[HN Gopher] The fall of Labubus and the mush of modern internet ...
___________________________________________________________________
The fall of Labubus and the mush of modern internet trends
Author : gnabgib
Score : 105 points
Date : 2025-11-23 23:42 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.michigandaily.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.michigandaily.com)
| rvz wrote:
| Labubus were always a cringeworthy fad, equivalent to the modern
| day beanie babies.
|
| Zero value, fuelled and pushed by celebrities far and wide and
| they are not even rare to begin with.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| But what if a beanie baby was _also_ a random drop? Then they
| 'd be faddish _and_ addictive!
| Terr_ wrote:
| I hope some future society is almost unanimously appalled at
| what we today treat as "normal" for advertising and gambling
| dark-patterns.
| erulabs wrote:
| "Look how _slowly_ they take from the weak to give to the
| powerful. Amateurs! "
| Terr_ wrote:
| "This is ancient Earth's most foolish program. Why does
| Ross, the largest Friend, not simply _eat_ the other
| five? "
|
| -- Lurr, Ruler of planet Omicron Perseii 8
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| Maybe I wasn't in the circle enough, but I felt like there was
| never even the pretence of resell value or "investing". But
| that they were more like wealth flex fashion items.
| jryle70 wrote:
| So which hobby do you have, and what are you into?
| ginko wrote:
| > The reality is that the internet has become decentralized;
| rather than people staying in one gigantic, unified group with
| shared trends and moments like they used to, users go their
| separate ways, with social media algorithms providing hyper-
| curated content that pushes users toward smaller groups with
| niche shared interests.
|
| Huh, this feels exactly backwards. The web used to be WAY more
| decentralized.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > Huh, this feels exactly backwards. The web used to be WAY
| more decentralized
|
| I think you're referring to something different than the
| article
|
| I agree with you the web used to be more decentralized in terms
| of unique websites, blogs, communities, etc. It is much more
| homogenous now, with majority of traffic and community forming
| on a few social networks instead of across hundreds of sites
| and forums
|
| However, within the social media sites users have become _much_
| more siloed than they used to be. Algorithms are trying to
| isolate us into our own personal echo chambers rather than just
| giving us the raw feed and letting us navigate it
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| To be fair, the raw feed is absolute slop. If you ever look
| at youtube without an account or cookies, there's almost
| nothing worth watching. Youtube has become the biggest social
| media on the planet by showing people stuff they actually
| like rather than whats hot.
|
| Youtube will show me an in depth technical video from 3 years
| ago over the latest MrBeast slop even if the MrBeast video is
| getting far better numbers.
|
| I do feel like _something_ has been lost by the lack of
| monoculture though. It's been most evident in music where
| there almost is no pop music anymore. There is nothing
| everyone knows and generally likes. DJs either have to play
| highly targeted events or pop music from 2012.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| Agreed on the last paragraph. When I grew up (long time
| ago), almost everyone saw the most recent <kids show>
| because there were only 3 or 4 on after school, and
| generally only one targeted towards each major peer group.
|
| Sure, you can now choose from 27 different shows in each
| genre (comedy, drama, romance, business, cops, medical
| dramas, etc), each with many seasons to watch/stream/binge,
| but odds that your friend saw the same episode last night?
| Approximately zero. Whereas, "must see tv", as trite as it
| was, almost always gave you something to talk about the
| next day.. "No soup for you!" was huge in my circles for
| quite some time, for example.
|
| And the less someone shares with you in terms of
| background, the easier it is to withdraw into your own
| bubble, and watch more shows alone, and become more
| isolated..
| bas wrote:
| Extending on that era's TV programming (born in the late
| 70s), even if it wasn't "your show", there was only one
| screen in play. Secondary devices came much later.
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| OP is talking about culture rather than technology. Two people
| both on youtube see entirely different content. Both people
| will have their own set of big famous creators in their bubble
| and have never heard of the other persons famous youtubers.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| I can see that, but to me it's more about the fact that there
| just didn't used to be that much content.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| True but that's how the web always was. I don't see it as a
| change. In the 90s if you found some niche community most
| likely no one else knew about it.
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| Previously there was way more monoculture I feel. Everyone
| knew the big youtubers, Smosh, Pewdiepie. Everyone was
| playing the same flash games. I guess there is still a
| monoculture in online gaming with everyone centralising on
| a few top games. But youtube is completely individualised
| now.
|
| Two users on TikTok are seeing entirely different trends
| and creators.
| flooq wrote:
| If you swap decentralized for personalized then the point about
| hyper-curated media bubbles do make sense. It feels backwards
| because it's not how we use decentralized in the industry, it's
| probably the same reason you correctly said web instead of
| internet.
| sfRattan wrote:
| I think _" balkanized"_ is a better way to describe communities
| and users online. As in sorted and separated into non-
| overlapping algorithmic cul-de-sacs which mostly do not
| interact with each other and which are (often) hostile when
| members of one algorithmically isolated community happen upon
| members of another.
| paxys wrote:
| Internet services have become centralized. Internet _culture_
| has fragmented, or really just disappeared entirely.
|
| Being chronically online doesn't make you part of a special
| group anymore. It's just how everyone lives their lives. There
| are no inside jokes, no nerd lingo. Even memes are basically
| dead now.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If not a nerd lingo, there's absolutely inside jokes and new
| lingo. Skibidi, 6 7, blah blah. Even people saying things
| like "bet" are all part of new lingo that kids think is cool
| because the olds don't know what they are talking about. Only
| the words/phrases change, but the desire of kids doing
| something different than olds is never going to change.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Even people saying things like "bet" are all part of new
| lingo
|
| Maybe I'm just black, but there's absolutely nothing new
| about "bet." Unless you mean last 50 years new maybe (I can
| only vouch for 50 years.)
|
| Still goes to your point, though. The kids are just
| imitating black people like their parents, their parents
| parents, and their parents parents parents, and their
| parents parents parents parents, and their parents parents
| parents parents parents. The desire of the kids to repeat
| things that they heard black people say is at least 150
| years old at this point if the cakewalk
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cakewalk) is a good spot to
| date it from.
| egypturnash wrote:
| Why are you being downvoted, the black-slang-to-white-
| suburban-kid-slang pipeline is a very very real thing.
| matwood wrote:
| Maybe people think it's more urban to suburban instead of
| black to white? Either way the point stands. Just look at
| how much US culture is driven by hip hop now.
| parpfish wrote:
| i've noticed an uptick in the last couple years of new
| outlets doings stories _about_ the slang -- "kids are
| saying {skibidi, rizz, 67} now, here's what it means."
|
| kids have always had slang, but i don't remember there
| being news reports about it in the past.
|
| and i think the difference now is that parents get freaked
| out when some new slang takes over seemingly out of
| nowhere.
|
| in the past, adults were aware of the media their kids were
| consuming. they overheard them talking on the phone with
| their friends. they saw kids hanging out together in real
| world physical spaces.
|
| but now? kids an entire social life and media ecosystem is
| private and inside their phone. parents don't have
| visibility into "kid world" the way they used and it freaks
| them out.
|
| they worry about bad things happening, but mostly they just
| worry that their kid has a whole private life that they
| don't know anything about and they're not part of it.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > they worry about bad things happening, but mostly they
| just worry that their kid has a whole private life that
| they don't know anything about and they're not part of
| it.
|
| i had a whole other life my parents knew nothing about,
| and this was way before unsocial media. the fact that
| we're willing to call "friends" online a social life is
| yet another example of modern times. so again, having
| "secret" lives from parents isn't new to being online.
| it's teens looking to push the boundaries, explore, and
| just do things different from the parental units. nothing
| about "kids today" is really different. Boomers had that
| damn rock-n-roll and hippies as an example. It's more of
| the same in a different shape.
| egypturnash wrote:
| "Here's what the kids are saying and what it means" is a
| staple of slow news days.
|
| Here's a fun example from the early nineties:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunge_speak
|
| Are you sure you haven't just gotten old enough that
| you're now in the target demographic for "here's what the
| kids are saying" stories? :)
| rsynnott wrote:
| > but i don't remember there being news reports about it
| in the past
|
| This is just your memory failing; perhaps you are An Old.
|
| It's been a thing forever, as a light-relief/fluff
| newspaper article. The internet has probably made such
| things more _visible_ though.
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| I don't think this is true. There has been an explosive
| growth in cultures which are interest based rather than
| location based. Board games, furries, car people, kpop, etc.
| These groups all have their own inside jokes, terminology,
| events, etc.
|
| What has been lost is gathering a random sample of people in
| the same city and them all being on roughly the same page
| about culture.
| lmm wrote:
| > There has been an explosive growth in cultures which are
| interest based rather than location based. Board games,
| furries, car people, kpop, etc. These groups all have their
| own inside jokes, terminology, events, etc.
|
| Sure, but those aren't _internet_ culture. The internet is
| barely a hobby /interest any more, it's just part of the
| infrastructure of every hobby/interest.
| fijiaarone wrote:
| The reality is that every middle aged loser knows more than
| they ever wanted about kpop, labubu, and furries just goes
| to show it's all a centralized homogenized monoculture
| being forced on everyone.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| Perhaps that says more about how much free time certain
| people have than it does about the breadth and depth of
| subcultures. Too-online folks have been bemoaning
| reaching the end of the internet for decades now.
| Animats wrote:
| > There has been an explosive growth in cultures which are
| interest based rather than location based.
|
| That was a surprise to the architects of Facebook's
| original infrastructure. Facebook started in 2004 as a
| service for college students. Most traffic was expected to
| be with people at the same college, or at least in the same
| region. So the servers were regional, with relatively weak
| long-distance connections. As Facebook grew, the load was
| nothing like that. They had to redesign the system
| completely.
| mcmoor wrote:
| Feels like _culture_ in general has become fragmented, or in
| other words, more personalized. It was said that Top 10 Hit
| Songs or Movies would be recognized by everyone because it 'd
| be the only thing playing in radio. Now that everyone can
| have their own preferences, no more shared experiences.
| parpfish wrote:
| doesnt the existence of a widespread fad like labubu imply a
| degree of homogeneity and centralization?
|
| if things were decentralized there'd be tons of ongoing fads
| that tiny groups would get excited about but they'd never get
| to the scale that would cause shortages and price spikes
| procaryote wrote:
| Especially as you can just pay influencers in whatever your
| target group is to pretend to care about unboxing ugly dolls
| venturecruelty wrote:
| What do you mean? We have us-east-1, us-east-2, us-west-1, us-
| west-2... The options are endless!
| Ekaros wrote:
| I think it is probably both. There is separate cultures and
| groups. And then there is trends. All happening on handful of
| platforms. Trends can travel between groups when they come big
| enough. So in that sense it is centralized. On other hand
| outside trends things can stay inside sub-cultures.
|
| So there is larger centralized culture that reacts to trends
| like Labubus or Dubai Chocolate. And then there are smaller
| niche communities that don't really go outside their own.
| tofuahdude wrote:
| > it's clear that Labubus are on the downswing
|
| On the other hand, they've only recently penetrated my greater
| social circle, so I'm not so certain as this author that the
| trend has ended.
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| They have just started showing up in stores around me. I can
| believe they have fallen off social media feeds while still
| growing in sales silently as people get them to put on bags or
| gift rather than post on tiktok.
| lmm wrote:
| Most sales are made on the way down, that's the case for any
| trend.
| conductr wrote:
| My 7 year old son just recently got a few keychain ones as
| birthday party favors bag gifts. Basically one of the lowest
| form of toy for fashion, but very good for consistency in
| sales. He's also rolling his eyes at anything "6 7" related
| after a month or two of leaning in hard on it, the parents
| ruined that one I think.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| The social commentary i've read is that some fast trends are
| made and followed by the "top trend makers". Then they fade out
| in those circles, and dwindle to "common people". But at that
| point, it's not really cool or status symbol.
|
| The way I understood is, if you're hyper-online and very
| consumerist, you'll want to onto the train fast, and get off it
| fast so you would be deemed as a "trend maker" rather than
| "trend follower". I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but it's a
| bit more visible within Tokyo/Shanghai subcultures. It was less
| visible to me in Vancouver, where there's a single main culture
| (everything outdoor and outdoor related) and not participating
| is also "not cool".
| rjdj377dhabsn wrote:
| Isn't that the whole idea of hipsters? They existed far
| before online culture. And not much different to how
| teenagers have always rebelled against the traditional
| culture.
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| It's just been accelerated by the internet since something
| goes from being fairly obscure to being known by your
| grandma in 2 months now.
| arccy wrote:
| hipsters are more like a permanent rejection of the
| mainstream, trend makers want the mainstream to follow them
| dylan604 wrote:
| > I'm not sure if I'm making sense,
|
| Not sure how you could make sense when the topic it self is
| nonsensical?? Trying to rationalize internet fads just seems
| as futile as getting involved with the fad itself.
| eru wrote:
| Not necessarily. Things that make look weird on the outside
| might make sense as status games on the inside. (Or other
| weird 'games'.)
|
| It's no worse than the peacock's tail.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| It kinda makes sense if you talk to people who is "in the
| game". I know some people who do trend-chasing with their
| own friends, and find it fun. Not my thing, but who am I to
| judge some harmless consumeristic fun?
| transcriptase wrote:
| What is trend-chasing? I genuinely have no idea... is it
| getting onto something early and hoping it catches on so
| you were early? How could one even do that in an age
| where everything is being manipulated by algos and bot
| farms to make it appear that way?
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| Kinda. It's like like an in-group status signaling that
| "i discovered this before it became popular". As
| mentioned above, some sort of being a "hipster", but with
| fast-changing trends. To my understanding, it's done less
| consciously. Think of "oh, there's a new restaurant in
| town, we should check it out" idea, and people standing
| in a line waiting to be one of the first "to taste it".
| daseiner1 wrote:
| i'm confident that this phenomenon is accelerated in
| "internet culture" but this is how all trends function,
| whether flare-cut jeans or beanie babies
| Ekaros wrote:
| Part of it might be the influencer culture. Which some people
| fall under. Be the first to have this cool thing (Labubu) or
| present it visibly Dubai Chocolate, could drive some
| engagement and thus money or clout.
|
| I think this might also fall lower in hierarchy, just being
| seen as early for your friend circle.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Is your social circle also into Dimoo, or just Labubu?
| mpalmer wrote:
| Feels like there's a contradiction in a piece that claims a fad
| is definitively over while simultaneously asserting the
| unknowability of our fragmented Internet culture.
|
| Everything's decentralized, but at the same time, I have my
| finger on _the_ pulse.
| ronsor wrote:
| I've genuinely never seen anyone outside with one; I haven't
| even seen anyone online mention them outside vague memes I do
| not understand.
|
| I don't use TikTok or any of the hyperconsumerist social media
| platforms.
| resonious wrote:
| I see them outside. I live in a big city though which may
| explain it.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| South Park did an entire episode about them about 3 months
| ago.
|
| I've seen them around, but they're definitely not popular
| with anyone I know.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| I only know of them from South Park episode, and thankfully I
| haven't seen any of those live, maybe they will fade completely
| before they reach my country coz they frankly are just ugly
| razingeden wrote:
| same. i didnt know they were even real. i get the blankest
| stares when i ask labubu collectors if they ever saw that
| episode
| nicbou wrote:
| I know it's over because I have already seen Labubu clones sold
| in convenience stores next to sunglasses and other crap.
| Nursie wrote:
| I'm in my late 40s. I know what a Labubu is.
|
| Trust me, it's over :)
| rsynnott wrote:
| Yeah, I think they're probably declaring it dead before its
| time, really. It has only just started to penetrate the
| mainstream, AFAICS.
|
| There was, separately, a bubble in the stock of the
| manufacturer, but that won't necessarily be strongly linked to
| the trend.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| Maybe things go a little faster now, but doesn't seem too
| different from Pogs, or Beanie Babies or any other trend in a
| long line of them.
| m0llusk wrote:
| Labubus got extra kick from being gambling also. Many were sold
| in boxes without labels or with minimal labels that listed
| possible contents. That makes the actual product into more of a
| loot box kind of thing. That might have contributed to the
| speed of the trend passing.
| firecall wrote:
| I recently learned that many collectables are sold this way!
|
| Labubus just happened to get a wide appeal and had a moment
| in the US for some reason..
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| They are and I hate it. It's bad enough with trading cards,
| but now every single collectible is employing gacha
| mechanics and it's frustrating.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| "Everything is gambling now"
| georgefrowny wrote:
| Protip: If you call it an investment, it becomes not only
| respectable but it is in fact the responsible thing to do
| for your customer's financial security.
| eru wrote:
| For eg Magic cards, a secondary market formed very
| quickly where you could buy exactly what you wanted.
| parl_match wrote:
| I don't get it. It's a "collectable". Your "hobby" is
| "collecting". You put your "collection" on a shelf and
| look at it.
|
| That's not a hobby to me. It's just consuming for
| consumption's sake.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Well, they took that formula and made it worse because
| now you can't just buy it, you have to roll a dice or get
| a second hand.
|
| Also nothing wrong with just having a shelf with things
| you like to look at.
| megablast wrote:
| Perfect then, don't buy it.
|
| > Also nothing wrong with just having a shelf with things
| you like to look at.
|
| I completely disagree.
| parl_match wrote:
| > Also nothing wrong with just having a shelf with things
| you like to look at.
|
| Sure. That's a collection of things you like but it's not
| "collecting". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4onp1zbjSjU
| nsonha wrote:
| are they regulated under gambling laws? Sounds like fraud
| to me.
| pjc50 wrote:
| "Gatcha", from Japanese "gatchapon"; there's little
| dispenser machines which sell plastic eggs containing a
| random collectible from a set. There are _thousands_ of
| different product lines.
|
| Basically game lootboxes, but IRL. People like gambling, it
| seems.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| So were pogs
| somnic wrote:
| I think I heard it was a bit more than that - you'd buy them
| online direct, blind, and be informed immediately after
| purchase what it was you'd actually bought, so bringing in
| the immediacy and "convenience" of online gambling/gacha/etc.
| too, compared to ordering a mystery box and opening it when
| it was delivered, or buying foil packs of trading cards where
| you need to actually be present at a particular location.
| georgefrowny wrote:
| Pogs, Tazos, Pokemon cards (all cards actually), Happy Meals,
| Knuckleheads/Gogos were/are still all sold lootbox style.
|
| I think a Labubu novelty was lots of direct sales and a
| deliberately(?) flaky website that had people frantically
| strategising for secret methods to get an order placed
| successfully. When you did, they told you what you got
| without having to wait for it to arrive for an instant
| dopamine payout.
|
| I suspect if the website worked very predicably and you could
| easily and calmly reserve what you wanted, even with the
| gacha mechanism, it would not have been such a frenzy.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| beanie babies were rational, there was a supply constriction
| that seemed permanent, the founder resolved it and flooded the
| market, leaving bagholders and decades of mockery
|
| but I would content it was not an example of irrational
| exuberance
|
| labubu's are part of a flooded market as well, but there was
| never anything to suggest it wouldnt be flooded only an
| expectation for demand to keep up longer than just half of this
| year
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Beanie Babies were irrational because it is irrational to go
| into a collector craze over stuffed animals
| yieldcrv wrote:
| unless more people want them than exist
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| No, because _wanting them_ is an artificially engineered,
| irrational thing based on their hype not their value
| yieldcrv wrote:
| the entire art and collectibles markets has functioned
| the same way for half a millennium, there is nothing to
| support utility based value
| miladyincontrol wrote:
| Im not so sure, the big "fall" of labubus so far was for flippers
| and their profits, Popmart on the other hand has been selling
| more than ever with their restocks still selling out almost
| instantly.
|
| Them being accessible and there being supply for much demand is
| having hit equilibrium. Give it another year or two before grave
| dancing. Many are still just only buying them now with them being
| accessible.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Adam Conover argued that the craze is an indicator of economic
| nihilism, that people who can't afford these things buy them
| anyways as an expression of hopelessness that they'll ever have a
| pathway to legitimately changing their station:
| https://youtu.be/l1O6bN2zWSM?si=QGd51tfmh8lOjezk
| quickthrowman wrote:
| That accurately describes the one person I know in real life
| who collects Labubu.
| elyobo wrote:
| They're falling already? Excellent, I was hoping I could get to
| this point without ever having to figure out exactly what they
| were.
| fijiaarone wrote:
| Do they have real beans in them?
| morkalork wrote:
| Didn't even make it to the holiday season boxing day shopping
| rush, talk about lack of stamina smh
| Propelloni wrote:
| I never even heard of them, which I take for a good sign.
| dluan wrote:
| As a subculture dedicated to being in the know on certain things,
| HN commenters purposely showing theyre being out of touch on
| _this specific_ subculture is pretty funny.
|
| It's not that serious, I promise. When you were a kid you
| probably also had beany babies, furbies, crazy bones, magic
| cards, tamagotchis, tech decks, steel bearing yo-yos, or whatever
| else thing was a fad. Guess what, those were all made in China
| too.
| mc32 wrote:
| The source of the story isn't HN commenters though and it
| expresses the same sentiment. So, you want to lay blame blame
| the non-HN publication.
| danielodievich wrote:
| This summer I walked main Newbury street (one of main shopping
| street in Boston) and parked on it was a sweet, sweet looking
| brand new McLaren (had to go on their web site to identify from
| my picture, I think it was an Artura Spider) in a very classy
| matte-black paint, with custom license plates saying LABUBU. A
| very incongruous combination between what that car is and the
| plates it was sporting. I did not observe a labubu hanging on the
| rear view mirror which I expected should have been present.
| Avicebron wrote:
| First time running into a Chinese undergrad?
| jacquesm wrote:
| I don't think that is incongruous at all.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| And yet here you are talking about it. And I'm sure if I go
| digging into Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, X, reddit, whatever,
| I'm going to find photos, videos, discussion, reactions.
|
| Have you noticed that most adverts are a bit _weird_? They have
| some absurdist element to them, to make them more memorable, to
| hold a little more space in your brain. At the simplest level
| it 's a jingle. At the most nuanced it's two relatable people
| sat in a kitchen talking about life insurance in a way that
| never happens in real life. A car with a meme license plate
| sits on that spectrum.
|
| It's all about attention, and here we are, proving it works.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Clearly that car simply belonged to the CEO of Pop Mart.
| conductr wrote:
| I think this speaks more to using the trending TikToks of the
| world as a gauge for what is popular. It's not a great gauge.
| Just because the trend there is waning, IRL this toy/brand has a
| huge opportunity to stick around for awhile. It's still selling
| plenty, has a platform to do more, etc. Just because people
| aren't posting it, or because the algorithm isn't surfacing those
| posts, doesn't mean the trend is dead.
| fijiaarone wrote:
| When a trend only reaches mainstream awareness as a mockery,
| like labubu, it's not destined to last long.
| randerson wrote:
| And yet, Sony Pictures is working on a Labubu movie. The
| meme-fuelled peak may be over, but the final death of the
| labubu is a long way in the future.
| bcoates wrote:
| Sony released an angry birds movie more than 5 years after
| peak interest, they're a trailing indicator
| conductr wrote:
| I think that's how it reached mainstream awareness _for
| adults_. Kids still are into it to some degree. I'm not sure
| how much staying power it has, I just know it's not really
| dead.
| yanhangyhy wrote:
| It feels like the article doesn't really say anything. The
| popularity of Labubu is something worth analyzing, and many
| similar phenomena have existed in the past or will appear in the
| future. But Labubu also has its unique aspects; it's just that
| the article's author wasn't capable of properly studying what
| makes Labubu distinctive.
|
| I only have some vague ideas, not enough to write an article. But
| if you want to write an analysis, it's best to come up with
| something new.
| shmatt wrote:
| Labubus peaking and falling doesnt really say much about scarcity
| and trends. Labubu is made by a public company, who's stock
| skyrocketed, and essentially decided to go all in and mass
| produce to meet the popularity
|
| thats one option. But other companies sometimes choose to keep
| the scarcity and secrecy for years, even decades, and if they
| play their cards right it keeps working
|
| Labubus fall is more about its makers decision to increase sales
| numbers instead of keeping them flat and generating more and more
| and more hype
|
| Hermes can sell a $15,000 Birkin to everyone, im sure they can
| figure out the supply chain aspects if they really wanted to. and
| within a month everyone that wanted one would have one and sales
| would drop. Hermes will have a spike in sales, followed by a drop
|
| Instead they force you to play years long games with their sales
| staff to get an opportunity to spend $15,000. And decades later
| people still opt in to spending thousands of dollars on plates
| and scarves hoping one day they will be offered one
|
| This is just as true about a $40 Supreme, or Aime Leon Dore
| T-shirt, than it is for a $15,000 handbag. If you keep the
| scarcity going just right, it lasts much longer
| f33d5173 wrote:
| That might be true of handbags, I am doubtful it is true of
| dolls. A handbag is a necessary accessory and has been for
| decades. The popular brands grew their way there slowly over
| many years. A company that explodes into popularity suddenly
| for a product people never knew they needed is likely to only
| stay in the spotlight for a short while and is best served
| taking advantage as best they can.
| takinola wrote:
| I agree that cashing in quickly before the fad faded was
| probably the right move for Labubu. However, there's no world
| where Birkins (or other designer handbags) are a "necessary
| accessory".
| f33d5173 wrote:
| A handbag is necessary for many people to carry their
| thing. Whether they choose a more or less expensive item to
| fulfill that function is a separate question.
| crote wrote:
| A lot of designer handbags are truly _awful_ at carrying
| things. In practice they are primarily used as fashion
| accessory rather than as a functional bag.
| libraryofbabel wrote:
| True, but this does not particularly apply to the Birkin,
| which was famously created for the actress Jane Birkin
| after she complained to the CEO of Hermes that she
| couldn't get a bag big enough to hold both scripts and
| baby diapers. Sure, it's not as good at carrying things
| as a backpack, but it's not bad either.
|
| It does delight me no end to see a whole thread on
| handbags on HN. I agree with one of the parent posters
| though, handbags are an unusual category with long-lived
| brand status (like cars and watches) and not really
| comparable to lububus.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > which was famously created for the actress Jane Birkin
| after she complained to the CEO of Hermes that she
| couldn't get a bag big enough to hold both scripts and
| baby diapers. Sure, it's not as good at carrying things
| as a backpack, but it's not bad either.
|
| I checked this out and was amused to see that wikipedia
| notes:
|
| > Birkin used the bag initially but later changed her
| mind because she was carrying too many things in it:
| "What's the use of having a second one?" she said
| laughingly. "You only need one and that busts your arm;
| they're bloody heavy. I'm going to have an operation for
| tendonitis in the shoulder".
|
| In my experience it's pretty common to carry stuff in
| backpacks. They put a lot of weight on your spine, which
| can take it. Jane Birkin's comment reminded me of the
| idea in _Dave Barry 's Only Travel Guide You'll Ever
| Need_ that frequent travelers are always on the lookout
| for luggage that can hold more than it can actually hold.
| viridian wrote:
| I always found the birkin interesting because of how
| working class it looks versus its price tag. I grew up
| fairly poor, and the birkin bags always remind me of the
| leather purses my aunts, grandmothers, and teachers would
| carry.
|
| This seems to occur in high fashion a lot, an upscale
| rendition of something popular among the working class.
| hylaride wrote:
| It happens in fashion going both ways for a variety of
| reasons, though with fast fashion it's all so
| intermingled.
|
| Many rock bands with working class roots "bring up"
| styles (like the newsboy cap), but also lower classes try
| and "look" upwards which can give us the nouveau riche
| cliches. Celebrities trying to hid their identity in
| public started to wear large sunglasses and suddenly
| everybody would start to wear them.
|
| It's the primary reason why brands have become so
| important - fabric quality can vary, but jeans are
| otherwise just jeans; slap Gucci or Prada on it and
| suddenly you're signalling conspicuous consumption.
| Uehreka wrote:
| > Hermes can sell a $15,000 Birkin to everyone
|
| Wait hold on, what?
|
| Like, I get that you were referring to the fact that they keep
| things scarce even for rich people, but you literally said
| "everyone", so I just gotta check: Are you saying that everyday
| people would be willing and able to spend $15000 on a luxury
| handbag?
| RobRivera wrote:
| I didn't read anything about the everyperson beung able to do
| this.
| strken wrote:
| The sale of new Birkin bags is famously invite-only. In that
| context, to "sell" to "everyone" means making the bag
| available for sale to everyone. "Anyone" would have been a
| less ambiguous word choice, but it's a minor grammatical
| issue and the meaning is still clear.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| There was an implied 'who is on the waiting list for a Birkin
| bag currently' in 'everyone'. They did not mean every single
| person on Earth, they meant Hermes could sell a Birkin bag to
| every interested buyer.
| georgefrowny wrote:
| > Hermes can sell a $15,000 Birkin to everyone
|
| It's sad and petty I know, but if I were a billionaire edgelord
| like Elon Musk, rather than Twitter, I'd buy Hermes and sell
| their products in supermarkets. All the past limited editions
| too. Just to fuck with the kind of people who buy them.
|
| Then again Hermes is worth 200 billion and upsetting an
| oligarch's sidechick might just get me killed so maybe not.
| taberiand wrote:
| All that would happen is the Birkin would lose its appeal and
| some other company would step in to fill the role, and people
| would empty their closets of orange boxes and fill them with
| some other colour box
| RealityVoid wrote:
| He probably couldn't buy it if he wanted. They built their
| stock structure to be resistant to takeover attempts and
| instead they are controlled by a family holding. I _guess_ if
| Musk slings his whole fortune at it he might get it, but
| unlikely. Hermes is a very interesting company, I recommend
| the Acquired episode on them, along with the one about LVMH.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| > This is just as true about a $40 Supreme, or Aime Leon Dore
| T-shirt, than it is for a $15,000 handbag.
|
| According to a more fashion and design orientated friend of
| mine, you can buy knockoffs of Birkin or any other high-end
| bag. And, guess what? Some of those knockoffs and their
| manufacturers have developed a certain _cachet_ , and actually
| sell for quite high prices. So of course, those have spawned
| knockoffs too.
|
| It's like the bit in Pattern Recognition, isn't it?
| libraryofbabel wrote:
| Knockoffs? please, we call them "reps" ;)
|
| There are whole subreddits devoted to this, the most well-
| known being repladies, which went private after it got too
| famous due to an NYT article. People will spend $1000 or more
| for a really good Birkin knockoff with high quality leather
| and hardware. The bags are almost all made in workshops in
| China. Getting one is apparently (I haven't done it myself)
| an interesting exercise in trust and reputation: how do you
| know the seller isn't going to send you a cheap knockoff from
| China rather than a "real" $1000 knockoff? In practice there
| is a whole world of trusted Chinese middlemen with reviews
| etc. who have a strong stake in keeping their reputation high
| in the "reps" community (but you'd better make sure the
| reviews are real...).
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| > People will spend $1000 or more for a really good Birkin
| knockoff with high quality leather and hardware.
|
| I'd bet you a coffee that there are knockoffs, or "reps" if
| you prefer, that are actually at least in some respects
| better quality than the original.
| libraryofbabel wrote:
| Oh, absolutely. Probably some of the best leatherworkers
| in China are making high-end handbag knockoffs: it's
| where the money is.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| Probably the same people who make the real ones.
| ndespres wrote:
| The article is too optimistic in its view of how short-form video
| allows everyone to partake in these trends. In an attention-
| driven culture where nothing cool can be kept a secret, as the
| very essence of coolness would be defined not by the thing itself
| but by how many people watched your tiktok about it, you end up
| with these nonsense low-quality "viral trends" that everyone is
| talking about because everyone is talking about it.
|
| Very little of it is actually good. So what then, if it's able to
| spread faster than ever before? It stinks!
| protocolture wrote:
| Thats interesting if true, but my cause to doubt it is that I
| have seen shops catering to the labubu format, that is the
| expensive mystery box toy, popping up with heaps of varied stock.
| In fact they dont even seem to center the labubus. Labubu might
| go away but I think its cultural significance of tiktok 200
| dollar toy unboxing is going the distance.
| ImPleadThe5th wrote:
| > The reality is that the internet has become decentralized;
| rather than people staying in one gigantic, unified group with
| shared trends and moments like they used to, users go their
| separate ways, with social media algorithms providing hyper-
| curated content that pushes users toward smaller groups with
| niche shared interests.
|
| Erm. What's with the optimism at the end here? Isn't this the
| example of the exact opposite? Despite being promised "curated
| niche interests" somehow these attention algorithms on huge
| centralized platforms find a way to turn everyone on the platform
| into a consumer of a particular trendy item?
|
| I find it so disturbing that a lot of "niche interests" on the
| Internet these days seem very consumer focused.
| darthoctopus wrote:
| Indeed, I find it very hard to take the article seriously given
| that every one of the notionally decentralised trends it's
| described has propagated on a very small handful of highly
| centralised platforms. For that matter, it's very difficult for
| me to imagine how these trends might have spread in the first
| place without access to large-audience virality directed by
| algorithmic recommendations precisely enabled by such severe
| centralisation.
| emblaegh wrote:
| The point the article is trying to make is that Labubus were an
| abnormally short lived fad, and that's their attempt at an
| explanation.
|
| I don't know if that exactly explains the short life of the
| Labubu fad, but I find the disappearance of shared culture
| quite evident these days.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I think viral marketing has limits. There is only so many
| times you want to see the same thing.
|
| And on other hand I think cycle of competing products is
| faster than ever. Get a trend going on and other companies
| cashing on it will happen very fast. Thus lowering value of
| original and flooding the market it mad rush.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > The point the article is trying to make is that Labubus
| were an abnormally short lived fad
|
| Is that actually true, though? I feel like furbies, say, were
| if anything a bit shorter. Possibly people were expecting
| Labubus to be like beanie babies, but really beanie babies
| were the exception in lasting abnormally long for a toy fad.
| rolandog wrote:
| I can't help but think of these wild and _free_ (of regulation)
| markets as a capitalistic jungle of sorts: _" These troll farms
| are the resting place of one of Capitalism's most resourceful
| predators: the Artificial Scarcity Hype Schemer. These
| capitalist pack hunters are cunning; they collaborate with the
| Treacherous Influencer to create what is known as an
| influencer-driven pump-and-dump trend scam. First, they use
| sophisticated techniques like algorithms to lead potential
| victims towards the Influencers who will help the Schemer to
| isolate, dazzle and confuse their prey. After the Influencer
| has gained their trust, the Schemer can swoop in and use
| strategies such as spambots, fake trends and disinformation in
| order to peer-pressure impressionable minds so they both get a
| chance at gnawing at the victims pockets. Having gotten their
| way, the cycle begins anew: the Influencer begins drawing
| future victims into a false sense of security, and the Schemer
| starts devising a ne w set of scams."_
| blitzar wrote:
| > The reality is that the internet has become decentralized
|
| 6 7
| Insanity wrote:
| 6 7?
| omnibrain wrote:
| > ?
|
| exactly
| ulrashida wrote:
| Too much grass has been touched if this one hasn't
| permeated to you yet.
| fhennig wrote:
| Maybe it's a nitpick, but
|
| > The reality is that the internet has become decentralized
|
| What the author seems to mean is that internet _culture_ has
| become fragmented ("decentralized").
|
| The internet (servers etc) always was decentralized by design.
| And the web built on top of it (commonly referred to as the
| internet) certainly hasn't become decentralized, rather it got
| more centralized.
|
| It's unfortunate that the language isn't used precisely here, I
| think.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| It's a newspaper, not a technical publication. I think most
| of its readers would correctly understand references to "the
| internet" to be referring to internet culture/community
| rather than the servers that host it.
| fhennig wrote:
| Okay, maybe I was overly technical. I'd still say that the
| average reader maybe reads 'the internet' as 'the websites
| I browse', so I still think the language isn't good. I
| think it makes sense to talk about "internet culture"
| instead of just "the internet", that level of distinction
| isn't really too technical, right?
|
| To me it's important because "the internet" meaning the
| sites we browse, has become incredibly centralized! It's
| not helpful then to say the exact opposite. And I'd also
| argue that this centralization, as it went along with
| algorithmic content distribution, is exactly the reason for
| the fragmentation that the article talks about.
|
| I think there is a missed opportunity there to write a few
| sentences about this.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| I knew barely anything about this trend, despite spending a
| decent chunk of my day online, which I think is evidence of the
| modern web being decentralised.
|
| However it's not so much due to the algorithms, which probably
| are trying to funnel most people towards the same products, but
| just the fact that there are _so many people_ online now that
| you 're naturally going to see the emergence of niches.
|
| You don't have to read this optimistically if you don't want to
| - some of these "curated niche interests" can be pretty dark...
| DuperPower wrote:
| you are on the nerd algorithm and there is a sport algorithm
| and some others but probably like 10 algorithms not 5000 like
| they try to say, advertisers need to concentrate as much as
| possible but also to exclude as much as possible as showing
| an untargeted ad to a wrong demographic IS wasting money to
| them
| overfeed wrote:
| > you are on the nerd algorithm and there is a sport
| algorithm and some others but probably like 10 algorithms
| not 5000 like they try to say
|
| If you've ever tried TikTok, you'll realize their FYP will
| narrow you down to a highly specific nerd/sport niche
| pretty quickly. There's isn't a single nerd algorithm, but
| a whole taxonomy.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| I started seeing the word "Labubus" everywhere a few months ago
| and thought "Are we _still_ talking about those red-soled high
| heels? Weren 't they popular like 10 years ago?"
|
| That's how in touch with fashion I am.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| A Labubu in Louboutin heels sounds just like the kind of mash-
| up which would at least sell a couple of T-shirts.
|
| (T-shirt punch line: Louboubou. Coming to fast-fashion textile
| dumps in Lagos soon.)
| oytis wrote:
| > The reality is that the internet has become decentralized;
| rather than people staying in one gigantic, unified group with
| shared trends and moments like they used to, users go their
| separate ways, with social media algorithms providing hyper-
| curated content that pushes users toward smaller groups with
| niche shared interests.
|
| Isn't it weird to describe as a societal or cultural trend
| something that can be changed with a pull request?
| ensocode wrote:
| It feels like the article's point about the "mush" of modern
| internet trends maps surprisingly well to the IT world. We see
| the same dynamic with tech stacks: rapid micro-trends, constant
| novelty, and a tendency to adopt tools because they're
| circulating in the feed rather than because they solve a real
| problem.
|
| I think it's not catastrophic, most of this churn is harmless --
| but it does create noise. The challenge is simply recognizing
| when a trend is signal vs. when it's just another iteration of
| the cycle. A bit more intentionality in how we pick technologies
| would already go a long way.
| nicbou wrote:
| I found the whole thing so depressing from an environmental
| perspective. A completely pointless and manufactured hype cycle
| to push something with no utility whatsoever. Now some factories
| in China are pumping out labubu clones that will end up in the
| bargain bin of a dollar store.
|
| It makes any effort to reduce my environmental footprint feel so
| pointless. Why even bother?
| Tarsul wrote:
| Don't do it for the world. Do it for your own clear conscience.
| That way you can always say to yourself: At least I did my part
| (even though it's clear everyone can do more, but perfectionism
| doesn't help either. Personally I am content if my climate
| impact is better than 70-80% of my cohort.).
| piyuv wrote:
| Also good for your overall mental health. Consumerism is a
| disease. Only way to beat the hedonic treadmill is to step
| off it.
| toto wrote:
| Pokemon is also a high volume business but is reaching 30 years
| in 2026. Keeping alive a trend for so long is impressive. Jean-
| Claude Biver (watch personality) famously said: << people want
| exclusivity, so you must always keep the customer hungry and
| frustrated >>.
| brazzy wrote:
| Pokemon is not a trend, it's a franchise. PARTS of it were at
| one point or another a trend.
| st0ffregen wrote:
| somebody wants to buy my labubu? I'm giving a 20% discount.
| Anyone? Please?
| Havoc wrote:
| Don't really care for it. Bit like the Stanley cup craze.
|
| But if it makes someone happy then sure whatever. Crazes like
| this have been a thing for centuries and wouldn't treat too much
| into it re internet
| fhennig wrote:
| > And yet, as cringeworthy as the modern internet may be, it will
| never go back to the way it was before.
|
| Interesting take. What exactly is meant with "the way it was
| before", and when was that?
| benbojangles wrote:
| It talks about decentralization as though all those
| cookies/trackers/analytics & data care one hoof about which
| website you think you are decentralizing yourself from the next
| one. THEY ALL KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND THEY ARE ALL STEERING
| YOU
| misja111 wrote:
| The writing style of the article reeks of AI. It seems to tell a
| lot at first but at closer inspection tells almost nothing.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| That's just how modern journalists write, they need a minimum
| word count to insert ads, the AI probably learnt it from them.
| zonghao wrote:
| agree
| serf wrote:
| Labubu , to me, was nothing more than a consumer spending false-
| scarcity based trend exactly like Beanie Babies, but even more
| short-lived.
|
| It told me nothing unique about humans or internet trends --
| these kind of things seem to pop up regardless of the favored
| media at the moment.
| lbu wrote:
| I had no idea what a Labubus was before I came to this article,
| and I still don't.
| stopthe wrote:
| The author (if there was any) stops short of admitting that it is
| yet another product that was heavily promoted via so-called
| influencers and failed to reach escape velocity and sell on
| itself. Like, nobody remembered Clubhouse already in 2021.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Looks like it's just an opportunity to _buy_! /s
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-26 23:02 UTC)