[newnewpdro]

It's not like shopping at Wal-Mart isn't without its own kinds of bait and switch practices.

There was a time when I went to Wal-Mart to buy a new package of cheap cotton ankle socks every month or so, incrementally replenishing my cache, over the period of about a year.

The exact same brand, make, and size of socks, what were ostensibly identical, would vary in their constituent materials at what seemed to be random. One month they'd be ~80% cotton. The next month ~80% polyester. For what appeared to be the same damn product.

I don't know if this is something the big brands do in cooperation with Wal-Mart, or if it's entirely out of Wal-Mart's control and something Hanes/FTL has started doing independently. But next time you see packages for socks, check out the contents. In Wal-Mart the contents are printed on an adhesive-backed sticker. They use a sticker because it gets switched all the time, presumably to whatever was the cheapest recipe/supplier at the time. There's basically no persistence to what the SKU actually represents.

The Wal-Mart advantage, in my opinion, is that I have the opportunity to actually scrutinize the instance I will take home of the thing I'm purchasing, before doing so.

With Amazon I can't possibly know if they'll send me the 80% cotton or 80% polyester variant of the same SKU.

I've noticed similar practices with canned fish. Depending on what day of the week it is, the same canned fish e.g. beachcliff sardines in water, will have salt or won't have salt in the ingredients list. It seems to correlate with the country of origin. Same SKU, different ingredients. You have to look really closely at the package to notice it, but you definitely notice it when eating the stuff.

[toomanybeersies]

There's quite a good book I read a while ago about store-brand supply chains called Where the Underpants Come From [1]. It's a travelogue where the author travels through Asia tracing the entire logistical chain for a pair of underpants. It's a fun read and covers a lot of this stuff.

> There's basically no persistence to what the SKU actually represents.

I disagree. The SKU represents generic ankle socks. They're a commodity.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3322867-where-underpants...

[wpietri]

What newnewpdro describes is definitely not a commoditized product. Real commodities have exacting standards. E.g., US grain standards: https://www.gipsa.usda.gov/fgis/usstandards.aspx

Or the standards on commodity exchanges, like Kansas City Hard Red Winter Wheat Futures, which come in 5,000 bushel lots and require a deliverable grade of "No. 2 at contract price with a maximum of 10 IDK per 100 grams; No. 1 at a 1 1/2-cent premium. Deliverable grades of HRW shall contain a minimum 11% protein level. However, protein levels of less than 11%, but equal to or greater than 10.5% are deliverable at a ten cent (10¢) discount to contract price. Protein levels of less than 10.5% are not deliverable." -- from https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/agricultural/files/fact-car...

Real-world commodities have exacting standards precisely to prevent this kind of nonsense.

[Spooky23]

That’s why its a discount chain.

If you want consistency in terms of quality, go upmarket. Even a JC Penney or Kohl’s will be more consistent for the socks.

[beerandt]

Yes, they certainly have their own supply chain issues, but at least they still tightly control it.

Even if product quality might vary (or even different items under the same upc), the product is never (ime) misrepresented, and I've never had any concern about getting a counterfeit.

Expecting 100% consistency.... Thats probably going to be a disappointment.