Home Appliances - best thing to do?

[bUU]

One of the things that can go wrong with dryers involve safety, and older dryers didn't have the kind of safety measures that newer dryers offer.

[disneysteve]

I believe you have things backwards: Rather, those things were going to be driven down in quality, anyway, due to the typical consumer's maniacal pursuit of the lowest cost for everything, without adequate regard to quality and reliability.

I understand your point, but as a consumer, I also see the other side. I recently went out to buy a new hand shower for my daughter's bathroom. The simple ones - just one or maybe 2 or 3 spray settings were cheap plastic crap. I didn't want that. I wanted a good quality shower made of metal that would hold up over time and I was willing to pay for it. As you moved up the line in price, quality did improve. However, you also got into the shower heads with 7 settings and massage heads and rain shower oversized heads and water-saving options and all other nonsense. There simply was no such thing as both quality and simplicity in the same device. If you wanted simple, you were stuck with cheap crap. If you wanted quality, you were stuck with a zillion useless features. Why must better quality and higher price always be accompanied by extra features that most folks don't want or need?

[elessar78]

I understand your point, but as a consumer, I also see the other side. I recently went out to buy a new hand shower for my daughter's bathroom. The simple ones - just one or maybe 2 or 3 spray settings were cheap plastic crap. I didn't want that. I wanted a good quality shower made of metal that would hold up over time and I was willing to pay for it. As you moved up the line in price, quality did improve. However, you also got into the shower heads with 7 settings and massage heads and rain shower oversized heads and water-saving options and all other nonsense. There simply was no such thing as both quality and simplicity in the same device. If you wanted simple, you were stuck with cheap crap. If you wanted quality, you were stuck with a zillion useless features. Why must better quality and higher price always be accompanied by extra features that most folks don't want or need?

I think what you're experiencing, DS, is that you (and myself) think differently about these things than the vast majority of people. I believe, and it's just a theory, when the average shopper goes to Lowe's he sees a plethora of features even at a higher price as a bargain. Most people will justify how they spent more money because they got "more" showerhead. Whereas, I personally, would rather just keep the extra $5-20 to save it.

I really dislike the argument that things must have a shelf-life or become obsolete or else our economy would crumble. I'll throw out Hondas and Toyotas—great cars on many levels that last forever. Those companies thrive because of the longevity of their products, whereas their obsolescence-built-in competitors tend to struggle.

[disneysteve]

I think what you're experiencing, DS, is that you (and myself) think differently about these things than the vast majority of people. I believe, and it's just a theory, when the average shopper goes to Lowe's he sees a plethora of features even at a higher price as a bargain. Most people will justify how they spent more money because they got "more" showerhead. Whereas, I personally, would rather just keep the extra $5-20 to save it.

That's just it, though. I wasn't trying to save money. I would have been happy to spend exactly what I spent or more to get the product that I wanted, but it doesn't exist. I wanted the design and features of the cheap showerhead but with the quality of the expensive one. As it was, I ended up buying something that none of us really like. It's really disappointing to go out willing to pay a realistic price for quality and simply not being able to find it.

I really dislike the argument that things must have a shelf-life or become obsolete or else our economy would crumble. I'll throw out Hondas and Toyotas—great cars on many levels that last forever. Those companies thrive because of the longevity of their products, whereas their obsolescence-built-in competitors tend to struggle.

I agree 100%. The argument that items have to be built to fail to keep the economy going doesn't make sense. Besides, what people don't spend on replacing inferior products is available to spend on other things. I kept my last Toyota for 14 years but that allowed us to do other things with our money like travel or fix up the house or dine out more often. The money gets into the economy one way or the other. I'd much rather it get in through buying quality products.

[JoeP]

If a company were to make a very high quality shower head, it would probably have to cost as much or more than a cheap one loaded with features very few people will actually use. For the average consumer standing in front of the display looking for a shower head, will they pay $25 for a basic excellent one with stainless parts and a 10 year warranty, or $35 for a feature-rich one with a 90 day warranty?

Going out on a limb, but I think this has a lot to do with lack of requirements on the consumer's end. Do people wander in looking for a shower head (or any commodity) with features X, Y, and Z and buy only based upon that criteria? Or do they come in and see what's available, and then make their decision based upon on their feelings and approximate target price after being exposed to the offerings?

[bUU]

I understand your point, but as a consumer, I also see the other side.

Your earlier comments didn't factor in the manufacturer's side of things, which is why I provided it, for balance.

I recently went out to buy a new hand shower for my daughter's bathroom. The simple ones - just one or maybe 2 or 3 spray settings were cheap plastic crap. I didn't want that. I wanted a good quality shower made of metal that would hold up over time and I was willing to pay for it. As you moved up the line in price, quality did improve. However, you also got into the shower heads with 7 settings and massage heads and rain shower oversized heads and water-saving options and all other nonsense. There simply was no such thing as both quality and simplicity in the same device. If you wanted simple, you were stuck with cheap crap. If you wanted quality, you were stuck with a zillion useless features. Why must better quality and higher price always be accompanied by extra features that most folks don't want or need?

Because that's what consumers reward manufacturers for. With most things, these days, it costs less to simply offer the premium product with all the features (enabled) as compared to an array of different configurations. An insignificant number of people would happily pay more for a "simpler" shower head - more because the costs of producing two models is substantially more than producing just one.

I really dislike the argument that things must have a shelf-life or become obsolete or else our economy would crumble. I'll throw out Hondas and Toyotas—great cars on many levels that last forever. Those companies thrive because of the longevity of their products, whereas their obsolescence-built-in competitors tend to struggle.

So you want to spend $30,000 for a shower head? Uh huh.

The reality is that even Hondas and Toyotas have shelf-life. The more expensive the product, overall, the more likely that consumers will make durability a consideration, but there is still some rush-to-the-bottom evident in Honda and Toyota vehicles. My wife's recently-traded-in Civic is a good example of that.

No one likes the realities of the consumer marketplace. But not linking them doesn't make them go away.

I agree 100%. The argument that items have to be built to fail to keep the economy going doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense. And I explained why.

Besides, what people don't spend on replacing inferior products is available to spend on other things.

Consuming more resources, representing more cost. Do you really not see the difference between less cost with more revenue and more cost with more revenue?

Again, no one likes these realities, but it makes no sense to ignore them just because you don't like them.

[disneysteve]

If a company were to make a very high quality shower head, it would probably have to cost as much or more than a cheap one loaded with features very few people will actually use.

That would be perfectly fine. I would happily pay $50 for a shower head that is well made and has the features I actually want instead of $25 for one that doesn't.

[disneysteve]

Of course it makes sense. And I explained why.

So are you suggesting that it isn't good business to make a quality product that lasts? Do you think businesses are better served by making crap that falls apart in a few years and constantly needs to be replaced?

I think there are plenty of examples of successful businesses that don't agree with you.

[JoeP]

That would be perfectly fine. I would happily pay $50 for a shower head that is well made and has the features I actually want instead of $25 for one that doesn't.

Me too, but I'm afraid we're in the minority! Features sell.

[bUU]

That would be perfectly fine. I would happily pay $50 for a shower head that is well made and has the features I actually want instead of $25 for one that doesn't.

But you cannot condone a well-made shower head with a few features more than what you want, for $48.

Okay.

So are you suggesting that it isn't good business to make a quality product that lasts?

We're talking about consumer goods. Making a consumer good that lasts is generally, though not always, counter-indicated by today's marketplace. And again I know you don't like this. That's okay.

Do you think businesses are better served by making crap that falls apart in a few years and constantly needs to be replaced?

Many many many business are indeed far better served operating in this consumer marketplace in that manner.

I think there are plenty of examples of successful businesses that don't agree with you.

Nothing is ever absolute.

How much actual experience do you have working with consumer product manufacturers, Steve? I'm really curious where you're getting your perceptions of how the marketplace is.

[disneysteve]

Making a consumer good that lasts is generally, though not always, counter-indicated by today's marketplace. And again I know you don't like this. That's okay.

It isn't that I don't like it. It's that I don't see it as a good thing.

For the few several years of my daughter's schooling, we bought her a cheap new backpack every year. We were lucky if it made it through the whole school year in one piece. Finally, around 5th or 6th grade, we said "this is ridiculous" and took her to L.L. Bean and bought her a good quality backpack. Yes, it cost about 4 times as much as the cheap ones but she's now had it for 6-7 years. Plus, L.L. Bean has a lifetime guarantee on their products. When one of the straps broke, we went to the store and they gave her a brand new one, no questions asked. There is no reason why this backpack shouldn't last the rest of her life - and if there is ever a problem, she can get another replacement. L.L. Bean seems to be doing just fine despite making good quality merchandise and standing behind what they sell.

Obviously, there are still lots of people going to WalMart and buying crap backpacks that have to be replaced every year so there is a market for that too, but that doesn't mean producing a solid product can't be a good business model.

[bUU]

It isn't that I don't like it. It's that I don't see it as a good thing.

Okay that's a subtle nuance that gets past me. There are a lot of things that I don't see as a good thing: Hunger; homelessness; inadequate job opportunities; crime-ridden neighborhoods; the general callousness of society overall toward these things; etc.

L.L. Bean seems to be doing just fine despite making good quality merchandise and standing behind what they sell.

You said what they're doing: They're charging four times as much. There is a market for backpacks and casual clothing that costs four times as much. There isn't a market for most other consumer goods that cost four times as much.

Obviously, there are still lots of people going to WalMart and buying crap backpacks that have to be replaced every year so there is a market for that too, but that doesn't mean producing a solid product can't be a good business model.

Good thing no one said that it "can't" - just that in most of the consumer marketplace it happens not to be.

[Claudia Barajas]

The best thing to do is to buy a new one. After buying a new one at least you will not have to worry about any parts and so. Yeah you have to put some money but still, the main thing is that you will be satisfied.

[bUU]

We just went through this with a blender. It's over ten years old, and now the doohickey that spins the blades keeps breaking. We replace it with a new one and it breaks a few months later. So we ended up biting the bullet and buying a new one. Sigh.

[disneysteve]

We just went through this with a blender. It's over ten years old, and now the doohickey that spins the blades keeps breaking. We replace it with a new one and it breaks a few months later. So we ended up biting the bullet and buying a new one. Sigh.

Have you considered buying a better quality blender? It will cost more upfront but save you money over time by not needing to be replaced regularly. Plus it will do a better job of blending as well. We have a KitchenAid that we use regularly and it works great.