401–410 of 505 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a special place in hell for people who would buy a dog food brand only to make worse dog food…
Let me introduce you to a little thing called Private Equity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a special place in hell for people who would buy a dog food brand only to make worse dog food…
The steelman is that by lowering the cost, more pets can afford better food than what they currently eat. No comment about whether that is reflected in the consumer facing price or in profits.
For your steelman to be relevant it would have to be reflected by lowering the price, otherwise they're just making the product worse for no customer benefit whatsoever and hoping customers take a long time to notice.
And if they were trying to offer a different value proposition by reducing the quality in order to lower the price, the honest way to do it would be to introduce a new product with a different name rather than changing what the product is while leaving the name the same.
One big problem is that prices are easy to compare, while quality is not. I recently bought a tub that was advertised as stainless steel on Amazon. I was suspicious but decided to take a chance. Turns out it is galvanized, not stainless. I’m not sure the average person knows the difference. To be charitable, perhaps that’s even why the listing advertised it that way. But the difference matters significantly in terms…
This is THE biggest problem for me. I'm happy to pay for quality when I need quality. But there's almost sorcery involved in finding quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything has become a lemon market: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons Even if a brand stays solid for 100 years, for all I know as I'm standing there in the store deciding whether to buy something, private equity bought them two quarters ago and hollowed them out. Harvard MBAs/private equity sees brand reputation as just another resource to be converted into money. If I were a billionaire my dream…
I wish more brands would follow the Newman’s Own charity model. All profits go to charity, so there isn’t an incentive to hollow out the brand, and the products are a reliable quality at a decent price. Apparently they set up an organization to help other people do this: https://100forpurpose.org/
But something that might be interesting is to start a non-profit whose mission is to create value for customers (i.e. produce non-garbage products), and then all profits go not to a separate charity but to increasing the number of product lines the company produces. Then spin the new product lines off into independent non-profits with the same charter so the organization doesn't become large and bureaucratic or suffer permanent collapse as a result of a single period of poorly chosen upper management.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I finally subscribed to consumer reports. It is the only independent place we can trust for that information. However they only review a subset of the things I want to buy.
Project Farm on YouTube has never disappointed me. The guy buys everything himself and finds creative & reproducible ways to test things.
Nothing he said was wrong. Dyson’s performance is genuinely excellent. The problem is everything else.
It squeaks as I move it around while vacuuming due to flimsy rubber seals. It doesn’t have a retractable cord or any good place to put it. It has a clever feature where if the vacuum is fully upright, then the accessories are active, otherwise the main floor head is active - cool, except that the upright position never clicks well, I have to constantly fight it. I could go on and on…
None of these things show up on a spec sheet and I didn’t come across them in any reviews either. It looks cool and it cleans well, but every other aspect of it is junk. I’m never going to buy one again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Major known brands are guilty of this too, often regardless of price. I think this is part of the problem. Everyone wants high-quality (for the most part), but no-one wants to pay more than necessary. If known brand is no longer an indicator of quality, how do you determine that you want to spend say 2-5x the price on something? Reading reviews and such gets you part of the way, but they often focus on new products…
> but no-one wants to pay more than necessary Why would you assume that to be true? It's definitely not true for me.
One big problem is that prices are easy to compare, while quality is not. I recently bought a tub that was advertised as stainless steel on Amazon. I was suspicious but decided to take a chance. Turns out it is galvanized, not stainless. I’m not sure the average person knows the difference. To be charitable, perhaps that’s even why the listing advertised it that way. But the difference matters significantly in terms…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only time I ever see ads are at the cinema. I see people talking about them but I have been out of the loop for well over a decade. No adverts on Netflix, bbc, Disney, YouTube, paramount, Spotify. I cancelled Amazon because they added adverts.
Sure, streaming services usually don't have ads. But you're paying a lot of money for specific content there. I'm talking about normal web page stuff. And if you're not seeing ads there, then either you go to very few normal web pages or you're using an ad blocker. Ad blocking is useful but it's not a solution. I want a way to distribute a reasonable amount of money across the sites I visit in exchange for no ads, bu…
Personally I value the time saved far more than the 2% of my income I spend on streaming subscriptions.
I understand the strong desire to help the environment, but why lead with that? I think it's become apparent that the average person doesn't really care about the environment. People do care about maximum convenience and minimal cost , which usually leads to waste. We should try harder to create a system that aligns the incentive of taking care of the Earth than we try to force people to care about the environment. R…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People blame MBAs a lot, but most CEOs are Engineers or Economists by training.
It's the MBA mindset. I think about it in simplified way that in the past a lot of businesses weren't run mainly for profit. So a plumber focused on plumbing first and set prices to have enough profit to live. Once the MBA/PE mindset comes in, they think about maximum profit first and plumbing is just a secondary thing. I have seen that with dentists, vets and many contractors.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/how-mckins...
History shows profit maximizing behavior in letters dating to 1900 BCE Egypt and 1800 BCE Anatolia by Assyrian merchant houses.
I appreciate the analysis you're making, again, but it is low resolution. There's a lot more nuance to what you're saying and it definitely doesn't come down to MBA graduates in the past few decades.
The consultancy-private equity complex for example is a big part of the shift in American culture after "Greed is Good" was said out loud in the 1980s. Why this cultural shift happened? "Because MBAs" is not as much of an answer as it is bar talk simplistic hand waving to end a conversation and change subject.