If it became common knowledge that you can arrive at airports earlier, and people started acting on it, then travelers would notice the new equilibrium and adjust, and on net it would still be positive since people would spend slightly less time waiting at the airport on average. I don’t see how this is defecting—it feels no different than how people change their commute patterns when a new road opens, no?
Also that advice was aimed at frequent flyers for whom missing a flight isn’t a huge deal. For the average flyer it still make sense to arrive early to leave generous margin for delays, which the post acknowledges
imagine that someone in the shop’s decision chain realized that if their food never makes their customers sick, they are spending too much money making sure that their food is okay.”
This is basically how things work and also seems fine? If you wanted to absolutely minimize food poisoning you’d prepare food in a BSL-4 facility, which nobody asks for because it would be ruinously expensive.
How sure are you that making your favorite product worse in any possible dimension is something you would immediately find out and punish by changing your supplier?
This feels overly focused on one direction of change. What I observe at the grocery store is some suppliers make changes that make the product worse and offer me a lower price, while others make their products better (low sugar options, higher protein, ethically sourced ingredients...) and offer a higher price, and the market sorts out which changes which people want
“If you have never betrayed your customer in a way they would be shocked to find out...” complete the pattern. If ethics means anything, it means leaving the money on the table sometimes.
I agree being naively utilitarian and betraying your customers’ expectations is bad ethically, but it’s also bad for the bottom line. Brand reputation concerns and competition from other suppliers (who will loudly tell customers where they have higher standards than the competitor) keeps it in check
This feels overly focused on one direction of change. What I observe at the grocery store is some suppliers make changes that make the product worse and offer me a lower price, while others make their products better (low sugar options, higher protein, ethically sourced ingredients...) and offer a higher price, and the market sorts out which changes which people want
Typically the improvements are announced loudly, while the enshittification happens as silently as possible. Even the notices of improvement need to be read carefully and skeptically. The muesli with “no added sugar”—not added on top of how much already? The “protein” bar or yogurt or whatever—technically that only means that it contains nonzero protein, and yeah in practice often not more than comparable products without the label. The small bar with a big label “zero sugar” on front side, and a small print on the back saying it contains 10% sugar—the small print is regulated in EU, big colorful labels are probably not, make your own conclusion.
Even the brand is something that can be sold, and routinely is. You make quality products until everyone knows that you make quality products. If there is nowhere to expand anymore, the only way to increase profits is to start replacing your ingredients with cheap stuff. Possibly bad in long term, but a huge profit in the next quarter, and that’s what the bonuses depend on. Sometimes you sell the company at the top of its fame, leaving the milking of credulous customers to the new owner.
If it became common knowledge that you can arrive at airports earlier, and people started acting on it, then travelers would notice the new equilibrium and adjust, and on net it would still be positive since people would spend slightly less time waiting at the airport on average. I don’t see how this is defecting—it feels no different than how people change their commute patterns when a new road opens, no?
Also that advice was aimed at frequent flyers for whom missing a flight isn’t a huge deal. For the average flyer it still make sense to arrive early to leave generous margin for delays, which the post acknowledges
This is basically how things work and also seems fine? If you wanted to absolutely minimize food poisoning you’d prepare food in a BSL-4 facility, which nobody asks for because it would be ruinously expensive.
This feels overly focused on one direction of change. What I observe at the grocery store is some suppliers make changes that make the product worse and offer me a lower price, while others make their products better (low sugar options, higher protein, ethically sourced ingredients...) and offer a higher price, and the market sorts out which changes which people want
I agree being naively utilitarian and betraying your customers’ expectations is bad ethically, but it’s also bad for the bottom line. Brand reputation concerns and competition from other suppliers (who will loudly tell customers where they have higher standards than the competitor) keeps it in check
Typically the improvements are announced loudly, while the enshittification happens as silently as possible. Even the notices of improvement need to be read carefully and skeptically. The muesli with “no added sugar”—not added on top of how much already? The “protein” bar or yogurt or whatever—technically that only means that it contains nonzero protein, and yeah in practice often not more than comparable products without the label. The small bar with a big label “zero sugar” on front side, and a small print on the back saying it contains 10% sugar—the small print is regulated in EU, big colorful labels are probably not, make your own conclusion.
Even the brand is something that can be sold, and routinely is. You make quality products until everyone knows that you make quality products. If there is nowhere to expand anymore, the only way to increase profits is to start replacing your ingredients with cheap stuff. Possibly bad in long term, but a huge profit in the next quarter, and that’s what the bonuses depend on. Sometimes you sell the company at the top of its fame, leaving the milking of credulous customers to the new owner.