[dazc]

If I'm buying shoes that were made in the third world for minimal cost then branding is not a guarantee of quality that it once was. This has been the case for at least the past ten years but it goes to show that if you have a well-known brand you can keep milking it for a long time before the market turns against you.

[pjmlp]

In the fresh Portuguese democracy from 70's and early 80's many of us, my family included, could mostly afford the pirated stuff from street bazars.

Being able to save money and be able to buy a proper brand at a regular shop, even if on sales, it was a big deal, and many times reserved for special occasions like a birthday, Christmas, some achievement at school.

Nowadays I would not think twice of just ordering whatever from Temu and friends, other than if they actually would fit my size.

The west has done this to ourselves, devaluing any kind of product in the search of the cheapest manufacturing possible, while keeping the push for exponential profit margins.

That being the case, why not buy directly to the same factories.

[therealpygon]

Exactly. Brands have happily devalued themselves in favor of profit for many years; if you are presented with two options of equal quality, why would you choose the more expensive simply for a logo, except out of insecurity? If that brand is no longer meaningful in that goal because it is no longer admired, there is no value in paying more. People went with brands because they were supposed to be “better”, and their expense made them less obtainable (therefore more desirable). They are no longer desired because they sold their value for profits.

[pjmlp]

There is a certain colonialism attitute in such capitalism corporations, as if the countries that are exploited for low production costs, the people weren't able to gather the knowledge and do something for themselves instead.

Naturally they are only collecting what they planted, and unfortunely all local economies suffer from the side effects from this, in jobs, and acquisition power.

[expedition32]

You can actually find the brands in the Action store now.

Big brands have embraced the dollar stores and outlet centres. They ADMIT that it's just a name on the box.

[pureagave]

While a brand isn't a guarantee of quality, brands can work with their manufacture to hit the level of material and assembly quality they need for their products. The same manufacture will likely produce different products with very different results and costs.

[miladyincontrol]

True but even mainstream western brands often have various qualities of product that appear at different markets. Their brand name is no guarantee of quality.

Outlets sell specifically made lower cost versions of products that are made to look similar. Costco? Same deal with many versions of clothes and shoes they sell.

Chinese brands at least still segment this fairly decently where if you know what you're looking for, you can get the quality you're hoping for. They're more likely to just spin off another brand at a different quality rather than dilute the image of one that has reputation.

[singleshot_]

The quality we are talking about here is “not made by slaves,” not “tight stitching.”

[nradov]

If you're talking about streetware then sure, quality doesn't matter. The shoes only have to last until the fashion trends change in a few months. And fashion conscious consumers will tolerate uncomfortable shoes in order to look good.

But the performance athletic shoe market is completely different. Real athletes still buy a lot of expensive shoes and they'll absolutely switch brands the moment they notice a drop in quality. I've seen this happen among my friends. No shoe company can ride on brand equity for long in that market.

[aomix]

I’m not even an athlete but I hike fairly often and walk 3-4 miles a day with my dog. If I get a pair of so-so boots they’ll last less than a year. I got recommended boots by a friend that lasted me 6 years until I finally had to replace them with an identical pair this Christmas. Nothing has been an issue in the two weeks I’ve had them but when companies get gutted by PE their quality goes down sharply. If I have to find a new boot company I’ll be very sad.

[CapsAdmin]

Somewhat related, in a lot of those developing countries, fakes are so prolific that they become meaningless.

When you go to the market to buy socks, it's a little difficult not to find socks without logos like nike, addidas, gucci, prada, etc.

If you wear the real deal, everyone will think it's fake, or perhaps "worse", they will think nothing of it.

You can buy high quality fakes, or low quality. Or even the real deal, straight from the factory, just without the final stamp of approval.

[graemep]

> it goes to show that if you have a well-known brand you can keep milking it for a long time before the market turns against you

Which means it is always more profitable in the short term to cut costs by reducing quality but keeping the high prices.

It also means it is often more profitable even taking the long term into account because you are better off getting the money sooner (and being able to reinvest it elsewhere) - "the time value of money".

[davidw]

I'm really excited about Nike's self driving shoes though

[Aboutplants]

Power Laces!

[surgical_fire]

Except that the case made in the link is not that the quality declined.

Are the other brands that took some Nike's market share not "made in the third world with minimal cost"?