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

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#171

Post by buggeryorkshire »

So glad they called out Solovair as a replacement for Doc Martens.

My first pair of DMs lasted me 7 Glastonbury Festivals - and if you'd ever been there you know the muddy ones are a mare, I average 40000 steps a day at the festival and just trying to lift your feet up in thickening and warming mud is a nightmare. Only threw them as I couldn't bear to clean them.

Next two pairs of DMs after moving the manufacturing to Thailand? Crap. Didn't even last a single festival, soles came apart, waterproofing was non-existent.

Solovair are fantastic. They're using the original tooling in the original DM factory. Expensive but worth it.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#172

Post by timbit42 »

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…

I'm still wearing a jacket I bought 28 years ago. I wear it nearly every day through the summer.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#174

Post by vonneumannstan »

0xffff2 wrote: post #149
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...

Man, I have no idea what is going on here, but your link takes me to a page for 501's for $110, yet just clicking around I found this page [0] that lists what to me looks like exactly the same jeans for $85 and with an option to "Buy 2+, For $55 Each". I'm still moderately convinced that $99 is ~double the actual market rate for a pair of Levi's and even Levi's are upper middle-end in my mind. Wranglers don't look as…

Yeah I have no idea whats up with their pricing. My main point was that $99 jeans is not some insane luxury only a select few can afford.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#175

Post by kayfox »

sosodev wrote: post #113

I was surprised by the bit about Costco selling the outlet-tier trash. I don't currently have a membership, but I've generally understood their position to be quality at cost.

Costco has the same sourcing issues a lot of other companies have, they do spend a lot of effort on due diligence when sourcing Kirkland Signature brand products, but sometimes what they get in a production run ends up being something else, or there's unexpected issues with the products once the public gets them.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#176

Post by lo_zamoyski »

senderista wrote: post #97
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If capitalism is about meeting market demands apart from any objective sense of quality, then yes. It's basically curve fitting. The reason things are shittier is because the market is shittier. Consumer demands shape what companies make and sell. If companies can get away with selling garbage, because the market is undiscerning, then they will make garbage. It's the same with politics. Ultimately, the quality of a p…

But capitalism helps create consumerism. Demand is manufactured, not just met.

That depends what you include under the definition of "capitalism". I think a minimal definition - private property, profit motive, market exchange - doesn't necessarily entail consumerism. You need to include additional factors like the cultural/moral context and the political order. Liberalism + capitalism can easily degenerate into consumerism, because the state here takes a permissive moral stance toward vice.

In any case, no one is inducing new basic appetites into the market, but seizing on (often through deception and manipulation) existing appetites. "Keeping up with the Joneses", for example, exploits envy and other covetous vices in the populace. Indulging vices naturally feeds those vices which can entrench a culture that normalizes them.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#178

Post by devld »

I'm seeing this with Costa Coffee and Starbucks. They are both changing to a very cheap, plastic white, bright design. Why? So people spend as little time as possible sitting there, so there's a higher turnover.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#179

Post by pigeons »

sosodev wrote: post #113

I was surprised by the bit about Costco selling the outlet-tier trash. I don't currently have a membership, but I've generally understood their position to be quality at cost.

That's what I thought too, then I bought a pair of Eddie Bauer (in the article) shoes from them and they completely fell apart in one day.
Post reply on HN