Random questions

[Campaigns | Ilraon]

What would happen if companies weren't allowed to grow past a certain size?
I'm always confused that big companies own tons of different brands, to the point you don't realize it's the same single company behind them anyway (eg in supermarkets). I find it deceiving.

On a much less radical scale, what if companies had to put their "master" logo on the face-side of every product they sell instead of the logo of the specific brand (eg Nestlé instead of Milka or Brown-Forman corporation instead of Jack Daniel's)?

[Mia]

I always thought it was insane how many chip/crisp brands were owned by Frito-Lay until I realized that Frito-Lay is a subsidiary of PepsiCo. Then there's KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, all owned by Yum! Brands, which is another subsidiary of PepsiCo.

I think it's funny that the A&W restaurants are owned by PepsiCo, primarily known as a beverage company. While the A&W beverage is owned by Kraft, primarily known as a food company. Not only does that seem backwards, but why are they owned by two separate companies in the first place?

Also, fun fact: Purina, the dog food, is owned by Nestle. So is Friskies, the cat food. Why does a primarily chocolate company feel the need to own pet foods?

Gosh I love talking about companies. I could ramble on about them forever, but no one would care to read paragraphs of me rambling about them.

[Uptight 534]

With alcohol, almost every individual company (brewery, distillery, etc.) is owned by a conglomerate. The unofficial drink of Ireland/St. Patrick’s Day, Guinness, is owned by English conglomerate Diageo. Jameson Irish Whiskey is owned by the French company, Pernod Ricard.

In the United States, the two rival beer companies, Miller and Coors, are owned by the same parent company, MillerCoors.

[Campaigns | Ilraon]

So, do you have any thoughts on the two questions I raised?

[Camer the Dragon]

For sure products should require the master company logo thing (also the name)

The issue with enforcing "can't grow past a certain size" is what size and in what measure

[Uptight 534]

So, do you have any thoughts on the two questions I raised?

Regarding using the parent company's logo as the primary on the merchandise, I do not think consumers would care too much. I think they would still understand the sub-brand that is being sold, since (I assume) most people know products are owned by parent companies. It may just make them more aware about big conglomerates.

In terms of growing past a certain size, that is super hard to enforce, especially internationally. Yeah, there are anti-monopoly laws, but you still see monopolies today (at least in the United States). Personally, I think companies would find loopholes and continue to grow. Plus, the population continues to grow, so, naturally, companies have to grow.

[Lego-man945]

For sure products should require the master company logo thing (also the name)

The issue with enforcing "can't grow past a certain size" is what size and in what measure

On the back of basically any packaged item next to the ingredients is a list of the chain of command all the way to the parent company.

The U.S. has laws against monopolies, so I would assume there are already limits on how big they can get in certain areas. @"Mystery" This is probably the reason for the companies to branch out into other markets since they are nearing that mark in some areas.