The era of cheap: how products got worse and what to do about it

Product quality eroded through a century of choices: shortening lifespans by design, styling cycles that make working items feel “old,” retailer and investor pressure to cut costs fast, deregulation that shifted competition to price, and globalization delivering ever-cheaper production. The combined effect trained markets to reward low sticker prices over durability and repairability, hollowing the mid-tier and normalizing disposability.

Overview : This article traces seven reinforcing forces—planned obsolescence, perceived obsolescence, shareholder primacy, deregulation, retailer power, globalization, and the fade of quality disciplines—using clear examples and action steps to buy smarter without overspending.

1. Planned obsolescence

a) Idea: engineer products to wear out sooner so replacements drive sales, a logic that took root in 20th‑century mass production as firms learned that shorter lifespans can stabilize demand.

b) Why it stuck: shorter warranties, cost‑down engineering, and tolerance for replacing sub‑$100 items encourage designs that prioritize initial price over long service life.

c) Takeaway: when lifecycle revenue is the goal, lifespan becomes a tuning knob—unless standards, warranty economics, or brand strategy reward longevity.

2. Perceived obsolescence

i) Idea: make last year’s product feel outdated through styling and model‑year refreshes so customers upgrade before failure.

ii) How it works: cosmetic updates and features reframe “old” as unfashionable, a pattern that spread from autos to fashion and consumer tech.

iii) Takeaway: even when mechanics improve, the marketing cadence pushes earlier replacement, shifting value from durability to newness.

3. Shareholder primacy and short-termism

· Shift: management focus moved toward maximizing quarterly returns and financial metrics, making cost cuts, outsourcing, and faster cycles more attractive than investing in durable designs.

· Evidence signals: shorter warranties, higher return rates post‑warranty, and brand erosion correlate with strategies that treat products as disposable.

· Takeaway: long-run profitability tends to align with lower post‑warranty failures, but pressure for near‑term results often overrides that logic.

4. Deregulation and price competition

· Pattern: when rules that stabilize service/quality are lifted, firms compete chiefly on price, often degrading experience and durability to hit lower fares or tags.

· Consumer effect: add-on fees, reduced service margins, and cost-minimized build choices become normalized under price-centric competition.

· Takeaway: without counterweights, “cheapest wins” crowds out incentives to build for longevity or repair.

5. Retailer power and the “big box” squeeze

· Mechanism: large retailers standardize low shelf prices and force suppliers to “hit the number,” driving cheaper materials, offshoring, and simplified (often less repairable) construction.

· Supply chain lock‑in: integrated inventory systems favor high-turn SKUs and fast resets, rewarding quick sales over long-lived goods.

· Takeaway: when gatekeepers value price and turnover, mid‑tier durable products lose shelf space, starving slower but sturdier lines.

6. Globalization and the flood of cheap goods

· Dynamics: freer trade and deep supply chains enable very low production costs, accelerating fast fashion, flat‑pack furniture, and sealed appliances.

· Result: access and assortment expand while material thickness, serviceability, and component robustness often decline to meet target prices.

· Takeaway: global efficiency without standards for durability shifts the market toward disposable norms.

7. Quality disciplines faded from center stage

· Context: after the 1980s‑1990s quality movement (TQM, Deming, ISO), attention drifted as cost-cutting and rapid cycles dominated, even while a few brands kept improving.

· Data signals: mixed reliability trends, rising recalls in some categories, and shorter warranties indicate divergence—“the good get better, the rest get worse.”

· Takeaway: process quality is learnable and profitable long‑term, but organizational focus determines whether it survives executive turnover and market pressure.

Simple examples across everyday goods

· Light devices: thinner housings, cheaper switches, and shorter warranty coverage reflect cost‑down engineering tied to replacement economics.

· Furniture: particleboard and cam‑locks ship cheaply and assemble fast but degrade with moves versus joinery and thicker substrates.

· Clothing: fast fashion cycles and synthetics lower price-per-wear upfront but often pill, stretch, or seam-fail sooner than heavier weaves.

· Appliances: sealed tubs, glued assemblies, and proprietary parts/software raise repair hurdles, nudging replacement over fix.

· Electronics: rapid release cadence and finite software support windows drive earlier upgrades independent of hardware failure.

What consumers actually gained and lost

· Gained: far lower sticker prices, broader access, and faster feature diffusion in categories like electronics.

· Lost: mid‑tier durability, repairability, in‑store service, and local manufacturing capacity; waste escalates as replacement cycles shorten.

· Bottom line: the market optimized for initial price, not total cost of ownership or longevity.

How to buy better on a budget

· Check repairability: screws over glue, replaceable batteries/filters, published parts and service manuals, and longer parts availability.

· Read the warranty: longer terms and clear coverage signal design confidence; avoid ultra‑short coverage on complex products.

· Evaluate materials: solid wood/plywood vs. particleboard, heavier‑weight fabrics, metal gears/bearings, and standard fasteners.

· Prioritize proven models: look for long-running lines with stable parts pipelines and owner communities sharing fixes.

· Consider total cost: include energy use, consumables, repair likelihood, and resale value—not just the price tag.

· Favor brands that embrace quality systems: firms that maintain robust quality programs and publish reliability data tend to hold up better.

Key insight: A few firms keep compounding reliability while many chase short-term savings; over time, lower post‑warranty failure correlates with stronger profitability, showing that durability can pay if leadership commits.

Sources consulted

· Strategy+business analysis of the “product death cycle,” warranty/return signals, and how price pressure and retailer power reinforce shoddier designs.

· ASQ historical overview of quality movements (craftsmanship to TQM/ISO) and how management focus shapes durability outcomes.

⁂