Backpacks got worse on purpose
Once-reliable backpack brands like JanSport and North Face are cited as examples of a broader trend where private equity owners and conglomerates cut material quality and warranties to maximize short‑term profits, turning long‑lasting gear into disposable products. Commenters argue this degrades trust in brands, forces consumers into constant research to find durable alternatives, and disproportionately harms poorer buyers who can’t afford high upfront costs, while also increasing environmental waste. Many also note how hard it has become to distinguish genuine quality from marketing, and some criticize the linked article itself as likely AI‑generated “slop,” seeing that as another symptom of enshittified, low-effort consumer content.
Perceived Decline in Backpack Quality
- Many commenters report that legacy brands (JanSport, North Face, Eddie Bauer, etc.) feel materially worse than decades ago: thinner fabrics, cheaper hardware, weaker stitching, reduced warranties.
- Some note the same pattern across other goods: boots, coats, tools, appliances, food, sweets, even software and service industries.
- Others argue backpacks have also legitimately evolved toward lighter-weight designs, so “less material” is not always synonymous with “worse,” making comparisons tricky.
Causes: Private Equity, Consolidation, and Growth Pressures
- Widely shared view: private equity and conglomerates buy respected brands, squeeze costs, exploit brand equity, and later spin them off once reputation is depleted.
- Corporate growth mandates and shareholder demands for rising margins are seen as strong drivers of “enshittification.”
- A minority argues this is simply the result of tight margins and global competition; high-quality backpacks are not very profitable.
Consumer Behavior and Information Asymmetry
- Repeated theme: consumers often choose the cheapest option, especially when wages are constrained; this incentivizes lower quality.
- Others counter that buyers aren’t irrational: price and brand are often the only visible signals because specs and real quality are obscured.
- There’s concern that once a brand earns trust, it becomes rational (from the firm’s perspective) to degrade the product and cash in on that trust.
Economic Calculus: Cheap vs Durable
- Several comments dissect cost-per-year math, noting you must discount future spending (net present value) and consider opportunity cost of tying up capital in a $200 “buy it for life” bag.
- Counterpoint: cheap-goods churn especially harms poorer buyers, who can’t front-load quality and end up paying more over time (Pratchett “boots theory” cited).
Difficulty Finding Quality & Role of Reviews
- Many find it much harder now to identify truly durable products: SEO spam, affiliate reviews, influencer marketing, and brand dilution make research costly.
- Suggestions include niche forums, “buy it for life” communities, YouTube testers, and checking details like YKK zippers and material specs, but this is time‑intensive.
Brand-Specific Anecdotes
- Strong praise for smaller or premium makers (GoRuck, Osprey, Deuter, Peak Design, Tom Bihn, Crumpler, Aer, Savotta, etc.), often with decade‑plus success stories and good warranty experiences.
- Some of these, however, are reported to have already been acquired or started offshoring, prompting fears the same decay cycle will repeat.
Meta: AI-Generated Writing Concerns
- A substantial subthread argues the linked article itself appears partially or mostly LLM‑generated, citing repetitive “punchy” cadence and stylistic tics.
- This is seen as ironic—using “cheapened” AI prose to lament degraded physical goods—and as another example of declining quality and trust in content.