusional on the internet and most people are willing to accept it on hearsay but honestly to describe me as delusional doesn't reflect me as a person in the real world.

No .... brand names serve one useful function. They imply a degree of consistency in product because many people buy based on brand names, because they always have.

This cuts both ways. Brand names give manufacturers a degree of customer loyalty based on brands but manufacturers are then taking a VERY big chance with that loyalty is they mess too much with formulations, or fail to maintain product quality.

Regardless of what branding means to you, it can be a very valuable asset to a company, and is often a fundamentally important factor in company takeovers, with a very high cash value.

I have regularly tried alternative brwnds, including on occasion, Aldi/LIDL, or Waitrose own brand compared to a brsnd name. Sometimes, I stick with that alternative, sometimes I revert to my long-term brand. But much of the time, I buy a brand I have long bought because it gives me a degree of assurance of consistency.

An dxample would be marmalade. The best I've ever had is the home-brew stuff my dear ol' Mum used to make 50+ years ago. But Wilkins & Sons "Tiptree" comes an acceptable second. Over the years, I've tried probsbly 30 or 40 alternatives, many of them before I found that one, and none come anywhere close.

I've now given up looking, because "Tiptree" is close enough, and life's too short to worry about whether shopping at Aldi might save me 50p or even £1 a jar, because for the 6 to 8 jars a year we use it isn't worth the effort. The Wilkins branding tells me I can exoect a certain taste and quality from the next jar as I got from the last jar and THAT is valuable go me.

Another example is tinned tomatoes. Believe me, not all tinned tomatoes are created equal, and if by sticking to certain brsnds, I KNOW I am getting a certain quality of Italian plum tomato then sticking to that (or a couple of other brands) is very much worthwhile to me. But then, I'm pretty fussy about the taste of my pasta sauces .... except Bolognaise for whkch I use a good concentrate and never, ever tinned.

So, if branding is irrelevant to you, fine, buy any old version of whatever, But for me, on many products, it's about an assurance of quality and perhaps even more importantly, consistency.

Are some unbranded, or unknown brands, as good as "branx" names? Oh, for sure, but unbranded or unkniwn brands can also be cheap rubbish. Do I want to risk ruining a meal with an unknown brand? Not for any savings to be made by shopping af Aldi rather than Waitrose, where I can get brands I want, no.

This sounds like a clear case of confirmation bias to me after reading your post. It'll be interesting to see how you would get on during a blind test where you won't be able to see the branding to affect your judgement.

Years ago, I remember a shop called CM stores on the Kings Road in London who marked up their clothing by 100% and got away with it by convincing people they were paying for quality. So a t-shirt with a price tag of £80 would go for £160 in CM stores. I guess CM stores took advantage of their customer's confirmation bias. The same principal applies to M&S/Waitrose, people see the high prices, nice packaging and they immediately think they're paying for quality without knowing you can get exactly the same product cheaper somewhere else.

I've always bought stuff based on quality rather than brand name over long period of time. And I guess everything you buy is based on branding for example your Le Creuset dish even though there are better products out there.

[SeriousSam]

In regards to branded food companies producing products for own label in supermarkets I have yet to come across one instance where the recipe is the same. Now as taste is subjective the relative "quality" will always be dependent on the individual. However, the own brand products are cheaper to manufacture bar a few occaisions where the retailer "brand standards" mean that the recipe has to be adjusted in a way which makes it harder to produce. The main ones I know of relate to nutritional composition. Though one should never be fooled into thinking that they are healthier, considering the degree to which retailers chase fads irrespective of the scientific validity*.

*Something the government has been equally guilty of doing

[Ttaskmaster]

Now as taste is subjective the relative "quality" will always be dependent on the individual.

As are the needs of the individual which dictate where they shop and why, regardless of how much they cost or how good a shopper they think it makes them...

[big_hairy_rob]

I've tried 'own brand', I've tried 'big brand' and I've tried 'artisan'; I've had products which are better/preferred from all three categories.

I like Kellogg's Rice Crispies and Cornflakes, because to me they taste better than any own brand or artisan product; this does not mean that my preference extends to other Kellogg's products (negating the monopoly of brands). I have a similar preference with Warburton's thickcut 'White' bread (for toasting); however, I have found that either Sainsbury's and Co-op offer the best 'store fresh' baked bread, while Aldi making my preferred bread for sandwiches. To put it simply, I can work out what product I prefer, and then buy that.

What this shows is that no one supermarket or company makes the best product. People may argue that value should be key, but for me, I have realised that taste and longevity is more important for. While I enjoy the odd artisan luxury, again this whittles down to taste; and It's amazing how small the difference here often is...

I just wish that the value supermarkets (Aldi/Lidel I'm looking at you) would stop advertising price matching against branded products, as the advertised cost savings are really misleading.

[Zak33]

I just wish that the value supermarkets (Aldi/Lidel I'm looking at you) would stop advertising price matching against branded products, as the advertised cost savings are really misleading.

agreed entirely

[Top_gun]

In regards to branded food companies producing products for own label in supermarkets I have yet to come across one instance where the recipe is the same. Now as taste is subjective the relative "quality" will always be dependent on the individual. However, the own brand products are cheaper to manufacture bar a few occaisions where the retailer "brand standards" mean that the recipe has to be adjusted in a way which makes it harder to produce. The main ones I know of relate to nutritional composition. Though one should never be fooled into thinking that they are healthier, considering the degree to which retailers chase fads irrespective of the scientific validity*.

*Something the government has been equally guilty of doing

I'd say there are branded companies who don't actually have manufacturing facilities. For example McBride makes mouth wash for Listerine as well as for Aldi/Lidl. It really comes down to the terms of the contract and what the supermarkets specify. For example the supermarket can specify how much chocolate to include on the biscuits.

There are some supermarkets with exclusive ranges. For example Tesco's Pure filtered milk uses a more advance filtration process than the brand leader Cravendale. And incidentally taste better too with a much cheaper price.

It's also rumoured that Kellogs makes Aldi own brand cereals. I can't confirm the taste quality as I don't buy cereals. I prefer making my own breakfast from scratch.

Brands these days are very much overrated and I can never forget the joke that fake thai Levi jeans were actually better quality than the originals.

Whether SeriousSam is telling the truth about brands is pretty much subjective. There's an argument for his self-interests since he works in the food industry.

[Top_gun]

I've tried 'own brand', I've tried 'big brand' and I've tried 'artisan'; I've had products which are better/preferred from all three categories.

I like Kellogg's Rice Crispies and Cornflakes, because to me they taste better than any own brand or artisan product; this does not mean that my preference extends to other Kellogg's products (negating the monopoly of brands). I have a similar preference with Warburton's thickcut 'White' bread (for toasting); however, I have found that either Sainsbury's and Co-op offer the best 'store fresh' baked bread, while Aldi making my preferred bread for sandwiches. To put it simply, I can work out what product I prefer, and then buy that.

What this shows is that no one supermarket or company makes the best product. People may argue that value should be key, but for me, I have realised that taste and longevity is more important for. While I enjoy the odd artisan luxury, again this whittles down to taste; and It's amazing how small the difference here often is...

Well that's the concept of cherry picking for the best products. Also there are some artisan products where you struggle to find extra quality but there are some like the 21 year aged Guyanese Rum at £40 a bottle completely blows the supermarket rum out of the water.

[MLyons]

Probably because you spend too much time on Hexus!

No such thing. Only on Hexus do you get arguments about the quality of * supermarkets.

[peterb]

Whether SeriousSam is telling the truth about brands is pretty much subjective. There's an argument for his self-interests since he works in the food industry.

No, it's entirely objective - he either is telling the truth or or isn't, and as he works in the food industry, his comments are probably more authoratitive than anyone else's. He has no particular axe to grind - he hasn't named any brands, so it is rather surprising that you are implying that he is not telling the truth, on no evidence whatsoever.

[SeriousSam]

I'd say there are branded companies who don't actually have manufacturing facilities. For example McBride makes mouth wash for Listerine as well as for Aldi/Lidl. It really comes down to the terms of the contract and what the supermarkets specify. For example the supermarket can specify how much chocolate to include on the biscuits.

There are some supermarkets with exclusive ranges. For example Tesco's Pure filtered milk uses a more advance filtration process than the brand leader Cravendale. And incidentally taste better too with a much cheaper price.

It's also rumoured that Kellogs makes Aldi own brand cereals. I can't confirm the taste quality as I don't buy cereals. I prefer making my own breakfast from scratch.

Brands these days are very much overrated and I can never forget the joke that fake thai Levi jeans were actually better quality than the originals.

Whether SeriousSam is telling the truth about brands is pretty much subjective. There's an argument for his self-interests since he works in the food industry.

That would be the self interest of working for an independent company that supplies supermarkets with their own brand products... nice try.

That's not to say I haven't worked for brands, as I have been employed by a number of them over the years. So I actually have experience from both perspectives.

In any case I was referring to own label versions of branded products produced by the brand owner, not alternatives which can be produced without legal infringement. Biscuits for example fall into both categories, so yes in that case the supermarket can and do specify the amount of chocolate they want on their digestives. However, in the majority of cases they are consmer tested against other supermarkets products rather than the brand. Mainly because they can't afford the cost of some ingredients. Getting back to my point, the reason brands produce own label products is to conserve market share against cheaper non-similar alternatives. If enough people trade down from say cornflakes to another generic breakfast cereal due to cost. Then it is in their best interests to supply a cheaper version of cornflakes.

Personally I wouldn't go as far as to say that brands are over-rated. However, I do agree that there is a propensity to attach to much value on the image rather than the product. As with all thing you have to take them on a case by case basis.

[Top_gun]

No, it's entirely objective - he either is telling the truth or or isn't, and as he works in the food industry, his comments are probably more authoratitive than anyone else's. He has no particular axe to grind - he hasn't named any brands, so it is rather surprising that you are implying that he is not telling the truth, on no evidence whatsoever.

To be honest, I personally don't believe SeriousSam's comments. That's because I know the supermarkets have upped their game on their own label premium brands like Sainsbury's taste the difference, Tesco finest, etc for the last eight years and considered a level above on branded items. These supermarkets have far too much buying power and often dictate suppliers on their terms. They even charge the brands just to stock the items on their shelves.

His comments may be authoritative to you based on your knowledge of the food industry but not to me hence why I was deliberate in the use of subjective word. Another person from the food industry may well have a different view to SeriousSam.

As for evidence, you've conveniently overlooked my evidence on the supermarket own label products being better than the brand leader in order to suit your argument.

[Top_gun]

That would be the self interest of working for an independent company that supplies supermarkets with their own brand products... nice try.

No, more like protecting your interest when you move to a new position in the industry.

In any case I was referring to own label versions of branded products produced by the brand owner, not alternatives which can be produced without legal infringement. Biscuits for example fall into both categories, so yes in that case the supermarket can and do specify the amount of chocolate they want on their digestives. However, in the majority of cases they are consmer tested against other supermarkets products rather than the brand. Mainly because they can't afford the cost of some ingredients. Getting back to my point, the reason brands produce own label products is to conserve market share against cheaper non-similar alternatives. If enough people trade down from say cornflakes to another generic breakfast cereal due to cost. Then it is in their best interests to supply a cheaper version of cornflakes.

Personally I wouldn't go as far as to say that brands are over-rated. However, I do agree that there is a propensity to attach to much value on the image rather than the product. As with all thing you have to take them on a case by case basis.

When you say the supermarkets are not able to afford the more quality ingredients, do you actually mean is that the supermarkets do not want to let go of their profit margin while the discounters have more scope for higher quality ingredients thanks to them being a more efficient retailer.

[TheAnimus]

As for evidence, you've conveniently overlooked my evidence on the supermarket own label products being better than the brand leader in order to suit your argument.

The problem is "better" is subjective.

Some people might prefer a brand of chopped tomatoes because it's got sugar in. Others might despise it because it's got sugar in. We all have our disagreements.

[peterb]

As for evidence, you've conveniently overlooked my evidence on the supermarket own label products being better than the brand leader in order to suit your argument.

That's because you haven't offered any, you have just given an opinion, which is perfectly valid. But as its a subjective opinion that is based on your taste buds, its not really worth comment.

SeriousSam's comment about the same mfr making own brand products to different recipes for different companies is well known and has featured on several documentaries about food production.