Another argument for advertised goods is that the jobber cannot control the quality of his goods if Ile does not make them in his own factories. He buys the same line of branded goods, often, from several different factories, and this practice, it is said, must necessarily result in lack of uniformity. Or Ile is likely to change factories every season, and the qual ity of his goods, therefore, is made subject to the willingness and ability of a number of different man ufacturers to live up to the specifications of the job ber.
In this connection it is well to say, once more, a word of caution against accepting the claims of ex clusive merit for their goods made both by national advertisers and by private branders. The charge that the jobber who has goods put up for him by the manufacturer cannot control the quality of those goods is not valid. The better class of private brand jobbers certainly exercise the closest possible super vision over both the raw materials that go into their products and the processes of manufacture. Some privately branded goods are not what they might be in the matter of quality, but if the jobber wants qual ity he can get it and keep it just as well as the ad vertising manufacturer.
17. Manufacturer of private brands hurts him manufacturer who is willing to put his product under the brands of jobbers is following a practice, it is maintained, that will result ultimately to his disadvantage. If a manufacturer sells some of his goods under his ONVII name and some of them under the names of one or more jobbers or retailers, he is helping to arouse distrust of advertising among con sumers who learn that the same goods are sold at one price under the manufacturer's label and at another price under the dealer's private brand.
On the other hand, if a manufacturer sells all his product to private brand dealers, he may be laying up trouble for himself. Instances in which the jobber refuses to renew the agreement, leaving the manu facturer with a factory, expensive equipment, a big payroll, but absolutely no developed market and no sales force, are not infrequent. They cause many manufacturers to consider seriously the advisability of trade-marking their own goods, of creating a steady market for them, and of conducting business in general in such a way that every bit of good-will developed by their goods will be good-will for tbem instead of for the dealer.
18. Should all goods bear manufacturers' names? —Some interests have at various times sought to les sen the influence of private brands, if not to eliminate them, by attempting to obtain legislative action re quiring the manufacturer's name to appear on every manufactured article. It is maintained that this will definitely fix responsibility for the quality of all goods, and will tend to decrease the number of pri vate brands because dealers will not care to put out their own brands if, at the same time, they must pub lish the fact that they arc not the actual manufac turers.
It is difficult to see how a statutory requirement of this sort would bring the expected results or would aid the public in any material way. A.lost people un derstand that goods privately branded by retailers and jobbers are ordinarily not actually made by the dealers who are responsible for them. The private branders commonly do not practice any deception; it cannot injure them for the public to be definitely told that the goods are made for them by so-and-so.
If anyone should object to publication of this fact, it would be easy for the jobber or retailer to print the manufacturer's name so inconspicuously that few cus tomers would ascertain it.
Even if every member of the buying public did know definitely the name of the manufacturer of every manufactured product lie bought, of what use would this information be to him? If anything goes wrong with the purchase, he looks to the distributor of it if that distributor has put his trade-mark and name on it. The consumer wants to know who is re sponsible to him for the things he buys, not necessa rily who manufactures them. He is often indifferent to the manufacturer, when he buys from a retailer on whom he can depend. The buyer of Onyx hosiery, when Lord and Taylor owned the trade-mark, had no particular interest in the several factories that manu factured it. As long as Lord and Taylor put their brand on it and stood behind it, the consumer was satisfied.
19. Two phases of the problem, of private brands.— From what has been said in this chapter it is evident that there are two phases of the private brand prob lem. The first phase is really not a problem at all. If any kind of distributor, jobber or retailer, large or small, with either a national or merely a local in fluence, sees fit to become an actual manufacturer in some lines or puts his label on goods manufactured for him, and frankly says to manufacturers of com peting lines that he is not in a position to serve them, he cannot be criticized. It is his privilege to divide definitely his manufacturing and distributing func tions if Ile cares to, and to engage in both fields pro vided he does so fairly.
Criticism of the private brander is justified only when he pretends to be willing to cooperate in the jobbing or retailing of a line of goods with which his brands come into competition. If Ile does this, he puts himself in an anomalous position that is bound to increase direct selling by the manufacturer and to limit still further the activities and importance of the independent jobber.
One jobber says: "I don't figure much on func tions; they are largely theoretical anyway. I fig,ure on getting the business and holding it." And that is exactly the attitude of the great majority of private brand jobbers who try to job and to manufacture com peting lines. It is a natural attitude, but it must be considered as illogical and short-sighted. The job bers who follow this practice arc aiding in increasing the chaos in marketing. Perhaps the manufacturers forced them into it; perhaps they themselves are pri marily responsible.
Who started the controversy is not the important question. The important point is that unless the job ber remains distinctly a jobber, in many lines the in dependent jobber will continue to be of lessening im portance. Either non-competing manufacturers will organize for the purpose of conducting common job bing establishments of their own, or there will be an increasing amount of direct sales to retailers by indi vidual manufacturers. There will be a growing list of large retail buying units—department stores, chain. stores and great mail-order houses—who find the manufacturer receptive to their demands for direct buying connections, and who increase in strength and power because of this relationship.