> most) consumers don't even have a clear idea of what "quality" looks like

I think it just requires too much work. Your cynicism is unfair.

Also cheapest is just the simplest option, even though you know it is crap. I sometimes just give up on investing effort and time and money trying for better, because I've been repeatedly stung by expensive failures of top quality/brand items.

If I want a cordless drill, I don't want to have to learn about batteries, brands, or any esoterica relating to the quality of it.

For many goods I used to spend time looking at reviews, and cultivating my knowledge. I'm sick and tired of having to do that.

For cordless, I do like Makita, but I use a battery adapter (because their batteries are NZD250 instead of NZD50). But I usually buy a crappy bigstore brand for most cordless tools (a rebadged Einhell). They mostly work and they do a good replacement warranty.

People want a simple measure of quality.

Price doesn't work. Threadcount doesn't work for sheets (they cheat the numbers). Some brands are still worthwhile, but even that is becoming unreliable.

Some stores seem to have quality standards (in NZ Kmart goods seem mostly useable for the pricepoint, however our local 'The Warehouse' has gone downhill).

Many goods are now so complex that stores can't make a price versus quality compromise. Choosing a mobile phone is frustrating.

Complexity is the killer for choosing quality.

Our cheapest goods are surprisingly complex: e.g. socks.