I’d bet the mass produced stuff has a lot more sugar.
I said “probably eat” to the breakfast sandwich poll, but in reality I’d only eat one. Two is too much.
Same here. Sourdough also has health benefits, but whole wheat sourdough is even better.
I can only speak for myself as a consumer but I’ve had it with shitty products that drain value for the consumer. I’d happily pay a premium for a product that doesn’t do this. And in fact, am. You mentioned enshittification - I’m currently reading the book - and Doctorow mentioned a paid search engine that is not algorithm-driven and is ad-free, and I didn’t hesitate. (It’s called Kogi.) Since Google broke its own search engine, I’m shopping elsewhere. The irony is Kogi is paying to use Google’s data while delivering a vastly superior product, which shows how intentional Google has been in breaking its own search. They are intentionally making it harder to find results so that users have to make multiple search queries and thus see more ads. They could do way better and are choosing not to. And for that, they should be punished. These assholes believe they can do anything to their customers because we’re locked in, so any blow we can strike is worth it, IMO.
You have to know your market, though. People who are struggling financially are probably going to be forced to pick the cheaper option.
Right. I buy Carhartt and Orvis, etc clothes as they fit and dont fall apart. Yeah, I get some Orvis second hand, but the quality is there.
The Sam Vines boot theory has merit-
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. … A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. … But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet**.**
I think whether consumers would flock to or avoid the expensive things that promises to with depends on the thing, it’s general price point, and marketing.
With clothing and appliances and so forth, the argument above makes sense. But food and other consumables are trickier.
If Brand A changes their 12oz bag of chips to a 10oz bag but keeps the price the same, and Brand B still sells a 12oz bag but raises the price, that’s kind of a wash. I’ll still buy whichever chips I like better.
But if Brand A instead decides to use cheaper ingredients to avoid raising consumer prices, and it negatively affects the end product I pay for, I’ll be more inclined to pay the higher price for a better product. But it’s a case-by-case basis and there are many variables.
Also, the poll seems to be asking what will happen market-wide, and I honestly have no idea.
And, very importantly, whether it actually is better quality, or just claiming to be in the advertising.
People buy the more expensive version of all sorts of things all the time.
I voted “price is all that matters.” It’s not how I shop, but it clearly is how everyone else does, or we wouldn’t have evolved the ridiculous airline pricing we have.
In which people who can afford it pay extra for first class?
No, I meant being charged separately for luggage, snacks, aisle seats, and what have you… the nickel-and-diming meant to make the ticket price appear lower than it actually is.
Yes: but my point that people who can afford it commonly and routinely pay extra for perceived higher quality still stands.
Some people will pay extra just not to be seen using the cheap stuff.
Other people will make a big deal out of always buying whatever looks cheapest; even if it costs more if all factors are considered.
People are weird.
And then some just don’t have the money at any given moment, and are caught in the Vimes boot trap.
But the continued existence of similar goods at different price points proves that significant numbers of people will pay more than the minimum.
Agreed, but the question seemed to be about the overwhelming majority, not the sensible nor the wealthy minority.
I also voted “price is all that matters” because that seems to be the behavior of the vast majority, but I do think it depends on the brand and what their customers expect. Take burgers for example. If Five Guys raised their prices rather than compromising quality, their customers would probably accept that. They’re a brand that’s built a reputation for quality, and their customers already know their burgers aren’t cheap. But if McDonald’s tried that, many of their customers would probably head to the Wendy’s down the street.
They kind of have already done that. At the job I was working at two years ago, there was a Five Guys up the street from my office. A lunch order of a Little Bacon Cheeseburger, a small French fries, and a medium soda, was over $20. Probably even more now.
I just had an ad for Shake Shack (similar price point to Five Guys) appear in my Facebook feed, and on a lark I decided to read the comments under it. Many of them were along the lines of “for the prices they charge, the burgers had better be huge” or “I don’t understand why anyone goes there; they’re so overpriced”, which seem to anecdotally indicate that there are lots of people who do not seem to get the idea of paying more for better quality (but those people were probably never loyal Shake Shack customers to begin with).
I decided that, “I’m an American, but it’s not voting day where i live” counts as "i couldn’t vote due to circumstances beyond my control. Although i suppose i could move to a town with November voting. My local elections are in the spring.
I voted by mail in/drop off ballot. It’s the only way to do it in Washington. Thank God.
[apparently, there is some kind of in person option at a “vote center.” I have lived here 40 years and don’t know what that is.]
Did not vote today; I’m not sure that there’s anything even being contested here in Cook County, IL during this election.
I’ll pay more for something of a better quality, to a point. Most of my clothing is LL Bean. It’s not the cheapest or the most expensive, but it comes with a lifetime warranty (last I checked) and I have LL Bean stuff in my closet that looks good as new years later. A good LL Bean sweatshirt is maybe going to run you $75. More than some people are willing to pay, certainly, but I don’t buy clothes that often, so it’s not a big deal to pay more for something that lasts longer. But there are limits to this. You can convince me that a $75 sweatshirt is more value-added than a $25 sweatshirt, but you can’t convince me that a $200 sweatshirt is more value-added than a $75 sweatshirt. I’m not really interested in the status side of clothing purchases, I just want comfortable stuff that lasts a long time, because I am about as low-maintenance as it gets when it comes to clothing.
Likewise, I would pay double the average price for appliances that last, because I am so tired of replacing my toaster oven every couple years.