Stores don’t sell your favorite product anymore. That’s on purpose

[ZLoth]

From CNN:

Stores don't sell your favorite product anymore. That's on purpose

Pepperoni was getting out of hand at Hormel.

The food giant last year was selling 71 different versions of its Hormel Pepperoni brand. There was diced pepperoni. Turkey pepperoni. Mini-slices of turkey pepperoni. Pepperoni sticks. Pepperoni with 50% less sodium. Pepperoni with 25% less fat. Thick-sliced pepperoni. The list goes on.

But Hormel is removing, consolidating or repackaging 25% of the items as part of a company-wide strategy to prune unprofitable items across dozens of its brands like Spam, Applegate and Jennie-O, the company said in June. Around 80% of Hormel's profit comes from a small number of products, like Hormel Bacon and Fire Braised-brand meats, while the rest of its tens of thousands of items often drive up costs and sit untouched in warehouses and on shelves for long periods.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

[GaryV]

Must be a slow news day. Is anyone really surprised that if not enough of a product is sold, it is discontinued?

[SectorZ]

It's as if CNN hires people that don't understand how the basic parts of the economy work.

[hotdogPi]

I've heard that the reason companies did sell different types before even if they lose money is so that it fills more shelf space so competitors can't get their brands on the market.

If this no longer applies, something must have changed.

[formulanone]

I've heard that the reason companies did sell different types before even if they lose money is so that it fills more shelf space so competitors can't get their brands on the market.

If this no longer applies, something must have changed.

After you've squeezed out the competition, there's no reason to continue to lose profits. I figure this has been going on since the dawn of capitalism playing to differentiation.

Also CNN: continue to buy more and different objects through our "Underscored" area which looks like news but thinly veiled advertising; don't forget to put it all on that new credit card offer that has FOMO in the big print, but desperate restrictions and yearly fees in the small print.

[Max Rockatansky]

Must be a slow news day. Is anyone really surprised that if not enough of a product is sold, it is discontinued?

More interesting to me than 99% of the news stories I see nowadays.

[jeffandnicole]

It's as if CNN hires people that don't understand how the basic parts of the economy work.

Sounds like much of the media in general. They don't need to have knowledge. They just need to get people in an uproar.

[ZLoth]

Sounds like much of the media in general. They don't need to have knowledge. They just need to get people in an uproar.

Anything to attract eyeballs to the all-important advertising and, oh yeah, the actual programming.

[vdeane]

I've heard that the reason companies did sell different types before even if they lose money is so that it fills more shelf space so competitors can't get their brands on the market.

If this no longer applies, something must have changed.

Maybe it's been a sign of the extent of market consolidation.  If you now own most of your "competitors", there's no need to crowd them off the shelf.

COVID might be a factor too.  During the pandemic, many product varieties were discontinued to simplify production and keep supply chains, though still strained, from being as bad as they were in March 2020.  If they found that the money spent on the other varieties was actually more than the amount made from pushing competitors aside, then the trend would continue.

[bandit957]

Yet our stores around here haven't sold Hormel in years. They sell some crappy brand instead.

So sick of not being able to get anything around here.

[mgk920]

IMHO, this is yet another beyond scathing indictment of the estate ('death') tax - over the long term, it works to efficiently eliminate the big conglomerates' scrappy small, often family owned, competitors.  How?  As the small companies' patriarchs die, their heirs must raise the funds needed to pay that tax.  This is often done by (reluctantly) selling off valuable assets of those companies.  The big conglomerates then buy them up.  When a major shareholder of a big conglomerate dies, his or her HEIRS have to pay that tax on his or her shares, but the big conglomerate itself continues on without skipping a beat.  This plays out over many decades, resulting in what you see today.  It is a very sad process, indeed.

Mike

[formulanone]

IMHO, this is yet another beyond scathing indictment of the estate ('death') tax - over the long term, it works to efficiently eliminate the big conglomerates' scrappy small, often family owned, competitors.  How?  As the small companies' patriarchs die, their heirs must raise the funds needed to pay that tax.  This is often done by (reluctantly) selling off valuable assets of those companies.  The big conglomerates then buy them up.  When a major shareholder of a big conglomerate dies, his or her HEIRS have to pay that tax on his or her shares, but the big conglomerate itself continues on without skipping a beat.  This plays out over many decades, resulting in what you see today.  It is a very sad process, indeed.

Mike

1) Taxes are highest on cash-in-bank, and it's not the same for tiny businesses as medium-to-large ones. Anyone with that much wealth puts in a trust or passes on wealth incrementally to avoid large tax burden hassles. Stop being disingenuous about this subject.

2) Whatever happened to working hard and earning it? Does it only apply to those who do not have a massive inheritance or accumulated wealth?

3) Many descendants have varying interest in taking up the family business.

[mgk920]

IMHO, this is yet another beyond scathing indictment of the estate ('death') tax - over the long term, it works to efficiently eliminate the big conglomerates' scrappy small, often family owned, competitors.  How?  As the small companies' patriarchs die, their heirs must raise the funds needed to pay that tax.  This is often done by (reluctantly) selling off valuable assets of those companies.  The big conglomerates then buy them up.  When a major shareholder of a big conglomerate dies, his or her HEIRS have to pay that tax on his or her shares, but the big conglomerate itself continues on without skipping a beat.  This plays out over many decades, resulting in what you see today.  It is a very sad process, indeed.

Mike

1) Taxes are highest on cash-in-bank, and it's not the same for tiny businesses as medium-to-large ones. Anyone with that much wealth puts in a trust or passes on wealth incrementally to avoid large tax burden hassles. Stop being disingenuous about this subject.

2) Whatever happened to working hard and earning it? Does it only apply to those who do not have a massive inheritance or accumulated wealth?

3) Many descendants have varying interest in taking up the family business.

I stand by my words.

Mike

[SEWIGuy]

Taxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.

[hbelkins]

Taxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.

Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?

[vdeane]

Taxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.

Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?

Counterpoint: why should people get an extra advantage just because they were lucky enough to have rich parents?

[SEWIGuy]

Taxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.

Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?

Because it's good for society at large.

[Max Rockatansky]

Can't say I'm a fan of taxing the estate of the dead.  That income (if obtained legally) was already taxed.  Taxing it again post-mortem is just government double dipping. 

And yes, I have received an inheritance once.  It was after my mother's death in Florida circa 2015.  It wasn't anywhere close to being something that would make one "rich" and I obviously I would prefer she was alive (lung cancer).  All the same, the lack of a state level estate tax allowed me and my siblings to decide what to do with everything (basically just reinvested it) in a relatively straight forward manner.  Probably didn't hurt that mom had her will written out well before she got sick and there wasn't in the way of probate.

[SEWIGuy]

The current estate tax exemption is something like $13 million for an individual and $26 million for a couple. Getting rid of it would cost the federal government more than $20 billion annually.

And most estate taxes are not made up of income that would be double taxed, but unrealized gains that have not been. Furthermore, since realized capital gains and dividend income is taxed lower than earned income, and that's often the primary source of income for the wealthiest among us, I don't think an estate tax is all that "unfair" in that regard.

[SectorZ]

The current estate tax exemption is something like $13 million for an individual and $26 million for a couple. Getting rid of it would cost the federal government more than $20 billion annually.

And most estate taxes are not made up of income that would be double taxed, but unrealized gains that have not been. Furthermore, since realized capital gains and dividend income is taxed lower than earned income, and that's often the primary source of income for the wealthiest among us, I don't think an estate tax is all that "unfair" in that regard.

Would you reconsider if we taxed capital gains the same as income? I am all for that, and in fact would even reverse it a bit because working for money should not be penalized over accumulating it.

[SEWIGuy]

The current estate tax exemption is something like $13 million for an individual and $26 million for a couple. Getting rid of it would cost the federal government more than $20 billion annually.

And most estate taxes are not made up of income that would be double taxed, but unrealized gains that have not been. Furthermore, since realized capital gains and dividend income is taxed lower than earned income, and that's often the primary source of income for the wealthiest among us, I don't think an estate tax is all that "unfair" in that regard.

Would you reconsider if we taxed capital gains the same as income? I am all for that, and in fact would even reverse it a bit because working for money should not be penalized over accumulating it.

I would not. No one is getting penalized for over accumulating anything. The person who did the accumulating is dead, and their heirs didn't "work for money."

[hbelkins]

You're forgetting state inheritance and estate taxes. I've mentioned this before, but nearly 25 years ago, I was the executor of the estate of my mom's first cousin. He was not married, had no children, and his will split his estate among three relatives, with a couple of items going to my dad.

He had retired, lived frugally, and had a modest amount of savings. I had to write a check to the Commonwealth of Kentucky for $45,000 before his heirs received a dime.

That's beyond highway robbery if you ask me.

[mgk920]

Taxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.

Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?

Because it's good for society at large.

How so?

Mike

[mgk920]

A further item that is on my radar screen, In light of the USSupremes' 'Chevron' ruling from earlier this year, What if some little guy or gal similarly makes a federal case out of the imposition of the income tax, claiming that the feds have to cover all of his or her costs of complying with the law, and the Supremes side with the plaintiff, rendering 16A unenforceable?

Mike

[LilianaUwU]

Taxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.

Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?

Because it's good for society at large.

I disagree. As Max said, that income was already taxed to hell and back.