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

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#151

Post by gensym »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #146
gensym wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arcteryx, despite being owned by a larger corporation, is still high quality. Their hardshell jackets are the gold standard. I've also had success with Mountain Hardware, Outdoor Research (jackets and pants). (I do search and rescue, so a lot of focus on outdoor stuff. It is also really hard on gear so anything cheaply made gets destroyed pretty quickly.)

It's not that being owned by a larger corp is inherently bad. Mountain Hardware is owned by Columbia, so is Prana, and all three are good quality and Columbia is a decent company by all accounts. So it's what type of company owns it -- is it a PE play to extract maximum value for shareholders, or a lasting company building value for consumers?

Yeah, totally agree (though Prana changed the fabric of their excellent Stretch Zion pants for the worse a few years back).

Another company I really like is Mystery Ranch (for backpacks). They were purchased by Yeti and it remains to be seen whether their quality will drop to that of a "lifestyle brand".

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#152

Post by lores »

pocksuppet wrote: post #88
wholinator2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really shouldn't be creating and allowing a society where the rich can get rich off of destroying the quality of life for everyone else. Smells like guaranteed eventual revolution to me. Also, don't these people understand that they are destroying everything they was good. Like, surely they understand through all the corporate speak and distended responsibilities that they are directly making everyone's lives wors…

I think they know what they're doing and have no reason to care. Why would they? They're getting rich.

In the immortal words of Ladré:

  Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira!
  Les aristocrates à la lanterne.
  Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira!
  Les aristocrates on les pendra.
  Si on n’les pend pas
  On les rompra.
  Si on n’les rompt pas
  On les brûlera.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#153

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

dgudkov wrote: post #143
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of brands are public and also shit now. Perhaps the issue is that MBAs are ruining everything?

Let's not pretend that shareholders are innocent. They are happy with the quick buck the board gives them.

Let’s not pretend that it’s some massive percentage of normal investors that get any say in this.

OK, pension fund, investors, black rock, Vanguard, city group, all of Wall Street want to see the number go up right?

And what’s the easy way to make the number go up? Run as lean as possible even if it means supply chain fragility, over optimize, under deliver because who cares, sacrifice the long-term.

Like I said… MBAs.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#154

Post by anal_reactor »

miladyincontrol wrote: post #148
lamasery wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brooks has their "factory outlet" crap that is also what you're likely to see at "overstock" stores like Nordstrom Rack (or TJ Max, though I'm not sure they get Brooks-branded stuff; NR does). That entire market is basically one big decentralized fraud operation, they took a model that used to involve selling brands' real goods that had, for whatever reason, not sold well or had minor quality defects, at steep discou…

I mean "factory outlet malls" have been a trend for like two decades now and the whole third-rate product line scam has been going stronger even before then. Sad part is a lot of knockoffs/bootlegs are ironically better quality than the absolute rubbish those "outlet" type stores peddle these days, while also being cheaper, but really neither are worth your money.

I just buy stuff on AliExpress because the concept of "brand" doesn't exist there so reviews always refer to exactly the product they sell. Sometimes it's trash, but often it's really solid, and you can find things you can't find elsewhere. It's like a flea market where you need to know how to buy. I always buy trousers there because they're superb. Lots of electronics. Sex toys. And I bought a replacement part for my fridge that I would've otherwise needed to completely scrap. Thank you Xi Jinping.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#155

Post by dfee »

etrautmann wrote: post #147
dfee wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Hadn't heard of American Giant. I buy AG Jeans and Robert Barakett shirts, and this is my usual outfit. However, AG Jeans ( https://www.agjeans.com/ ) is distinct from American Giant jeans ( https://www.american-giant.com/collections/mens-bottoms ). I also struggle to identify quality brands. Generally just shop at Nordstorm.

How can a t-shirt possibly be worth $100? Is that truly better than alternatives?

the Robert Barakett shirt? i don't know – often on sale for $50. how are they worth $50? well… there's no logo on them and they fit well.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#156

Post by logotype »

etrautmann wrote: post #147
dfee wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Hadn't heard of American Giant. I buy AG Jeans and Robert Barakett shirts, and this is my usual outfit. However, AG Jeans ( https://www.agjeans.com/ ) is distinct from American Giant jeans ( https://www.american-giant.com/collections/mens-bottoms ). I also struggle to identify quality brands. Generally just shop at Nordstorm.

How can a t-shirt possibly be worth $100? Is that truly better than alternatives?

It’s a cost I’m willing to pay. You’re paying for a fully domestic supply chain. The cotton is grown in the U.S., then cleaned, spun into yarn, made into fabric, dyed, and finally cut and sewn in Los Angeles. Every step happens in the United States, supporting local farming, manufacturing, and labor.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#157

Post by pocksuppet »

timacles wrote: post #114
wholinator2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really shouldn't be creating and allowing a society where the rich can get rich off of destroying the quality of life for everyone else. Smells like guaranteed eventual revolution to me. Also, don't these people understand that they are destroying everything they was good. Like, surely they understand through all the corporate speak and distended responsibilities that they are directly making everyone's lives wors…

They do it because, In the words of Gordon Gecko, they can. To them, theres a never ending line of hungry vultures right behind them, and if they do not do it, someone will take their place and do it and profit from it. So naturally they MUST do it, because it will inevitably be done also. > What is it that these financial frameworks actually do that helps anyone? They are supposed to clean out inefficiencies in econ…

Has real capitalism ever been tried?

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#158

Post by pocksuppet »

seizethecheese wrote: post #28

The interesting thing here is that this is about brands being bought out of bankruptcy and licensed. The trademark system in the US exists to prevent consumer confusion, one might think that if a company ceases to exist, the trademark shouldn’t survive.

The trademark system exists to protect companies by preventing another company from making consumers confuse you with them. You can do whatever you want with your trademark within your company - you don't have any duty to prevent consumer confusion within your company.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#159

Post by pocksuppet »

wholinator2 wrote: post #89
post-it wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You're probably looking at minimum $150. Of course, this is still cheaper than it was in the 1940s. With my…

Multiple $150 shirts per month? That's vastly out of range for the vast majority of human beings alive in the United States right now. I know i definitely could not afford a $300-$450/month increase in expenditure, it would literally bankrupt me. I've already had to sell all the stocks i had just to stay afloat renting and eating normal home made good food in a not so expensive city as a relatively high paid graduate…

If your job doesn't cover your rent and food, you are not highly paid. You are, as they say, slave labor.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#160

Post by strix_varius »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #138
strix_varius wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And? I'm not advocating for buying jeans at Walmart. I'm using it as an illustration of the lower bounds of jeans pricing.
Post reply on HN