Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site tellab1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!tellab1!etan
From: etan@tellab1.UUCP (Nate Stelton)
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: who buys generics and storebrand items?
Message-ID: <595@tellab1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 14:43:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: tellab1.595
Posted: Fri Sep 20 14:43:42 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Sep-85 03:45:43 EDT
References: <271@mot.UUCP>
Reply-To: etan@tellab1.UUCP (Nate Stelton)
Organization: Tellabs, Inc., Lisle, IL
Lines: 25

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


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com