
10 Corporations Control Almost Everything You Buy - kshatrea
http://www.policymic.com/articles/71255/10-corporations-control-almost-everything-you-buy-this-chart-shows-how
======
brymaster
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."

 _The 147 Companies That Control Everything_

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/10/22/the-147-co...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/10/22/the-147-companies-
that-control-everything/)

Original source, but site is currently down: " Revealed – the capitalist
network that runs the world"
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed-...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed
--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html)

Full research paper here (36 pages)
[http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf](http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf)

~~~
twoodfin
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?

~~~
brymaster
No, that's not what the study says.

~~~
twoodfin
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._

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/10/24/retort-
the...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/10/24/retort-
the-147-companies-that-run-the-world-theyre-you/)

~~~
brymaster
I think the point was the interconnectedness and how these firms have large
stakes in other large corporations.

They don't have to be "operating companies" to be controlling. Real economic
power as the article states.

------
twoodfin
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.

~~~
maratd
> 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.

------
bcoates
Packaged sugar products, cosmetics, and toiletries, truly the linchpin of our
economy.

When whoever made this finds out about Sysco they're gonna freak out.

------
daermonn
A network analysis of the ownership relations among transnational corporations
shows that 147 corporations (mostly banks) control the bulk of the other
~43,000 transnational corporations:
[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025995)

Which is, probably, scarier than that other graph, though harder to understand
intuitively.

~~~
fragsworth
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.

------
andymcsherry
> Nestle — famous for chocolate, but which is the biggest food company in the
> world — owns… clothing brand Diesel…

Not exactly, Diesel licenses their brand to Nestle to make perfume and has
absolutely nothing to do with any of their apparel.

------
dingaling
This chart is mainly about convenience food and fashion goods.

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

~~~
urza
Any good links/articles about this?

------
leokun
GE does not own Comcast or NBC. GE and Comcast once jointly owned NBC, that
changed and now Comcast owns NBC. GE has no relation to either.

------
adventured
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.

------
javajosh
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_.

------
clubhi
P&G has some stuff listed that I buy. The rest of the list is a bunch of
unhealthy crap.

------
mcenedella
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?

~~~
phaemon
> One day, it's.....The next, it's....

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? :)

------
stirno
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.

~~~
analog31
Too much brand consolidation could have a negative market appeal.

Consolidating logistics would be another matter.

------
GoofballJones
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?

------
herge
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'.

~~~
sksksk
reddit is owned by Advance Publications, who own a lot of properties:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications)

~~~
herge
But according to the infographic, it is not part of the 'big six'.

------
yread
With alcohol that's even worse, there'sit's similar: Diageo owns Smirnoff.
Johnnie Walker, Baileys, Guinness, Moët, Hennessy, Captain Morgan, Gordon's,
Zacapa,...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diageo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diageo)

------
alexeisadeski3
Why is A&W listed under both Kraft and PepsiCo?

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?

~~~
Moto7451
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].

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Up](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Up)

------
smickie
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.

~~~
huxley
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)

------
khawkins
Almost every brand mentioned here has a generic equivalent. People don't rely
on these corporations exclusively for these types of products.

------
ktosiek
It's not even accurate - Pringles is not owned by P&G anymore

------
cja
Only if all you consume is heavily pre-processed.

