I suspect the lifecycle of a brand is different based on when products "commoditize". In "non-commodity" products, brands represented a proprietary offering.

I suspect the lifecycle of a brand is different based on when products "commoditize". In "non-commodity" products, brands represented a proprietary offering. Think back when a Trinitron CRT TV or monitor commanded a premium price. The label on the box meant it had a unique design and came from factories known for quality output. In an industry like frying pans, small appliances, midrange electronics, basic modest-quality tools, these days, there is no special sauce. There's no breakthrough tech or unique manufacturing process. The best they can offer is "we curate the OEMs, selecting sensibly, holding to high standards." The brand is a signal of predictably consistent perhaps more than great. Now, that can work to an extent. The Costco Kirkland brand is probably the best example-- they make very little directly, but you know most products are going to be predictably middle-to-above average. However, as a brand, the "Predictable OEM curation" just as hard to build as a "real manufacturing" brand, but much easier to undermine (how tight is your leash actually?) This is why you're still seeing the same brand names selling can openers and toaster ovens as your Grandma did. They're slowly burning through their original equity-- earned mostly when they were still direct manufacturers. It's still enough to present a headwind for new brands to take their place. In a way, it's sort of weird that what we ended up with was the EQFFDN "psuedo-brand". Whoever is doing that marketing is creating an abstraction with no value. It conveys neither "directly quality manufacturing" nor "predictable curation" If they went to full transparency-- selling "Guangzhou Industrial Iron Forge #23" brand frying pans-- that at least restores the idea of "we at least know that they're using the same factory that at one time produced a product I was satisfied with."