Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brands got worse on purpose

worseonpurpose.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 179 posts

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#121

Post by vonneumannstan »

ghaff wrote: post #31
vharuck wrote: post #24

I (or really, my parents) were burned by something like this recently. They bought my kid an FAO Schwarz marble run tower for Christmas. It's made of terrible plastic, with rough seams, and every play session ends when a marble gets stuck somewhere nearly impossible to reach. It requires partial disassembly, bending, and a screwdriver to pry things out. I was shocked that an FAO Schwarz toy sucked so much. I looked a…

FAO's used to be a prestige NYC brand. Of course, they carried many other branded products but those were mostly top-shelf (and expensive) as well. A LOT of formerly pretty high quality brands have ended up getting sold off to brand management companies and the like. I just got a few pairs of shoes from AllBirds because while the name will live on I have no doubt the quality will become pretty generic now that it's n…

>I just got a few pairs of shoes from AllBirds because while the name will live on I have no doubt the quality will become pretty generic now that it's no longer a Silicon Valley must-have thing.

Didn't get the memo? They're an AI infra company now ><

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#122

Post by vonneumannstan »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #59
logotype wrote: post #10

Support brands with values and local manufacturing. For example: American Giant, Origin, Crye Precision, Randolph Engineering, American Optical, and many more.

+1 on Origin. 100% of their good are built from American-grown/made materials, built by American hands. It's wayyyy more expensive than most common brands ($99 for a pair of jeans), but if you compare them to "luxury" brands like Lululemon, it's comparable and wasn't manufactured using slave labor. Personally, I love using Origin for everything I can afford to use them for. I acknowledge not everyone has the privileg…

>I acknowledge not everyone has the privilege to spend $99 on a pair of jeans, but if you find yourself able, I think it's worthy to support American manufacturing.

I feel like I'm in a parallel universe. What year is it? Base Levis are more than that... We're also on a site filled with well off tech workers. $99 jeans aren't exactly a luxury.

https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/clothing/men/501-original-mens...

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#123

Post by mcphage »

ghaff wrote: post #31
vharuck wrote: post #24

I (or really, my parents) were burned by something like this recently. They bought my kid an FAO Schwarz marble run tower for Christmas. It's made of terrible plastic, with rough seams, and every play session ends when a marble gets stuck somewhere nearly impossible to reach. It requires partial disassembly, bending, and a screwdriver to pry things out. I was shocked that an FAO Schwarz toy sucked so much. I looked a…

FAO's used to be a prestige NYC brand. Of course, they carried many other branded products but those were mostly top-shelf (and expensive) as well. A LOT of formerly pretty high quality brands have ended up getting sold off to brand management companies and the like. I just got a few pairs of shoes from AllBirds because while the name will live on I have no doubt the quality will become pretty generic now that it's n…

> A LOT of formerly pretty high quality brands have ended up getting sold off to brand management companies and the like.

That sounds fascinating... I'd love to read an article about that.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#124

Post by singleshot_ »

AlexB138 wrote: post #39

Funny baader-meinhof moment for me reading this. My wife recently bought me some Brooks Brothers polo shirts that essentially dissolved the first time they were washed. I had never seen a shirt that was such poor quality. We were both flabbergasted, and the employees apparently gave her a bit of a hard time when she tried to return them. I suppose I now know why. What this company is doing is taking advantage of, and…

All of my multiple decade old made to measure Brooks stuff is starting to wear out. Obviously I’m not even considering replacing it with anything off the rack from BB now because it’s all garbage.

What replaced off the rack suits for men in the US? Or should I give up and buy some Realtree?

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#125

Post by maxglute »

People do notice, just not enough to shift purchasing habits. I think most people would rather cycle through styles regularly than BIFL and wear the same shit for 5-10 years. Most people want more stuff than nice stuff. Regardless "quality" brands price curve still stupid. Pay a few dollars more in better materials in a Chinese factory and have someone there do Q&A full time. The BOOM difference between a $10 throwaway t-shirt and $100 premium version is like $3. Incidentally plenty of Chinese BIFL brands from manufactures who white labels for highend brands selling house brands for >30% price.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#126

Post by antisthenes »

triceratops wrote: post #108
cheschire wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the government is captured by rich crime-loving assholes It’s funny how fast average joe complains when a lack of economic growth slows down their 401k’s though… Edit: Apparently I’m surrounded by non-standard Joe

Is selling substandard trash at premium prices really "growth"? What are we growing?

Growing a generation of kids who come of age in a society with a non-functional social contract.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#127

Post by pocksuppet »

JohnFen wrote: post #101
cheschire wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many folks within five to ten years of retirement do you talk to? If you’re surrounded by people under 50, you probably wouldn’t hear much about it.

I'm surrounded by people in that age group (I'm one of them, even), and I don't remember any of them talking about this.

I'm sure all of them want more money, but I've never heard a person say we need to screw over the economy so that they, personally, can have more money. The stock market is treated like the weather. If they want more money they want the government to just give it to them - even the most conservative ones - not play silly financial games to pretend it isn't.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#128

Post by pllbnk »

maxglute wrote: post #125

People do notice, just not enough to shift purchasing habits. I think most people would rather cycle through styles regularly than BIFL and wear the same shit for 5-10 years. Most people want more stuff than nice stuff. Regardless "quality" brands price curve still stupid. Pay a few dollars more in better materials in a Chinese factory and have someone there do Q&A full time. The BOOM difference between a $10 throwaw…

Blame the fashion industry. Every year they come up with something new that is fashionable that year - a style, a color. Year over year it doesn’t have much impact on majority of people but over several years it compounds and your clothes become not trendy or old fashioned. That’s why BIFL doesn’t work for people. They wouldn’t want to pay a significant premium for quality clothing that they can wear for 10 years when it will likely be out of fashion after 5.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#129

Post by ghaff »

vonneumannstan wrote: post #121
ghaff wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAO's used to be a prestige NYC brand. Of course, they carried many other branded products but those were mostly top-shelf (and expensive) as well. A LOT of formerly pretty high quality brands have ended up getting sold off to brand management companies and the like. I just got a few pairs of shoes from AllBirds because while the name will live on I have no doubt the quality will become pretty generic now that it's n…

>I just got a few pairs of shoes from AllBirds because while the name will live on I have no doubt the quality will become pretty generic now that it's no longer a Silicon Valley must-have thing. Didn't get the memo? They're an AI infra company now ><

It seems silly doesn't it?

LL Bean sort of has AKAIK. I could also name some less mainstream equipment brands out west. Probably REI too.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#130

Post by ghaff »

mcphage wrote: post #123
ghaff wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAO's used to be a prestige NYC brand. Of course, they carried many other branded products but those were mostly top-shelf (and expensive) as well. A LOT of formerly pretty high quality brands have ended up getting sold off to brand management companies and the like. I just got a few pairs of shoes from AllBirds because while the name will live on I have no doubt the quality will become pretty generic now that it's n…

> A LOT of formerly pretty high quality brands have ended up getting sold off to brand management companies and the like. That sounds fascinating... I'd love to read an article about that.

You make me almost curious enough to do some digging. So many "mom and pop" type shops end up having to sell out for various reasons. A few survive but it's not common.
Post reply on HN