The Food Of A Brand Cereal And A Generic Brand Food On The Aisle And At Eye Level

    Most people desire to consume only what satisfies their taste buds, which is mainly foods and beverages that contain high levels of unhealthy ingredients, but they do not realize the harm it causes to their health. General Mills conducted an experiment in order to see how consumers would react when they had the option to buy healthy products or foods that tasted good: “General Mills, he said, acted responsibly to both the public and shareholders by offering products to satisfy dieters and other concerned shoppers, from low sugar to added whole grains. But most often, he said, people bought what they liked, and they liked what tasted good” (Moss 476). Companies of course need to keep their businesses running and in order to do that, they must manufacture

The ready-to-eat (RTE) sector has increased sales and therefore have given the Breakfast cereals market an advantage to have a higher market share of 4.2% in 2013. The emphasis is more to the value and the convenience of cereals rather than the quality. However people are starting to be more heath conscious and are going to the higher nutritional brands which tend to be the well-known ones such as Kellogg 's, Weetabix and Nestle.

The cereal industry is very adamant on using a differentiation strategy to make one’s brand stand out in the minds of certain people. The companies break down the public into different target markets; and then make products that will be attractive to their target markets. Companies make different brands for young kids, teenagers, adults, and people who are health conscience. Currently, there are 387 different brands of cereal sold in the United States and each family is estimated to purchase 17 different brands per year. (O’Connor, Amy) Companies continue to brainstorm for new product ideas to attract the various market segmentations.

The threat of customers finding substitute products from other manufacturers in the food industry is high. In the ready-to-eat breakfast cereals segment, General Mills’ primary business focus, there are a variety of similar products being

“Human agency in making choices” (Hutchinson, 2010): Every person’s life course is build up with his or her choices and actions (Hutchinson, 2010). The ability to make decisions or will power is the human agency, i.e. one can made decisions which completely changes

Journalist John Tierney, in his article, “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s the Only Choice,” explores the notion of free will and exhibits how belief or disbelief in free will affects an individual’s life. By posing a hypothetical situation through rhetorical questions, incorporating experimental research, and using accusatory diction towards the opposing perspective, Tierney conveys his perception that a regard for free will allows for individuals to gain a greater sense of morality and ambition, even if the notion of free will is still disputed.

The value chain, Appendix B, in the RTE cereal industry consists of branded manufactures and private labels that receive their raw materials from suppliers and then distribute their product to food stores, drug stores, and mass merchandisers where the end consumer can eventually purchase the cereal product. Private labels rely on wholesalers and third-party distributors to get their product on the store shelves where the end consumer can purchase these items.

The second is the more choices the more likely that the best choice can be made, and the third assumption is that you should never say no to choice. Iyengard evaluates these three assumptions with various studies where one group is American and the other is another culture. Her studies help understand why and how Americans make choices in comparison to the rest of the world. Without doubt, Iyengard’s studies and analysis on choice is interesting but Schwartz’s was clearer because it easily communicated the message that was more applicable to the public.

Do you believe that humans have free will in their decisions, or are they entirely a product of their personal environment, circumstances, upbringing, etc.

Whether we have free will is widely controversial. The absence of a universal definition poses a primary problem to this question. In this essay, I shall base my argument on a set of three conditions for free will: 1) that the actor is unconstraint in his action, 2) the actor could have acted otherwise and 3) the actor must be ‘ultimately responsible’ (Kane, 2005: 121) for his action. After I have explained them, I shall apply these conditions to three scenarios that cover most, if not any, circumstances that occur when taking choices. The purpose of this essay is to show that if my conditions are true, none of the scenarios is based on free will and thus we do not have free will.

Weakness- A major foreseeable weakness OMG Active Cereal may encounter is that the cereal could be perceived by the public as just another “nutritious cereal”. There are many kinds of nutritious conscious cereals in today’s market produced by several different companies. Each year, a few more of these cereals are created and placed on each and every grocer’s shelves. A weakness for our newly released cereal could be that breakfast-eating consumers will group OMG Active Cereal along with the average nourishing cereals before eating or becoming cognizant of our cereal’s fantastic features other than especially served for the teenagers.

Are we really in control of our decisions? In Dan Ariely’s TedTalk he discusses the extent to which people have control over their own decisions. Two of the claims he makes are that many of the decisions we make are not residing with us, instead the decisions often reside with the people who created the decision or form, and that if there is a less desirable opinion present it assists people in figuring out what their preference is. I agree with the statement that a less desirable option can influence or choice, and I partially agree with the statement that people do not really make their own decisions. The amount of control people have over their own decisions is much more limited than people would like to believe.

While I stopped at my local Wal-Mart to pick up a few things I did notice that one of the items my children did like was the Kellogg’s Frosted Mini Wheat’s cereal, and as I looked a little down the isle I saw Wal-Mart’s Version called Great Value Shredded Wheat. As I took a closer look, for the first time in a while I noticed the similarities in terms how the picture was positioned on both boxes. How the look was different yet similar in an odd way. The Wal-Mart version was indeed presented as a version of the same cereal offered by Kellogg’s, but at a lower cost for those cost conscious consumers. They were placed in similar fashion further down the isle, but not to much further. It had its own sections of Great Value cereal products that

These labels are more likely to grab attention when consumers are under a time pressure.4 Even though the efforts are to be seen as a easy and more efficient way to purchase better quality food for their children, corporations and their marketing teams have used nutrient content claims to advertise their products to give the appearance that their products are “healthier” to increase sales.3 An example of this can be seen in some of General Mill’s cereals, where they present the nutrient content claim 100% whole grain, which may encourage parents to buy these cereals, even though the cereal may have more sugar than what is recommended for children per day.5

Sales of private label cereal grew 50% from 1991-1994 in the Ready-to-Eat breakfast cereal industry. Some of the factors that contributed to the entry of private label cereal manufacturers and their subsequent growth include - lower costs related to manufacturing, packaging, marketing, R&D compared to the Big 3 cereal companies, product quality approaching that of branded products, higher margins for grocers, lower priced products. Some observers blamed higher prices and elaborate expenditure on coupon printing, distribution, redemption and reimbursement of grocer's handling fee for market share gains made by private label cereal products. The policy of "price up and spend back" seemed to hurt the Big 3 firms.