Brandless has shut down

If I want good white-label vodka I go to Costco.

Good white-label monitor arms apparently come from AmazonBasics.

Good white-label socks come from a third place.

Even worse than the fact that these different classes of products are in different places is that even items in the same class from the same place are completely different quality. Costco's vodka might be fine, their whiskey might be awful. Monitor arms from amazonbasics are fine but their mic arms are garbage.

There's no manufacturer of consistently very high quality consumer goods. There's not even a manufacturer I can point to and say "everything they make, even in their narrow field, is fantastic".

And that sucks.

Also in Modernist Bread, it's noted that the baguette scoring at the Seattle Costco was better than the scoring at many Parisian bakeries.

Branding is fine if it is considered, but most simply isn't.

If you make something well enough, people who love your gear for its quality will shout about it from the rooftops.

As for your argument, I think it's reasonable but I would turn it on its head: to me every bit of money that's going into visible branding in some way is a signal that the company is putting effort into advertising itself on the outside of the clothing rather than improving quality. I can think of a couple of companies I buy from whose quality has declined in the last couple of decades overall in certain regards, and it's been directly associated with an increase in visible branding on their goods. Basically they started cashing in on their reputation, focusing on their brand identity rather than the quality of their items. Judging from comments in various places I'm not alone in the sense their quality has declined.

My impression is actually that it is not difficult to find minimally branded high-quality goods in many areas. In fact, the highest quality goods in a some areas are those with minimal or no branding.

I admit there are also many areas, like athletic wear, where this isn't usually the case. On the other hand, I've often noticed that if you actually compare some types of very high end activewear to less expensive variants, the difference is often just the logos. You're in effect paying more to have the logos off rather than less.

I personally feel that companies should be shamed out of including visible logos on their clothing.

Maybe we're talking about different things though. I do think having brand identifiers of some sort somewhere is important, as it increases accountability. And some things that are likely to be shuffled away, like laundry detergent, I don't really care about. But things that are likely to be out and about? Especially on you as a person? Brand visibility shouldn't be a factor imho.

But their biggest bets are heavily in the red and they are having trouble raising their second fund, which means LPs are doubtful they can return top quartile VC returns.

Now now, it isn't bottled water. It's homeopathic soda!

> Is this a joke?

While I'm not the OP, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. :)