Approximately a decade ago, I picked up some commodity folding chairs. The very pedestrian ones, black metal tubing with thinly padded seat and back. I thought that these would always be obtainable at marginal cost. They were basically magic -- super light, easy to reposition, and when folded away, they take no space at all.

Over the past 10 years, I've found that all such chairs are being designed with a noticable upward tilt, with the front elevated. This is terrible if you have back issues. For the black tubular ones, I have not found any exceptions, and I've spent weekends looking.

This modification is baffling in a number of ways. First, it doesn't seem to save any production costs. Second, the design oddity seems to have completely taken over all the entire market for such chairs. How is it possible that *every* *single* instance of such a product from every retailer in the past ten years has adopted this design and abandoned "normal" design (no tilt)? This suggests that there must be some driving motivation for the design, which leads to the third bafflement. It doesn't seem to contribute anything functionally, and in fact, it aggravates back problems.

I'm a believer that there is always a rational explanation for how markets behave, but this lasting whole-sale change seems to defy that. Wondering if there's something blindingly obvious that I'm missing, or whether there some dynamic to this market that is little known to outsiders.

On 04-Sep-17 12:54 PM, wrote:
....

How is it possible that *every* *single* instance of such a product
from every retailer in the past ten years has adopted this design and
abandoned "normal" design (no tilt)? This suggests that there must
be some driving motivation for the design, which leads to the third
bafflement. It doesn't seem to contribute anything functionally, and
in fact, it aggravates back problems.
....

I'd guess it's that they're all the same chair made in the same Chinese
factory just sold by different retailers and it's purely cost-driven of
cheapest source.

--

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 2:31:04 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
I'd guess it's that they're all the same chair made in the same Chinese
factory just sold by different retailers and it's purely cost-driven of
cheapest source.

That possibility crossed my mind. But it still seems nonsensical. Even if it was made by one manufacturer, they must have been responding to some kind of impetus in order to expend the resources to modify the design so that it tilts upward. There doesn't seem to be a cost motive, nor does there seem to be a motive in terms of functional benefit. On the contrary, it's a functional negative.

Possibly it transfers some of the person's weight to the back making the chair stronger.

Possibly it transfers some of the person's weight to the back making the chair stronger.


.... gotta have that 1/2 ton rating ! in a folding chair.

http://tinyurl.com/yc6a7g6m

... for the obesity problem

John T.

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 7:10:59 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Possibly it transfers some of the person's weight to the back making the chair stronger.


... gotta have that 1/2 ton rating ! in a folding chair.

http://tinyurl.com/yc6a7g6m

.. for the obesity problem

John T.

OK. Thanks. Never thought that they may be deliberately make it uncomfortable to force people to lean on the back. So whereas the chair was generic before, it is now only good for members of an audience, i.e., bad for use at a desk, bench, or table (where leaning back prevents you from doing anything at the desk, bench, or table). And of course, that makes a lot of financial sense, since you sell way more audience chairs than chairs for individual use.

It's all very perverse.

Possibly it transfers some of the person's weight to the back making the chair stronger.


... gotta have that 1/2 ton rating ! in a folding chair.
http://tinyurl.com/yc6a7g6m
.. for the obesity problem
John T.



OK. Thanks. Never thought that they may be deliberately make it uncomfortable
to force people to lean on the back. So whereas the chair was generic before,
it is now only good for members of an audience,
i.e., bad for use at a desk, bench, or table (where leaning back prevents you
from doing anything at the desk, bench, or table).
And of course, that makes a lot of financial sense, since you sell way more
audience chairs than chairs for individual use.
It's all very perverse.


Yep .. I know that if I was a chair manufacturer - my business
model would be based on making an uncomfortable chair.
Also - if I were a venue manager - my thoughts on purchasing
folding chairs would be - buy the uncomfortable ones !
Duh.
John T.

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:02:13 AM UTC-4, wrote:

Yep .. I know that if I was a chair manufacturer - my business
model would be based on making an uncomfortable chair.
Also - if I were a venue manager - my thoughts on purchasing
folding chairs would be - buy the uncomfortable ones !
Duh.
John T.

You missed the crucial detail that they make it uncomfortable to force people to sit back and lean against the back. Then is stops being uncomfortable, and if the posts til now have been on the right track, it makes the chair meet some kind of weight threshold. Sitting back is great for an audience.. Not so great if you need to work in front of you on a desk, bench, or table.