Marketing Monday: Benefits of Licenses

I'm a big believer in licensing and in pushing the boundaries of licensing for "commodity" type products, but a recent visit to a Walmart store in upstate New York left me somewhat perplexed.

I needed some vacuum bags for my old Eureka vacuum cleaner, and found that Walmart had two 4' sections of vacuum bags, each one with similar products, each one licensed, and each one with identical prices.

One section had 4 feet of Febreze branded vacuum bags from Home Care Industries Inc., with the claim that the product "eliminates odor and freshens as you vacuum". The other section had Arm & Hammer branded vacuum bags from Electrolux Home Products, marketed as "odor eliminating vacuum bags".

With identical pricing, both sections featured licensed products with identical consumer benefits. There were no generic vacuum bags available at all.

Obviously, both manufacturers are paying royalties to licensors, driving up the cost to Walmart and in turn to consumers. Vacuum bags are a low-involvement purchase and it's inconceivable to me that consumers would buy more bags or buy them more often because of the licenses. I fail to see how having two licensed brands and no generic product in a low-involvement category benefits Walmart, the consumer, or even the manufacturer. And even with two vendors in the category, Walmart's assortment still didn't include the bag size I needed, for which I eventually found a cheaper generic version elsewhere.

Can you explain Walmart's position in this category? Maybe it has something to do with their overall support of the Febreze brand and their close relationship with P&G. As someone who frequently develops products and programs for Walmart, I'm always interested in learning about how they strategize and plan their assortments.