Post

I think my most genuinely unpopular take is that a widely held and genuine consumer preference for cheaper, lower-quality goods, not private equity, is driving the decline in quality of consumer goods like clothing and housewares.

Consumers used to select their purchases from what was available at local stores, which were stocked with goods chosen by professional buyers looking for quality and value.

Online shopping eliminated these gatekeepers and disintermediated the market, allowing consumers to express their desires more directly. And it turns out that what people really want is cheap disposable goods, not more expensive but higher quality stuff that lasts a long time.

I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that there’s no way to easily distinguish between something that is durable and high quality and something that is merely expensive.

And this is the part where people say "private equity" (really Welchian extractive management style no matter the form) comes in. Companies that progressively lower the quality of formerly trusted brand name products erode that brand value and make all brands less trustworthy over time.

It's wild to say "oh people just want cheaper products" and then it's obvious that even if you buy a product with a good name it's frequently bought out so why buy a good product if you can't even rely on that anymore?

This is true until you look at a situation like Oakley. They were quality with a good price. Luxottica owns like 80% of all the stores, refused to stock them at the lower price Oakley wanted, so Oakley had nowhere to sell. Lux bought the company. Now they are cheap crap at 400% or more markup.

but what do you do if that brand gets acquired and now OXO or whatever becomes both poorer quality and more expensive?