I was hoping for an article that offers some explanations rather than a blog post that is actually just asking the question.
The first thought the headline provoked in my mind is the strange proliferation of "services" that are really just monthly payments for thing I used to be able to buy (and usually still can). It started with software, where at least some argument can be made around ongoing support. But now it's just everything. I don't understand how these companies make money. Are there people out there with dozens of subscriptions for various things, adding up to many hundreds of dollars every month? Do they even know what they are spending? Perhaps that is the business model... get people to forget they are paying you.
I agree there are "X as a service" start ups out there. The first one that comes to mind was Dollar Shave Club. Prior to that, people would just buy a few dozen disposable razors or an expensive razor every every few months from CVS, but this was a subscription.
But that was a trend from maybe ten years ago now. None of the brands mentioned in the article follow that model though. None of them offer a subscription, just expensive versions of the same stuff.
I don't have any explanations why this is a thing. I think its just easier to outsource production. You can buy some off label good enough product from China or send over design specs if you really want to. So whats left? Marketing the product, which is essentially what these companies do. You also can't compete on the low end (you won't be able to get a cost or distribution advantage to someone like Hanes), so that leaves the high end. But what's interesting is the high end is inconspicuous. If I buy a $100 umbrella from Prada, I know its a lux product because its Prada. But these new startups will sell you a $100 non-lux umbrella and make you think its a reasonable decision.
The author is describing lifestyle brands. This is a market segment that's as old as time, they are prevalent on Instagram.
He complains about a direct-to-consumer underwear brand costing 10x as much as fruit of the loom. This isn't any different from Ralph Lauren, or Calvin Klein, or any of the legacy players in the segment.
Lifestyle brands have large creative and marketing teams, with production secondary and technical production largely outsourced, sometimes to the manufacturing partners.
This is a well worn business model for product categories in which all the margins have been competed away. Pricing power comes from the emotion of brand alignment.
Ralph Lauren underwear costs $11 - 18 a pair (directly, probably cheaper on Amazon), less than half the price this new start up is selling for. Apart from maybe Avocado, these companies aren't marketed as lifestyle, just sensible products.
And note its not complaining. I don't care because I don't buy these overpriced products. I'm just commenting on the idea that all the "innovation" in consumer tech is basically just selling the same shit made in China for 10x the price to people who are susceptible to advertising. It's just weird and not the kind of progress I would expect in a dynamic innovative society.
I challenge you to purchase a product from one or two of these brands and compare it to the Walmart/China version. They are not the same. From my experience, the quality has been better than brands I’d usually get at Nordstrom rack.
You have a lot of faith in these brands. Bombas was founded in 2019 by an MBA grad and a marketing graduate. They have no reputation. These aren't like hand crafted sock makers doing this for decades in Italy. They're advertising companies and they sold you.
As to where they're made its unclear:
> Where are your socks made? We produce our products all over the world, including the US, Taiwan, China, and Peru at the most technical and highest-rated manufacturers.
> We're proud to report that all have passed audits with very strict standards for health, safety, and social compliance.
And to note I have both Bombas and Fruit of the Loom currently in my drawer. The difference is negligible in my opinion. You can ask me in a few years if my Bombas held up, but I can tell you my cheap Walmart brand stuff has held up.
[EDIT] Bombas was founded in 2013, not 2019. 2019 was the date they started selling t-shirts. Point still holds that they don't exactly have a track record compared to a legacy player and I still doubt they'll exist in 20 years
Yes it is because I can only wear one pair of socks and if he 1x price socks don’t cut it then 10x it is until we get to an acceptable level of comfort. Paying 1x for socks my kid won’t wear provides me 0 value where as paying 10x but having the kid wear them just means that this is how much socks cost.
As to why they are better the toe knit eliminated the seam and hard spot where cheap socks terminate. The fabric wicks moisture better and get material is less abrasive. The knit and fabric all add significant additional cost to the fabrication process. Look up some videos on you tube on how socks are made.
I've had many brands of socks, because I'm so picky.
Some brands are objectively much better, since they support my feet better, have no seams around the toe area that drives me nuts, wears better (my cheaper socks get holes in them in about a year), it breathes better, it reacts to moisture better, it stays up on my ankle better and doesn't slide down, it doesn't twist on my feet because it holds the shape better, and it's cushioned better among other things.
Good socks are exceedingly difficult to find. I'm particular in what I want, something like diabetes socks that breathe and doesn't restrict blood-flow while looking fine to wear with dress shoes. I'd totally pay 3x and buy in bulk.
You are looking for a premium product, fit for purpose. You probably don’t care what the label says. You have a spec and you need something that fits it.
Is your only assessment of quality based on the founders' degrees? There is no reason to believe that two business guys cannot source high quality socks. When it comes to consumer goods, it is very possible to source all sorts of quality from China.
Whether or not they succeed or their product is "worth it" is another story. I would not assess a company's quality based solely on the founder's degrees or their marketing.
By their price being 10x what I'm currently paying for my goods, they're making the claim that their product is 10x better or will last 10x longer. I find it hard to believe any sock can be 10x better than what I've been wearing for decades. Couple in the fact that this is a startup that consists of mainly MBA types and entire job board is marketing and sales, then that raises a red flag. They're not hiring sock experts, just marketing people.
I have some of the products mentioned in the ad, but some are out of reach (I'm not going to shell out $2,500 for a mattress or $36 for a pair of underwear), so I have to go by my gut. And my gut tells me its BS.
I could be wrong and I'm sure to some people they are 10x better than the alternative and I'm happy for them and the start up that sells them these socks.
I just find it weird that people in these comments are so trusting and loyal to this company that has exceptional PR and somehow dismissive of the brands that they have used their entire lives.
I grew up wearing walmart socks well into college. Bombas are much more comfortable. I don't know that they're worth the price, but they're definitely worth more than the socks I'm used to wearing.
> You have a lot of faith in these brands. Bombas was founded in 2019 by an MBA grad and a marketing graduate. They have no reputation. These aren't like hand crafted sock makers doing this for decades in Italy. They're advertising companies and they sold you.
Usually the story goes:
1. Bob is unhappy with his socks, can't find better quality socks anywhere.
2. Bob creates a company with the sole purpose of creating better socks.
3. Bob find a factory in China and asks them to use the best materials to create the ultimate socks.
4. Bob is super happy with the product and happily pads his advertising materials.
5. Bob finds a customer and places an order with the factory and is shocked at the price.
6. Bob tells factory to do whatever it can to lower price to competitors' levels without compromising quality.
7. Socks turn out shit, because price is too low and no economies of scale because order quantity is low.
8. Bob sells shit socks with original marketing materials and secretly vows to restore the quality in some distant future.
I buy uniglo which is a Japanese brand. Underwear made in Vietnam. It’s cheap. Hands down 1000% better than any expensive brand I’ve bought over the years.
They are still usually made in China, possibly by the same factory who makes the Walmart ones. The difference is usually in the compromises that were made to achieve the target margin.
not just lifestyle brands. i used to work for a Dell repair/reverse Logistics center. all Dell computer/laptop from design to manufacture is all done by ODM/OEM. Dell doesn't even design the computer/laptop. its all done by ODM/OEM and made in China. Dell essential is one giant sales dept.
there are not much consumer goods that's made in US anymore
I've been noticing that a lot, well-known US brands buying completed products from (usually) China and rebadging and marketing them as original products. I wouldn't have a problem with it if companies could be honest about their products, but marketing demands they retain the perception of originality.
As an example, at least three well-known tool brands sell 20 volt cordless leaf blowers that are nearly identical besides the battery clip, branding, and the color of the plastic shell. As a consumer I would rather just know that they are the same tool so I don't have to waste extra time on research before buying, but the companies need to maintain the perception that their tools are original and different from everyone else's to protect the image of the brand. A lot of US companies seem to be coasting on brand image they built 50 years ago when they were actually doing their own innovating.
I wonder then, is it easier to compete with Fruit of the Loom, or Calvin Klein? I may be willing to pay for a premium product, but only from a brand I know and trust, like (for the sake of argument) Calvin Klein. I'm not willing to take a risk on some new brand I've never of. If I'm buying something cheap, I really don't care about name brands and am more willing to try something new. Maybe I'm in the minority with my spending habits, though...
It's much easier to compete with Calvin Klein. People aren't buying Calvin Klein for quality, they are buying it for the brand. Fashion is a fickle beast, with constant churn and changing tastes, where a young brand with its finger on the pulse can make a name for itself. The purchasers are less price sensitive, which is ideal for small brands who don't have economy of scale and deep supply networks.
On the other hand, Fruit of the Loom competes primarily on price. To stand a chance here you need scale. You'd need to bootstrap massive production capability, source cheap materials and labor, and try to find a way to either sell directly with a razor thin per-customer acquisition cost, or to build up relationships with massive distributers who will further cut your margins.
Calvin Kline micromodal underwear is a whole different ballgame than fruit of the loom.
The final price is due to a mix of quality and branding. It’s not just taking the same item and targeting “lifestyle”
It’s not just a matter of targeting a different segment using the same material, the actual product offered usually has to be materially different.
Hershey’s chocolate like candy product vs small batch artisan chocolate or Kraft American cheese product vs actual aged cheddar are not just marketing the same product to different segments.
I do not like polyester especially in areas that can get sweaty. That’s an obvious corners they cut and not premium. I’d need to actually order one to compare texture and seams but hard pass on polyester underwear.
As the Amazon reviewer says:
“Not as comfortable as other brands” citing CK among those other brands.
Your product link strongly supports what I was saying, not sure if that was the intention.
> He complains about a direct-to-consumer underwear brand costing 10x as much as fruit of the loom. This isn't any different from Ralph Lauren, or Calvin Klein, or any of the legacy players in the segment.
I mean, sure, but
1) Warby Parker glasses are generally cheaper than equivalent Prada frames. They might be more expensive than their online competition (Zenni, GlassesUSA), but the price advantage is unbeatable compared to optometrist's display case.
2) Harry's handles and razors are cheaper than equivalent Gilette's. Both brand now have online and offline presence (Harry's started exclusively online), but once again, it was hard to pass up on the price alone.
Conspicuous consumption isn't exactly new. These products aim to be affordable luxury brands while usually greenwashing or "socialwashing" (redwashing?) the product to appeal to consumers who either try to be more conscious (but don't or can't invest the time to see through the marketing) or who want to appear more conscious while steering clear of the perceived ickiness of the causes they support (e.g. direct contact with homeless people).
I'm actually not sure whether some of the mentioned price tags aren't actually justified given the overhead of the x-washing (e.g. supplying homeless shelters with variable amounts of socks rather than simply setting up a recurring donation). The real grift are white label electronics bulk purchases from Alibaba and sold at a 10x to 100x price tag. There is an entire industry in creating brands out of whole cloth to do just that.
I take the opposite approach. I like seeing these ads and brands knowing that people are making sacrifices for their career to buy essentially the same products I can get at one tenth the price. But I guess I'm the "make your coffee at home" kind of guy. But I'd rather invest that time and money into things that really matter
You can spend $30 on equipment and another $8 for a pound of beans
OR
You can spend $300 on a burr grinder $150 on one of those neat vacuum brewing devices, and who knows how much for fair trade single source coffee beans roasted in your back yard
Or you can find a balance that gets you things you care about (fair trade beans, good roast, a nice grinder for flavor, whatever your taste might be) at a lower price than going all out
When it comes to underwear or other clothing items, I'm generally willing to pay a bit more if I know that I'm avoiding plastics and pollution and the workers who make the items aren't working in sweatshop conditions
> When it comes to underwear or other clothing items, I'm generally willing to pay a bit more if I know that I'm avoiding plastics and pollution and the workers who make the items aren't working in sweatshop conditions
Why do you have so much faith in these new startups? Sure their marketing copy says they're all ethical and great and stuff. But the legacy guys have a reputation and experience. I've been buying their stuff for decades. They've been around for 100 years and will probably continue to be around for another 100 years. Who knows about these new guys? They don't have a reputations. And the new guys don't make their own stuff. You can't even find out where they're made or under what conditions. They probably won't exist in 20 years, let alone 100. They're mostly a bunch of MBA grads that came up w/ this idea a few years ago. You really think they have a better handle on working conditions than the people who have been doing this for 100+ years? I don't buy it
Yeah but to me they're not essentially the same products. The difference between a really nicely made $50 or $100 t-shirt (it is important to note that not all $50 and $100 t-shirts are nicely made) and one that's $6 from wherever is night and day. I can tell by feel and look. Why wouldn't I want the nicest thing I can find and afford?
I'll also say that I think nothing really matters, so that might explain some of it.
Go ahead, this site is so filled with shockingly ignorant upper class silicon valley groupthinkers that commenting is like banging your head against a particularly stupid brick wall.
Nah, only a tiny portion of HN is in SV and surely not all of them are "shockingly ignorant upper class groupthinkers". I think you might be running into the tendency of the internet to be extremely maddeningly annoying. That's actually a complicated phenomenon, it feels exactly like "banging your head against a particularly stupid brick wall", and we all suffer from it to one extent or another. I don't want to ban you.
The title is weird, the post is actually asking "why do premium brands exist?". It doesn't matter much if their product is actually better - the high price itself is the part of experience. It sounds weird but you "pay more to be able to paying more". And of course to show other people that you can afford doing that.
Yes, all of those people spending a whopping $700 on a mattress are really just trying to flex on the Walmart shoppers.
These aren't really examples of "premium brands" He's comparing the cheapest products available, to mid-tier products where you actually see a difference in quality, comfort, and style.
My banner spots have been completely taken over by underwear companies. The Other Danish Guy and Mähöne Brothers seem so keen to buy ad space, they've managed to replace the traditional "big spenders" for ad spots (vacations, cars).
It's easy to see how a $50000 car has enough margin in the price to sustain the advertisement spend. I don't understand how a pair of underwear manages to do the same - even if it's a $35 pair.
Maybe the advertising money comes from VC pockets? Selling the same made-in-farawaystan underwear for $35 instead of $3.50 is a great business opportunity, assuming you have repeat customers.
I’m not sure I totally get their perspective on the Avocado mattress. I have one and love it. But I didn’t get it for any “lifestyle” reason or whatever. I got it because Consumer Reports rated it as the most comfortable mattress (and I kept it because it was indeed very comfortable for me and my wife, unlike Purple…). It’s not an absurdly expensive mattress either. It’s far from cheap, but there are plenty of other mattresses in the same ballpark (or higher!).
Of course you can find cheap mattresses elsewhere. And if they’re comfortable enough for you then that’s fantastic. But Avocado isn’t a big outlier (in price) in the mattress industry.
the word "lifestyle" is heavily overloaded. In this usage, it's not your lifestyle the word is referring to, but the idea that the company exists to provide the owners/proprietors of the company a certain kind of "lifestyle"
I know, that could mean anything! and all companies at the end are "lifestyle" companies (ie doesn't a stock broker work at a trading firm so that their family can have the lifestyle they want?) That term is just really non-descriptive.
Don't take my word for it, wikipedia has a pretty decent entry
There are lifestyle companies and lifestyle products. Lifestyle products are goods that are perceived as an expression of an individual's style, preferences, values, way of life.
Selling a cheap T-shirt with Che Guevara or ripped jeans are just as much a lifestyle product as lululemon or Tory Burch.
You can charge a premium or sell an inferior product because consumers are buying more than just the functional utility of the item.
I think 'lifestyle brand'[0], linked on that same Wikipedia page, is a more accurate description of what people are talking about here. The discussion is not about the lifestyle of the founders (though I'm sure that's great), it's the lifestyle the brand is attempting to sell you.
> The Marxist analysis of capital accumulation and the development of capitalism identifies systemic issues with the process that arise with expansion of the productive forces. A crisis of overaccumulation of capital occurs when the rate of profit is greater than the rate of new profitable investment outlets in the economy, arising from increasing productivity from a rising organic composition of capital (higher capital input to labor input ratio). This depresses the wage bill, leading to stagnant wages and high rates of unemployment for the working class while excess profits search for new profitable investment opportunities. Marx believed that this cyclical process would be the fundamental cause for the dissolution of capitalism and its replacement by socialism, which would operate according to a different economic dynamic.[9]
> In Marxist thought, socialism would succeed capitalism as the dominant mode of production when the accumulation of capital can no longer sustain itself due to falling rates of profit in real production relative to increasing productivity. A socialist economy would not base production on the accumulation of capital, instead basing production on the criteria of satisfying human needs and directly producing use-values. This concept is encapsulated in the principle of production for use.
I suppose the writer is asking why the people behind these companies think they will succeed in the first place. Or why the market will bear it. Why do people buy very expensive socks when cheap socks are readily available?
It's a conversation I often have with my wife. She prefers to buy as cheap as possible provided a product does its job reasonably well. I prefer to buy the best possible version of a product that I can afford (which doesn't always mean most expensive, so I end up doing a lot more product research whereas she will just buy whatever).
I'm going to defend bombas socks. Absolutely 10x better than fruit of the loom socks in my opinion. I've splurged quite a bit on these socks and love them.
If there's a non-branded bombas equivalent, I'd buy it, but comparing walmart fruit of the loom and bombas isn't apples to apples.
I have bombas socks as well thanks to the wife. They're fine socks. However I have fruit of the loom socks that have 10+ years from heavy use (running, workouts, etc). I don't know, maybe the newer socks are cheaper material? I often just get the slightly more expensive "cushioned" socks. You can feel how thick and see what they're made of which is pretty good indicator of how comfortable they are and how long they'll last. I disagree bombas are 10x as good or will last 10x as long (my bombas are only a few months old at this point)
I don't wear Bombas, but i do wear Darn Tough socks, which are in a similar price range as Bombas. I can say, all their socks, especially the thinner socks from Darn Tough are 1000x more comfortable and durable than any 'traditional' sock brand.
That said, I consider them a luxury and not a necessity. If I had a tighter budget, I'd have no issue wearing traditional brands, but I do enjoy the extra comfort.
Also, with Darn Tough the socks have a lifetime guarantee, so in theory I shouldn't have to ever buy socks again. Generally the socks I've gotten from walmart/tj maxx/any department store the elastic starts to go after a few years.
I agree with you. I have Bombas and Hanes socks. I don’t notice much of a difference. I don’t care about the 10x life as I don’t plan to keep my socks more than a couple years.
I've been wearing army issue (finely knitted semi-synthetic wool I think?) for a long time, I'm never going back to cheap cotton socks. They're much cheaper, but they're not comfortable.
I had a lot of trouble with the quality of Hanes socks in recent years, and Fruit Of The Loom seemed not much better. Switched to Dickies and haven't looked back. Still far cheaper than Bombas.
It's almost like we're operating in an economy where it's easier and more lucrative to be a huckster than it is to innovate and create something useful. Maybe part of this is just that we've already optimized so many things - what's left to do with the products in question other than up the price and market the heck out of them?
As they say, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"...
So your theory is people have fruit of the loom and buy meundies or some other DTC brand with no real brand recognition and they keep doing it BECAUSE its more expensive? You don’t think the do a calculation like: “sure its 10x cheaper but its more comfortable/durable/fits better etc and its still cheap because its still underwear even if it is 10x” Or “im too well off to have a favorite pair of underwear, I like this one more so I am getting 12 of them”
A few years ago (2016-2017 maybe?) I ordered a pair of underwear from several of these brands, like Saxx, MeUndies, 2undr, and Calvin Klein. After some time passed and I had given them all a fair shot, I ordered like ten pairs of my favorite one and I have never regretted it. Only one has not survived to this day and they’re still wicked comfortable.
Exactly, Hanes, Fruit of the Loom etc. all raced to the bottom years ago. I have had Patagonia underwear last 10 years+ and still look new. Maybe life is too short for bad underwear?
I did the same thing, also with undershirts and socks. There is a quality difference in some brands, and others are overpriced junk. You pretty much need to sample test to find out which is which. I paid $80 for an undershirt, and $40 for a pair of underwear, and $15 for a pair of socks, but all of them have been heavily abused and washed for years and are still in fantastic shape and super-comfortable. There were more expensive and cheaper options available that were worse, however, some worse than Walmart brands, for too much money.
I wish there were some truth in advertising to consumers, but caveat emptor is the the rule of the day. All you can do is get one of each, pick what actually works, and invest in your comfort.
Sure but the product has to meet expectations otherwise you are claiming the person buys it, pays 10x, gets it, realizes it is exactly the same as the product that costs 1/10th and then buys it again?
That is all economies, since the beginning of time.
HN readers seem to be under the naive delusion that all of commerce is non stop innovation when the reality is most of it is marketing and logistics. It always has been. Innovation is hard and rare. Most likely what you are working on is not innovation but logistics of some sort repackaging or delivering the same old thing.
Sure, but modern technology makes it far easier to scale such approaches. If you're running a scam (or just really terrible deal) that only one in ten thousand people would fall for, the internet makes it actually practical to find enough marks and do so from a place where they have no legal recourse.
> That is all economies, since the beginning of time.
Doesn't pass the sniff test.
Even knowing how to make an item, was a big factor in what goods were available in the ancient world, see guilds. The Internet especially has changed that.
And until at least the age of sail, getting something from far away was a huge undertaking. Even today, supply chain logistics are hardly a solved problem.
Selling/marketing has always been part of trade, but it's hardly the whole story.
You can make a solid argument that in the last 100 years we became capable of producing more products than we need, causing the pinch point in our economy to move to competitively marketing and delivering them vs original building of them.
However hucksters have existed since the beginning of time to sell without producing. It’s why the Roman guilds and a bunch of other systems of verifying labor exist.
Don’t you know about the guild system? From Rome until the 19th century guilds were in charge of most functions in the European economy and strictly regulated to prevent hucksters. Maybe people don’t learn about this in school any more but when I was a child it was part of standard middle school curriculum.
Because market research has discovered that many customers are not price-sensitive, even when it makes no sense.
Some people with limited means do not even look at prices. The ready availability of consumer debt allows them to buy whatever they wish without considering price as a factor. They simply do not consider any form of budgeting or interest rates on debt when they spend.
> Who knows how long I would have survived on my toxic mattress!
I mean. Yeah? If I found out my mattress was toxic and had been slowly poisoning me by releasing VOCs every night for 8 hours, I'd probably want one that wasn't. I don't know anything about that particular brand, but if you're going to bring it up in a blog post, it seems like a good place to actually investigate whether there's any merit to the claim instead of just assuming there isn't.
The problem is that it doesn't pass the sniff test. Do you really think that your mattress is poisoning you? Like, we can spend a load of time chasing down whether VOCs really are a thing and all that, but it's just not really how the world works, if you think through the implications of really believing that toxic chemicals from your mattress are impacting you, you end up very quickly in an absurd state - because the same things that are meant to be killing you in your mattress are in everything.
Uh, proof? People being around chemicals all the time that end up being more harmful than first believed is common enough. Let's take lead and asbestos for easy examples. BPA for a more recent (but I think more controversial?) one.
The thing is, if it were real, the company would be getting signed off by the EPA, not by some 3rd party "non-profit" that it pays for certification. What I'm saying is look at the list of materials in a mattress, and look at the list of materials everywhere else in your house. If you truly believe your mattress is poisoning you then the solution isn't to buy this mattress. It's to replace every item of furniture, clothing, wallpaper, paint, cleaning sprays, air fresheners etc. And you'll do all this despite noticing literally no symptoms from exposure to these life-threatening chemicals.
> if it were real, the company would be getting signed off by the EPA
Lots of things aren't regulated by the EPA, the FDA etc. Major cosmetic companies used lead in lipstick until fairly recently...
And ironically enough, a lot of the toxicity from Mattresses and furniture etc is caused by the government regulation because it's from requiring them to be treated in Fire Retardants
If you really want to waste your time chasing down obviously spurious safety claims, feel free. Here's the thing though - if you actually figure out the claim is true, the thing you would certainly not do is start a company selling non-toxic mattresses.
I'm not even arguing the product has merit. I'm arguing the only that would be remotely interesting about what you're saying is if you took the time to do even a cursory amount of research and justify the position.
> The problem is that it doesn't pass the sniff test. Do you really think that your mattress is poisoning you?
That's not how... thinking works. Do you really think cigarettes are poisoning you?
I sleep on my mattress and wake up feeling fine every day. My mattress is made of the same stuff everything else in my house is made of. If you buy into the idea that your mattress is poisoning you, you've bought into the idea that everything is poisoning you.
Is it not possible that we’ve had quite a long time of low quality products being produced by major brands? Perhaps fruit of the loom has degraded in quality over and over again, to the point that actual long lifespan quality products are difficult to find.
I bought a pair of lululemon pants for $140 and they are incomparable to any other article of clothing I’ve ever owned. They cost 5-7x the price of my usual h&m/Nordstrom rack/etc pair of pants, but are way more than 10x better in terms of fit, comfort, and not fading/lose strings/etc.
Lululemon actually collapsed a few years ago after their switched to cheaper fabric while raising prices. The issue was that the leggings, which is the core of their brand that women wear quite a lot became so thin the sun from quite a few angles introduced near transparency. It completely destroyed their brand. It has not came back since.
This author is comparing bottom-of-the-barrel chinesium walmart garbage, with high quality boutique merchandise.
Sure, you can cheap out on ___, but you'll replace it soon enough. If you need it once, this might not be a bad idea. But if you use it regularly, this is just a terrible way to burn money up.
It’s incorrect to assume that because a company outsourced a section of their business that there is no innovation occurring there. Companies can innovate and not be direct to consumer. By OP’s logic Apple doesn’t innovate in product production because they outsource production to Foxconn.
This phenomenon becomes a lot clearer when you invert the question: Why are all the products selling for 10x the commoditized version direct-to-consumer? I think that's a lot more obvious. Or at least it is to me since I had a startup which created a premium version of something VERY commoditized(car batteries) and went through this thought process.
The first reason is retail margin. If you can manufacture something for $X, it will probably retail for $2.5-3X. When it's really cheap to make, that might be a reasonable price, but when you are making something that has 3-5x the BOM of the cheaper versions, that high of a markup can make the product inviable. When you start to look at the absolute dollar values, you realize you might be able to do your own marketing and sell direct at a lower price.
Second, with such a price premium, retail isn't as appealing because your buyers are going to be high intent. If your underwear is 5x the cost of everything around it, you're not going to sell the average Walmart shopper just because they're already there. So the other value prop of retail, exposing your product to their captive audience, isn't going to be very valuable either.
So we're left with a lot of DTC business, generally selling quite premium products at high prices, but what are often very reasonable margins. The economics can be shaky because of the high cost of user acquisition, but unfortunately there aren't really any better alternatives at present. Some people do take advantage of this general ecosystem to try to sell cheap stuff in the same manner. I think long term this is hard to due because so much of the business relies on word of mouth, but these sorts of entities definitely do come and go.
His post relies on a false assumption that the new products are equivalent to the previous comparison products.
This falls apart quickly. On mattresses, for example, it's uncommon for queen-size mattresses with higher-end features (pocket springs, etc.) and quality to be in the price range he suggests. He makes no effort to find actual comparable products.
The post might as well say "Why do iPhones exist? I can buy a Boost Mobile Android phone for $116 from Walmart! Apple wants 5-10x as much!! This product will never succeed..."
Seriously, what a bad post. It would be way more interesting if the author went out and bought all of these items and compared them side-by-side.
Yeah, no shit the Fruit of the Loom underwear is gonna be significantly cheaper. 170 year old company that makes low-quality, basic design, extremely mass-produced product is cheap. Wow, no way. Guess everyone should just only shop at Walmart from now on.
"But Tommy John offers a “quick draw” fly opening, which I guess is worth paying 10 times the price?"
Does this person compare everything he buys based on listed "specs"? Buy both underwear and compare how they feel on your body. It's not even a contest and it's not a secret that people are willing to pay significantly more money for things that are comfortable.
It’s a good idea to try things and make up your own mind, sure.
But a lot of folks who buy high-end stuff think they are being value-conscious when in reality they are just parroting the features and benefits copy the manufacturer or retailer gave them. I’ve worked specialty retail and did this for years.
Here’s a great example: a rain jacket for kids had a tag advertising that the special high-end fabric was “wind proof up to 60 mph.” At first you’re like, wow that is really wind proof. But if you think about it, who the hell is going to take their little kid out in 60mph wind?? It is pointless marketing copy.
Most higher-end-features are pointless, or overkill. My mattress does not have “pocket springs” and I sleep just fine. And how great does underwear need to be? For most people, not that great.
It comes down to perspective and how you value your money and your time.
For some consumers, for example, a 2x difference in price is a huge deal, and the time spent figuring out the best product at the best price is very well worth it.
For others, they'd rather pay 2x (or 5x, or 10x) the price to get a higher-grade product without having to spend time and effort shopping around and comparing things. They want a good product but their time is worth far more than their money, and buying the more expensive product is actually a way to buy back the time they would otherwise have spent in comparison shopping, doing a return of a bad product, etc.
For yet other people, they buy higher-end goods (especially clothing, cars, etc) because they want to show off. I don't really understand this compulsion but it's definitely a factor for some. In that case the more expensive brand is better in part because of the fact that it is more expensive.
It really depends on which market segment you are talking about.
There are high-end products like Gucci or Saint Laurent where you really aren't paying for much other than the brand. Sure, some of their products might have great quality, but it's so far down the spectrum of quality where returns have all but diminished.
You bring up rain jackets. I think that's a great example.
Any rain jacket that even mentions windspeed is gonna be some knockoff garbage. No self-respecting company would ever talk about that.
This is a good option for a rain jacket. Notice how none of the copy tries to sell you on any gimmicky features? The only "marketing" BS is their 3-layer H2No® tech. But that's just Patagonia's name for one of their waterproofing techs. It just makes it easier to differentiate which product of theirs uses which tech.
While that Patagonia jacket is a good option for most people, it has some drawbacks. The material is very stiff and heavy, the material feels terrible against your skin, it doesn't have much stretch so it limits mobility, and it has virtually no breathability.
Whereas this jacket (retails for $200, so about $50 more) is better in that the material is much lighter, softer, and stretchy. It has about the same performance in regards to waterproofing and breathability, but the improvements in the comfort make it worth that extra $50 _for me_ every time.
Of course, if you spend even more, you can get almost everything you want out of a rain jacket. That's not to say that more expensive jackets are always better, that's definitely not the case. The question is what do I need out of a rain jacket? Once I determine that, I find the product for the lowest price that satisfies those needs. That second jacket fit my needs and I bought it after trying many other jackets.
If I'm embarking on a month-long hike in the mountains during a rainy season, I will probably spring for the best option since I'll be wearing it all day, every day and it can literally make or break your trip.
So you might think some of these features are pointless, or overkill. But that all depends on what your use is. Obviously buying a $600 Arc'teryx jacket for your kid to walk to school is overkill, but that's not even the price-point that the author is talking about. He's complaining about $16 socks.
Can you go to a mall and try on Tommy John underwear or bombas socks? Tommy John is selling on specs. $36 is a big price to just try out a pair of underwear to see if you like them.
I don't think you can, but if you're uneasy about spending that much money on underwear, you don't have to. There are options that are 90% as good at half the price. It's like with most other products, there is a point of diminishing returns. If you really want the most comfy underwear, they are worth checking out.
The post made me irritated because of the smug sneer that seemed to be behind the words. It was as if this "phenomenon" is built solely on the ignorance of consumers who buy anything other than that cheapest option. No open-mindedness at all, and certainly no curiosity.
I would have loved this article to dig into the details about how these products compare, you know, the author actually putting in the work figuring out what differences there are of these products at different price-points.
If they went into detail about the financials of these companies and how they compare to the companies selling their cheap products in Walmart, that would be interesting.
Instead, it boils down to "I haven't tried these products, but I don't think they're worth it, they're probably all just sales and marketing" What a waste of server space.
I feel like the mindset the author has is how they perceive the world. Things are purely utilitarian. They only serve a basic purpose so why spend more for "underwear"
I had this mindset for a longtime, shirts are shirts, bacon is bacon. Why pay more when I can get the same thing at Walmart/Safeway on sale for hella cheap. Partly this came from growning up poor and also neurodivergent.
Getting older and having enough money to try the "expensive stuff" I realized that food and products have differences. The differences are subjective, so everyones experience will be different.
But the different experiences made me appreciate the care that some companies put into their products. (granted there are repacked huckster bullshit, but you find out real quick)
Later life motto: "Just try it and be objective about how it makes you feel"
The worst feeling for me is having to buy something twice, where the first time I buy something cheaper that I feel is going to be ok or good enough, and no it falls apart.
Yea I notice this a lot in software engineers, they seem to really struggle understanding and discerning the quality difference in commodities and often seem to jump to lowest cheapest grade. Then are baffled why anyone would buy anything else.
Why is this so common with engineers? Is it an optimization mindset? I would have thought engineers would be very aware of quality and discerning of it. But it turns out that’s mostly design.
Isn't the stereotype that every tech bro in silicon valley only wears lululemon? $50 t-shirts and $130 pants don't exactly scream lowest cheapest grade to me.
Yes, I can stuff a sack with straw for $2 and call it a mattress, but it's not going to be as comfortable. Making a better product—for some measurement of better—often makes it more expensive.
Exactly. Let's say the Tommy John underwear last 3x longer and are 3x more comfortable than Fruit of the Loom. Suddenly, the 10x price difference makes perfect sense. Unlike this post, which is pure nonsense.
He picked bad examples by going with the dirt cheap Walmart-grade brands, but the general idea is valid. Closer comparisons would be what you find at Target.
Bombas are fine, but you're paying Darn Tough prices for Target quality.
I haven't tried Tommy John, but a similar player in that space is MeUndies. They're fine too, but you're paying Ex Officio prices for, you guessed it, Target quality.
MVMT watches? Literally $15 AliExpress watches for Seiko prices.
Made In cookware? On par with Costco's Kirkland stuff, but closer to the price of All-Clad.
Could spend half the day doing this. Ritual vitamins, Greats sneakers, Jack Erwin dress shoes, Burrow furniture, Native deodorant, Quip toothbrushes, Bevel razors, et al. Not even sex toys are immune thanks to Maude.
What separates these from legacy brands is just that: they're not legacy. They've got slick, responsive websites that used bold colors and geometric sans-serif fonts until around 2019 when they switched to soft pastels and didone fonts. They donate to a charitable cause with every purchase. They accept Apple Pay.
The market segment that this appeals to is the middle of the Venn diagram of millennial yuppies who:
1) consider themselves appreciative of premium, well-designed goods (i.e. not Hanes socks)
2) consider themselves too savvy to waste money on overpriced luxury goods (i.e. Pantherella socks)
3) aren't inclined to figure out which products actually have good price-to-quality ratios (e.g. Darn Tough socks)
So they default to the ones that have been marketed to them where they are, like via ads on tech podcasts and NYC subways (e.g. Bombas).
counterpoint "dirt cheap brand": I have Fruit of the Loom hoodies that hold up after 15 years, it's one of my favorite brands. But then again I have not bought them at Walmart or in the USA...
Mattresses are usually soaked in fire retardants. 'eco' mattresses aren't. Worth $800-$1100 for an 'eco' California king mattress from Brooklyn Bedding or one of their subsidiaries.
200 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 225 ms ] threadThe first thought the headline provoked in my mind is the strange proliferation of "services" that are really just monthly payments for thing I used to be able to buy (and usually still can). It started with software, where at least some argument can be made around ongoing support. But now it's just everything. I don't understand how these companies make money. Are there people out there with dozens of subscriptions for various things, adding up to many hundreds of dollars every month? Do they even know what they are spending? Perhaps that is the business model... get people to forget they are paying you.
But that was a trend from maybe ten years ago now. None of the brands mentioned in the article follow that model though. None of them offer a subscription, just expensive versions of the same stuff.
I don't have any explanations why this is a thing. I think its just easier to outsource production. You can buy some off label good enough product from China or send over design specs if you really want to. So whats left? Marketing the product, which is essentially what these companies do. You also can't compete on the low end (you won't be able to get a cost or distribution advantage to someone like Hanes), so that leaves the high end. But what's interesting is the high end is inconspicuous. If I buy a $100 umbrella from Prada, I know its a lux product because its Prada. But these new startups will sell you a $100 non-lux umbrella and make you think its a reasonable decision.
Yes. There's even an app that seeks to cancel all those subscriptions you forgot you signed up for: Truebill.
He complains about a direct-to-consumer underwear brand costing 10x as much as fruit of the loom. This isn't any different from Ralph Lauren, or Calvin Klein, or any of the legacy players in the segment.
Lifestyle brands have large creative and marketing teams, with production secondary and technical production largely outsourced, sometimes to the manufacturing partners.
This is a well worn business model for product categories in which all the margins have been competed away. Pricing power comes from the emotion of brand alignment.
And note its not complaining. I don't care because I don't buy these overpriced products. I'm just commenting on the idea that all the "innovation" in consumer tech is basically just selling the same shit made in China for 10x the price to people who are susceptible to advertising. It's just weird and not the kind of progress I would expect in a dynamic innovative society.
https://www.calvinklein.us/en/underwear
https://www.ralphlauren.com/men-clothing-underwear
As to where they're made its unclear:
> Where are your socks made? We produce our products all over the world, including the US, Taiwan, China, and Peru at the most technical and highest-rated manufacturers.
> We're proud to report that all have passed audits with very strict standards for health, safety, and social compliance.
And to note I have both Bombas and Fruit of the Loom currently in my drawer. The difference is negligible in my opinion. You can ask me in a few years if my Bombas held up, but I can tell you my cheap Walmart brand stuff has held up.
[EDIT] Bombas was founded in 2013, not 2019. 2019 was the date they started selling t-shirts. Point still holds that they don't exactly have a track record compared to a legacy player and I still doubt they'll exist in 20 years
As to why they are better the toe knit eliminated the seam and hard spot where cheap socks terminate. The fabric wicks moisture better and get material is less abrasive. The knit and fabric all add significant additional cost to the fabrication process. Look up some videos on you tube on how socks are made.
Some brands are objectively much better, since they support my feet better, have no seams around the toe area that drives me nuts, wears better (my cheaper socks get holes in them in about a year), it breathes better, it reacts to moisture better, it stays up on my ankle better and doesn't slide down, it doesn't twist on my feet because it holds the shape better, and it's cushioned better among other things.
Whether or not they succeed or their product is "worth it" is another story. I would not assess a company's quality based solely on the founder's degrees or their marketing.
I have some of the products mentioned in the ad, but some are out of reach (I'm not going to shell out $2,500 for a mattress or $36 for a pair of underwear), so I have to go by my gut. And my gut tells me its BS.
I could be wrong and I'm sure to some people they are 10x better than the alternative and I'm happy for them and the start up that sells them these socks.
I just find it weird that people in these comments are so trusting and loyal to this company that has exceptional PR and somehow dismissive of the brands that they have used their entire lives.
Usually the story goes:
1. Bob is unhappy with his socks, can't find better quality socks anywhere.
2. Bob creates a company with the sole purpose of creating better socks.
3. Bob find a factory in China and asks them to use the best materials to create the ultimate socks.
4. Bob is super happy with the product and happily pads his advertising materials.
5. Bob finds a customer and places an order with the factory and is shocked at the price.
6. Bob tells factory to do whatever it can to lower price to competitors' levels without compromising quality.
7. Socks turn out shit, because price is too low and no economies of scale because order quantity is low.
8. Bob sells shit socks with original marketing materials and secretly vows to restore the quality in some distant future.
9. Bob sells company to an investor.
Nice try!
Source to back up - none! But I do work at a clothing company where we do this and markup is much higher for "premium" - 20x.
Sensible is the lifestyle they are selling. Sensible is the Tech lifestyle.
there are not much consumer goods that's made in US anymore
As an example, at least three well-known tool brands sell 20 volt cordless leaf blowers that are nearly identical besides the battery clip, branding, and the color of the plastic shell. As a consumer I would rather just know that they are the same tool so I don't have to waste extra time on research before buying, but the companies need to maintain the perception that their tools are original and different from everyone else's to protect the image of the brand. A lot of US companies seem to be coasting on brand image they built 50 years ago when they were actually doing their own innovating.
On the other hand, Fruit of the Loom competes primarily on price. To stand a chance here you need scale. You'd need to bootstrap massive production capability, source cheap materials and labor, and try to find a way to either sell directly with a razor thin per-customer acquisition cost, or to build up relationships with massive distributers who will further cut your margins.
Ralph Lauren brands men who own horses and play polo as aspirational, that doesn't go against tradition.
Lifestyle branding that associates "eco" with status... well that makes the front page of HN.
The final price is due to a mix of quality and branding. It’s not just taking the same item and targeting “lifestyle”
It’s not just a matter of targeting a different segment using the same material, the actual product offered usually has to be materially different.
Hershey’s chocolate like candy product vs small batch artisan chocolate or Kraft American cheese product vs actual aged cheddar are not just marketing the same product to different segments.
As the Amazon reviewer says: “Not as comfortable as other brands” citing CK among those other brands.
Your product link strongly supports what I was saying, not sure if that was the intention.
What an apt phrase.
I mean, sure, but
1) Warby Parker glasses are generally cheaper than equivalent Prada frames. They might be more expensive than their online competition (Zenni, GlassesUSA), but the price advantage is unbeatable compared to optometrist's display case.
2) Harry's handles and razors are cheaper than equivalent Gilette's. Both brand now have online and offline presence (Harry's started exclusively online), but once again, it was hard to pass up on the price alone.
I'm actually not sure whether some of the mentioned price tags aren't actually justified given the overhead of the x-washing (e.g. supplying homeless shelters with variable amounts of socks rather than simply setting up a recurring donation). The real grift are white label electronics bulk purchases from Alibaba and sold at a 10x to 100x price tag. There is an entire industry in creating brands out of whole cloth to do just that.
I like seeing ads and spending money on things that might be nicer than the things I have now. I can't imagine I'm the only person like this.
OR
You can spend $300 on a burr grinder $150 on one of those neat vacuum brewing devices, and who knows how much for fair trade single source coffee beans roasted in your back yard
Or you can find a balance that gets you things you care about (fair trade beans, good roast, a nice grinder for flavor, whatever your taste might be) at a lower price than going all out
When it comes to underwear or other clothing items, I'm generally willing to pay a bit more if I know that I'm avoiding plastics and pollution and the workers who make the items aren't working in sweatshop conditions
Why do you have so much faith in these new startups? Sure their marketing copy says they're all ethical and great and stuff. But the legacy guys have a reputation and experience. I've been buying their stuff for decades. They've been around for 100 years and will probably continue to be around for another 100 years. Who knows about these new guys? They don't have a reputations. And the new guys don't make their own stuff. You can't even find out where they're made or under what conditions. They probably won't exist in 20 years, let alone 100. They're mostly a bunch of MBA grads that came up w/ this idea a few years ago. You really think they have a better handle on working conditions than the people who have been doing this for 100+ years? I don't buy it
https://rawganique.com/
I'll also say that I think nothing really matters, so that might explain some of it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This has been a problem for years:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22640191 (March 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18108318 (Sept 2018)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18106560 (Sept 2018)
I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please fix this, we'd appreciate it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
There's an excellent book about that. Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior by Geoffrey Miller.
These aren't really examples of "premium brands" He's comparing the cheapest products available, to mid-tier products where you actually see a difference in quality, comfort, and style.
Yes, this. We are living in a new Gilded Age.
It's easy to see how a $50000 car has enough margin in the price to sustain the advertisement spend. I don't understand how a pair of underwear manages to do the same - even if it's a $35 pair.
Maybe the advertising money comes from VC pockets? Selling the same made-in-farawaystan underwear for $35 instead of $3.50 is a great business opportunity, assuming you have repeat customers.
Of course you can find cheap mattresses elsewhere. And if they’re comfortable enough for you then that’s fantastic. But Avocado isn’t a big outlier (in price) in the mattress industry.
So by you buying an Avocado mattress, you are letting the founders (https://help.avocadogreenmattress.com/en/articles/4650111-wh...) have the lifestyle they want.
I know, that could mean anything! and all companies at the end are "lifestyle" companies (ie doesn't a stock broker work at a trading firm so that their family can have the lifestyle they want?) That term is just really non-descriptive.
Don't take my word for it, wikipedia has a pretty decent entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_business
Selling a cheap T-shirt with Che Guevara or ripped jeans are just as much a lifestyle product as lululemon or Tory Burch.
You can charge a premium or sell an inferior product because consumers are buying more than just the functional utility of the item.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_brand
Honestly the whole mattress industry is a little strange, though.
> Over-accumulation and crisis
> The Marxist analysis of capital accumulation and the development of capitalism identifies systemic issues with the process that arise with expansion of the productive forces. A crisis of overaccumulation of capital occurs when the rate of profit is greater than the rate of new profitable investment outlets in the economy, arising from increasing productivity from a rising organic composition of capital (higher capital input to labor input ratio). This depresses the wage bill, leading to stagnant wages and high rates of unemployment for the working class while excess profits search for new profitable investment opportunities. Marx believed that this cyclical process would be the fundamental cause for the dissolution of capitalism and its replacement by socialism, which would operate according to a different economic dynamic.[9]
> In Marxist thought, socialism would succeed capitalism as the dominant mode of production when the accumulation of capital can no longer sustain itself due to falling rates of profit in real production relative to increasing productivity. A socialist economy would not base production on the accumulation of capital, instead basing production on the criteria of satisfying human needs and directly producing use-values. This concept is encapsulated in the principle of production for use.
> In Marxist thought...
Marxism, as an idea of the 19th century, finds little relevance in the 21st century we find ourselves living in.
in this case i'd recommend "post-scarcity anarchism" by bookchin
If you don't like it, don't buy it... and if other people agree with you, the company will fade away.
What's the alternative?
It's a conversation I often have with my wife. She prefers to buy as cheap as possible provided a product does its job reasonably well. I prefer to buy the best possible version of a product that I can afford (which doesn't always mean most expensive, so I end up doing a lot more product research whereas she will just buy whatever).
If there's a non-branded bombas equivalent, I'd buy it, but comparing walmart fruit of the loom and bombas isn't apples to apples.
That said, I consider them a luxury and not a necessity. If I had a tighter budget, I'd have no issue wearing traditional brands, but I do enjoy the extra comfort.
Also, with Darn Tough the socks have a lifetime guarantee, so in theory I shouldn't have to ever buy socks again. Generally the socks I've gotten from walmart/tj maxx/any department store the elastic starts to go after a few years.
As they say, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"...
I wish there were some truth in advertising to consumers, but caveat emptor is the the rule of the day. All you can do is get one of each, pick what actually works, and invest in your comfort.
HN readers seem to be under the naive delusion that all of commerce is non stop innovation when the reality is most of it is marketing and logistics. It always has been. Innovation is hard and rare. Most likely what you are working on is not innovation but logistics of some sort repackaging or delivering the same old thing.
Doesn't pass the sniff test.
Even knowing how to make an item, was a big factor in what goods were available in the ancient world, see guilds. The Internet especially has changed that.
And until at least the age of sail, getting something from far away was a huge undertaking. Even today, supply chain logistics are hardly a solved problem.
Selling/marketing has always been part of trade, but it's hardly the whole story.
However hucksters have existed since the beginning of time to sell without producing. It’s why the Roman guilds and a bunch of other systems of verifying labor exist.
Some people with limited means do not even look at prices. The ready availability of consumer debt allows them to buy whatever they wish without considering price as a factor. They simply do not consider any form of budgeting or interest rates on debt when they spend.
I mean. Yeah? If I found out my mattress was toxic and had been slowly poisoning me by releasing VOCs every night for 8 hours, I'd probably want one that wasn't. I don't know anything about that particular brand, but if you're going to bring it up in a blog post, it seems like a good place to actually investigate whether there's any merit to the claim instead of just assuming there isn't.
Uh, proof? People being around chemicals all the time that end up being more harmful than first believed is common enough. Let's take lead and asbestos for easy examples. BPA for a more recent (but I think more controversial?) one.
Lots of things aren't regulated by the EPA, the FDA etc. Major cosmetic companies used lead in lipstick until fairly recently...
And ironically enough, a lot of the toxicity from Mattresses and furniture etc is caused by the government regulation because it's from requiring them to be treated in Fire Retardants
> The problem is that it doesn't pass the sniff test. Do you really think that your mattress is poisoning you?
That's not how... thinking works. Do you really think cigarettes are poisoning you?
I bought a pair of lululemon pants for $140 and they are incomparable to any other article of clothing I’ve ever owned. They cost 5-7x the price of my usual h&m/Nordstrom rack/etc pair of pants, but are way more than 10x better in terms of fit, comfort, and not fading/lose strings/etc.
This article is not worth your time to read and neither is this comment. ;)
This isn't particularly new, because marketing is a continual process of consumer discovery as people and demographics change.
Sure, you can cheap out on ___, but you'll replace it soon enough. If you need it once, this might not be a bad idea. But if you use it regularly, this is just a terrible way to burn money up.
But then we have https://www.getrichslowly.org/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-...
The first reason is retail margin. If you can manufacture something for $X, it will probably retail for $2.5-3X. When it's really cheap to make, that might be a reasonable price, but when you are making something that has 3-5x the BOM of the cheaper versions, that high of a markup can make the product inviable. When you start to look at the absolute dollar values, you realize you might be able to do your own marketing and sell direct at a lower price.
Second, with such a price premium, retail isn't as appealing because your buyers are going to be high intent. If your underwear is 5x the cost of everything around it, you're not going to sell the average Walmart shopper just because they're already there. So the other value prop of retail, exposing your product to their captive audience, isn't going to be very valuable either.
So we're left with a lot of DTC business, generally selling quite premium products at high prices, but what are often very reasonable margins. The economics can be shaky because of the high cost of user acquisition, but unfortunately there aren't really any better alternatives at present. Some people do take advantage of this general ecosystem to try to sell cheap stuff in the same manner. I think long term this is hard to due because so much of the business relies on word of mouth, but these sorts of entities definitely do come and go.
This falls apart quickly. On mattresses, for example, it's uncommon for queen-size mattresses with higher-end features (pocket springs, etc.) and quality to be in the price range he suggests. He makes no effort to find actual comparable products.
The post might as well say "Why do iPhones exist? I can buy a Boost Mobile Android phone for $116 from Walmart! Apple wants 5-10x as much!! This product will never succeed..."
Yeah, no shit the Fruit of the Loom underwear is gonna be significantly cheaper. 170 year old company that makes low-quality, basic design, extremely mass-produced product is cheap. Wow, no way. Guess everyone should just only shop at Walmart from now on.
"But Tommy John offers a “quick draw” fly opening, which I guess is worth paying 10 times the price?"
Does this person compare everything he buys based on listed "specs"? Buy both underwear and compare how they feel on your body. It's not even a contest and it's not a secret that people are willing to pay significantly more money for things that are comfortable.
But a lot of folks who buy high-end stuff think they are being value-conscious when in reality they are just parroting the features and benefits copy the manufacturer or retailer gave them. I’ve worked specialty retail and did this for years.
Here’s a great example: a rain jacket for kids had a tag advertising that the special high-end fabric was “wind proof up to 60 mph.” At first you’re like, wow that is really wind proof. But if you think about it, who the hell is going to take their little kid out in 60mph wind?? It is pointless marketing copy.
Most higher-end-features are pointless, or overkill. My mattress does not have “pocket springs” and I sleep just fine. And how great does underwear need to be? For most people, not that great.
For some consumers, for example, a 2x difference in price is a huge deal, and the time spent figuring out the best product at the best price is very well worth it.
For others, they'd rather pay 2x (or 5x, or 10x) the price to get a higher-grade product without having to spend time and effort shopping around and comparing things. They want a good product but their time is worth far more than their money, and buying the more expensive product is actually a way to buy back the time they would otherwise have spent in comparison shopping, doing a return of a bad product, etc.
For yet other people, they buy higher-end goods (especially clothing, cars, etc) because they want to show off. I don't really understand this compulsion but it's definitely a factor for some. In that case the more expensive brand is better in part because of the fact that it is more expensive.
There are high-end products like Gucci or Saint Laurent where you really aren't paying for much other than the brand. Sure, some of their products might have great quality, but it's so far down the spectrum of quality where returns have all but diminished.
You bring up rain jackets. I think that's a great example.
Any rain jacket that even mentions windspeed is gonna be some knockoff garbage. No self-respecting company would ever talk about that.
https://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-torrentshell-3l-rain-...
This is a good option for a rain jacket. Notice how none of the copy tries to sell you on any gimmicky features? The only "marketing" BS is their 3-layer H2No® tech. But that's just Patagonia's name for one of their waterproofing techs. It just makes it easier to differentiate which product of theirs uses which tech.
While that Patagonia jacket is a good option for most people, it has some drawbacks. The material is very stiff and heavy, the material feels terrible against your skin, it doesn't have much stretch so it limits mobility, and it has virtually no breathability.
https://www.rei.com/product/894312/patagonia-stretch-rainsha...
Whereas this jacket (retails for $200, so about $50 more) is better in that the material is much lighter, softer, and stretchy. It has about the same performance in regards to waterproofing and breathability, but the improvements in the comfort make it worth that extra $50 _for me_ every time.
Of course, if you spend even more, you can get almost everything you want out of a rain jacket. That's not to say that more expensive jackets are always better, that's definitely not the case. The question is what do I need out of a rain jacket? Once I determine that, I find the product for the lowest price that satisfies those needs. That second jacket fit my needs and I bought it after trying many other jackets.
If I'm embarking on a month-long hike in the mountains during a rainy season, I will probably spring for the best option since I'll be wearing it all day, every day and it can literally make or break your trip.
So you might think some of these features are pointless, or overkill. But that all depends on what your use is. Obviously buying a $600 Arc'teryx jacket for your kid to walk to school is overkill, but that's not even the price-point that the author is talking about. He's complaining about $16 socks.
If they went into detail about the financials of these companies and how they compare to the companies selling their cheap products in Walmart, that would be interesting.
Instead, it boils down to "I haven't tried these products, but I don't think they're worth it, they're probably all just sales and marketing" What a waste of server space.
I had this mindset for a longtime, shirts are shirts, bacon is bacon. Why pay more when I can get the same thing at Walmart/Safeway on sale for hella cheap. Partly this came from growning up poor and also neurodivergent.
Getting older and having enough money to try the "expensive stuff" I realized that food and products have differences. The differences are subjective, so everyones experience will be different.
But the different experiences made me appreciate the care that some companies put into their products. (granted there are repacked huckster bullshit, but you find out real quick)
Later life motto: "Just try it and be objective about how it makes you feel"
Why is this so common with engineers? Is it an optimization mindset? I would have thought engineers would be very aware of quality and discerning of it. But it turns out that’s mostly design.
For example:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29043420
Bombas are fine, but you're paying Darn Tough prices for Target quality.
I haven't tried Tommy John, but a similar player in that space is MeUndies. They're fine too, but you're paying Ex Officio prices for, you guessed it, Target quality.
MVMT watches? Literally $15 AliExpress watches for Seiko prices.
Made In cookware? On par with Costco's Kirkland stuff, but closer to the price of All-Clad.
Could spend half the day doing this. Ritual vitamins, Greats sneakers, Jack Erwin dress shoes, Burrow furniture, Native deodorant, Quip toothbrushes, Bevel razors, et al. Not even sex toys are immune thanks to Maude.
What separates these from legacy brands is just that: they're not legacy. They've got slick, responsive websites that used bold colors and geometric sans-serif fonts until around 2019 when they switched to soft pastels and didone fonts. They donate to a charitable cause with every purchase. They accept Apple Pay.
The market segment that this appeals to is the middle of the Venn diagram of millennial yuppies who: 1) consider themselves appreciative of premium, well-designed goods (i.e. not Hanes socks) 2) consider themselves too savvy to waste money on overpriced luxury goods (i.e. Pantherella socks) 3) aren't inclined to figure out which products actually have good price-to-quality ratios (e.g. Darn Tough socks)
So they default to the ones that have been marketed to them where they are, like via ads on tech podcasts and NYC subways (e.g. Bombas).
These were bad examples as there are brands where there's true bang-for-buck improvement.