In his review of Quality, written in 1911, the great writer John von Galswaw tells the tale of two brothers. Somewhere near the end of the 19th century, shoemakers, along with their shop, raised the issue of the quality of Mr. Galsvoru’s thought. They knew every customer. They made the patterns for the customers’ feet, cut the shoes to fit, the customer tried on the shoes, then adjusted the shoes to the satisfaction of each customer, offering to take the payment if the shoes or boots are not acceptable.
Over time, there were faster, cheaper, and more efficient ways to make shoes and boots, and the little shopkeeper finally had to survive. Until recently, he insisted on making only the best quality products, even because his customers left him for cheaper products provided by the factories.
An interesting note is Galsworth’s statement. “I have ordered several pairs. It was too early for them to come, but they were better than ever. You just couldn’t get them out»»
My father treated the quality almost imperceptibly. One of my first lessons was that a lot of things have to be long and serve you well. When she died in 1981, my mother gave me her pair of shoes, which she wore for several years. I myself wore them regularly and comfortably for several years, and they did not give up the ghost until I wore them for more than 15 years. In the 1960’s, I bought a pair of pants at Ed White Clothes in Pennsylvania, Florida. I donated them to charity in 1990, according to my wife. All of my father’s tools are still in good condition, at least what I have. Her watch is good, thank you, or should I say, because I have the pocket watch she wore before I was born, like her Seiko wrist watch. Of course, he was a watchmaker, so they don’t count.
Whether they can be extreme examples or not, they are the opposite of the shirts I bought from Target two years ago, both of which had to be taken back as the buttons fell off within a few days of their acquisition. Or pants from Target, which quickly became a donation to a local charity due to a general lack of quality workforce. Let’s not forget the two rather expensive shirts purchased from Sears last year. They still fit well and look nice on shirts … except for the ones that were tight and I miss the wrists for four or five inches now. I also started the leather belt I bought from Sears a few months ago. I’ve lost count of the watches I’ve traveled over the years because they just haven’t been worn, but I’m very heavy on watches, so maybe it doesn’t count.
These are small potatoes, but a few years ago my wife and I, who were experienced road drivers and truck drivers, bought a Peterbilt car for more than $ 100,000. The name Peterbilt used to be a synonym for quality. During the first eleven months that we owned the truck, we were unable to drive for eight weeks due to repair and mechanical problems. One of the most frightening facts was that several times after the truck was being operated by Peterbilt’s certified mechanics, we had to go back to fix something that they were confused about. Eventually we were able to force Peterbilt to buy the truck back under the Wisconsin Lemon Act, but not before we lost thousands of dollars and tried to be disappointed for months. Even more outrageous is the fact that after talking to several other people who had the same type of truck, we found that almost everything that went wrong with what he bought was experienced by him and other owners.
It is not in the interests of most manufacturers to restrain quality. First of all, it is usually more expensive to build quality items than to mass-produce things that will “do”. If things go too long, many of these people will quit. Look carefully, and you will see that things are changing, often not for the better, but just as we will be tempted to try to buy the old and buy the new. Advertising media is always more than happy to earn their living, reminding us that what we have last year is new, now obsolete and needs to be replaced.
After working so hard to meet the needs of the population, it is surprising that these manufacturers have chosen to look for cheaper labor and lower production costs to ensure maximum profit.
And is it all their fault?
When we vote and we all vote with our wallets (or debit and credit cards), do we give our votes to quality products that we will be happy to use for years, maybe even passing them on to another generation or not? we just buy what’s cheapest.
A little caution about buying a cheap fairy tale.
Years ago, I was a federal procurement agent for the Texas Army National Guard. I and other members of my office had a commitment to purchase items from various military units in Guardia, many of which now serve in Iraq. Part of our mission was to get “the best possible price”, and we were told to ignore the issues of “brand names” that may have been known for their quality. One day, a woman working at a nearby desk almost jumped into the air, as she had just placed a large order to make a ribbon on the ribbon for about half of the expected price. He saved the federal government, and American taxpayers – a few hundred dollars.
A few days later, while working with one of the units, we had to use the tape he bought. It was pointless. It didn’t stay, even by itself, it was falling apart. The tape was used to quickly and effectively deploy combat units to keep field outfits in batches together. We were offended by using about three times as much tape as we would need if we could get a better brand (brand), and that doesn’t take into account the rolls that have become so tangled and scratched that they were just thrown away. useless.
Everything that works well often costs extra for the extra service they can provide in their lifetime … if we allow them to live that long.