Love to follow along with your thinking on this subject! It inspired some of my own thoughts. None of what I'm about to write is a criticism, but rather where your words took my mind:
Maybe this is an oversimplification, but it feels like the argument here is essentially: discussing an object's quality without context is pointless. The reason why both of those burgers are "quality" is because they're "quality" in their respective contexts (and in this case their contexts often seem based on capital: we can think of each of those burgers as "quality" at their various price points). Similarly, the reason why the brands you mentioned (J Crew, Brooks Brothers, etc) suffered in their reputation for quality is because of the disconnect between their capital and their products. A lot of the discussion around those brands and their decline in quality seemed to do with the fact that there were better options at their price points. (In the same way that if In-N-Out started charging $14 for a burger, despite changing nothing else, their business would crater.)
Which leads me to two questions:
(1) Perhaps more difficult--do I actually believe this? The Old Navy vs Gap vs Banana Republic context seems like, in some ways, it would mirror the burger situation: each providing articles of clothes that attempt to be the highest quality for their various price points. And yet emotionally I don't think of those three as equally quality items. Or to match your language, I have a really difficult time ascribing the word "quality" to them "without hesitation" (but arguably I should). I think part of that challenge has to do with:
(2) Where, in all of this, does the idea of a platonic ideal exist? Is it even a relevant avenue of discussion? I'm not sure. But I do think it's part of the reason Old Navy vs Gap vs Banana Republic seems challenging: if I wanted to buy a blazer, there is, in my mind, some ideal form of what a blazer is. As a brand or designer moves closer to that form, I view them to be of higher quality. This is done in a way that ignores the context of your matrix. I don't care that a blazer from Old Navy might be an incredible blazer at it's price point, if it's nylon I am going to deem it low quality--the further away a blazer is from my ideal blazer, the lower quality I perceive it having.
Also, somewhere else swirling around this is a discussion of parts vs whole. Your burger example struck a chord with me because it immediately made me think of all of the professional chefs I've seen flatly state that the best cheese for a burger is American cheese (often citing both it's taste but more importantly it's ability to melt properly). I'm curious from their perspective, would they describe the first, more luxurious burger, as a "good burger"? Is there a difference between "a burger that tastes good" and a "good burger"? Does the inclusion of the quality parts create a quality whole? Or is there a point where the inclusion of such high-quality pieces begins to actually change the item into something else? Maybe this is again an issue of language--that to describe both objects as "cheeseburgers" actually shows another gap, where we reduce "cheeseburger" to mean "a beef patty, topped with cheese, between bread" and it turns out that's a wildly large umbrella in which incomparable objects are falling under.
Aaron appreciate you following along. Good to have you here. Your comments are super thoughtful and I’ll do my best to address them. Some of it I plan to say more about in future parts.
On the oversimplification question, I think it is one, but you’re not wrong to start there. Cost is one axis. But if you don’t account for time, scale, and skill you have an incomplete picture. The Double-Double isn’t just quality at its price point. It’s quality across the full constraint set, all four vectors simultaneously. That’s what makes it remarkable, not just that it’s cheap. If it were cheap and inconsistent, or cheap and slow, or cheap and required a Michelin-trained line cook, the whole thing falls apart.
On the brand decline, I actually think of it less as a price/product mismatch and more as a rug pull. These brands built reputations on quality and then over the course of a decade went on margin expansion sprees until what was left was a shell of the original thing. It’s akin to chronic disease. It sneaks up on you and all of a sudden you’re sick and dying. The game changed long before any of us were really aware.
The In-N-Out at $14 thought experiment is interesting. I actually don’t think it would crater (they would likely lose a significant demographic, but the in-n-out business model is as anti-fragile as they come). In-N-Out is one of the highest consumer surplus cases out there. The loyalty isn’t just price sensitivity, it’s trust, nostalgia, americana in a meal. The quality of the system doesn’t evaporate at a new price point. It just gets evaluated differently.
The Old Navy / Gap / Banana Republic question and the platonic ideal, this is where it gets super interesting and I’m glad you went here. On the Old Navy problem, I’d suggest taking a micro individual perspective rather than a macro one. Use affordability as the first filter, then use the vectors to make the highest quality decision for you within that constraint. Quality in the macro is much different than quality in the micro, and most people should concern themselves with the latter. As for the platonic ideal of the blazer, yes. We will get there. Plato is in the lineage for a reason. That tension between constraint-relative evaluation and absolute evaluation is real and I will get to it in a future part.
The American cheese point is so good. American cheese is the best melting cheese. No argument. But I personally find it claggy, hard to swallow, and it doesn’t make me feel well. So for me there are higher quality options that don’t melt as well. Which means even when the experts find consensus on the best ingredient for a burger, the choice is still ultimately subject to the individual. My constraint set includes how the food makes me feel. A chef optimizing for melt has a different constraint set than I do optimizing for the whole experience of eating the thing (including feeling like I need to take a nap after).
On whether there’s a difference between “a burger that tastes good” and “a good burger,” I believe there is. There are so many factors that go into something tasting good it’s probably a longer conversation than a comment box can hold. A quality system should be capable of a quality outcome, but the arrangement of the parts that make the whole still matter. Premium inputs don’t automatically produce a premium whole. The whole has its own combinatory magic to account for.
And on the language problem, you won’t find me ever arguing against more precise language. That’s the whole mission.
The rug pull perspective is interesting. I fully agree that when brands self-deteriorate (usually in order to boost short-term profits) it feels like they are becoming a shell of their original thing, but I still have reservations that part of that rug pull is *because* these moments of self-deterioration are not simultaneously met with price deterioration. To me, a rug pull implies a level of deception and I fully agree there is one, but that's precisely my point: to reduce quality while maintaining price *is* deceptive. If they were transparent, wouldn't that be more akin to a restructuring of their business goals/identity as opposed to a rug pull?
Also, as an In-N-Out lover I applaud your optimism that they wouldn't crater, but I have a hard time thinking any brand has consumer trust and loyalty felt so deeply that they could increase prices 3x or 4x and weather that storm.
A question your response stirs in me: how are you preventing the idea of quality from just falling into relativism? Or *is* it all relative and the objectivity you're looking for is in the *language*?
(And a story to share as I'd be curious your takeaways: I, too, am not an American cheese fan. And yet, in the face of so many trusted voices I felt disjointed--how do I square my appreciation for subject matter experts I trust and their opinions with beliefs they have that feel opposite of my own? I still, in most instances, would opt for cheddar (classic) but I will say I'm less against American cheese as I was in the past. Which makes me wonder: despite there being some subjectivity to the idea of quality, is it also possible that sometimes our own feelings are (best case) immature or (worst case) simply wrong?)
Looking forward to the future writings and how the platonic ideal exists in this framework!
Love to follow along with your thinking on this subject! It inspired some of my own thoughts. None of what I'm about to write is a criticism, but rather where your words took my mind:
Maybe this is an oversimplification, but it feels like the argument here is essentially: discussing an object's quality without context is pointless. The reason why both of those burgers are "quality" is because they're "quality" in their respective contexts (and in this case their contexts often seem based on capital: we can think of each of those burgers as "quality" at their various price points). Similarly, the reason why the brands you mentioned (J Crew, Brooks Brothers, etc) suffered in their reputation for quality is because of the disconnect between their capital and their products. A lot of the discussion around those brands and their decline in quality seemed to do with the fact that there were better options at their price points. (In the same way that if In-N-Out started charging $14 for a burger, despite changing nothing else, their business would crater.)
Which leads me to two questions:
(1) Perhaps more difficult--do I actually believe this? The Old Navy vs Gap vs Banana Republic context seems like, in some ways, it would mirror the burger situation: each providing articles of clothes that attempt to be the highest quality for their various price points. And yet emotionally I don't think of those three as equally quality items. Or to match your language, I have a really difficult time ascribing the word "quality" to them "without hesitation" (but arguably I should). I think part of that challenge has to do with:
(2) Where, in all of this, does the idea of a platonic ideal exist? Is it even a relevant avenue of discussion? I'm not sure. But I do think it's part of the reason Old Navy vs Gap vs Banana Republic seems challenging: if I wanted to buy a blazer, there is, in my mind, some ideal form of what a blazer is. As a brand or designer moves closer to that form, I view them to be of higher quality. This is done in a way that ignores the context of your matrix. I don't care that a blazer from Old Navy might be an incredible blazer at it's price point, if it's nylon I am going to deem it low quality--the further away a blazer is from my ideal blazer, the lower quality I perceive it having.
Also, somewhere else swirling around this is a discussion of parts vs whole. Your burger example struck a chord with me because it immediately made me think of all of the professional chefs I've seen flatly state that the best cheese for a burger is American cheese (often citing both it's taste but more importantly it's ability to melt properly). I'm curious from their perspective, would they describe the first, more luxurious burger, as a "good burger"? Is there a difference between "a burger that tastes good" and a "good burger"? Does the inclusion of the quality parts create a quality whole? Or is there a point where the inclusion of such high-quality pieces begins to actually change the item into something else? Maybe this is again an issue of language--that to describe both objects as "cheeseburgers" actually shows another gap, where we reduce "cheeseburger" to mean "a beef patty, topped with cheese, between bread" and it turns out that's a wildly large umbrella in which incomparable objects are falling under.
Aaron appreciate you following along. Good to have you here. Your comments are super thoughtful and I’ll do my best to address them. Some of it I plan to say more about in future parts.
On the oversimplification question, I think it is one, but you’re not wrong to start there. Cost is one axis. But if you don’t account for time, scale, and skill you have an incomplete picture. The Double-Double isn’t just quality at its price point. It’s quality across the full constraint set, all four vectors simultaneously. That’s what makes it remarkable, not just that it’s cheap. If it were cheap and inconsistent, or cheap and slow, or cheap and required a Michelin-trained line cook, the whole thing falls apart.
On the brand decline, I actually think of it less as a price/product mismatch and more as a rug pull. These brands built reputations on quality and then over the course of a decade went on margin expansion sprees until what was left was a shell of the original thing. It’s akin to chronic disease. It sneaks up on you and all of a sudden you’re sick and dying. The game changed long before any of us were really aware.
The In-N-Out at $14 thought experiment is interesting. I actually don’t think it would crater (they would likely lose a significant demographic, but the in-n-out business model is as anti-fragile as they come). In-N-Out is one of the highest consumer surplus cases out there. The loyalty isn’t just price sensitivity, it’s trust, nostalgia, americana in a meal. The quality of the system doesn’t evaporate at a new price point. It just gets evaluated differently.
The Old Navy / Gap / Banana Republic question and the platonic ideal, this is where it gets super interesting and I’m glad you went here. On the Old Navy problem, I’d suggest taking a micro individual perspective rather than a macro one. Use affordability as the first filter, then use the vectors to make the highest quality decision for you within that constraint. Quality in the macro is much different than quality in the micro, and most people should concern themselves with the latter. As for the platonic ideal of the blazer, yes. We will get there. Plato is in the lineage for a reason. That tension between constraint-relative evaluation and absolute evaluation is real and I will get to it in a future part.
The American cheese point is so good. American cheese is the best melting cheese. No argument. But I personally find it claggy, hard to swallow, and it doesn’t make me feel well. So for me there are higher quality options that don’t melt as well. Which means even when the experts find consensus on the best ingredient for a burger, the choice is still ultimately subject to the individual. My constraint set includes how the food makes me feel. A chef optimizing for melt has a different constraint set than I do optimizing for the whole experience of eating the thing (including feeling like I need to take a nap after).
On whether there’s a difference between “a burger that tastes good” and “a good burger,” I believe there is. There are so many factors that go into something tasting good it’s probably a longer conversation than a comment box can hold. A quality system should be capable of a quality outcome, but the arrangement of the parts that make the whole still matter. Premium inputs don’t automatically produce a premium whole. The whole has its own combinatory magic to account for.
And on the language problem, you won’t find me ever arguing against more precise language. That’s the whole mission.
The rug pull perspective is interesting. I fully agree that when brands self-deteriorate (usually in order to boost short-term profits) it feels like they are becoming a shell of their original thing, but I still have reservations that part of that rug pull is *because* these moments of self-deterioration are not simultaneously met with price deterioration. To me, a rug pull implies a level of deception and I fully agree there is one, but that's precisely my point: to reduce quality while maintaining price *is* deceptive. If they were transparent, wouldn't that be more akin to a restructuring of their business goals/identity as opposed to a rug pull?
Also, as an In-N-Out lover I applaud your optimism that they wouldn't crater, but I have a hard time thinking any brand has consumer trust and loyalty felt so deeply that they could increase prices 3x or 4x and weather that storm.
A question your response stirs in me: how are you preventing the idea of quality from just falling into relativism? Or *is* it all relative and the objectivity you're looking for is in the *language*?
(And a story to share as I'd be curious your takeaways: I, too, am not an American cheese fan. And yet, in the face of so many trusted voices I felt disjointed--how do I square my appreciation for subject matter experts I trust and their opinions with beliefs they have that feel opposite of my own? I still, in most instances, would opt for cheddar (classic) but I will say I'm less against American cheese as I was in the past. Which makes me wonder: despite there being some subjectivity to the idea of quality, is it also possible that sometimes our own feelings are (best case) immature or (worst case) simply wrong?)
Looking forward to the future writings and how the platonic ideal exists in this framework!
Banger!