Back in the day, "no name" was a generic moniker for store brand products. They were supposed to be cheaper because they didn't spend money on marketing.

At some point, Loblaw's capitalized on this by actually calling their store brand "No Name". We all know the plain yellow packaging. That was clever on their part, and all well and good.

Now I'm confused though. I saw a TV commercial for No Name products. Isn't that completely contrary to what they're supposed to be?

I thought we were supposed to believe that they were cheaper because they didn't spend money on marketing. So if they're spending money on marketing, beyond just store displays to the point of actually airing TV commercials… then why are they cheaper? Where are they cutting the costs from?

A lot of people think store brands are cheaper because they're inferior. To be sure, many of them are… but now it would seem that they should be expected to be. I mean… if they're not saving money on marketing… then what's the point?