If I added up the sum of everything my family spends on every brand appearing in this infographic, I would be surprised if it exceeded 2% of our gross income. And by no means do we go out of our way to avoid BigCo's.
"Everything you buy"? Not even close.
EDIT: Worldwide revenue for these 10 companies was around $520B last year. Total U.S. consumer spending: Something like $11T.
I'm with you - I count 3-4 products that we regularly buy, and nothing else from the lists. That said, we don't live in the US. But even then, the main determining factors for us don't usually include brand when the item is sub $200.
> If I added up the sum of everything my family spends on every brand appearing in this infographic, I would be surprised if it exceeded 2% of our gross income.
Same here, probably less. Not a huge fan of things that come vacuum sealed. Vegetables, fruits, meat, dairy, etc. that's the bulk of the grocery bill.
I guess you only include stuff you buy day to day. It would be interesting to see how much those companies are involved with the bigger things you buy infrequently (like a house or a car.)
Even with the massive consolidation that has created these megacorps, its kind of amazing how many of them fail to properly utilize their brands effectively in concert with one another.
I've seen this directly in the food service industry (including at one company in that graphic) where companies don't share suppliers, shipping routes, real estate, etc. where they could be having significant cost savings and simplified logistics.
I wonder how much of this pops up in other groups.
This is a bold statement of fact. And while it's certainly incredible how many of the brands we see daily in stores and advertised represent the same economic interests, I don't think the assertion is born out by the article, as it stands. In particular, there is no data linking those brands to actual consumer buying. Or to put it more precisely, I'd like to know how much of the total market all of those brands command when you combine them all. I'd be looking for something like:
"In the US, total food spending in 2012 was 1T. The food brands in this list made 900B in revenue in the same year. Therefore, these 6 companies control 90% of everything the average American buys."
I'm pretty sure something like this is true, but without relating that brand chart to actual revenue and market size, you can't really say much about what the chart means.
It's worse - the 147 corporations on the top all own each other in a circular manner, and in significant (50%+) amounts. None of them are actually independent.
That is an incredible paper. Everyone should read it.
Maybe I am very sheltered in my online media consumption, but if 6 companies own 90% of traditional media, it is shocking how little presence they have online.
Neither Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Tumbler, reddit or more traditional blogging sites like Medium, quartz.com, or the Huffington Post are (currently) owned by these 'big 6'.
The banking consolidation is far more concerning to me than any of the other groups listed. The article massively overstates the control that companies like Pepsi / Coke / P&G / J&J / Mars et al. have. In the US market, they're actually a small slice of the $10.6 trillion in consumer spending (3% or so perhaps).
It does not however overstate the control the financial giants have. BAC + WFC + C + JPM are sitting on $8 trillion in assets. The too big to fail group has gotten dramatically bigger in the last five years.
The list also curiously misses giants like Cargill, Monsanto, Exxon, Chevron, Berkshire Hathaway, and Koch Industries.
Energy cartels concern me a lot more than who controls the potato chip market, for example.
Also there are far better examples of market dominance by a group of companies. Take car insurance, where six companies control nearly 60% of the entire market.
Or there's always the AT&T / Verizon duopoly. They reign over a pretty massive market.
Four auto companies control nearly 60% of the US auto market.
Yeah, this is one of those infographics that have been circulating for quite a while. More interesting and in-depth are these stories where you learn about the interconnectedness of large corporations:
> "Three systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide and analyzed all 43,060 transnational corporations and share ownerships linking them. They built a model of who owns what and what their revenues are and mapped the whole edifice of economic power."
This is the study that says Vanguard is one of the most powerful companies in the world for running a bunch of people's 401(k)'s in index funds, right?
Well, they're #8 on the list. What point was trying to be made?
The retort is much more relevant:
Most of the companies on the top 50 list are simply investment companies – they aren’t operating companies. (The only obvious example is #50 China Petrochemical.) The enormous size of these companies is simply a reflection of the way most people invest in the public markets, through mutual funds, money funds and other vehicles. Disturbing? Nah. Simply a reflection of the way most people invest in the markets.
Yum is an independent company since spinning off of PepsiCo in 1997. While it has ties to PepsiCo, it's nothing direct and there are even Yum own restaurants that don't even serve Pepsi products.
This chart is enlightening for sure, but they leave a lot out. For instance, all your Keebler products are now owned by Kellogg's, and doesn't it look like PepsiCo is much more diverse in it's holdings than Coca-Cola?
Yum Brands owns the A&W Restaurant chain, Dr. Pepper owns the drink line. I remember eating at an A&W Restaurant in Santa Cruz, California as a kid in the 90s. I've lived in SoCal most of my life and haven't seen one down here.
Similarly, when I looked at the chart, I noticed 7-Up was listed next to Pepsi rather than next to Dr. Pepper. Googling around I found that's because it's only distributed by Dr. Pepper in the US. For the rest of the world it's a Pepsi Product[1].
One day, it's "the excess number of choices confuses the typical consumer", therefore corporations are bad.
The next, it's "consumer industries are consolidating into fewer, better capitalized players", therefore corporations are bad.
In reality, I just think people who aren't that successful like to make infographics.
Beats working, or, you know, actually risking anything to create something in the world.
By the way, in non-capitalist countries, how many different entities providing toothpaste, or home mortgages, do you think there are, and why would you prefer it?
You're right. The person who currently does the blogging for the Internet is clearly inconsistent and hypocritical. Perhaps we should get someone else to do it? :)
Lipton appears twice on this chart. Did that slip past the editors? Makes you wonder if any other brands on the chart are in the wrong place. I don't have time to check them all.
Edit: I don't think L'Oreal is owned by Nestle either.
Sadly while the chart has significant problems and is misleading in some of the relationships, it is more accurate than the article it appears in, if you zoom in you can see some annotations in the article that give partial context to some of the claims.
Apparently Nestle is one of the largest single shareholders in L'Oreal, the chart has a 30% mark in the connection.
I assume that's the reason for Lipton showing up twice, where there are companies that are co-owned or part of a joint venture (I would guess Pepsico licenses and distributes Lipton Iced Tea)
36 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 84.2 ms ] thread"Everything you buy"? Not even close.
EDIT: Worldwide revenue for these 10 companies was around $520B last year. Total U.S. consumer spending: Something like $11T.
Same here, probably less. Not a huge fan of things that come vacuum sealed. Vegetables, fruits, meat, dairy, etc. that's the bulk of the grocery bill.
Not exactly, Diesel licenses their brand to Nestle to make perfume and has absolutely nothing to do with any of their apparel.
I've seen this directly in the food service industry (including at one company in that graphic) where companies don't share suppliers, shipping routes, real estate, etc. where they could be having significant cost savings and simplified logistics.
I wonder how much of this pops up in other groups.
Consolidating logistics would be another matter.
When whoever made this finds out about Sysco they're gonna freak out.
"In the US, total food spending in 2012 was 1T. The food brands in this list made 900B in revenue in the same year. Therefore, these 6 companies control 90% of everything the average American buys."
I'm pretty sure something like this is true, but without relating that brand chart to actual revenue and market size, you can't really say much about what the chart means.
The real companies that 'control' the market are the behemoths about which you hear little;
- Tyco, Siemens GE that make the industrial systems that run manufacturing
- Plastics manufacturers behind packaging, $500 billion annual market in the USA alone
- Shipping brokers and agents that batch goods for efficient transport
- The sea-shipping companies that move the goods
Which is, probably, scarier than that other graph, though harder to understand intuitively.
That is an incredible paper. Everyone should read it.
Neither Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Tumbler, reddit or more traditional blogging sites like Medium, quartz.com, or the Huffington Post are (currently) owned by these 'big 6'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications
It does not however overstate the control the financial giants have. BAC + WFC + C + JPM are sitting on $8 trillion in assets. The too big to fail group has gotten dramatically bigger in the last five years.
The list also curiously misses giants like Cargill, Monsanto, Exxon, Chevron, Berkshire Hathaway, and Koch Industries.
Energy cartels concern me a lot more than who controls the potato chip market, for example.
Also there are far better examples of market dominance by a group of companies. Take car insurance, where six companies control nearly 60% of the entire market.
Or there's always the AT&T / Verizon duopoly. They reign over a pretty massive market.
Four auto companies control nearly 60% of the US auto market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diageo
> "Three systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide and analyzed all 43,060 transnational corporations and share ownerships linking them. They built a model of who owns what and what their revenues are and mapped the whole edifice of economic power."
The 147 Companies That Control Everything
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/10/22/the-147-co...
Original source, but site is currently down: " Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed-...
Full research paper here (36 pages) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf
The retort is much more relevant:
Most of the companies on the top 50 list are simply investment companies – they aren’t operating companies. (The only obvious example is #50 China Petrochemical.) The enormous size of these companies is simply a reflection of the way most people invest in the public markets, through mutual funds, money funds and other vehicles. Disturbing? Nah. Simply a reflection of the way most people invest in the markets.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/10/24/retort-the...
They don't have to be "operating companies" to be controlling. Real economic power as the article states.
This chart is enlightening for sure, but they leave a lot out. For instance, all your Keebler products are now owned by Kellogg's, and doesn't it look like PepsiCo is much more diverse in it's holdings than Coca-Cola?
And I don't think that it's because of the fast food stores - those are owned by one of the Berkshire companies I thought?
One last thing - are the little "$$$"'s everywhere really necessary?
Similarly, when I looked at the chart, I noticed 7-Up was listed next to Pepsi rather than next to Dr. Pepper. Googling around I found that's because it's only distributed by Dr. Pepper in the US. For the rest of the world it's a Pepsi Product[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Up
The next, it's "consumer industries are consolidating into fewer, better capitalized players", therefore corporations are bad.
In reality, I just think people who aren't that successful like to make infographics.
Beats working, or, you know, actually risking anything to create something in the world.
By the way, in non-capitalist countries, how many different entities providing toothpaste, or home mortgages, do you think there are, and why would you prefer it?
You're right. The person who currently does the blogging for the Internet is clearly inconsistent and hypocritical. Perhaps we should get someone else to do it? :)
Edit: I don't think L'Oreal is owned by Nestle either.
Apparently Nestle is one of the largest single shareholders in L'Oreal, the chart has a 30% mark in the connection.
I assume that's the reason for Lipton showing up twice, where there are companies that are co-owned or part of a joint venture (I would guess Pepsico licenses and distributes Lipton Iced Tea)