Worse on Purpose
ledger.worseonpurpose.com
Worse on Purpose
1–10 of 88 posts
Re: Worse on Purpose
#2This goes well with https://consumerrights.wiki
Re: Worse on Purpose
#3I wonder if there’s an inverse of this: brands that actually got better over time because they don’t have massive brand history to fall back on, or simply because they actually care.
Re: Worse on Purpose
#4Suggestion: sort/filter by location (EU/US/etc.).
Re: Worse on Purpose
#5As far as I can tell, this is a site for an LLM to vomit out the same basic article with different specific products each time.
Re: Worse on Purpose
#6As far as I can tell, this is a site for an LLM to vomit out the same basic article with different specific products each time.
Methodology: https://ledger.worseonpurpose.com/methodology
Re: Worse on Purpose
#7I wonder if there’s an inverse of this: brands that actually got better over time because they don’t have massive brand history to fall back on, or simply because they actually care.
The site lists "Approved" companies that have not been enshittified by private equity. What springs to mind for me are scissor manufacturers Ernest Wright and Whiteley. They maintained quality, relied on expert workers and aim to keep high quality staff for their career and hire people to learn manual skills.
The result of this is high prices and waitlists for many of their products, which is the exact opposite of what private equity and conglomerates want.
Another interesting example from the UK is Howies. They were bought by Timberland, which then in succession got bought by VF, a big US conglomerate. The Howies brand was small and insignificant globally so the management of Howies were allowed to buy the company back and it continues as a niche
Private equity companies exist in a range of sizes, some buying big multinational brands and others buying small local brands. It's a omnivorous predator and it's down to the owners of companies to resist the temptation of money.
Re: Worse on Purpose
#8[flagged]
Re: Worse on Purpose
#9I wonder if there’s an inverse of this: brands that actually got better over time because they don’t have massive brand history to fall back on, or simply because they actually care.
The site lists "Approved" companies that have not been enshittified by private equity. What springs to mind for me are scissor manufacturers Ernest Wright and Whiteley. They maintained quality, relied on expert workers and aim to keep high quality staff for their career and hire people to learn manual skills. The result of this is high prices and waitlists for many of their products, which is the exact opposite of wh…
Yeah it's quite interesting how most of the decline of great brands came as a result of ownership changes, not complacency on part of the owner/founder.
I've actually found AI a great resource for finding brands that offer great value for money by buying from obscure factories/brands with the same quality attributes as major brands, but without all the marketing spend and brand margin to subsidize.
Re: Worse on Purpose
#10Yeah not sure. Barbour for example has a few good models that are produced in England. The rest is from China and not up to standard. Well known, but this page just lists it as "approved". Same for carhartt actually.