r/Anticonsumption • u/RainyDay905 • 20d ago

Corporations Time to ditch Poppi

Post image

Poppi is now owned by a mega corporation. The quality is probably going to go down. Time to ditch it.

9.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

446 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.4k

u/Zeikos 20d ago

Yeah, unless there is a very stringent anti-trust regulatory framework dominant market players are going to buy out their competition.

180

u/SelfHostingNewb 20d ago

Monopsony is ruining the country and world because people don't recognize them as much as outright monopolies and they're not regulated nearly enough.

403

u/Not_Bears 20d ago

Sounds like you just hate freedom!!!

/s

101

u/Sad-Needleworker3880 20d ago

and 'free' market

-5

u/my_spidey_sense 20d ago

lol wut? These people were not forced to sell. They thought 2 billion was a fair price to betray their “mission” and customer base. How the hell is Pepsi at fault here

-34

u/NetJnkie 20d ago edited 20d ago

No one forces them to sell.

Edit: This sub loves downvoting actual facts.....

53

u/FriskyTurtle 20d ago

True, but then the big company copies you, undersells you at a loss until you run out of money, then buys your corpse, like what happened to diapers.com.

-23

u/NetJnkie 20d ago

It would be cheaper to undercut Poppi than pay $2B for them so obviously they see some value here beyond just copying the product.

38

u/FitForce2656 20d ago

It would be cheaper to undercut Poppi than pay $2B for them

No it wouldn't. It's way easier to buy market share than to earn it with a brand new copycat product that could fail. And even if its wildly succeessful, it still likely won't entirely take over the other brands marketshare, at best it will just cut into it a bit.

-23

u/NetJnkie 20d ago

I never said easier. I said cheaper.

20

u/AttitudeAndEffort2 20d ago

And you're wrong.

Again, it costs more than 2 billion to get that market share and the added value of eliminating a competitor.

They wouldn't do it otherwise.

I swear, capitalists don't even know how the systems they defend operate.

I guess if they did, they wouldn't be capitalists.

-5

u/NetJnkie 20d ago

PepsiCo already has massive manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and logistics operations. They aren't starting from zero. They can do a LOT to launch a new brand with $2B.

They are buying the existing market and brand. But they could do it again for less. It would just take longer and be more of a gamble. You act like I don't understand these things but I bet I have far more experience.

It's just easier for people here to upvote "I canceled Amazon!@!~!@" then to actually engage in a discussion.

11

u/MangahMinX 20d ago

Because PepsiCo is a ~$200B company. While $2B is massively life changing for the founders of Poppi, it hardly makes a scratch for PepsiCo, heck they bought Poppi for less than what they spent on marketing and turned what could be a PR nightmare if they simply drove Poppi out of business into a success story.

Besides, these deals typically don't happen without having armies of people verifying it is a worthwhile purchase, meaning: can they make back on their investment in a short amount of time.

3

u/Zeikos 20d ago

You have to account for the opportunity cost of having a competitor operating in the market.
Even if replicating the product would be cheaper for PepsiCo the fact that they'd be operating with a competitor present it'd slow down the ROI.
By buying the company they get the IP, the production infrastructure and most of the customers.

1

u/NetJnkie 20d ago

Yeah. Which was in my original point. It was worth it to buy them due to other considerations.

4

u/AttitudeAndEffort2 20d ago

If only there were some massive, notable examples of this model being drastically dangerous while reaping fewer profits that was taught in business school...

Hey, remember when Yahoo turned down buying Google? ...Twice?

But I'm sure that starting from 0 going up against a brand with notable market share and clawing for space from them that even if you succeed you will ALWAYS share makes more sense than buying them out and having a monopoly.

Have a competitor with massive market share and i have zero? And we always have to share the market that exists?

Vs.

Have a monopoly and own the entire market without any consumer acquisition costs (notably the most expensive part of running a company, as they teach day one in business school)?

Real tough decision there, i wonder why everyone keeps picking the second? 🤔

0

u/NetJnkie 20d ago

Must be too young to remember Altavista. The incumbent doesn't always win or buy out competition.

6

u/FriskyTurtle 20d ago

Sure, but that's a separate point. I was saying what would likely happen if Poppi refused to sell at any price. Pepsi has two strategies: buy out, or destroy. When faced with that choice as the other company, it's hardly much of a choice.

15

u/Rawesome16 20d ago

And look at this who refuse to sell to say, Amazon : Amazon will copy your product, sell theirs for cheaper, and bury your product and call theirs Amazon's Choice or whatever it is now.

Does that sound like a good choice to you?

-3

u/NetJnkie 20d ago

Amazon Basics are just rebranded OEM items. Amazon makes nothing. If Amazon wanted a Poppi copy they'd talk to Poppi and rebrand it.

Again. No one forces a business to sell. So you can blame....whatever....but it's on the owners that do it. And it's easy to say you wouldn't but you don't have that offer in front of you.

6

u/Rawesome16 20d ago

I'll try one last time to explain the lack of choice here :

I will give you a bionic leg but I'm taking your real leg. Or you can ignore my kind offer and I'm taking your leg anyways.

Nobody is making you give up your real leg. But if you don't accept my "choice" you are worse off

0

u/NetJnkie 20d ago

What an odd analogy. You assume anyone can just be undercut and driven out of business. No way could PepsiCo easily build the market and fanbase that Poppi has organically in any reasonable time.

Things likie this aren't nearly as simple and easy as you make them out to be.

But this sub only really likes simple and easy. Complex topics and replies get downvoted.

4

u/Rawesome16 20d ago

Pepsi has time to undercut people. Why do you think this needs to happen instantly to be a successful tactic? Seems silly to believe this happens overnight or not at all. Enjoy the rest of your day redditor, I've spent all the time with you that I'm willing to

1

u/NetJnkie 20d ago

Never said it had to be quickly. You're all over the place here.