4 ms·
So I was wondering why they'd openly admit in a WSJ article that they've "watered down" their furniture and are doubling down on their reputation for flimsy par
by sottol 3y ago
So I was wondering why they'd openly admit in a WSJ article that they've "watered down" their furniture and are doubling down on their reputation for flimsy particle-board and paper construction.
Also, I've observed this trend starting way earlier than the pandemic and the start of recent inflation, I bought their butcher block countertops in 2013 and 2018 for my workshop. Let me just say I ripped out my 2013 ones and transferred as much of the old ones to the new workshop as I could.
I can see two reasons for this article:
1. Their customers are noticing and it shows in survey and satisfaction and this is an attempt at curtailing the reputation damage (but don't really see why it's in the WSJ then, maybe it'll show in the coming quarterly/yearly's and they can point to this later?),
2. or they're signaling to investors that they're going to boost profitability and/or margins.
Either way, not really a positive trend in my eyes.
But also unfortunately, it's not like the alternatives are generally much better :/ Seems to be an industry-wide trend.
EDIT: nevermind, Ikea is entirely privately held -- no investors to placate, so 1. maybe?
- Symbiote 3y agoPeople who care about their carbon footprint, but still want new furniture, can pretend buying something cheap from Ikea is the solution.
- tap-snap-or-nap 3y agoCorporate cost cuts reframed as a moral deed
- tpmx 3y ago> 2. or they're signaling to investors that they're going to boost profitability and/or margins. They don't have any investors. They have literally been building and growing this organically for 80 years.