Sam's Club's '99.9 yuan' snack was exposed selling for just 39.9 yuan at Hotmaxx—what’s going on? Why is there such a huge price gap for the same product?

This headline is highly attention-grabbing: it juxtaposes two brands—Sam’s Club and Hotmaxx—and highlights a stark price difference between 99.9 yuan and 39.9 yuan, inevitably sparking widespread controversy. After all, Sam’s Club has built its reputation on curating a lean SKU portfolio to create hit products. Yet now, it appears that, following a decline in a particular item’s popularity, Sam’s Club may be offloading inventory to discount channels—and Hotmaxx has even branded the product as 'Same-Brand-as-Sam’s,' instantly underscoring the contrast. This development undermines Sam’s Club members’ expectation of exclusivity. So what else lies beneath this phenomenon? 1. Sam’s Club and Hotmaxx differ fundamentally in brand positioning. For years, Sam’s Club has cultivated a 'curated selection' brand image, marked by a strong 'screening' attribute: its 260-yuan membership fee acts as a threshold, attracting price-insensitive consumers who prioritize quality. Through rigorous cold-chain standards for imported steaks, traceability systems for organic vegetables, proprietary R&D for private-label formulations, and other meticulous details, Sam’s Club instills member confidence that every item on its shelves has undergone strict vetting—eliminating the need for shoppers to assess quality themselves. Moreover, its large-packaging formats and relatively high pricing inherently signal 'paying for quality.' Hotmaxx, by contrast, is a chain retail brand built on a soft-discount business model, specializing in discounted sales of near-expiry food, overstock, and clearance goods. It positions itself as the 'vulture' of the retail ecosystem—helping brands and channels clear excess inventory. Its offerings span food & beverages, household & daily necessities, and increasingly extend into apparel, luggage, and other categories—including luxury labels like LV, Gucci, and Coach—priced at roughly 10–30% of market value. Hotmaxx deliberately cultivates an image of 'high cost-performance,' not 'downgraded consumption.' 2. Sam’s Club and Hotmaxx serve distinct consumer groups. Shoppers choosing Sam’s Club prioritize consistency, reliability, and overall shopping experience. What they seek isn’t 'something others can’t buy,' but rather 'something reliably screened and trustworthy.' For instance, they’re willing to pay a premium for Sam’s Club bread because they trust it uses real butter—not vegetable shortening; they opt for imported milk based on confidence in its stricter quarantine protocols compared to conventional channels. In contrast, Hotmaxx shoppers prioritize cost-performance—seeking 'good value at low prices.' Their decision to shop there reflects an implicit acceptance of potential 'safety imperfections,' making them more tolerant of near-expiry items or surplus stock—especially suited for immediate-consumption needs.

[Jingwei Morning Brief] 'Oracle of Omaha' Warren Buffett is still losing money; can’t hold on any longer? Meta may carry out its first large-scale layoffs.

[Overnight Headlines] Berkshire Hathaway Posts Over $2.6 Billion Loss in Q3 Recently, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.—the conglomerate led by Warren Buffett—released its latest financial report. Following a staggering $40 billion loss in Q2, the company reported another $2.688 billion net loss attributable to shareholders in Q3. Specifically, the report shows Berkshire generated $76.934 billion in revenue in Q3, up from $70.583 billion a year earlier; however, net income attributable to shareholders stood at a loss of $2.688 billion, versus a profit of $10.344 billion in the same period last year. Berkshire’s investment and derivatives losses totaled $10.45 billion in Q3, after a $53.038 billion loss in Q2. U.S. equity markets remained weak throughout the quarter, and most of Berkshire’s stock holdings posted losses. Regarding the performance shift, Berkshire stated that the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to impact its operations to varying degrees, while supply-chain-related cost increases—originating in 2021—have persisted into 2022. Top Five Equity Holdings: As of the end of Q3, Berkshire’s equity portfolio included Apple Inc. ($126.5 billion), Bank of America ($31.2 billion), Chevron ($24.4 billion), Coca-Cola ($22.4 billion), and American Express ($20.5 billion). Twitter Co-Founder Apologizes: 'I Grew the Company Too Fast' Recently, after completing his acquisition of Twitter, Elon Musk abruptly announced plans to cut approximately half of the platform’s workforce to address its current losses and debt burden. In response, Jack Dorsey—Twitter’s co-founder—recently posted an apology to soon-to-be-laid-off employees, accepting responsibility for the mass layoffs. In his post, Dorsey expressed confidence that Twitter employees would overcome their current difficulties. He acknowledged that many employees were angry with him and admitted he bore responsibility for numerous layoffs: 'I grew the company too fast—I apologize for that.' According to SEC filings, as of June 30, 2013—shortly before Twitter’s IPO—the company employed about 2,000 people. By year-end last year, its full-time staff had exceeded 7,500. However, media analysis suggests Dorsey has already profited substantially from Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. In April, both Fortune and Forbes reported that Dorsey—who held a sizable stake in Twitter—as well as Musk—who had acquired significant shares—had reaped enormous gains from the surge in Twitter’s stock price following Musk’s initial acquisition announcement. Regarding the layoffs, Musk wrote on Twitter Friday afternoon (local time): 'There is no alternative.' Musk added: 'Unfortunately, when the company is losing over $4 million per day, we have no alternative. All laid-off employees will receive three months’ severance—50% above the legal requirement.'

Braskem Q3 Earnings Down as Price Spreads Normalize

18 hours ago

Braskem reported a $206 million third-quarter net loss as petrochemical price spreads normalized following geopolitical tensions. Revenue fell 11% sequentially to $3.812 billion, driven by lower margins despite increased sales volumes in Brazil and Mexico.

chemweek

2026-05-06

Braskem Q1 Output Rebounds in Brazil After Bahia Maintenance; Mexico Suffers Ethane Crunch

2026-05-16

Braskem Q1 earnings buoyed by PP margins, REIQ credits

2026-08-14

Petrochemicals Maker Braskem Beats Estimates Amid Cash Woes

2026-10-02

Owners of Brazil's Braskem Finalizing Counter Proposal to $3 Billion Capital Demand

2026-11-06

Braskem Shareholders Pull Funding Offer as Debt Talks Hit Snags