Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because

Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because

22/09/2025
27/10/2025

Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.

Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because
Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because

"Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands." These words, spoken by Peter Drucker, speak to a fundamental truth in the world of commerce: the power of information and how it is wielded by those who create and sell products. In the ancient world, knowledge was power, and those who held it could sway the masses, dictate terms, and shape the future. Drucker’s insight illuminates how, in the modern age, brands hold similar sway over their customers, not just through the quality of their goods but through the trust they have cultivated with their audiences. To trust a brand is to place faith in the invisible—in the reliability and integrity of what it promises.

In the ancient marketplace, the traders of Greece and Rome understood this dynamic. Consider the great silk merchants of the Roman Empire. Silk, imported from the distant East, was a commodity that carried with it an air of mystique. The silk merchants, who had access to the secrets of where and how the silk was produced, knew that they held a valuable secret—the quality of their wares was unmatched in the eyes of the people. In a society where information was scarce and access to foreign goods was limited, these merchants had the market power that Drucker describes. They sold not just a product but the confidence that came with knowing that the silk they sold would be superior to that found anywhere else. The brand they built—the reputation of quality and exotic luxury—became a symbol of trust. In this sense, the ancient merchant is not so different from the modern brand that earns profitability not by revealing every secret, but by building trust through quality and consistency.

As we move through history, we see that the power of trust has always played a critical role in shaping relationships between seller and buyer. Take, for example, the rise of the Medici family in Renaissance Italy. The Medici were not merely bankers; they were purveyors of trust and legitimacy in a time when banking was fraught with risks and uncertainties. The Medici banks became known for their stability, not because they were transparent with all their methods, but because their reputation for honoring commitments was so well established that people trusted them with their wealth. In this case, the Medici’s market power came not from their access to information, but from their ability to inspire confidence in their customers. Much like modern brands, they thrived by ensuring that their clients could trust them to provide something valuable and reliable, even when the inner workings of their enterprise remained obscure.

In the industrial age, this dynamic shifted as manufacturers began to grow in power. The growth of mass production meant that goods were more readily available, but information about the quality of those goods was often inaccessible to the average consumer. This asymmetry of information created an opportunity for brands to step forward, build reputations, and establish trust. Consider the rise of Coca-Cola in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While its ingredients were known to a few, the process by which Coca-Cola produced its product was largely hidden from the public. What consumers did know was that the brand, backed by a consistent taste and quality, would deliver the experience they trusted. Coca-Cola’s market power grew not by disclosing every piece of information about its product, but by fostering an enduring relationship with its customers. The brand became more than just a drink; it became a symbol of joy, refreshment, and consistency—qualities that customers trusted and were willing to pay for.

Drucker’s statement also touches upon the notion that brands do not simply represent products, but the emotional connection that the customer has with the product. Think of the ancient sailors who traversed the seas. The ships they sailed on were not just vehicles; they were symbols of safety, dependability, and journey. A ship’s name—whether it was the Argo of Greek myth or a mighty vessel from the Age of Exploration—conveyed more than just its ability to float on water. It spoke to the trust placed in the captains and crews who commanded them. Just as a sailor trusted his vessel to carry him through the storms, modern consumers trust in the brands they choose, knowing that these names stand for quality, reliability, and trustworthiness.

The lesson we can take from Drucker’s words is that trust is the cornerstone of success in any marketplace, ancient or modern. In our own lives, whether in business or relationships, we must strive to cultivate trust by offering quality, consistency, and integrity. Trust is not something that can be easily bought; it must be earned over time, through actions, and by standing by our promises. If we wish to build a legacy, whether as entrepreneurs, leaders, or even as individuals, we must recognize that the power of information and the trust of others is what ultimately shapes our success. Let us create and nurture brands, not just through the products we offer, but through the trust and relationships we build with those around us. Trust is the true foundation of power, and with it, we can achieve enduring success.

Peter Drucker
Peter Drucker

American - Businessman November 19, 1909 - November 11, 2005

Same category

Tocpics Related
Notable authors
Have 6 Comment Suppliers and especially manufacturers have market power because

DDTrieu Di Duong

I think this statement captures the genius of branding: transforming uncertainty into loyalty. It’s interesting how Drucker equates information gaps with market power, but it also exposes a tension. Should consumers aim to close that gap, or is trust a more efficient substitute for total knowledge? In a way, brand trust keeps the market functioning smoothly—but it also hides the deeper complexities behind products we use every day.

Reply.
Information sender

TTran

This quote really makes me reflect on how trust substitutes for knowledge in the marketplace. Consumers don’t have to know how something is made; they just have to believe in who made it. But that dependency can be risky—when that trust is broken, it leads to backlash and skepticism. I wonder if the long-term profitability of brands depends less on the information they hold and more on the transparency they choose to share.

Reply.
Information sender

TNTu Nguyen

Drucker’s idea about information imbalance feels timeless, but I’m curious how it evolves with technology. With social media, online reviews, and AI-driven data transparency, can brands still rely on holding more information than consumers? Maybe the new ‘power’ comes not from secrecy but from simplifying complexity—helping customers navigate too much information instead of too little. That’s a fascinating reversal of Drucker’s original observation.

Reply.
Information sender

QDTran Quoc Dung

This insight feels very relevant even today. It suggests that the profitability of brands doesn’t just come from superior products but from the customer’s willingness to believe. I can’t help but think about how fragile that trust can be—one scandal or misinformation can destroy it overnight. Does that mean modern brands need to invest more in authenticity and accountability than in marketing itself to sustain that trust advantage?

Reply.
Information sender

NHNguyen Hieu

I find Drucker’s observation fascinating because it shows how trust itself becomes a form of capital. But it also raises a question about ethics—if companies profit from customers not knowing everything, where’s the line between building trust and exploiting ignorance? Transparency is supposed to empower consumers, but brands still carefully curate what they reveal. Perhaps the most successful companies are those that manage both control and honesty effectively.

Reply.
Information sender
Leave the question
Click here to rate
Information sender