The degree of social irresponsibility shown by these companies is quite astounding and frankly unacceptable in a modern society. It's a wasteful and senseless price-control mechanism, nothing to do with consumer rejection per se. Essentially, the companies destroy goods in order to avoid inflating supply and price reduction, as a result.
That said, in addition to the difficulty of an understandable brand dilution, de-weaving, unwittingly, seems counterproductive and defeats the very object of its own solution, as it creates the same very problem it tries to solve, (albeit a different approach).
It's the same wasteful destruction/repurposing of otherwise perfectly new/fit-for-purpose consumer items, together with associated energy-efficiency concerns.
The de-weaving route could be suitable for the tertiary market, which deals with recycling products that are no longer fit for purpose. In other words, they've come to the end of their useful life and considered real waste, a subject for discussion some other time, perhaps.
Meanwhile, in the context of the problem at hand, an alternative solution could be a regulated, but free secondary market with adequate legal protection against anti-competitive abuses by the primary market companies, in particular.
The proposed secondary market is segmented into pre-stock and pre-used (often wrongly referred to as "pre-owned", which ought to be a generic term, covering "pre-stock" and "pre-used"). However, these segments could be classified further into sub-segments according to category of goods (i.e. luxury, midrange, budget), addressing brand dilution.
Separation of Supply-chain From Distribution
The next step is to separate or exclude the major (primary market) brands from end-user distribution, as part of adequate package of measures to prevent anti-competitive abuses.
The brands should legally be required to form part of the supply-chain with the responsibility for holding their stocks openly available for distribution by approved specialist end-user distributors/retailers (small businesses), who will be at liberty to set their own pricing structure according to market forces.
This arrangement solves the problem of brand dilution. It also prevents the brands from controlling the secondary market/prices against the grain of anti-competition laws, if regulated properly. There is no reason why it should not apply to all retail sectors in principle and in practice.
It is noted that the same offending primary market companies appear to be repositioning to control the secondary market, extending the sphere of their abusive conduct. This is demonstrated by Richemont's acquisition of Watchfinder, a major secondary market retailer, probably below the radar of the anti-competition authorities.
Such acquisitions are deemed anti-competitive in intent and ought to be prohibited.