That is a fair counterpoint. I think then the issue is potentially misleading marketing, where a good is being marketed as robust and high-quality when it is not in fact either of those things.
Is that “in fact”? I would argue that quality is relative, and when your comparison point is, “no access” you may consider access in any form to be of “superior” quality.
Overall I reject the negative attitude towards brands who have seemingly “gotten worse” over time in the same way I accept newcomers to the gym. Goods becoming more available (people using the gym) is a good thing, even if my personal experience gets marginally worse (access to equipment decreases).
Oh yeah. Marketing drives a lot of shit. Also I think the trend towards “marketplaces” makes things worse. Used to be if it was in a store, it meant there was a buyer whose job was to vet products the store sells. Cheap products would get returned, then pulled from shelves. Now if you buy online? store tanks. new store with same product with new random 6-8 character name. It’s one if the reasons I still like buying at costco, you can be pretty sure the product will be good for its price point.
