On the flip side, I have a whirlpool thin twin that is close to 20 years old, and the only things that have broken are a fuse thing on the back so it wouldn't dry, and the hole switch for the washer. Neither of which cost more than $200 to fix.
Whirlpool bought Maytag over 10 years ago.
IIRC, doesn't Whirlpool have a great reputation for reliability? Or was that Kenmore? Or am I just randomly throwing out appliance manufacturer names?
Maytag had that reputation. Also pretty sure whirlpool makes Kenmore.
Maytag had that reputation because of their ad campaign with the bored Maytag repairman but at the time Whirlpool bought them out (a year or two after I worked there) their reliability numbers weren't any better. They were acquired mostly to eliminate a domestic competitor.
Kenmore was a nebulous Sears brand and the manufacturer varied by product line. Whirlpool made their washers and I believe a majority of their other home appliances. When I worked there (circa 2003) their badge was put on the lower end stuff and the Kenmore Elite badge was put on their higher end stuff. I think it's fair to consider this still on topic as it's a prime example of the myth of consumer choice and competition in the American economy.
I was such a maytag repairman (I was not left wanting for work), survived the transition to whirlpool, and survived the sell off of the appliance service repair side to A&E, who are(were?) naturally a subsidiary of Sears. The consumer has no idea what they are getting with all the shell games companies play.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
Finish reading that sentence you bolded.
psn: PhasenWeeple
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited November 2018
It's not just the appliance industry and it's not just America. We're the worst but the entire Western world has been way too comfortable with mergers and acquisitions bringing about the new Gilded Age.
As for the "finance people" comment I have a fun conspiracy theory of my own on them. My industry (and others) suffers from a plague of stretched out payment terms. GE, United Technologies, SIEMENS, and many others issue purchase orders with net 60-day, net 90-day, and sometimes even net 120-day terms for payment after delivery to their suppliers. This doesn't save them money though because any supplier I know of (my company included) jacks the price up in their quote when forced to agree to those increasingly absurd terms. So who benefits? Well, even with the increased prices almost no company can afford to maintain necessary cash flow with all their contracts stretched out like that so what do they do? They borrow it from finance guys! They take out lines of credit that charge interest so they can still pay their employees, buy raw materials, keep the lights on and operate their business while waiting to get paid.
My conspiracy theory is that GE started this stretched out payment shit because they used to also be a finance company and now that every other manufacturer is owned at least in part by an investment group those groups mandate these terms even if it costs the manufacturer more because it benefits the finance industry.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
Reminds me of one night while working security at a mall, when we started digging into parent companies. "Huh, so A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I" are all owned by the same company... which means that one corporation is effectively renting like 40% of this multi-million square foot complex?"
With, I suppose, just enough brand diversity to not be cannibalizing their own sales constantly, but close enough that I'd be surprised that attire made in one factory wasn't ending up at at least a half dozen of their locations.
Nothing shocking about this notion, just reminiscing about musings my crew went over 15+ years ago, sitting in a major mall at 3 in the morning.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
You missed the important part of what moniker said, just to interject that a monopoly in an industry isn't bad if the products are relatively ok. The main thrust of the complaint is about having a choice in manufacturer. This is undercut by the fact that 2/3rds of the companies are actually under one umbrella.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
You missed the important part of what moniker said, just to interject that a monopoly in an industry isn't bad if the products are relatively ok. The main thrust of the complaint is about having a choice in manufacturer. This is undercut by the fact that 2/3rds of the companies are actually under one umbrella.
The complaint was about the reliability of appliances and blaming that (and the inability to do anything about it) on consolidation. There's been a lot of discussion about unreliability. I'm wondering to what extent that's actually true as compared to price.
Crossovers dominate because many consumers like sitting high up and the feeling of power it gives them. If it was about practicality, minivans would dominate full-size SUVs and station wagons would dominate compact SUVs. Both have more cargo capacity for the footprint. Note how there are only three minivans left, but everybody makes full-size SUVs, often multiple models. The rise of subcompact SUVs also confirms this. They have very little cargo space. I bet I can put more into a Honda Fit than an HR-V.
Minivans have a bed rep and drive a way that is to many people not so great and wagons literally don't exist anymore. Smaller SUVs are happening because there are literally no other options.
And why? Because SUVs are still counted as trucks in some cases, and having a lot of small trucks gives manufacturers an easier path to meeting MPG ratings without actually improving their tech: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107161_are-you-driving-a-car-a-crossover-an-suv-or-a-truck-do-you-care
A station wagon has more difficult regulations to meet than an SUV designed for the same uses, and because the MPG regulations are fleetwide, any vehicles that drag the average down are bad to sell. The SUV market has existed as a loophole in regulations for decades now, and if they ever get regulated properly, the market could vanish.
Ford and the like are banking the future of their company on that loophole never being closed. I think this is a foolish plan; the Democratic party will be pressured into doing something about CO2 emissions once they regain power.
Also, I suspect another reason that nobody is buying sedans is that they're waiting for electric vehicles to get good/cheap. This is a transformative technology with obvious benefits, but buying the first generation is probably not the best idea. So, put a few more years on your car while you wait for the technology to improve, and for them to reach your price level.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
I'm sure price has gone down significantly, thanks to automation &c. manufactured goods are cheaper than ever. Not sure where to look for quality over time past the warranty.
And my complaint is broader. Lack of competition is bad in a market economy and causes stagnation compared to actually competitive markets. Consolidation over a certain point is inherently harmful in and of itself.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
I'm sure price has gone down significantly, thanks to automation &c. manufactured goods are cheaper than ever. Not sure where to look for quality over time past the warranty.
I can find articles talking about lifetime on appliances going down but they also mention prices dropping too and I'm not sure about the overall effects.
Like, is lifetime going down per dollar spent? Is it on average or with all appliances? Are cheaper more shoddy options being added into the pool (ye olde Samuel Vimes Boots theory at work) and dragging the average down?
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
You missed the important part of what moniker said, just to interject that a monopoly in an industry isn't bad if the products are relatively ok. The main thrust of the complaint is about having a choice in manufacturer. This is undercut by the fact that 2/3rds of the companies are actually under one umbrella.
The complaint was about the reliability of appliances and blaming that (and the inability to do anything about it) on consolidation. There's been a lot of discussion about unreliability. I'm wondering to what extent that's actually true as compared to price.
The consumer being unable to make a value judgement on a product due to obfuscation of who is making said product is against the very principle of what is supposedly good about capitalism. "The consumer is wrong actually and let me show you a chart why," isn't a defence. The consumer can be wrong about a value judgement and in fact a whole industry lives in the space of misinforming the customer about quality, but they should still be able to be informed of what company makes their product.
It's not just the appliance industry and it's not just America. We're the worst but the entire Western world has been way too comfortable with mergers and acquisitions bringing about the new Gilded Age.
As for the "finance people" comment I have a fun conspiracy theory of my own on them. My industry (and others) suffers from a plague of stretched out payment terms. GE, United Technologies, SIEMENS, and many others issue purchase orders with net 60-day, net 90-day, and sometimes even net 120-day terms for payment after delivery to their suppliers. This doesn't save them money though because any supplier I know of (my company included) jacks the price up in their quote when forced to agree to those increasingly absurd terms. So who benefits? Well, even with the increased prices almost no company can afford to maintain necessary cash flow with all their contracts stretched out like that so what do they do? They borrow it from finance guys! They take out lines of credit that charge interest so they can still pay their employees, buy raw materials, keep the lights on and operate their business while waiting to get paid.
My conspiracy theory is that GE started this stretched out payment shit because they used to also be a finance company and now that every other manufacturer is owned at least in part by an investment group those groups mandate these terms even if it costs the manufacturer more because it benefits the finance industry.
GE stretched out the payment terms because cash on books makes them look good. And they used 180 net payment to force suppliers to give a 5% discount if they want better terms.
Of course, suppliers just upped their prices by 10% and then gave the 5% discount, because at the end of the day, GE still needs product to sell.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
You missed the important part of what moniker said, just to interject that a monopoly in an industry isn't bad if the products are relatively ok. The main thrust of the complaint is about having a choice in manufacturer. This is undercut by the fact that 2/3rds of the companies are actually under one umbrella.
The complaint was about the reliability of appliances and blaming that (and the inability to do anything about it) on consolidation. There's been a lot of discussion about unreliability. I'm wondering to what extent that's actually true as compared to price.
The consumer being unable to make a value judgement on a product due to obfuscation of who is making said product is against the very principle of what is supposedly good about capitalism. "The consumer is wrong actually and let me show you a chart why," isn't a defence. The consumer can be wrong about a value judgement and in fact a whole industry lives in the space of misinforming the customer about quality, but they should still be able to be informed of what company makes their product.
In capitalism 101, we learn pretty early on that the whole premise of capitalism is that the consumer is rational and that the consumer will spend money to purchase things to fulfill their needs in an informed manner.
Buying things like appliances or cars or any other sort of long-term asset for us pretty much immediately breaks this starting premise, because no consumer can accurately foresee what the actual long-term capabilities of said asset are. I cannot tell if a car I buy will fulfill my transportation needs for 10 years, yet that is exactly what the informed decision I am making is, to spend X dollars to fulfill my transportation needs up to a certain level for a certain period of time.
We get around this with the introduction of the mass market, with the idea that consumers will act en masse, that reputation will spread, so that, on average, consumers will not buy a car from a company thinking that it'll fulfill their transportation needs for 10 years when the cars this company makes only last for 5 years, because eventually that company will develop a reputation for only making cars for 5 years, so based on this reputation, consumers will once again be able to make an informed decision on their purchase. Some consumers, even a lot of consumers possibly, will get fucked over in the meantime, but they won't on average, and some light regulation will serve as effective band-aids here to cover this loophole, like prohibitions on false advertising, class-action liability, consumers rights agencies, fraud legislation, etc..
Except 1) well, you can tell me how effective these band-aids actually are nowadays at protecting consumers, and 2) if companies are able to blur their branding so as to effectively erase their reputations, or if they are able to rapidly switch brandnames so as to constantly reset their reputations, then consumers are unable to make informed choices at all based on reputation, and the initial premise of capitalism is broken again, because people are unable to make informed rational choices, and all the fancy graphs and models for capitalist economics depend on that fundamental premise.
Or an alternative way of thinking about this is, you are not allowed to assume multiple identities to take loans out from banks. You are not allowed to shed your identity to take on another one. If you were to be selling people a product that they're purchasing thinking it's a long-term purchase but in reality it falls apart after a few days, then they and the government get mad at you and intervene, and then you were to just change your name and the product's name and continue selling it, that would be impersonation and fraud, and you'd be imprisoned.
Yet these corporations are basically doing the exact same thing, and it's somehow okay. They're assuming multiple (brand) identities in their interactions with customers, they shed and adopt new identities rapidly, they will sell the same essential product under new or different names repeatedly.
hippofant on
+7
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
It's not just the appliance industry and it's not just America. We're the worst but the entire Western world has been way too comfortable with mergers and acquisitions bringing about the new Gilded Age.
As for the "finance people" comment I have a fun conspiracy theory of my own on them. My industry (and others) suffers from a plague of stretched out payment terms. GE, United Technologies, SIEMENS, and many others issue purchase orders with net 60-day, net 90-day, and sometimes even net 120-day terms for payment after delivery to their suppliers. This doesn't save them money though because any supplier I know of (my company included) jacks the price up in their quote when forced to agree to those increasingly absurd terms. So who benefits? Well, even with the increased prices almost no company can afford to maintain necessary cash flow with all their contracts stretched out like that so what do they do? They borrow it from finance guys! They take out lines of credit that charge interest so they can still pay their employees, buy raw materials, keep the lights on and operate their business while waiting to get paid.
My conspiracy theory is that GE started this stretched out payment shit because they used to also be a finance company and now that every other manufacturer is owned at least in part by an investment group those groups mandate these terms even if it costs the manufacturer more because it benefits the finance industry.
GE stretched out the payment terms because cash on books makes them look good. And they used 180 net payment to force suppliers to give a 5% discount if they want better terms.
Of course, suppliers just upped their prices by 10% and then gave the 5% discount, because at the end of the day, GE still needs product to sell.
I know that was the original stated reason but they had to know and certainly know by now that suppliers have upped their prices effectively negating the cash on books advantage and yet they still insist on this policy. The only party benefiting in the end are the ones loaning money to the suppliers.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
You missed the important part of what moniker said, just to interject that a monopoly in an industry isn't bad if the products are relatively ok. The main thrust of the complaint is about having a choice in manufacturer. This is undercut by the fact that 2/3rds of the companies are actually under one umbrella.
A monopoly is bad even if the goods are OK.
Multiple brands by the same parent company are OK if there are known and appreciable differences between them. (And it’s realtively known that the brands are by the same company). Enforcing the latter part is difficult.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
You missed the important part of what moniker said, just to interject that a monopoly in an industry isn't bad if the products are relatively ok. The main thrust of the complaint is about having a choice in manufacturer. This is undercut by the fact that 2/3rds of the companies are actually under one umbrella.
A monopoly is bad even if the goods are OK.
Multiple brands by the same parent company are OK if there are known and appreciable differences between them. (And it’s realtively known that the brands are by the same company). Enforcing the latter part is difficult.
Why? What is the point of doing this if not to confuse the consumer?
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
You missed the important part of what moniker said, just to interject that a monopoly in an industry isn't bad if the products are relatively ok. The main thrust of the complaint is about having a choice in manufacturer. This is undercut by the fact that 2/3rds of the companies are actually under one umbrella.
A monopoly is bad even if the goods are OK.
Multiple brands by the same parent company are OK if there are known and appreciable differences between them. (And it’s realtively known that the brands are by the same company). Enforcing the latter part is difficult.
Why? What is the point of doing this if not to confuse the consumer?
One thing is to have a separate upscale branding for your fancy products.
Alternatively, I'm fairly sure most store brand groceries have only one or two actual producers.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
You missed the important part of what moniker said, just to interject that a monopoly in an industry isn't bad if the products are relatively ok. The main thrust of the complaint is about having a choice in manufacturer. This is undercut by the fact that 2/3rds of the companies are actually under one umbrella.
A monopoly is bad even if the goods are OK.
Multiple brands by the same parent company are OK if there are known and appreciable differences between them. (And it’s realtively known that the brands are by the same company). Enforcing the latter part is difficult.
Why? What is the point of doing this if not to confuse the consumer?
Classist laddering/market segmentation to try and make a Veblen good at the top. So long as you know a Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac are all by GM and that it's just meant to be progressively fancier then there's not really confusion or harm. Just status symbolism.
Hell, for a long time every Chrysler sub-brand had the pentacle logo.
It really feels like America actively destroyed the home appliance industry in a way that did not benefit anyone, consumer or manufacture.
...oh right the finance people.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
You missed the important part of what moniker said, just to interject that a monopoly in an industry isn't bad if the products are relatively ok. The main thrust of the complaint is about having a choice in manufacturer. This is undercut by the fact that 2/3rds of the companies are actually under one umbrella.
A monopoly is bad even if the goods are OK.
Multiple brands by the same parent company are OK if there are known and appreciable differences between them. (And it’s realtively known that the brands are by the same company). Enforcing the latter part is difficult.
Why? What is the point of doing this if not to confuse the consumer?
Brands let you have multiple product ranges. As an example Jose Cuervo used to own Don Julio. Both of which are tequila. But they were clearly different and allowed the company to produce positive product differentiation.
Cars have similar “up-brands” which do not simply repackage the same model in a different name. (Or at least, they used to). This lets a company that is good at making one type of product sell varying levels and types of product without canibalizing itself. So long as products are actually different the brand differentiation gives consumers more information about the quality of an item in the same way that brands themselves carry information.
Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic are so obviously the same company that their website is the same and the loyalty cards are interchangeable. They sell different styles of clothes.
Sorry but that kind of branding obscures the companies and gives a false impression of competition. Yes an Acura is a more expensive Honda but a casual consumer probably do not know that. If a consumer is frustrated by a Honda and decides to buy a more expensive brand of car because those cheap Hondas really suck, then they may purchase another Honda product unknowingly by buying an Acura. These kinds of anti consumer measures are what make our market less competitive.
Sorry but that kind of branding obscures the companies and gives a false impression of competition. Yes an Acura is a more expensive Honda but a casual consumer probably do not know that. If a consumer is frustrated by a Honda and decides to buy a more expensive brand of car because those cheap Hondas really suck, then they may purchase another Honda product unknowingly by buying an Acura. These kinds of anti consumer measures are what make our market less competitive.
It doesn't because the two brands are not competing with each other. The whole point of even having 2 different brands is for brand differentiation. One is upscale, one is economy and are targeted at different markets.
Sorry but that kind of branding obscures the companies and gives a false impression of competition. Yes an Acura is a more expensive Honda but a casual consumer probably do not know that. If a consumer is frustrated by a Honda and decides to buy a more expensive brand of car because those cheap Hondas really suck, then they may purchase another Honda product unknowingly by buying an Acura. These kinds of anti consumer measures are what make our market less competitive.
It doesn't because the two brands are not competing with each other. The whole point of even having 2 different brands is for brand differentiation. One is upscale, one is economy and are targeted at different markets.
Except in many cases all you are paying for is the visible brand differentiation while at an engineering and materials level they are not different, or are suffering from similar dysfunction due to a similar corporate influence.
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Sorry but that kind of branding obscures the companies and gives a false impression of competition. Yes an Acura is a more expensive Honda but a casual consumer probably do not know that. If a consumer is frustrated by a Honda and decides to buy a more expensive brand of car because those cheap Hondas really suck, then they may purchase another Honda product unknowingly by buying an Acura. These kinds of anti consumer measures are what make our market less competitive.
I think there are better examples than the car industry. I can't imagine anyone comes out of an Acura dealership not knowing it's a Honda brand.
Sorry but that kind of branding obscures the companies and gives a false impression of competition. Yes an Acura is a more expensive Honda but a casual consumer probably do not know that. If a consumer is frustrated by a Honda and decides to buy a more expensive brand of car because those cheap Hondas really suck, then they may purchase another Honda product unknowingly by buying an Acura. These kinds of anti consumer measures are what make our market less competitive.
I think there are better examples than the car industry. I can't imagine anyone comes out of an Acura dealership not knowing it's a Honda brand.
I didn't know Acura was a Honda brand. I've not gone to an acura dealership but I definitely didn't know that till today.
Sorry but that kind of branding obscures the companies and gives a false impression of competition. Yes an Acura is a more expensive Honda but a casual consumer probably do not know that. If a consumer is frustrated by a Honda and decides to buy a more expensive brand of car because those cheap Hondas really suck, then they may purchase another Honda product unknowingly by buying an Acura. These kinds of anti consumer measures are what make our market less competitive.
I think there are better examples than the car industry. I can't imagine anyone comes out of an Acura dealership not knowing it's a Honda brand.
Yeah, hell that's how dealerships exist. They're combined for the whole catalog. My mind goes more to this:
Boycott Nestle! ...how?
Also, this is out of date after the KraftHeinz merger.
Sorry but that kind of branding obscures the companies and gives a false impression of competition. Yes an Acura is a more expensive Honda but a casual consumer probably do not know that. If a consumer is frustrated by a Honda and decides to buy a more expensive brand of car because those cheap Hondas really suck, then they may purchase another Honda product unknowingly by buying an Acura. These kinds of anti consumer measures are what make our market less competitive.
I think there are better examples than the car industry. I can't imagine anyone comes out of an Acura dealership not knowing it's a Honda brand.
Yeah, hell that's how dealerships exist. They're combined for the whole catalog. My mind goes more to this:
Boycott Nestle! ...how?
Also, this is out of date after the KraftHeinz merger.
I don't boycott nestle, but from looking at that I don't buy anything on there from nestle
Posts
I was such a maytag repairman (I was not left wanting for work), survived the transition to whirlpool, and survived the sell off of the appliance service repair side to A&E, who are(were?) naturally a subsidiary of Sears. The consumer has no idea what they are getting with all the shell games companies play.
...oh right the finance people.
Explained briefly the concept of vulture capitalism to a co-worker yesterday.
"Why is that legal?"
Dunno but you voted for it boy-o.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Stock buybacks were illegal before Reagan.
I don't know. Appliances seem fine. They are there, you buy them, they work.
Until they don't.
And then you go buy a new one. But since you know the quality on Brand A is suspect you choose to only look at Brand C, D, X, and N-Premium to make sure you buy something with better quality control/assurance. Only they're all manufactured by the same people at the same plant for the parts that actually count and the difference is just in terms of the finishes and logo. So you wind up with another dishwasher that'll break in 5 years, and no wiser as to who makes something that isn't a piece of shit.
But that's my point, this is not my experience at all.
Finish reading that sentence you bolded.
As for the "finance people" comment I have a fun conspiracy theory of my own on them. My industry (and others) suffers from a plague of stretched out payment terms. GE, United Technologies, SIEMENS, and many others issue purchase orders with net 60-day, net 90-day, and sometimes even net 120-day terms for payment after delivery to their suppliers. This doesn't save them money though because any supplier I know of (my company included) jacks the price up in their quote when forced to agree to those increasingly absurd terms. So who benefits? Well, even with the increased prices almost no company can afford to maintain necessary cash flow with all their contracts stretched out like that so what do they do? They borrow it from finance guys! They take out lines of credit that charge interest so they can still pay their employees, buy raw materials, keep the lights on and operate their business while waiting to get paid.
My conspiracy theory is that GE started this stretched out payment shit because they used to also be a finance company and now that every other manufacturer is owned at least in part by an investment group those groups mandate these terms even if it costs the manufacturer more because it benefits the finance industry.
That's nice for you. I can't say the same. Certainly not across all the various industries that have consolidated to a handful of companies owning >80% of available consumer goods.
If you didn't have stock buybacks you'd just have higher dividends and even more mergers and acquisitions. Just saying.
And that's nice for you but is there any actual studies on average appliance lifespan and it's change over time? Especially in relation to price?
Reminds me of one night while working security at a mall, when we started digging into parent companies. "Huh, so A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I" are all owned by the same company... which means that one corporation is effectively renting like 40% of this multi-million square foot complex?"
With, I suppose, just enough brand diversity to not be cannibalizing their own sales constantly, but close enough that I'd be surprised that attire made in one factory wasn't ending up at at least a half dozen of their locations.
Nothing shocking about this notion, just reminiscing about musings my crew went over 15+ years ago, sitting in a major mall at 3 in the morning.
You missed the important part of what moniker said, just to interject that a monopoly in an industry isn't bad if the products are relatively ok. The main thrust of the complaint is about having a choice in manufacturer. This is undercut by the fact that 2/3rds of the companies are actually under one umbrella.
The complaint was about the reliability of appliances and blaming that (and the inability to do anything about it) on consolidation. There's been a lot of discussion about unreliability. I'm wondering to what extent that's actually true as compared to price.
And why? Because SUVs are still counted as trucks in some cases, and having a lot of small trucks gives manufacturers an easier path to meeting MPG ratings without actually improving their tech:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107161_are-you-driving-a-car-a-crossover-an-suv-or-a-truck-do-you-care
A station wagon has more difficult regulations to meet than an SUV designed for the same uses, and because the MPG regulations are fleetwide, any vehicles that drag the average down are bad to sell. The SUV market has existed as a loophole in regulations for decades now, and if they ever get regulated properly, the market could vanish.
Ford and the like are banking the future of their company on that loophole never being closed. I think this is a foolish plan; the Democratic party will be pressured into doing something about CO2 emissions once they regain power.
Also, I suspect another reason that nobody is buying sedans is that they're waiting for electric vehicles to get good/cheap. This is a transformative technology with obvious benefits, but buying the first generation is probably not the best idea. So, put a few more years on your car while you wait for the technology to improve, and for them to reach your price level.
I'm sure price has gone down significantly, thanks to automation &c. manufactured goods are cheaper than ever. Not sure where to look for quality over time past the warranty.
And my complaint is broader. Lack of competition is bad in a market economy and causes stagnation compared to actually competitive markets. Consolidation over a certain point is inherently harmful in and of itself.
I can find articles talking about lifetime on appliances going down but they also mention prices dropping too and I'm not sure about the overall effects.
Like, is lifetime going down per dollar spent? Is it on average or with all appliances? Are cheaper more shoddy options being added into the pool (ye olde Samuel Vimes Boots theory at work) and dragging the average down?
The consumer being unable to make a value judgement on a product due to obfuscation of who is making said product is against the very principle of what is supposedly good about capitalism. "The consumer is wrong actually and let me show you a chart why," isn't a defence. The consumer can be wrong about a value judgement and in fact a whole industry lives in the space of misinforming the customer about quality, but they should still be able to be informed of what company makes their product.
GE stretched out the payment terms because cash on books makes them look good. And they used 180 net payment to force suppliers to give a 5% discount if they want better terms.
Of course, suppliers just upped their prices by 10% and then gave the 5% discount, because at the end of the day, GE still needs product to sell.
In capitalism 101, we learn pretty early on that the whole premise of capitalism is that the consumer is rational and that the consumer will spend money to purchase things to fulfill their needs in an informed manner.
Buying things like appliances or cars or any other sort of long-term asset for us pretty much immediately breaks this starting premise, because no consumer can accurately foresee what the actual long-term capabilities of said asset are. I cannot tell if a car I buy will fulfill my transportation needs for 10 years, yet that is exactly what the informed decision I am making is, to spend X dollars to fulfill my transportation needs up to a certain level for a certain period of time.
We get around this with the introduction of the mass market, with the idea that consumers will act en masse, that reputation will spread, so that, on average, consumers will not buy a car from a company thinking that it'll fulfill their transportation needs for 10 years when the cars this company makes only last for 5 years, because eventually that company will develop a reputation for only making cars for 5 years, so based on this reputation, consumers will once again be able to make an informed decision on their purchase. Some consumers, even a lot of consumers possibly, will get fucked over in the meantime, but they won't on average, and some light regulation will serve as effective band-aids here to cover this loophole, like prohibitions on false advertising, class-action liability, consumers rights agencies, fraud legislation, etc..
Except 1) well, you can tell me how effective these band-aids actually are nowadays at protecting consumers, and 2) if companies are able to blur their branding so as to effectively erase their reputations, or if they are able to rapidly switch brandnames so as to constantly reset their reputations, then consumers are unable to make informed choices at all based on reputation, and the initial premise of capitalism is broken again, because people are unable to make informed rational choices, and all the fancy graphs and models for capitalist economics depend on that fundamental premise.
Or an alternative way of thinking about this is, you are not allowed to assume multiple identities to take loans out from banks. You are not allowed to shed your identity to take on another one. If you were to be selling people a product that they're purchasing thinking it's a long-term purchase but in reality it falls apart after a few days, then they and the government get mad at you and intervene, and then you were to just change your name and the product's name and continue selling it, that would be impersonation and fraud, and you'd be imprisoned.
Yet these corporations are basically doing the exact same thing, and it's somehow okay. They're assuming multiple (brand) identities in their interactions with customers, they shed and adopt new identities rapidly, they will sell the same essential product under new or different names repeatedly.
I know that was the original stated reason but they had to know and certainly know by now that suppliers have upped their prices effectively negating the cash on books advantage and yet they still insist on this policy. The only party benefiting in the end are the ones loaning money to the suppliers.
A monopoly is bad even if the goods are OK.
Multiple brands by the same parent company are OK if there are known and appreciable differences between them. (And it’s realtively known that the brands are by the same company). Enforcing the latter part is difficult.
Why? What is the point of doing this if not to confuse the consumer?
One thing is to have a separate upscale branding for your fancy products.
Alternatively, I'm fairly sure most store brand groceries have only one or two actual producers.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Classist laddering/market segmentation to try and make a Veblen good at the top. So long as you know a Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac are all by GM and that it's just meant to be progressively fancier then there's not really confusion or harm. Just status symbolism.
Hell, for a long time every Chrysler sub-brand had the pentacle logo.
Brands let you have multiple product ranges. As an example Jose Cuervo used to own Don Julio. Both of which are tequila. But they were clearly different and allowed the company to produce positive product differentiation.
Cars have similar “up-brands” which do not simply repackage the same model in a different name. (Or at least, they used to). This lets a company that is good at making one type of product sell varying levels and types of product without canibalizing itself. So long as products are actually different the brand differentiation gives consumers more information about the quality of an item in the same way that brands themselves carry information.
It doesn't because the two brands are not competing with each other. The whole point of even having 2 different brands is for brand differentiation. One is upscale, one is economy and are targeted at different markets.
Except in many cases all you are paying for is the visible brand differentiation while at an engineering and materials level they are not different, or are suffering from similar dysfunction due to a similar corporate influence.
I think there are better examples than the car industry. I can't imagine anyone comes out of an Acura dealership not knowing it's a Honda brand.
I didn't know Acura was a Honda brand. I've not gone to an acura dealership but I definitely didn't know that till today.
Yeah, hell that's how dealerships exist. They're combined for the whole catalog. My mind goes more to this:
Boycott Nestle! ...how?
Also, this is out of date after the KraftHeinz merger.
I don't boycott nestle, but from looking at that I don't buy anything on there from nestle
Don't look at AB InBev.