Quality part 3 — Consuming quality

“Aesthetic designs also foster positive relationships with people, making them more tolerant of problems with a design.” - William Lidwell

As the marketplace evolves so does our relationship to consumption.

While craftspeople occupy a distinct position within in the marketplace it’s not in isolation. The broader consumer experience creates expectations that become a consumption baseline, making nuance essential within niche markets.

Unsurprisingly, consumers have always sought to maximise value. But beyond that, they desire objects that reflect their beliefs and project their values. While handcrafted objects tend to satisfy these aspirations, they are also considered virtuous. It is believed they signify good taste, good values and by extension, are of quality. This may be true, but it is likely only due to the relative high cost and position within the market.

Yet desiring quality is one thing and affording it is another. Emotion and aspiration clash with financial constraint, leading many to choose cheaper, mass-produced alternatives. However, it is common for low-cost products to have quality features. A good surface finish is an obvious example, which is ubiquitous due to its influence at point-of-sale. In a similar way aesthetic-usability effect impacts the perceived usability of a design, surface finish is perceived as evidence of overall object quality, even if it is only skin deep.

It is clear quality is tied up in expectation but ultimately how we feel about quality is context dependant. With cheaper products we have modest expectations and tend to be more easily satisfied or even delighted. By contrast, expensive products, start with inflated expectations, so feelings around quality generally result in indifference, or where they fall short, even slightly, creates disproportionate disappointment.

Naturally there are exceptions. Commissioned work tends to be a quality outlier. Obviously, there is an emotional element relating to tailor-made design, but more significant is the implied high quality associated with a subject matter expert. The value is clear, and a high cost more palatable even if the quality is fair.

The perceived value of built-in joinery is even more persuasive. Not only is it exclusive and completely customised, but there is no off-the-shelf retail alternative. It is a tangible financial investment in property, even if the quality is average. The value is self-evident and the expected high cost is easy to rationalise.

For many objects though, the influence of quality quickly diminishes in parallel with cost. The highest quality objects are prohibitively expensive because production costs surge with meagre increases in quality. Therefore, when optimising production costs, concessions in quality generally precede other design compromises.

Whichever way you look at it, quality is both complicated and expensive. Consumers demand it without understanding production costs and craftspeople tend to have a quality first approach even when it’s not appropriate. Yet, ultimately, for good quality work to happen there must be a unique surplus of budget, time and resources. This is why perhaps in most instances good enough quality is good enough.