90 Times People Were Very Disappointed With Their Purchases

In 2023, comedian Ellory Smith retweeted a photo of actor Ben Schwartz recreating Billy Crystal’s character Harry’s look from the cult classic When Harry Met Sally. In the photographs, both men are wearing white cable knit sweaters, yet the quality differs significantly. Whereas the sweater that Crystal was wearing was thick and chunky, Schwartz’s was thin and almost see-through.

“The quality of sweaters has declined so greatly in the last twenty years that I think it genuinely necessitates a national conversation,” Smith captioned her tweet. Many netizens agreed, and even major publications ran articles like The Atlantic’s “Your Sweaters Are Garbage” and Nylon’s “What’s Going On With Sweaters?”

Yet clothes aren’t the only product that has declined in quality over the years. As evident from this list, people are noticing that everything from toilet brushes, knives, and even pans just don’t last as long as they used to. We’re not just imagining things. Experts concur that a lot of things are made to last us a shorter amount of time.

They refer to this phenomenon as “Planned obsolescence.” It’s a strategy manufacturers use to drive consumerism and cut costs. Global compliance and sustainability director at Tag Alex Hicks explains: “Products over time have reduced in robustness in terms of materials. They’ve got thinner, the construction is cheaper, and we’ve seen a general move from metal to plastic.”

Today, we’re almost used to replacing items quickly. Think about your shoes: what was the longest you spent using one pair of trainers? Some sources say that the average walking shoe is built to last for 300-500 miles. Others put the end of a shoe’s shelf-life at 8-12 months. If we were to tell this to our grandparents, they would probably be appalled: “In my day, shoes would last you for 10 years,” they would probably say.

In truth, people replace used items even if they’re not worn to bits. A desire for something more trendy, pretty, or functional can also drive sales. Take smartphones, for example: people often want to own the newest one that has all the cool new features and prolonged battery life.

But manufacturers have faults here too. They design the phones to be replaced every couple of years or so, mostly so you can’t update your old phone with the newest software and therefore are susceptible to cybersecurity concerns.

As Alex Hicks explains, back in the day, people would repair things. If your clothes ripped, you’d sew them back together. If a minor kitchen appliance broke down, you’d take it apart and maybe fix it yourself. But today, most things are built in a way that even people skilled at repairs won’t be able to do. “Products are designed so that they’re impossible to get into without specialist tools,” Hicks says.

Some might argue that there’s nothing wrong with items having a short shelf-life: they’re cheaper, and sometimes even made from recycled materials. But there’s a catch too: consumers need to be able to differentiate between greenwashing and which brands have truly “green” practices.

Hicks gives tennis shoes as an example: yes, they contain a lot of recycled materials. But you can’t recycle shoes with holes in them when they’re worn out, so, in the end, they still end up in the landfill. Manufacturers earn more money and are praised as “green,” consumers spend more of their hard-earned money, and the planet accumulates even more trash when the tennis shoes go into a landfill. That doesn’t seem that “green”, does it?

So, what’s the solution? Hicks believes that both the consumers and the manufacturers should take responsibility. People should evaluate their shopping habits and buy new things only if they really need them. They also should attempt to reuse and repair things as much as they can, and that’s where manufacturers making repair-friendly items come in.

Then there’s the legislative side. Hicks says laws should influence brands to guide people into a more sustainable and greener direction, but says that lawmakers need to go about it thoughtfully. “I have also seen how environmental controls can have a negative financial effect on those in society who have the least income first, which of course isn’t fair as lower earners already deal with a lot of stress when it comes to purchasing decisions,” he explained.

What are your experiences with poor-quality items, Pandas? Have you ever bought a pair of shoes that disintegrated after their first wear? Or have you ever had any other frustrating experiences with a low-quality item? Let us know in the comments. And share with us how you personally fight the abundance of cheap, low-quality junk!