> Rotring quality has been going down over the years, or their name outgrew the actual quality of the product.

This story is so common that I wish there was an established economic term for it. Something like "reputational arbitrage" or perhaps "sentiment stickiness".

The basic idea is that a business can change its quality much faster than its reputation changes. If the business rapidly cuts costs and quality, their sales will reflect their reputed quality more than their actual quality for some amount of time. That gives them a window of very high profits where they can basically sell shit like it's gold.

Eventually the reputation catches up with them, but it seems to take a very long time to do so, if ever, so it's an extremely tempting business model.

There is a related but different effect where a brand establishes some level of cachet or meaningful emotional attachment back when the product was good. The product tanks, but people keep buying it even while knowing it's garbage just because of the emotional associations they have with the historical product.

The line between these two effects can be blurry. I think Pyrex leans more towards the former where people keep buying it simply because they don't realize it kind of sucks. But Jeep is the latter where it seems like everyone knows they'll spend half the time in the shop but people just like Jeeps anyway.

Legitimately curious, could you tell me more about Pyrex? I only heard that they changed the formula years ago to trade some impact resistance for thermal shock resistance, not that there are all-around better options. I haven’t had issues with mine, though I haven’t dropped them, and the only other options I notice in stores are store brand tempered glass that seems to be competing only on price.

I'm not an expert but what I've heard is that the glass isn't as good. I know they say it's because they traded thermal resistance for impact resistance, but I don't know how much I buy that.

I do know that when I bought a Pyrex measuring cup last year, the labeling faded in months. Meanwhile the old one I inherited from my mom is still usable.

> This story is so common that I wish there was an established economic term for it.

I thought we'd collectively decided on "enshittification"? Or is that different?

No, it should be the same. In software you can't really lower quality. Instead, stuff your product with ads and raise prices. In hardware you can lower production quality, but you can't really put ads on it. The outcome is the same.

Software suffers from a different problem, I feel. Namely that buyers care little about quality and only look for features.

So the MVP that meets what ever feature requirement a customer wants - at the lowest price - wins, regardless of how stable or secure the service is.

We most definitely have not settled on that shitshow of a word.

No, enshittification is a different economic thing where a continuing service provides less and less for more and more (either attention or money) over time.

What I'm talking about is buying concrete objects at discrete moments in time.

Similar, but not the same.

I think it is the same: build reputation and trust in your brand, and then abuse that trust by making more and more consumer-screwing decisions.

With enshittification, you aren't just coasting on historic brand reputation. You actually have users locked into your product with pervasive network effects.

People don't still use Facebook because of any lingering nostalgia from its halcyon glory days. They use it because that's where their friends are and they can't get away. That's what enshittification is about.

There's no lock-in making boomers buy Harleys. It's just brand nostalgia despite the fact that the bikes suck now.