> The cited research that buyers use price as an indicator of quality was from 1985. Does that hold true these days? > My gut suspects not? You are correct th

> The cited research that buyers use price as an indicator of quality was from 1985. Does that hold true these days? > My gut suspects not? You are correct that price is no longer an indicator of quality. Look at this stick vacuum review, for example: https://vacuumwars.com/vacuum-wars-best-cordless-vacuums/#1 https://vacuumwars.com/vacuum-wars-best-cordless-vacuums/#1 A $374 vacuum ranks at #4 while a $1049 vacuum ranks at #8. That is a HUGE price gap for items that are supposed to be of similar quality. The reason for the gap is irrelevant to this discussion too, because we are talking about the relation between price and quality. And people try to blame the consumer for both sides of the issue. People shrug and say it is the consumer who demands cheaper products and that is why they are of such low quality (despite what you say, which is that price and quality are much less connected than what people selling you things want you to believe), but then when those same consumers initiate returns, people cry foul like the consumer is somehow maliciously buying shit quality products and returning them to spite honest companies who just want to do right by their customers. Look at how this article is written: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/retail-returns-890-billion-problem-rcna183359 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/retail-returns-890-bill... Notice anything in that "Why returns are a big problem" section? A neat rhetorical trick which attempts to get inattentive readers to believe that the bulk of all returns are just people trying on clothes and returning the ones they don't like. Now, if it really were the bulk of all returns, they would have surely mentioned this, because it would buttress their point. They did not, because they can not, because, I have a suspicion that the $890 billion worth of returns is primarily due to reverse/negative demand for shit products. I suspect those return numbers creeping up year over year are consumers getting annoyed with retailers for not curating products in a way that considers quality and longevity. As the featured article mentions, Amazon does mark products as frequently returned, but I am not sure it really helps that much. > Sadly you need to rely on things like YouTube videos to actually get any kind of idea on if the item is trash or not, and even then there is the risk of paid-reviews so you need to take multiple sources into account, who they are, trust levels etc. it's sad. Either that or - and I know this is madness - go to a physical store and inspect the goods before you buy it. And even then, they miss important details, because most reviews only talk about the product in terms of the out-of-box experience. But how good is the product after two years? After four? Even the vacuum review I linked does not really comment on longevity. > I would argue that the article is correct that quality is often secondary to speed of delivery and cheapness though. Amazon has totally won there. I think it is starting to change where people are getting really tired of shit quality and that is going to continue to be reflected in the returns data. Returns do not make customers whole - they do not get a refund for the time they had to spend researching, procuring, and ultimately returning the product. I imagine companies are going to be in for a rude awakening when they have to reverse course and not only increase quality but also decrease the price because no one wants to spend hard-earned money on expensive junk during a recession.