Fraudulent Marketing??

[Deleted User]

Thank you for all of your comment - for clarification:

1: They sell B2B - however aren’t they potentially breaching?

The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008

2: They also sell a floor cleaning machine - the claim is that the more expensive cleaner works better with their machine (better at removing stains) however if both cleaners are identical then isn’t this misleading?

Regardless of whether they have broken any actual laws presumably it would damage their brand and reputation if the above info was published?

Also - if you’re customer A and you find out that customer B pays 50% less than you for the exact same service (and in lots of instances actually places fewer orders per year) then wouldn’t this irk you? (Imagine this situation multiplied by about 2,000 customers)

user1977

[Deleted User] said:

Also - if you’re customer A and you find out that customer B pays 50% less than you for the exact same service (and in lots of instances actually places fewer orders per year) then wouldn’t this irk you? (Imagine this situation multiplied by about 2,000 customers)

Nobody has a right not to be irked. There will be countless situations where one customer pays more than another - that's perfectly normal and legal in itself (even if it were a consumer contract).

ArbitraryRandom

[Deleted User] said:

Thank you for all of your comment - for clarification:

1: They sell B2B - however aren’t they potentially breaching?

The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008

2: They also sell a floor cleaning machine - the claim is that the more expensive cleaner works better with their machine (better at removing stains) however if both cleaners are identical then isn’t this misleading?

Regardless of whether they have broken any actual laws presumably it would damage their brand and reputation if the above info was published?

You would really have to give us a link to the two products in question as the specific details are what matters re if something is misleading - what's the exact wording of the claim and how is it presented on the page? 

The article I linked to gave several examples of how the same product can be sold under different names/brands and prices, and each can have its own description which might differ/claim to be the 'best' at various things without it being unlawful (and that's selling to customers, which is more tightly regulated than B2B). 

And, honestly, if it was 'published' anywhere, I'd expect it's the NHS (or depending on the paper the Government) that would be criticised for buying the more expensive version and 'wasting tax payer money'. 

Also - if you’re customer A and you find out that customer B pays 50% less than you for the exact same service (and in lots of instances actually places fewer orders per year) then wouldn’t this irk you? (Imagine this situation multiplied by about 2,000 customers)

Again, B2B it's quite common for the same products to be sold for different prices to different customers and it can be for sensible procurement reasons when you look at the deal as a whole - for example, the NHS might have negotiated pens cheaper than the care home, but pencils are more expensive because they don't actually need many pencils... 

Generally in a B2B situation, If someone of a comparable size/purchasing power has a 'better' (not just different) deal than you then that means you need to review your procurement processes and improve your negotiating skills. 

TELLIT01

There have been a number of programmes recently highlighting the fact that the manufacturer of 'brand name' products often also produce 'own brand' version of the same item.  Sometimes on the same production line.  It is certainly true that 'own brand' pharmaceuticals and 'brand name' versions have exactly the same make up, as is required by law.  Is it being suggested that all pharmaceutical companies and retailers are acting fraudulently?

ArbitraryRandom

TELLIT01 said:

It is certainly true that 'own brand' pharmaceuticals and 'brand name' versions have exactly the same make up, as is required by law. 

That's not actually accurate - They have to have the same active ingredients, but they can be different shapes/colours (aka manufacturing processes) and have different 'filler' ingredients, like flavourings or preservatives. 

The important point is that any 'own brand' versions of products don't necessarily HAVE to be different than 'branded' versions under the law (other than where required by copyright etc). 

DullGreyGuy

ArbitraryRandom said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

user1977 said:

how is this any different from, say, a supermarket own-brand product made on the same production line as the premium branded equivalent?

The supermarket own brand will be made to the supermarket's own recipe making the product ever so slightly different, a tiny tweak to the recipe may shave pennies off the production cost saving the supermarket a lot of money over time and the consumer will accept the difference because a) it's cheaper b) we very quickly adapt to new tastes forgetting what we experienced before. 

Equally the branded product is priced off the back of brand recognition rather than 2 identical items with the same branding and one being labelled "premium".

To be fair, I assumed the two floor cleaners are branded the same and that may not be the case, if it isn't whilst the staff member may claim they are the same there may be very slight differences in the quality of the materials or manufacturing process that aren't particularly noticeable during use but perhaps create, even if marginal, a better cleaning result or cause the product to have a longer life.

That's not my understanding of 'white label' products... AFAIK, there doesn't need to be any material difference (hence the link I posted upthread about this being common marketing practice).

There doesn't need to be but there often will be, particularly if the company sells direct to consumers as well as offering white labelling services. It can be more profitable to make for others and sell wholesale to large players than spend time and money in developing your own brand and distribution channels but having made that investment you typically won't want to cannibalise it with white label. 

White label can certainly also involve the donor brand having input in the design... a well known Scottish jumper manufacturer allows you to buy their products and put your name on it (other than their top line) or you can bring your own design, even your own wool and they'll make them to your specifications. Those may challenge the quality of their own brand but the design will never be identical. 

When Tesco white labeled Direct Line's insurance offering they did want some changes to the policy but also wanted club card number to be a rating factor for them which was clearly unique to their policies. 


To the original post, it was very unclear who is applying the "plus" name to some of the items and the price hike. The fact the description is the same doesn't mean that there isnt a difference. In recently purchasing a "plus" version I was struggling to see what the updates were as all the big marketing messages were identical and so I was assuming its probably just newer ADC circuitry but only when finding a review of the two products did they mention that the old one was 16 bit and the plus is 24 bit and some general improvements to the electronics. It's not written on either box though. 

ArbitraryRandom

DullGreyGuy said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

user1977 said:

how is this any different from, say, a supermarket own-brand product made on the same production line as the premium branded equivalent?

The supermarket own brand will be made to the supermarket's own recipe making the product ever so slightly different, a tiny tweak to the recipe may shave pennies off the production cost saving the supermarket a lot of money over time and the consumer will accept the difference because a) it's cheaper b) we very quickly adapt to new tastes forgetting what we experienced before. 

Equally the branded product is priced off the back of brand recognition rather than 2 identical items with the same branding and one being labelled "premium".

To be fair, I assumed the two floor cleaners are branded the same and that may not be the case, if it isn't whilst the staff member may claim they are the same there may be very slight differences in the quality of the materials or manufacturing process that aren't particularly noticeable during use but perhaps create, even if marginal, a better cleaning result or cause the product to have a longer life.

That's not my understanding of 'white label' products... AFAIK, there doesn't need to be any material difference (hence the link I posted upthread about this being common marketing practice).

There doesn't need to be but there often will be...

Agreed, but the relevant point for the OP is it's not legally fraudulent or deceptive if there isn't and I'd suggest that depending on the specific product there's just as often no difference (I think own brand processed food is much more likely to have a variation than pens, for example - and cleaning products probably fall somewhere in the middle). 

RefluentBeans

[Deleted User] said:

Also - if you’re customer A and you find out that customer B pays 50% less than you for the exact same service (and in lots of instances actually places fewer orders per year) then wouldn’t this irk you? (Imagine this situation multiplied by about 2,000 customers)

You can be frustrated by it - but if you’re customer A and find customer B has negotiated a better deal, then you should probably try to negotiate a better deal yourself. Ultimately it’s a B2B company, not consumer rights. B2B contracts are complex, and much more so than consumer contracts - that’s what the corporate legal system makes their money with! If you feel a law has been broken, you unfortunately can’t sue unless you’ve been damaged by that. Given you’ve been told the products are ‘identical’ I think it would be foolish to try and say they were trying to dupe you, and I think any claim would be hard to prove. 

In regards to pricing differences - that’s the way the cookie crumbles. As long as they’re not changing prices based on protected characteristics (for example different prices for different genders) then I think it’s just on you to negotiate. 

Also worth remembering if you buy this machine from them, and it’s treated like a B2B sale, you lose the rights that come with consumer rights protection (especially the faulty product components of the act). May be fine if you have a warranty but even then the devils in the detail. 

Jonboy_1984

We see this at work occasionally as a specialist wholesaler, something comes into fashion and two or three of our branded suppliers launch the same item, often from the same Asian factory, under their branding and at different price points (and we then have different landing costs depending on where in the world each brand are based). As we have differing costs we have differing prices.

Some consumers want the lowest price version, others want to stick to the brand they trust, or avoid one they don’t like (or in some cases are loyal to the particular influencers they worship!).

The different brands also offer different levels of support for their items. 

MobileSaver

[Deleted User] said:

Thank you for all of your comment - for clarification:

1: They sell B2B - however aren’t they potentially breaching The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008?

No-one here can answer that question without knowing the specifics of the products in question. If you provide a link to the two products then you may get more informative answers.

There could be 101 reasons why customer A pays more than customer B for the exact same product and none of those reasons will be illegal. Turn this around, do you think a B2B supplier should be forced by law to sell their products at the exact same price to every one of their customers?

Regarding your main issue though, the famous and pertinent quote is "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." Is the employee who claimed the products are identical a high-level executive who would have that confidential insider knowledge or are they a low-level staff member who may simply be mistaken?