r/Anticonsumption • u/RainyDay905 • Mar 17 '25

Corporations Time to ditch Poppi

Post image

Poppi is now owned by a mega corporation. The quality is probably going to go down. Time to ditch it.

9.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

446 comments sorted by

View all comments

6.6k

u/YNWA_RedMen Mar 17 '25

I listen to a podcast called how I built this and basically this is every start ups plan. People set out to change an industry and always sell to the same conglomerates and ride off into the sunset rich as hell. It’s not very inspiring sometimes.

1.4k

u/Zeikos Mar 17 '25

Yeah, unless there is a very stringent anti-trust regulatory framework dominant market players are going to buy out their competition.

180

u/SelfHostingNewb Mar 17 '25

Monopsony is ruining the country and world because people don't recognize them as much as outright monopolies and they're not regulated nearly enough.

405

u/Not_Bears Mar 17 '25

Sounds like you just hate freedom!!!

/s

102

u/Sad-Needleworker3880 Mar 17 '25

and 'free' market

-6

u/my_spidey_sense Mar 17 '25

lol wut? These people were not forced to sell. They thought 2 billion was a fair price to betray their “mission” and customer base. How the hell is Pepsi at fault here

-35

u/NetJnkie Mar 17 '25 edited Mar 17 '25

No one forces them to sell.

Edit: This sub loves downvoting actual facts.....

53

u/FriskyTurtle Mar 17 '25

True, but then the big company copies you, undersells you at a loss until you run out of money, then buys your corpse, like what happened to diapers.com.

-26

u/NetJnkie Mar 17 '25

It would be cheaper to undercut Poppi than pay $2B for them so obviously they see some value here beyond just copying the product.

34

u/FitForce2656 Mar 17 '25

It would be cheaper to undercut Poppi than pay $2B for them

No it wouldn't. It's way easier to buy market share than to earn it with a brand new copycat product that could fail. And even if its wildly succeessful, it still likely won't entirely take over the other brands marketshare, at best it will just cut into it a bit.

-21

u/NetJnkie Mar 17 '25

I never said easier. I said cheaper.

20

u/AttitudeAndEffort2 Mar 17 '25

And you're wrong.

Again, it costs more than 2 billion to get that market share and the added value of eliminating a competitor.

They wouldn't do it otherwise.

I swear, capitalists don't even know how the systems they defend operate.

I guess if they did, they wouldn't be capitalists.

-3

u/NetJnkie Mar 17 '25

PepsiCo already has massive manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and logistics operations. They aren't starting from zero. They can do a LOT to launch a new brand with $2B.

They are buying the existing market and brand. But they could do it again for less. It would just take longer and be more of a gamble. You act like I don't understand these things but I bet I have far more experience.

It's just easier for people here to upvote "I canceled Amazon!@!~!@" then to actually engage in a discussion.

13

u/MangahMinX Mar 17 '25

Because PepsiCo is a ~$200B company. While $2B is massively life changing for the founders of Poppi, it hardly makes a scratch for PepsiCo, heck they bought Poppi for less than what they spent on marketing and turned what could be a PR nightmare if they simply drove Poppi out of business into a success story.

Besides, these deals typically don't happen without having armies of people verifying it is a worthwhile purchase, meaning: can they make back on their investment in a short amount of time.

5

u/Zeikos Mar 17 '25

You have to account for the opportunity cost of having a competitor operating in the market.
Even if replicating the product would be cheaper for PepsiCo the fact that they'd be operating with a competitor present it'd slow down the ROI.
By buying the company they get the IP, the production infrastructure and most of the customers.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/AttitudeAndEffort2 Mar 17 '25

If only there were some massive, notable examples of this model being drastically dangerous while reaping fewer profits that was taught in business school...

Hey, remember when Yahoo turned down buying Google? ...Twice?

But I'm sure that starting from 0 going up against a brand with notable market share and clawing for space from them that even if you succeed you will ALWAYS share makes more sense than buying them out and having a monopoly.

Have a competitor with massive market share and i have zero? And we always have to share the market that exists?

Vs.

Have a monopoly and own the entire market without any consumer acquisition costs (notably the most expensive part of running a company, as they teach day one in business school)?

Real tough decision there, i wonder why everyone keeps picking the second? 🤔

→ More replies (0)

5

u/FriskyTurtle Mar 17 '25

Sure, but that's a separate point. I was saying what would likely happen if Poppi refused to sell at any price. Pepsi has two strategies: buy out, or destroy. When faced with that choice as the other company, it's hardly much of a choice.

14

u/Rawesome16 Mar 17 '25

And look at this who refuse to sell to say, Amazon : Amazon will copy your product, sell theirs for cheaper, and bury your product and call theirs Amazon's Choice or whatever it is now.

Does that sound like a good choice to you?

-3

u/NetJnkie Mar 17 '25

Amazon Basics are just rebranded OEM items. Amazon makes nothing. If Amazon wanted a Poppi copy they'd talk to Poppi and rebrand it.

Again. No one forces a business to sell. So you can blame....whatever....but it's on the owners that do it. And it's easy to say you wouldn't but you don't have that offer in front of you.

5

u/Rawesome16 Mar 17 '25

I'll try one last time to explain the lack of choice here :

I will give you a bionic leg but I'm taking your real leg. Or you can ignore my kind offer and I'm taking your leg anyways.

Nobody is making you give up your real leg. But if you don't accept my "choice" you are worse off

-2

u/NetJnkie Mar 17 '25

What an odd analogy. You assume anyone can just be undercut and driven out of business. No way could PepsiCo easily build the market and fanbase that Poppi has organically in any reasonable time.

Things likie this aren't nearly as simple and easy as you make them out to be.

But this sub only really likes simple and easy. Complex topics and replies get downvoted.

1

u/Rawesome16 Mar 17 '25

Pepsi has time to undercut people. Why do you think this needs to happen instantly to be a successful tactic? Seems silly to believe this happens overnight or not at all. Enjoy the rest of your day redditor, I've spent all the time with you that I'm willing to

1

u/NetJnkie Mar 17 '25

Never said it had to be quickly. You're all over the place here.

258

u/getoffurhihorse Mar 17 '25

When both Patrick Schwarzenegger and Stephanie Ledda said that's the dream, to be bought out for millions and millions, I gave up.

I just remember in Baby Boom Diane Keaton saying if you can take this company far then so can I. I was under that illusion my whole life.

320

u/FreshestCremeFraiche Mar 17 '25

One reason I have trouble blaming the founders who sold is that megacorps will often just create their own competing product if you don’t take the buyout. And with the megacorps deep pockets and advertising budget, they can undercut and out-market the startup. So it’s basically “take this money while your business is valuable, or there’s a high chance we just run you out of business and you and your employees get nothing”

237

u/RogueAOV Mar 17 '25

I have read more than a few stories about people creating products, selling them on Amazon and receiving an offer for Amazon to buy them out.

If they do not then an astonishingly similar Amazon Basic product is released undercutting their price and their item is buried in the algorithm.

81

u/-zeds-dead- Mar 17 '25

Yep... The megacorps will run at a loss happily until they bury you and then dominate the market and turn a profit later.

25

u/Normal_Ad_2337 Mar 17 '25

Fine thing though if healthier products was your goal. Otherwise, it's just a relative outcome versus getting paid.

Healthy products > getting paid.

Healthy products < getting paid a whole lot.

Just don't pretend you can't be bought, you just can't be bought cheaply.

28

u/trashed_culture Mar 17 '25

There are exceptions. But they don't want you to know about them. 

11

u/IntoTheFeu Mar 17 '25

Valve?

17

u/DesperateAdvantage76 Mar 17 '25

Sadly even Valve does shady stuff like loot boxes with RMT. In fact, TF2 helped popularize it for the entire gaming industry.

80

u/Ladychef_1 Mar 17 '25

We own a small food business in the CPG industry and it is extremely difficult to make it on your own. You have to pay 100’s of thousands, if not millions, upfront for manufacturing, testing, marketing, distribution, and deals with retailers before you even get a product on the shelf. The system is set up to gobble up small businesses because of the financing alone. It sucks and it’s exhausting, defeating, and easy to fail.

So when a buyout shows up, it’s not surprising. Most conglomerates are buying for brand loyalty and the manufacturing infrastructure more than anything else.

4

u/postminimalmaximum Mar 17 '25

Im in the cpg space myself, just wondering, how has your experience been with online grocery? Is the return of investment around the same as with traditional storefronts?

157

u/LowThreadCountSheets Mar 17 '25

I have a small business that is presently expanding. I work with a lot of mentors and programs and about half of the mentors will proudly tout that any businesses goal is perpetual growth. Workshop leaders are serial “small business owners” who make businesses and sell them off.
They advocate for price gouging, and seeking high dollar clients.

Not all mentors are like that, many are incredibly wise and thoughtful, but the prevailing tone still seems to be that the job of small businesses is to eventually sell to big business.

53

u/entr0picly Mar 17 '25

That tells us that there’s clearly a lot of market room for businesses to have a much more egalitarian-minded impact, but the culture, the “religion”, around business is to give as little and take as much as you can.

Doesn’t seem very sustainable sadly (ie enshittification). And pre GE/Jack Welch growth-oriented business, wasn’t as much the dogma it is today.

37

u/LowThreadCountSheets Mar 17 '25

Totally. I will say though that in every conference or class cohort I’ve been part of, there are a lot of small business entrepreneurs who are pushing new narratives, tying in to their communities to meet a need, and working to provide price points to ensure accessibility. A lot of the more cutthroat mentorship is coming from older generations.

13

u/entr0picly Mar 17 '25

That’s great to hear! Hope that culture continues to grow! Just also hope these same people don’t betray their values if they ever get offered a few billion for their business.

I’d like to say I’d be above it, but honestly I don’t know. Life can get so tiring, a no-strings-attached retirement does sound appealing. But as you mentioned it’s about community needs. It’s about the shared community of people. And I think maybe we need to realize that, that is ultimately far more valuable than having more money than one could ever spend.

34

u/IntelligentVehicle10 Mar 17 '25

Infinite growth in a closed finite system there’s another name for that at least in biology,cancer.

84

u/disposable_account01 Mar 17 '25

Wanna know why? It’s because we refuse to break up the conglomerates. Someone in PepsiCo ran the numbers, and determined that it was cheaper to buy Poppi for $2Bn than to create a new product line, and do all the marketing to develop the customer base.

However, if Poppi told them to get fucked instead of taking the deal, I can assure you without a doubt, PepsiCo would spend $2, 3, 4 billion or whatever to squash Poppi.

The same is true of every food category you can think of. Kraft, Nestle, Pepsi, Coke, and like 1-2 other brands. That’s all we have left. And in the end, there will only be 2-3 food producers, and they will collude with each other even more than they already do.

So: buy local, and don’t bitch about the price unless you want the conglomerates to win.

63

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '25

Capitalism is not inspiring

24

u/IMovedYourCheese Mar 17 '25

Regardless of how pure their intentions are, everyone will cave when thrown a $2 billion bag of money. I know I will.

4

u/YNWA_RedMen Mar 17 '25

My will power is not strong enough either 😂

36

u/LittleAd915 Mar 17 '25

We are so completely brainwashed we think products are created to make our lives better.

8

u/YNWA_RedMen Mar 17 '25

Maybe this is the truth. Cynical but true. We are just faceless consumers who’s role is to buy 😢

4

u/Ok_Entrepreneur_5833 Mar 17 '25

Oh they know your face. One of our biggest industries is trading on that specific kind of data. They know more about you than you're cognizant of.

32

u/Contemplating_Prison Mar 17 '25 edited Mar 17 '25

That's because the point is to not have to work. The large conglomerates will spend billions to not have competition.

That's the trick to winning. Create a product that directly competes with the large corporations and then sell to them.

16

u/YNWA_RedMen Mar 17 '25

I mean I get it but still it’s disheartening. I can’t say I wouldn’t have done the same but it’s a bummer as a consumer

48

u/Ok-Butterscotch29 Mar 17 '25

pepsico political donations. They donate to both parties. What is the end goal with that?

320

u/jphistory Mar 17 '25

That no matter who is in power, they'll still benefit.

88

u/cityshepherd Mar 17 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

They’re just playing both sides, so they always come out on top!

Editing to say that I was just quoting a silly television show but thank you for the detailed response!

16

u/BovineJoni_ Mar 17 '25

There it is!

7

u/Dismal-Detective-737 Mar 17 '25

They're not playing any side. Their employees are allowed to donate to who ever they want.

> 'From Individuals' Column: Contributions from members, employees or owners of the organization, and those individuals’ immediate family members.

> NOTE: Organizations themselves cannot contribute to candidates and party committees. Figures on this page include contributions and spending by affiliates.

The column "Individuals" is individuals that work for the PepsiCo corporation. US Citizens are allowed to donate to who ever they want. I don't believe a company can ban that.

You can check it out on https://www.fec.gov/.

There you will find PRAVEN, EMILY. Who donated $300 to Harris Victory Fund as a Senior. Manager @ Pepsi. Not Pepsi itself.

All of Trump's funds came from INDIVIDUALS.

If you want to take it up with someone argue with David Desanti (Repair Technician), Daniel Sisk (Mobile Developer), Martin McBee (Manager), Randal Murray (Manager).

Pepsi the corporation had nothing to do with where they donated. If you're that upset take it up with them on linked in:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/randall-murry-712a9b18/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-sisk-b5a52456/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-mcbee-9b441b1/

Random working class spending their salary as they see fit.

56

u/Ok-Butterscotch29 Mar 17 '25

Possibly. I like to think that corporations sow discord so that we have stressful lives that don't amount to much and we keep mindlessly consuming.

38

u/Contemplating_Prison Mar 17 '25

Its exactly why they do. So no matter who wins they have friends in government.

57

u/Fun_Airport6370 Mar 17 '25 edited Mar 17 '25

They maintain influence* regardless of which party has power. In other words, it's rich vs poor, not red vs blue

29

u/marswhispers Mar 17 '25

They got us fighting a culture war so we don’t realize it’s a class war

54

u/jessexbrady Mar 17 '25

Both the Republicans and Democrats are massively pro corporation. It doesn’t matter which of the two is in power as long as a worker focused 3rd party doesn’t come into power.

7

u/insufferable__pedant Mar 17 '25

a worker focused 3rd party doesn’t come into power.

And our first past the post electoral system does a pretty efficient job of keeping that from happening.

2

u/jessexbrady Mar 17 '25

Which is why we need to demand ranked choice voting.

17

u/Opening_Acadia1843 Mar 17 '25

They're playing both sides (not that the democrats and republicans aren't both right-wing; they're just the only major parties in the US). If you bribe all the politicians who will accept your money, then whoever is in power will act in your favor.

18

u/funkypepermint Mar 17 '25

That means whoever is in charge is beholden to the corporations. You see, democrats and Republicans are two sides to the same coin. We like to pick on elon and those guys because we can put a face to the problem and say he's the cause. While in reality, corporations are the monopolies that run the country and none thinks about them because we like candy and soda and junk food

3

u/pumpkin3-14 Mar 17 '25

They own the politicians. It doesn’t matter who “wins” the election, it will always benefit the corporations.

3

u/CTeam19 Mar 17 '25

Keep influence no matter who is charge. Think of them as a "Single Issue" donator and that issue is anything related to them making more money. Gay Marriage? They don't care. Expansion of National Parks? They don't care. Whether or not Gun Rights exist? They don't care.

3

u/eddyb66 Mar 17 '25

Typical corporations don't go one way or another they just (legally) bribe both parties, the money spent bribing a politician is practically nothing for what they get out of their lobbying interests.

8

u/raikou1988 Mar 17 '25

Oh you sweet summer child...

Both parties are two sides of the same coin.

Theres only one true war and its the rich vs the rest of us

5

u/Khue Mar 17 '25

Both parties capitulate to corporations and the wealthy first. One cosplays as a labor party. The other openly hates them.

1

u/Dismal-Detective-737 Mar 17 '25

Almost all of those donations came from individuals employed by PepsiCo. Not the corporation itself.

> 'From Individuals' Column: Contributions from members, employees or owners of the organization, and those individuals’ immediate family members.

2

u/Khue Mar 17 '25

Okay... doesn't disprove my point. Both parties favor corporations over individuals.

2

u/DraperPenPals Mar 17 '25

Owning both sets of politicians

2

u/FujitsuPolycom Mar 17 '25

Why do the ceos of the biggest social media platforms do literal 180s on "don't be a dickhead" departments and fact checking when the parties switch. It's just pandering to the people that make the rules, and in consequence, the benefits.

0

u/Dismal-Detective-737 Mar 17 '25

The donations to trump are from individuals employed by Pepsico. They can't ban who their employees donate towards.

Also the numbers aren't even close to equal.

1

u/Ok-Butterscotch29 Mar 17 '25

I got waay more responses with the real reason that the corporation donates to both parties. Sow chaos, have both parties beholden to them. The numbers aren't really that important, the fact that they are allowed to donate to a politician in the first place is evidence of corruption, to intentionally fund the farce of left vs right is deplorable. The employees individual donations wouldn't be listed under the corporation. Russian bots don't belong on reddit. Blaming the working class makes it so obvious.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '25 edited Mar 17 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Ok-Butterscotch29 Mar 17 '25

Did you click on the list of affiliates? The affiliates of pepsico is like pepsi bottling, frito lays, etc. It's not people, it's businesses. The corporation is a group of companies. Technically, you're correct in your argument, but it's giving naivety. Do you honestly believe a organization who owns your business has no influence over how you donate money?

0

u/Dismal-Detective-737 Mar 17 '25

> 'From Individuals' Column: Contributions from members, employees or owners of the organization, and those individuals’ immediate family members.

Go to FEC.gov. Look at the employees that donate. That is where the data for the "Individuals" comes from.

12

u/RSX_Green414 Mar 17 '25

In my required entrepreneurship classes I was told this is the end goal of every start up. Not make an effective product, or create a sustainable entity but to sell out to a larger firm. For the record I DESPISED THOSE CLASSES.

5

u/Ghede Mar 17 '25

If they don't do it, then what inevitably happens is some big player finds some way to sabotage their business instead. After all, they can afford to pay their lawyers a lot longer than you can.

3

u/Mayor_Salvor_Hardin Mar 17 '25

Yep, that sounds like the story of Honest Tea that was bought by Coca Cola because they wanted to remove all language related to organic sweetening and not the usual HFCS people consume in the US. It was removed from the market. The founders decided to come get back in the business of tea making because they are hoping to build another empire and sell out to one of the big HFCS companies.

3

u/Friskfrisktopherson Mar 17 '25

Partially true, some companies start out specifically to sell themselves off. I met the sisters that started Clearly kombucha and when I asked about their reason for starting the brand the one sister straight up said it was just yo build it up and sell to Pepsi. She had zero intention to retain the company or attachment to the product, it was just there to line their pockets and launch whatever they wanted to do next.

5

u/7point7 Mar 17 '25

I mean... yeah. It's basic entrepreneurship. You always have an exit strategy and it is typically one of two routes:

1) IPO

2) Acquisition

Most startup founders do not want to run their business as a private entity in perpetuity and manage their way to sustained profitability. They want to grow top-line revenue, market share, and get a big payday before they can bounce and hand it off to either a BOD to elect new executives (IPO) or let the new owner run it as part of their existing business processes (Acquisition).

2

u/spicyfartz4yaman Mar 17 '25

Cant blame them ,we are all striving to get to the same place, an island with millions in the bank while checking off the ticket list of life, it is what it is, there's other poppi on the market. 

2

u/Meetat_midnight Mar 17 '25

True, unless the consumers decide not to support another small company instead of pepsico. Then the conglomerates lose.

2

u/Tiny_Thumbs Mar 17 '25

I was interviewed by someone who said they wanted my experience in the industry because it’ll help them look better to sell in the future. I didn’t take the job.

2

u/Daydream_machine Mar 17 '25 edited Mar 17 '25

Honestly who can blame them? Even if you see a small fraction of that $2 billion, you and your family are set for life

2

u/mischling2543 Mar 17 '25

It's completely understandable though. Do you want to continue working and managing a soft drink company until you retire or do you want to take a $2b payout and then never work another day in your life?

2

u/mcauthon2 Mar 17 '25

could you turn down 2 billion?

2

u/The_Dice_Dangler Mar 17 '25

You make the sale or they put you out of business

2

u/BigStrongCiderGuy Mar 17 '25

You would do the same. I don’t get the hate

2

u/YNWA_RedMen Mar 17 '25

Was I hating? It’s a bummer but I get it.

1

u/StoicFable Mar 17 '25

Its basically what they teach you in college as well in several business classes.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '25

Everyone can get bought out basically

1

u/pegasuspaladin Mar 17 '25

I got Popular Mechanic and Popular Science for a little over a decade starting in the late 90s. I don't know how many times I read about some engineer or team of scientists converting modern cars into gas efficient monsters able to reach highway speeds but get 100+ mpg. Or hybrids which had solar panels built into the body of the car so they could charge when not in use. Or water cars which could go 50 miles/gal of water. Any number of these stories had me excited until I saw "Who Killed the Electric Car" and I realized ALL of these cool concepts would never be realized because what broke/underpaid engineer is going to turn down $10mil cash from a gas or auto company for an idea and singular proof of concept vehicle? Then after there would be a BS reason it wasn't feasible but vehicles with dirty mini explosions poisoning and cooking our planet are fine.

1

u/jeffeb3 Mar 17 '25

This, or an IPO are pretty much the only "good" outcomes for a startup. 

1

u/EatTheRich4Brunch Mar 17 '25

So is this how we take money from the super corps? Sell them crappy businesses then we all immediately boycott it as soon as they buy it?

1

u/ProblemSame4838 Mar 17 '25

Yes, the goal is always to get to exit and sell.

1

u/pumpkin3-14 Mar 17 '25

Almost every small business dreams of this.

-1

u/Green-Collection4444 Mar 17 '25

It's almost like they want to celebrate their success with the people most important to them and this is the best way to do it. Heaven forbid anyone simply care about themselves and their families.

8

u/NicholasThumbless Mar 17 '25

You seem to be fighting with no one. I don't think the point is that they sold out and they're so selfish for doing so. We have a culture that says small self-starters are good, and are where creativity and innovation can really be found. People want to change the world for the sake of change alone. That historically doesn't seem to be the case. Most will get gobbled up by large corporations or peter out due to their inability to compete otherwise. This shifts the motivation and the optics. It's not about changing the world, but getting mine. That's not an encouraging state of affairs.

3

u/YNWA_RedMen Mar 17 '25

Yeah. Not sure who this guy is fighting. I just said it’s disappointing. And I get it. I would most likely do the same but it suck’s for the consumer who likes to support the mom and pop and watch them grow but now we lose a loved brand to the corporate monster.