This is an excellent analysis. It's also why I stopped considering a brand as an indicator of quality (in either direction) a long time ago. That something is a recognizable brand doesn't really mean much.
I think there's a lot of hidden inflation in this. Or, if not outright inflation, something similar to it.
Look at what it costs to get a work shirt (I mean, for physical labor, "blue collar", heavy chambray or something along those lines) of comparable quality & materials to what was in a Sears catalog in the 1930s or ordered by the US military in the 1940s, which in neither case could be regarded as super-fancy. You're probably looking at minimum $150.
You want a button-up shirt that isn't total shit? Over $100. On clearance.
You "can" dress in cheaper alternatives, but those are so bad that their equivalent in the 1930s effectively didn't exist as a new product. You'd be looking at second- or third-hand good (by modern standards, not necessarily anything remarkable for the time, see again those work shirts) clothes, or some simply-constructed homemade garment.
On the plus(?) side we now have clothes so cheap that even though they develop holes or split seams within months, they're not worth repairing even for fairly-poor people, which is... something.
Dressing yourself in new clothes is a lot cheaper now. Dressing yourself in the same quality of new clothes? Maybe not.
[EDIT: This goes for plenty of stuff that's not clothes, and with more-recent products to compare them to. I've learned though my wife buying toys for our kids that modern standard-tier Barbies are trash compared to the ones from the '80s, fewer points of articulation, far worse cloth for the clothes, weaker construction, and fewer pieces of clothing or other accessories included. You have to buy from "fancier" Barbie product lines that are way more expensive, or buy non-Barbie dolls that cost a lot more than a modern entry-level Barbie, to get something that's actually similar to a standard Barbie doll in the '80s. So if you look at just "what did a Barbie cost 40 years ago versus today?" you'll get a misleading idea of how those costs have changed, because the actual comp to a modern standard-tier Barbie is some terrible, cheap Barbie knock-off from the Dollar Tree or wherever, in 1986; the cost to get the same-quality product, regardless of brand, has increased a lot more than whatever the cost difference is between a basic 1986 Barbie and a basic 2026 Barbie]
This is such an important point. So much of inflation is not $THING used to cost $X and now costs $Y, but that $THING is significantly lower quality than it used to be. Quality is famously difficult to quantify (Pirsig), so it is much easier to manipulate it without people noticing. A product that looks the same, but is slightly worse, at purchase time is a lot harder to identify than the same product that costs 20% more, so businesses prefer it.
That happens incrementally over years, until the product is a shadow of its former self.
> physical labor, "blue collar", heavy chambray or something along those lines) of comparable quality & materials to what was in a Sears catalog in the 1930s
"If it’s a Hercules, it’s the best work shirt on earth! Sales prove it. Deep down in the mine, in the mills and factories, high on the lofty girders of a towering skyscraper, in fact wherever the work is rugged and the going is tough you’ll find Hercules shirts on the backs of hardy men. It is the undisputed choice of a Nation! This shirt is made of heavyweight chambray in closed front style."
87 cents, postpaid. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ says that's $16.80 now. Fabric breaking strength is 62 pounds/inch. The triple stitched seams have a breaking strength of 58 pounds/inch.
The fancy version on that page is $1.00 -- just under $20 now.
"The toughest, ruggedest, man-size shirt we’ve ever sold. Packed full of more strength, stamina and comfort than ever before. Read every feature above! Sanforized Shrunk means perfect fit. All the washings in the world won’t shrink it. WHERE ELSE can you find such a shirt — such a price — such an opportunity?
Where indeed can I buy it now?
I ... think I want one.
Dress shirts were about twice to thrice as much, and up to $6 for "radium silk"; 1929 was likely the last year they used that marketing term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_silk
This is entirely by design. From a shareholder's perspective, the only thing that matters is number go up, when you take over a struggling company, they will squeeze every last drop of life from it in order to get some profit.
The fact that they are being quite secretive about their outsourcing, or at least not publishing it as a restructuring plan that they lay out to customers, is a little scummy, but makes sense for private equity. Milk as many people as they can while they still trust the brand.
From a shareholder's perspective, it's working as expected. And that's the real issue. If brands took more care of not expanding too fast that they require private equity and give away their ownership of the company slowly, then with patience and customer respect, we see its a good mix. But it seems people just get greedy or something and want it all faster.
Support brands with values and local manufacturing. For example: American Giant, Origin, Crye Precision, Randolph Engineering, American Optical, and many more.
+1 on Origin. 100% of their good are built from American-grown/made materials, built by American hands. It's wayyyy more expensive than most common brands ($99 for a pair of jeans), but if you compare them to "luxury" brands like Lululemon, it's comparable and wasn't manufactured using slave labor.
Personally, I love using Origin for everything I can afford to use them for. I acknowledge not everyone has the privilege to spend $99 on a pair of jeans, but if you find yourself able, I think it's worthy to support American manufacturing.
We need a curated directory of brands, like Yahoo of old, but for brands instead of websites. With information on who they are ultimately owned by, i.e., PE, public company, private enterprise, where they do their manufacturing, how they source their materials.
Yeah, I know that would be a lot of work, especially to keep it updated, but a valuable resource in this day an age. Because ownership changes as the article points out. I thought my local grocery store was local (because it looks/feels/acts very local), but it turns out they're now owned by a Korean conglomerate.
If capitalism is about meeting market demands apart from any objective sense of quality, then yes. It's basically curve fitting.
The reason things are shittier is because the market is shittier. Consumer demands shape what companies make and sell. If companies can get away with selling garbage, because the market is undiscerning, then they will make garbage.
It's the same with politics. Ultimately, the quality of a political culture is determined by its participants.
The real problem isn't capitalism, but consumerism, which, among other defects, prioritizes the maximization of quantity over quality.
Just but either professional (as in practitioners of a trade us it) or military products — those tend to be much better than “consumers” products.
They cost more but they will last a lifetime.
Of course not super applicable to every aspect of fashion, but I’ve been doing this for all kinds of products for years and was never disappointed.
For fashion I would recommend to hit up small designers, ideally someone you know personally. It will cost more but look amazing and last many years.
> Just but either professional (as in practitioners of a trade us it) or military products — those tend to be much better than “consumers” products. They cost more but they will last a lifetime.
Eh, I'm not sure that's such good advice. IIRC, I remember stumbling across tacticool "military grade" USB thumb drives, for instance. I doubt those are any better than your typical name-brand drive. "Professional" seems to be an often used marketing keyword to indicate quality or power (e.g. "Mac Pro").
Some keywords that may work better are "industrial" and "commercial," they don't have the same ring to them as "professional" and "military grade."
Super interesting -- outside the premise which we all know to be true. What is their goal here -- to crowdsource information so that we have a public record of note for companies? What are they planning to do with that information etc?
> Super interesting -- outside the premise which we all know to be true.
Obviously we do not "all know it to be true," since this business model works.
> What is their goal here -- to crowdsource information so that we have a public record of note for companies? What are they planning to do with that information etc?
This website? You kinda make it sound like a conspiracy. This seems like basic consumer advocacy: identify a problem, get the information out there so consumers can make better choices and not be fooled, and maybe (a long-shot) get some kind of cultural or legislative change to solve the problem.
Speaking of the latter, it would probably be a good idea to change bankruptcy law so that brands and trademarks cannot be sold in liquidation (at least without the associated business operations). Practices like the article describe undermine the social value of a trademark, and turn them into an opportunity for deception.
Though with these kinds of blogs, if it gets successful and influential, eventually it may just turn to a pay-to-play. IIRC, that's what happened to "mattress review" blogs.
Author here. The goal is a permanent public record of who owns what, and what that ownership has done to the product, so consumers can make informed purchasing decisions. The long-form essays are the investigations, the Brand Ledger is the ongoing reference. Readers tip me on brands to dig into, and entries get updated as news and reader reports come in.
Consumers have power to affect change with their dollars... providing they have the right information
I (or really, my parents) were burned by something like this recently. They bought my kid an FAO Schwarz marble run tower for Christmas. It's made of terrible plastic, with rough seams, and every play session ends when a marble gets stuck somewhere nearly impossible to reach. It requires partial disassembly, bending, and a screwdriver to pry things out.
I was shocked that an FAO Schwarz toy sucked so much. I looked at reviews on Amazon to see if anyone else had these problems, and they had. The FAO Schwarz brand had been bought by the ThreeSixty Group in 2016. Now it's just a way to polish the image of cheap toys.
This is one of the reasons 3D printers are becoming a lot more common in homes not inhabited by the sort of geek/nerd like me who you would (correctly) assume owned a 3D printer or two.
Yes, something you print yourself will likely be lower quality than a bought one from years ago and you'll pay more in material and time than buying a new one will cost, but... it may be no worse quality than a new bought set, possibly better, replacement parts can be reproduced easily or additional parts added to the set cheaply (no buying a full set to get a couple of extra pieces that you want) and things can be customised.
One of the bigger 3D catalogue sites (I think MakerWorld, but without checking I'm not 100% certain) ran a marble-run themed contest some months ago for which there were a lot of interesting entries, some just copies of basic parts/sets (great if that is what you are looking for) but also some that were more innovative than that. If you have a printer, or know someone who has, it might be worth you looking into that if your kid would appreciate a new set, there are a lot of free designs¹ out there you could experiment with.
--------
[1] and paid ones, some designers try to make a living this way and some of them produce designs that are well worth the cost as they may be free of issues more amateur designs could have
I've been seeing fabric from their US mill, but manufacturing elsewhere (like the DR) for years.
So far I've done OK assuming anything they make that's not 100% wool is cheap trash they're using to cash in on the name (they sell cotton shirts, and linen-cotton blends, and some synthetic blends—all extremely suspect, I avoid these at any price) but the 100% wool stuff is OK even if the construction's not in the US. That's served me well so far, but I reckon it's only a matter of time before they fully enshittify. Luckily their heavier shirts last years and years with occasional mending of e.g. tears (if you wear them as actual work and outdoors-activities shirts, you're gonna tear them sometimes).
Author here. Good catch... you're right. The wool is still woven in Pendleton and Washougal, but finished product sourcing is a mix and some blankets are now assembled offshore. Will update the Ledger entry and the essay today.
They're iterating AI-written consumer populist blog posts and using us as guinea pigs, until we stop noticing they're AI. Their last one was "Your Backpack Got Worse On Purpose", which we did great on. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47777209, flagged off main page)
Don't let them get away with this, they're using a topic that we all appreciate specifically to divide our reactions into "if it's AI, it's good! What's the problem?" and god knows what the actual endgame is. But it's certainly not Palantir maintaining a consumer rights blog.
FWIW fact check is great, their RAG stuff works fine. But the unsourced "anonymous anecdotes" are made up, can't find backing for any of them and they're sort of entry-level rage-bait. (ex. DC shoes snowboard boots now designed in Florida by people that never designed snowboard boot)
gross. I want to unread it now. annoying because this kind of brand degradation is something important to me. but that's not enough to make me read a Palantir AI dude.
Can we have something like this blog that's not AI slop? Please!
This is an illustration of why AI is terrible: it just destroys trust. Is the blog good or bad? It's really hard to tell without putting in more work than it'd take to write a similar article.
At least in the pre-AI days, if you saw polished writing, it meant someone at least put some effort into it.
I'm going to admit I'm emotionally invested in this blog. I really enjoyed this write up.
I'm troubled by your statement because I can't tell if you are saying it is incorrect and AI made it and therefore BAD. Or if you are just saying AI made it and therefore BAD.
Writing is at such a precipice. Every time I compose an email, gmail underlines every single sentence to say there is a better and more concise way of saying it. I feel stupid so I generally accept it. Isn't this AI writing as well? But, the thoughts and intentions are mine.
How is this different here? The author is pointing out really relevant information that I know anecdotally to be true. If that story is 85% written by AI, or 15% written by AI, I still see the human behind it.
I'm troubled by AI writing, don't get me wrong. But, it deserves further thought. (And, I also have strong negative bias towards palantir...)
The interesting thing here is that this is about brands being bought out of bankruptcy and licensed. The trademark system in the US exists to prevent consumer confusion, one might think that if a company ceases to exist, the trademark shouldn’t survive.
The trademark system exists to protect companies by preventing another company from making consumers confuse you with them. You can do whatever you want with your trademark within your company - you don't have any duty to prevent consumer confusion within your company.
> Wait for a beloved brand to hit financial trouble. Buy the intellectual property out of bankruptcy: the name, the logo, the trademarks.
The alternative is to shut down. That's how this whole system works: the brand can be sold, because the alternative is to cease existing.
I hate that the brand is worthwhile on its own. But: that's the point! The company invested in making the brand worth something by having it represent a promise. That promise isn't worth anything when the brand can be sold separately from the process of making the thing. The brand continues to be worth something, though.
This mechanism is a core feature of capitalism. Companies can be sold for parts, and those parts can lie to consumers. There's almost certainly a regulatory answer, but the behavior of the roll-up firms isn't unique to any particular firm. It's exactly the kind of value extraction the system is designed to support.
When people talk about AI replacing jobs, this is what it will look like. Companies that care about quality will use AI to make humans more productive and enhance their overall offering. Companies that only care about profit (read: most) will fire people, add in AI, and ship garbage. Other CEOs will see the results (read: profits) and copy this. We'll end up with shittier products and services than before and not much else.
Funny baader-meinhof moment for me reading this. My wife recently bought me some Brooks Brothers polo shirts that essentially dissolved the first time they were washed. I had never seen a shirt that was such poor quality. We were both flabbergasted, and the employees apparently gave her a bit of a hard time when she tried to return them.
I suppose I now know why.
What this company is doing is taking advantage of, and really creating, adverse selection. They buy a brand for its reputation, destroy everything that made it worthwhile and abuse the information asymmetry of the public still believing they're buying the now non-existent brand. It could be seen very easily as a form of fraud.
> Billabong board shorts lasted a decade of salt water and sun,
I've had a Billabong orange t-shirt last almost 15 years of sun and salt water from time to time, one of the best clothes-related purchases I've ever made. Sad to see that that's now a thing of the past.
Same with household appliances. Most of the familiar names are shadows of their former selves. Unlike in clothes though the quality alternatives are usually really expensive.
Is there a review platform that focuses on brands, rather than on stores? For instance, if I look for Brooks Brothers reviews, I get reviews of individual stores, of their website, and a couple articles talking about the business. It seems like a good way to combat the information asymmetry being exploited here would be a trustworthy (I know, good luck) review platform that focuses on overall brands, rather than specific outlet channels. This seems like it ought to exist, but I'm not aware of where.
It seems like that may be partly what this site is trying to build with the ledger, but it looks focused only on the "bad".
The author of website will be flooded with submissions about almost every known brand.
Instead of ledger of bad brands it should track brands that remain, - it will be a lot easier and less work.
68 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 70.1 ms ] threadLook at what it costs to get a work shirt (I mean, for physical labor, "blue collar", heavy chambray or something along those lines) of comparable quality & materials to what was in a Sears catalog in the 1930s or ordered by the US military in the 1940s, which in neither case could be regarded as super-fancy. You're probably looking at minimum $150.
You want a button-up shirt that isn't total shit? Over $100. On clearance.
You "can" dress in cheaper alternatives, but those are so bad that their equivalent in the 1930s effectively didn't exist as a new product. You'd be looking at second- or third-hand good (by modern standards, not necessarily anything remarkable for the time, see again those work shirts) clothes, or some simply-constructed homemade garment.
On the plus(?) side we now have clothes so cheap that even though they develop holes or split seams within months, they're not worth repairing even for fairly-poor people, which is... something.
Dressing yourself in new clothes is a lot cheaper now. Dressing yourself in the same quality of new clothes? Maybe not.
[EDIT: This goes for plenty of stuff that's not clothes, and with more-recent products to compare them to. I've learned though my wife buying toys for our kids that modern standard-tier Barbies are trash compared to the ones from the '80s, fewer points of articulation, far worse cloth for the clothes, weaker construction, and fewer pieces of clothing or other accessories included. You have to buy from "fancier" Barbie product lines that are way more expensive, or buy non-Barbie dolls that cost a lot more than a modern entry-level Barbie, to get something that's actually similar to a standard Barbie doll in the '80s. So if you look at just "what did a Barbie cost 40 years ago versus today?" you'll get a misleading idea of how those costs have changed, because the actual comp to a modern standard-tier Barbie is some terrible, cheap Barbie knock-off from the Dollar Tree or wherever, in 1986; the cost to get the same-quality product, regardless of brand, has increased a lot more than whatever the cost difference is between a basic 1986 Barbie and a basic 2026 Barbie]
That happens incrementally over years, until the product is a shadow of its former self.
For a supporting example from the Spring and Summer 1929 Sears Catalog at, https://archive.org/details/sears-roebuck-catalog-158-r-1929...
"If it’s a Hercules, it’s the best work shirt on earth! Sales prove it. Deep down in the mine, in the mills and factories, high on the lofty girders of a towering skyscraper, in fact wherever the work is rugged and the going is tough you’ll find Hercules shirts on the backs of hardy men. It is the undisputed choice of a Nation! This shirt is made of heavyweight chambray in closed front style."
87 cents, postpaid. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ says that's $16.80 now. Fabric breaking strength is 62 pounds/inch. The triple stitched seams have a breaking strength of 58 pounds/inch.
The fancy version on that page is $1.00 -- just under $20 now.
Same shirt, Jan. 1935, price now 77 cents, or just under $19 now. https://archive.org/details/CAT31345884/page/140/mode/2up?q=...
"The toughest, ruggedest, man-size shirt we’ve ever sold. Packed full of more strength, stamina and comfort than ever before. Read every feature above! Sanforized Shrunk means perfect fit. All the washings in the world won’t shrink it. WHERE ELSE can you find such a shirt — such a price — such an opportunity?
Where indeed can I buy it now? I ... think I want one.
Dress shirts were about twice to thrice as much, and up to $6 for "radium silk"; 1929 was likely the last year they used that marketing term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_silk
The fact that they are being quite secretive about their outsourcing, or at least not publishing it as a restructuring plan that they lay out to customers, is a little scummy, but makes sense for private equity. Milk as many people as they can while they still trust the brand.
From a shareholder's perspective, it's working as expected. And that's the real issue. If brands took more care of not expanding too fast that they require private equity and give away their ownership of the company slowly, then with patience and customer respect, we see its a good mix. But it seems people just get greedy or something and want it all faster.
I've also had success with Mountain Hardware, Outdoor Research (jackets and pants).
(I do search and rescue, so a lot of focus on outdoor stuff. It is also really hard on gear so anything cheaply made gets destroyed pretty quickly.)
Personally, I love using Origin for everything I can afford to use them for. I acknowledge not everyone has the privilege to spend $99 on a pair of jeans, but if you find yourself able, I think it's worthy to support American manufacturing.
I thought the whole trick was arbitrage on the delayed awareness of reduced quality.
Yeah, I know that would be a lot of work, especially to keep it updated, but a valuable resource in this day an age. Because ownership changes as the article points out. I thought my local grocery store was local (because it looks/feels/acts very local), but it turns out they're now owned by a Korean conglomerate.
1. strong entrepeneurial culture, limited obstacles from government when starting new business ventures and/or products & services
2. a "free" market, meaning that in broad terms government does not control prices nor what can be bought & sold or how much or when it is sold
3. distribution of profit generally goes to capital (stockholders) rather than employees.
None of these require enshittification. I also believe that we could have a thriving and vibrant economy without #3.
The reason things are shittier is because the market is shittier. Consumer demands shape what companies make and sell. If companies can get away with selling garbage, because the market is undiscerning, then they will make garbage.
It's the same with politics. Ultimately, the quality of a political culture is determined by its participants.
The real problem isn't capitalism, but consumerism, which, among other defects, prioritizes the maximization of quantity over quality.
Stop buying so much shit in general.
Eh, I'm not sure that's such good advice. IIRC, I remember stumbling across tacticool "military grade" USB thumb drives, for instance. I doubt those are any better than your typical name-brand drive. "Professional" seems to be an often used marketing keyword to indicate quality or power (e.g. "Mac Pro").
Some keywords that may work better are "industrial" and "commercial," they don't have the same ring to them as "professional" and "military grade."
Perhaps the issue is that MBAs are ruining everything?
Obviously we do not "all know it to be true," since this business model works.
> What is their goal here -- to crowdsource information so that we have a public record of note for companies? What are they planning to do with that information etc?
This website? You kinda make it sound like a conspiracy. This seems like basic consumer advocacy: identify a problem, get the information out there so consumers can make better choices and not be fooled, and maybe (a long-shot) get some kind of cultural or legislative change to solve the problem.
Speaking of the latter, it would probably be a good idea to change bankruptcy law so that brands and trademarks cannot be sold in liquidation (at least without the associated business operations). Practices like the article describe undermine the social value of a trademark, and turn them into an opportunity for deception.
Though with these kinds of blogs, if it gets successful and influential, eventually it may just turn to a pay-to-play. IIRC, that's what happened to "mattress review" blogs.
Consumers have power to affect change with their dollars... providing they have the right information
A lot of the newer brands take time to learn from their experience to ramp up quality, from materials to stitching.
I was shocked that an FAO Schwarz toy sucked so much. I looked at reviews on Amazon to see if anyone else had these problems, and they had. The FAO Schwarz brand had been bought by the ThreeSixty Group in 2016. Now it's just a way to polish the image of cheap toys.
Yes, something you print yourself will likely be lower quality than a bought one from years ago and you'll pay more in material and time than buying a new one will cost, but... it may be no worse quality than a new bought set, possibly better, replacement parts can be reproduced easily or additional parts added to the set cheaply (no buying a full set to get a couple of extra pieces that you want) and things can be customised.
One of the bigger 3D catalogue sites (I think MakerWorld, but without checking I'm not 100% certain) ran a marble-run themed contest some months ago for which there were a lot of interesting entries, some just copies of basic parts/sets (great if that is what you are looking for) but also some that were more innovative than that. If you have a printer, or know someone who has, it might be worth you looking into that if your kid would appreciate a new set, there are a lot of free designs¹ out there you could experiment with.
--------
[1] and paid ones, some designers try to make a living this way and some of them produce designs that are well worth the cost as they may be free of issues more amateur designs could have
For example, Pendleton Ganado Matelassé Blanket | Belk https://share.google/0QaaEXgLnNu0EKClr
So far I've done OK assuming anything they make that's not 100% wool is cheap trash they're using to cash in on the name (they sell cotton shirts, and linen-cotton blends, and some synthetic blends—all extremely suspect, I avoid these at any price) but the 100% wool stuff is OK even if the construction's not in the US. That's served me well so far, but I reckon it's only a matter of time before they fully enshittify. Luckily their heavier shirts last years and years with occasional mending of e.g. tears (if you wear them as actual work and outdoors-activities shirts, you're gonna tear them sometimes).
They're iterating AI-written consumer populist blog posts and using us as guinea pigs, until we stop noticing they're AI. Their last one was "Your Backpack Got Worse On Purpose", which we did great on. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47777209, flagged off main page)
Don't let them get away with this, they're using a topic that we all appreciate specifically to divide our reactions into "if it's AI, it's good! What's the problem?" and god knows what the actual endgame is. But it's certainly not Palantir maintaining a consumer rights blog.
FWIW fact check is great, their RAG stuff works fine. But the unsourced "anonymous anecdotes" are made up, can't find backing for any of them and they're sort of entry-level rage-bait. (ex. DC shoes snowboard boots now designed in Florida by people that never designed snowboard boot)
This is an illustration of why AI is terrible: it just destroys trust. Is the blog good or bad? It's really hard to tell without putting in more work than it'd take to write a similar article.
At least in the pre-AI days, if you saw polished writing, it meant someone at least put some effort into it.
I'm troubled by your statement because I can't tell if you are saying it is incorrect and AI made it and therefore BAD. Or if you are just saying AI made it and therefore BAD.
Writing is at such a precipice. Every time I compose an email, gmail underlines every single sentence to say there is a better and more concise way of saying it. I feel stupid so I generally accept it. Isn't this AI writing as well? But, the thoughts and intentions are mine.
How is this different here? The author is pointing out really relevant information that I know anecdotally to be true. If that story is 85% written by AI, or 15% written by AI, I still see the human behind it.
I'm troubled by AI writing, don't get me wrong. But, it deserves further thought. (And, I also have strong negative bias towards palantir...)
The alternative is to shut down. That's how this whole system works: the brand can be sold, because the alternative is to cease existing.
I hate that the brand is worthwhile on its own. But: that's the point! The company invested in making the brand worth something by having it represent a promise. That promise isn't worth anything when the brand can be sold separately from the process of making the thing. The brand continues to be worth something, though.
This mechanism is a core feature of capitalism. Companies can be sold for parts, and those parts can lie to consumers. There's almost certainly a regulatory answer, but the behavior of the roll-up firms isn't unique to any particular firm. It's exactly the kind of value extraction the system is designed to support.
I suppose I now know why.
What this company is doing is taking advantage of, and really creating, adverse selection. They buy a brand for its reputation, destroy everything that made it worthwhile and abuse the information asymmetry of the public still believing they're buying the now non-existent brand. It could be seen very easily as a form of fraud.
Can we catch it quicker this time?
I've had a Billabong orange t-shirt last almost 15 years of sun and salt water from time to time, one of the best clothes-related purchases I've ever made. Sad to see that that's now a thing of the past.
It seems like that may be partly what this site is trying to build with the ledger, but it looks focused only on the "bad".