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

131–140 of 179 posts

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#131

Post by everybodyknows »

dyingkneepad wrote: post #82
frantathefranta wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also Barnes & Noble weirdly

You're trying to say they are good quality!? I recently had to gift someone some books, so I decided to try B&N online shipping since Amazon sometimes damages books. I ordered 3 books: all 3 came loose in a big box, all 3 were damaged: they looked like used books, unacceptable as a gift. I returned them, they didn't have ship-to-store option (which was what Gemini was telling me to push for), and they sent me new one…

Publishers sell directly -- haven't tried it myself. Anyone?

https://www.simonandschuster.com/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#132

Post by philsnow »

Nearly every brand on the "approved" list is outerwear, hiking equipment, knives, tools, and "EDC" gear.

Is this because of the Palantir / techbro culture that the author is immersed in, or for some systemic or economic reason?

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#133

Post by yndoendo »

I'd say we really need an phone application and or web browser extension to find out if a product is owned by Private Equity or Big Business. Something like isitbigbeer.com but for clothing, toys, food, and drink.

Companies like Kroger are buying up their competition while not changing the name to make it look like they still compete.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#134

Post by strix_varius »

ghaff wrote: post #130
mcphage wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I can hear the whooshing from over here.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#135

Post by eesmith »

lamasery wrote: post #5

I think there's a lot of hidden inflation in this. Or, if not outright inflation, something similar to it. Look at what it costs to get a work shirt (I mean, for physical labor, "blue collar", heavy chambray or something along those lines) of comparable quality & materials to what was in a Sears catalog in the 1930s or ordered by the US military in the 1940s, which in neither case could be regarded as super-fancy . Y…

> physical labor, "blue collar", heavy chambray or something along those lines) of comparable quality & materials to what was in a Sears catalog in the 1930s

For a supporting example from the Spring and Summer 1929 Sears Catalog at, https://archive.org/details/sears-roebuck-catalog-158-r-1929...

"If it’s a Hercules, it’s the best work shirt on earth! Sales prove it. Deep down in the mine, in the mills and factories, high on the lofty girders of a towering skyscraper, in fact wherever the work is rugged and the going is tough you’ll find Hercules shirts on the backs of hardy men. It is the undisputed choice of a Nation! This shirt is made of heavyweight chambray in closed front style."

87 cents, postpaid. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ says that's $16.80 now. Fabric breaking strength is 62 pounds/inch. The triple stitched seams have a breaking strength of 58 pounds/inch.

The fancy version on that page is $1.00 -- just under $20 now.

Same shirt, Jan. 1935, price now 77 cents, or just under $19 now. https://archive.org/details/CAT31345884/page/140/mode/2up?q=...

"The toughest, ruggedest, man-size shirt we’ve ever sold. Packed full of more strength, stamina and comfort than ever before. Read every feature above! Sanforized Shrunk means perfect fit. All the washings in the world won’t shrink it. WHERE ELSE can you find such a shirt — such a price — such an opportunity?

Where indeed can I buy it now? I ... think I want one.

Dress shirts were about twice to thrice as much, and up to $6 for "radium silk"; 1929 was likely the last year they used that marketing term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_silk

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#136

Post by strix_varius »

vonneumannstan wrote: post #122
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+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...

The contrast of your two perspectives kind of illustrates the information void (of quality vs price) in the article.

At Walmart it's common to get jeans (including Levi jeans) for < $20. But how long will they last? I honestly don't know, and even more I don't know how to definitely pay more for better quality.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#137

Post by insane_dreamer »

Have PE takeovers done anything good? Everything I've read about long-term outcomes of PE deals over the years, is they are highly profitable for the investors and highly shitty for the companies, employees and customers of the companies they take over. And those are the "successful" PE deals. The unsuccessful ones are just shitty for everyone.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#138

Post by insane_dreamer »

strix_varius wrote: post #136
vonneumannstan wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...

The contrast of your two perspectives kind of illustrates the information void (of quality vs price) in the article. At Walmart it's common to get jeans (including Levi jeans) for < $20. But how long will they last? I honestly don't know, and even more I don't know how to definitely pay more for better quality.

So long as I'm fortunate enough to be able to clothe and feed my family, I'm not giving Walmart -- probably the most destructive company of all time -- any of my dollars and I don't care how cheap the shit is there.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#139

Post by insane_dreamer »

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.

We need a curated directory of brands, like Yahoo of old, but for brands instead of websites. With information on who they are ultimately owned by, i.e., PE, public company, private enterprise, where they do their manufacturing, how they source their materials.

Yeah, I know that would be a lot of work, especially to keep it updated, but a valuable resource in this day an age. Because ownership changes as the article points out. I thought my local grocery store was local (because it looks/feels/acts very local), but it turns out they're now owned by a Korean conglomerate.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#140

Post by guywithahat »

bokchoi wrote: post #90
guywithahat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can confidently say I use and enjoy almost all of those brands. A great litmus test for whether a company makes good products is whether they make them locally enough for the CEO to regularly visit the factory. A somewhat humorous example is System76, where their US built stuff (cases, keyboards) are made with relatively thick aluminum and are surprisingly sturdy, while their laptops can be flimsy and are less rugg…

Wasn't System76 working on a laptop? Whatever happened to that?

I remember that! They posted it in 2023 (https://x.com/carlrichell/status/1643260524841566211) and haven't really updated since. I've messaged system76 a few times and not gotten a response.

I do hope they build it though, I own their keyboard/desktop and would love to round out my collection with a laptop.

Post reply on HN