“You get what you pay for.” We hear it all the time stated as fact, but does that make it true? Or is it just a cliché, a trite oversimplification? Maybe… But let’s look deeper. Here’s an example: Two pairs of sunglasses. One cost less than $10 at the cheap-o store, one cost $100 at the Sunglasses Hut. Can you see the difference? Maybe not at 10 feet away, but up close?
The cheap sunglasses hinges feel, well, cheap. The right side is tight, the left is loose, and they aren’t really symmetric from left to right. Look at that mold parting line. All kinds of flash on there, and the paint is all globbed up. It looks like the temple is a slightly different shade of black than the front. It looks terrible! The lenses don’t seem to fit quite right. Hopefully they don’t fall out! The metal accents don’t look quite like metal… hold on, that’s just paint, and I’ve scratched it off! And when I put them on, they feel really tight, and there’s a bit of flash on the ear-piece that digs into my head. Not cool. Folded up one of the temple ends actually scratches the inside of the lens. I’m starting to question whether these were even worth $10!
Now look at that $100 pair…Ah, the hinge just feels good, doesn’t it? Solid. And the lines from front frame to temple looks very smooth. The gap in between very consistent, and the color is an exact match on all 3 pieces. The accent pieces look like real metal, and the brand name has been printed with some subtle colors and it looks intentionally placed. Folded up, they’re nice and flat and there’s little risk of the temple arms scratching the lenses.
Seems like someone spent a lot of time on these details, doesn’t it? In fact it’s likely that someone (or a whole team of someones) built a whole bunch of prototypes to really get the details right. Well, it turns out that much of what accounts for differences in “quality” comes back to time, regardless of whatever quantitative metric we’re using. Time affects cost (all those designers and engineers do get paid for their time), and so by extension price — though I’ll concede that there’s more driving the purchase price than just the cost to create the goods. Point is, someone took the time to think about how the product looks sitting on a table, folded up, and on your face. Someone worked closely with the manufacturer to understand the process and make sure the outcome was consistent. Someone studied the size and orientation of the mechanical features, as well as how they vary from part to part, to make sure this pair will fit together properly, but also that the one-millionth pair fits together and looks and feels just as good. Does that sound like a lot of people, spending considerable time? And that’s just sunglasses! Add electronics, add a sophisticated mechanism, add the expectation of safety or regulatory compliance and the time involved expands geometrically. Through this lens, I find myself surprised that so many products are as inexpensive as they are! Think of all those smart people, anticipating my every need!
Then there are the ideas that never made it out of the concept stage, the prototypes that failed the drop test, the clever molding solution to make that one tiny part that most people never notice…All THAT effort ends up getting rolled into the price of things too.
So what makes a high quality product? It’s hard to describe, isn’t it? But I bet you’d know a poor-quality product when you saw it. The sad fact is, producing a low-quality product is often much cheaper (and much faster!) than producing a high-quality product. So why does the low-quality version exist? Cheap doesn’t have to equal bad, and often the cheap version is perfectly suited to the need. But conversely, expensive doesn’t necessarily mean over-priced, either. Most of the time the maxim holds: You get what you pay for.
Agree. You get what you pay for. However I think sunglasses are a poor example.
In my opinion sunglasses are one of the most marked-up, overpriced products in history. An example of good marketing more than anything else. Sure design comes into it but it’s secondary to whats trendy.
One of my favorite pair of sunglasses ($150) by ‘Smith’ exhibits the same lens scratching temple ends that you describe above. Just like a pair of ill fitting shoes, it is a compromise I made for (supposedly) looking good.
I’ve worked on products, as i’m guessing you have, retailing for $30 that required 10 times more development time than a pair of $100 sunglasses.
Fascinating topic! I use glasses since I was 10 y.o. and that (combined with being a designer) makes me a huge fan of eyewear products.
Besides being one of the most difficult products to design (because of their complex geometry and heavy charge of ergonomics), I find them really interesting because of all the expression they carry, at the end we put them on our faces!
One thing that is interesting to consider when talking about quality and price is the concept of “externalization of cost”. I’ve realized that a hand-made acetate frame made in Italy (under an Italian brand) can be sold for a few hundred dollars (maybe $400 to $800 in some cases); and surprisingly, a hand-made acetate frame made in China can be sold for $50 dollars or less. What’s wrong with this picture? Does that mean that the Chinese craft is not as good as the Italian one? Or is it the acetate they use that is cheaper? Or is it maybe that the labor cost is radically different? Interestingly, the cheap version which we would think is more industrialized (assuming it’s manufactured using automated processes), ends up having an incredible amount of hand work, perhaps as much as the limited edition Italian frame. So, on the one hand, there is a tremendous amount of value aggregated by the brand recognition, but on the other hand there is a terrible discrepancy on the labor cost in different regions. Maybe the real value of both frames (quality aside) is somewhere between $100 to $200 dollars (if we average the labor and materials cost), but one has its cost hidden (meaning somebody somewhere is having to pay that cost: the worker), and the other one has a huge margin of profit.
So, I think besides all the great points you analyze (fit, tolerance, symmetry, etc.) I think the human labor is also a factor that should be considered when analyzing cost of manufactured goods.
Agree. You get what you pay for. However I think sunglasses are a poor example.
In my opinion sunglasses are one of the most marked-up, overpriced products in history. An example of good marketing more than anything else. Sure design comes into it but it’s secondary to whats trendy.
One of my favorite pair of sunglasses ($150) by ‘Smith’ exhibits the same lens scratching temple ends that you describe above. Just like a pair of ill fitting shoes, it is a compromise I made for (supposedly) looking good.
I’ve worked on products, as i’m guessing you have, retailing for $30 that required 10 times more development time than a pair of $100 sunglasses.
It’s all relative.
Adam,
Fascinating topic! I use glasses since I was 10 y.o. and that (combined with being a designer) makes me a huge fan of eyewear products.
Besides being one of the most difficult products to design (because of their complex geometry and heavy charge of ergonomics), I find them really interesting because of all the expression they carry, at the end we put them on our faces!
One thing that is interesting to consider when talking about quality and price is the concept of “externalization of cost”. I’ve realized that a hand-made acetate frame made in Italy (under an Italian brand) can be sold for a few hundred dollars (maybe $400 to $800 in some cases); and surprisingly, a hand-made acetate frame made in China can be sold for $50 dollars or less. What’s wrong with this picture? Does that mean that the Chinese craft is not as good as the Italian one? Or is it the acetate they use that is cheaper? Or is it maybe that the labor cost is radically different? Interestingly, the cheap version which we would think is more industrialized (assuming it’s manufactured using automated processes), ends up having an incredible amount of hand work, perhaps as much as the limited edition Italian frame. So, on the one hand, there is a tremendous amount of value aggregated by the brand recognition, but on the other hand there is a terrible discrepancy on the labor cost in different regions. Maybe the real value of both frames (quality aside) is somewhere between $100 to $200 dollars (if we average the labor and materials cost), but one has its cost hidden (meaning somebody somewhere is having to pay that cost: the worker), and the other one has a huge margin of profit.
So, I think besides all the great points you analyze (fit, tolerance, symmetry, etc.) I think the human labor is also a factor that should be considered when analyzing cost of manufactured goods.