Its interesting how many people believe that because something is smaller it should by default cost less! The justification? There's less materials required to make it therefore it should automatically be cheaper. Unfortunately its not that simple. Say for example an adjustable dog harness in XS vs L size. They both use the same amount of buckles, clasps and D and O rings as each other, they both use a molded logo, buckle stickers etc. There is some difference in the amount of overall fabric that is used - but that's actually quite minimal difference between the two of them. What happens when you start making an item and make it smaller? You increase the difficulty, make it fiddly and complicate it, meaning that it takes longer to make and is more time-consuming. It gets harder not easier. What is the most expensive component of producing anything?
Labour or man hours.
So yes its smaller but it took longer and was harder to make than the larger size. It mostly uses the same components too, with the exception of perhaps slightly less fabric but thats neither here nor there at the end of the day in this example. It can in some cases cost the same or more to produce a smaller version of something than a larger one. So if you pay the same (or more) or even just a few cents less at the end of the day as a designer for your product, by the time it is designed, produced and manufactured, shipped, labelled and packaged there's no reduction in costs at all. Selling that product then for less - just because its smaller - is costing you more money again. Its what I refer to as the Illusion of Value. In cases where we can, we do at Hendricks and Maple price smaller items less than the larger sizes but in many cases this is not feasible as they cost the same, only slightly less or sometimes more than the other sizes do to manufacture.
Comments