FRIEZE NEW YORK 2013
INTERNATIONAL HOME + HOUSEWARES SHOW 2013
TOKYO DESIGN WEEK 2012
BEIJING DESIGN WEEK 2012
We've touched on this topic only briefly before, so I'd like to hear impressions on the topic of limited-edition goods—impressions specifically from the industrial design community, as ID's raison d'etre, of course, is mass production. We all have our different views and opinions of things, but I'm starting to worry than mine is veering so far outside of what's currently normal that I'm in danger of no longer being able to comprehend the normal consumer's thinking.
Here's what sparked this. These are shots of the Deux X Makr Tool Roll, a collaboration between Australian handbuilt motorcycle outfit Deus Ex Machina and Florida-based bag manufacturer Makr Carry Goods.
As you'll see in the quick vid below, the bag looks beautiful and appears nicely functional:
It was intended for a small production run, but "unprecented demand" meant the bags sold out extremely quickly. This prompted Deus and Maker to order up another production run, which seems logical. But what struck me was this comment left on their page by a purchaser of a first-run bag:
Glad I brought one before they sold out! I hope thought [sic] that there is a point of difference between these and your next re-run. I brought one because there was potentially only 50 available—that justified the price I paid for it. Please don't dilute the value of these awesome rolls by producing more than was promised (in this design anyway).
I understand the part of society where we pay more for things that are scarce, a model based on the allocation of natural resources. I get that we make houses out of wood and engagement rings out of gold and diamonds. What I'm not keen on is the notion of contrived scarcity, where seemingly every manufacturer with a stylish product artificially limits the production run purely to justify a higher price tag. I understand this practice's value in fashion, where two society women at a party don't want to show up in the same dress; but I'm having a problem mapping this notion onto machine tools.
What got me about the commenter's words was that producing a second run would "dilute the value" of the roll he'd already purchased. Is this because I'm looking at the roll as a tool in itself, whereas it is not, strictly speaking? If I need a 3/8” socket wrench and I buy one, it has value to me every time I use it. If the amount that the company sells of those wrenches subsequently doubles, that doesn't change the value of the tool to me at all. I needed it, I bought it and now I have it and use it. What lies in other people's toolboxes doesn't concern me. Is that where I'm missing something?
While setting contrived production limits is the prerogative of the manufacturer and really none of my business, I think the reason it doesn't sit well with me is because it seems to go against the mass manufacturing spirit of industrial design. But in an age of increasingly digital manufacturing, where you no longer need to crank out enormous production runs in order to create economies of scale, I have a feeling I'm just going to have to get used to it.
Your thoughts, please. And if you have a more involved point of view that won't fit into a comment box, feel free to e-mail it to [rain] -at- core77 (dot) com.
Comments
I agree with the complaint of the person who bought the 'limited' edition product. Lots of products are now available in limited numbers for a premium price. One example is trainers which are released in a varying colour way (often in the guise of a collaboration) as a limited edition and sold at a higher price point. Increased perceived value of the product is gained by the knowledge that everybody else will not have the same pair of trainers. Limited editions seem to be marketed to give the consumer a greater sense of individuality, often with the number of the product (25 of 100 etc.) marked in some way. By increasing the run the original limited edition is therefore devalued by making the product more readily available. The value of the product being dictated by supply and demand. Limited editions have now seemingly been taken a step further by providing customisable products (Nike ID etc.) to give the customer an even greater sense of individuality.
The consumer is misconstruing the limited edition aspect for the sole factor of the high price. The "value" of this tool roll does not derive from it being limited edition as much as the method for which it was manufactured and the materials used. Horween is about the best kind of leather a craftsman can use and often why it's seen on high end shoes and bags. The materials, along with being assembled by hand here in the states, are what is driving the price here. While this is just a tool roll, I can almost guarantee that it will outlast any of its fabric or plastic variations.
I think this product is an oddball because while its purpose is utilitarian it is still considered a luxury item. If a Dewalt drill just had "limited edition" molded in the housing would it sell for 500 dollars? Probably not. Most people would see that as a waste of money when odds are it won't perform any task better than an ordinary drill. However would you pay more for a drill with an all metal housing, robust internals, and having been assembled in the US?
If a good is unfairly priced it's ultimately the consumer's vote to decide its fate. I, would gladly pay a premium for goods with materials that wold stand the test of time.
I think that the current ability to do a cost-effective limited run makes this type of collaboration or a similar small-business approach significantly more viable than in years past. Should the designer/manufacturer NOT continue to offer their product if it proves popular? The beauty of current technology is that someone can "test the waters" with limited capital and grow their business if demand allows. While I agree with the early consumer that it would be disappointing IF suddenly the price point were to drop on an identical product; but if that were NOT the case, I think they should feel satisfied that they helped bring a good product to market. Similar to publishing, there can be value in owning the "first edition" versus future runs.
Why is it OK to have a limited run in fashion and not in other areas of mass consumption? Fashion isn't for the masses? Nike is allowed to make millions of a particular shoe and a limited edition of a shoe but Snap-On is not allowed to make a limited version of a wrench? In addition to fashion, there are limited editions in autombiles, sporting goods, packaged goods and personal electronics. And actually, car specific tool rolls have been around since the beginning of cars and went out of favor in the 50s/60s when"standard" sets took over. There is nothing new here to see.
If the original intention to make a single run was based on the perception was that there was only going to be a limited market for the product, and that perception turned out to be inaccurate, I'm not bothered by the manufacturer making another run. Good for them, really. It's a far different case from if they had produced one run only with the specific intention of producing an artificial scarcity and then going back on their representation of the situation by making another run.
As a consumer, too, I'd much rather see a product I believe in get an unexpectedly vigorous response and see more of that product produced than to have other people be denied access to that product in the name of artificial scarcity. The threat of other consumers getting all butthurt over the thing they bought being perceived as somehow less special than it was when there were fewer of them available does not bother me in this case.
If the kit had been advertised as a limited run, with a number saying how many would be made (and they exceed this), then the buyer should feel cheated.
If however (as I think is the case) they made a few of these because they thought that would be the market and there turned out to be a greater demand, then good for them. If they continue to make/sell more, at some point the supply will exceed demand at the current price and they will either stop making them, or have to change the production method and lower the price. So either way it still ends up being a limited edition of that style.
Perhaps one's self worth should not be married so tightly to a object that the dilution of its perceived exclusivity affects the individual.
If we step back for a moment, we're all spilling pixels over a canvass and leather tool roll.... in the grand scheme of things "it" doesn't matter. Rather it's the emotional investment made by the owner into the item that artificially changes. For that, perhaps a psychologist is the best professional to shed some light on the human state at play here?
From my point of view, as an ID guy that has both dealt with the mass production of Asia and our own, bespoke business, I have to admit that this tactic does bother me a little.
Saying something is' limited' and then saying 'we sold out so we'll make more' is more of a cash in than anything. The consumer buys limited or 'bespoke' because it's just that and to them, that's part of the value. To then be told more are being made because they sold well devalues the offering and makes me ponder why they didn't just go production with it in the first place; possibly it was a lure to test the viability but then that would be deceptive behaviour.
For me, this sort of action devalues the brand and makes the buyer feel like a patsy. There is nothing wrong with low volume, limited or bespoke, as long as part of the values of such products are tied intrinsically to they way they are made and offered. You can't have it both ways.
Think about why you are buying the tools? Not because you need a certain wrench size but because you support the company and what they stand for thus you want to be associated with them. If you support a company that you believe in why would you hinder the amount of profit they will make because you want to feel individual? Why can't we see this as a sense of camaraderie that there are more like minded individuals who want to support the same belief in American made goods?
As a photographer, limited editions of digital prints are often a hot topic of discussion for several reasons. Some people don't use them at all, others will do limited edition runs of a specific image AT A SPECIFIC SIZE, and so on. The same thing occurs in the art world, of course, although I still remember the first time I saw a 'limited edition' print run of 26,000. What's 'limited' about that?
For me, I think that if one is hand-making something then by its very nature the 'production' becomes limited. I remember seeing a leather horse saddle once that took three months to make. It was truly one of a kind, and the maker vowed to never make another one like it. An original painting is, by it's very nature limited - even a clever forgery won't be EXACTLY the same.
There is intrinsic 'value' in something that involves complicated construction - much of a Leica camera for example is still assembled and tested by hand. If demand increases, there is no easy way to increase production. The same can be said of a hand-engraved Blancpain watch.
For manufactured items, whether it is an assembly-line product or a digital print of an image, then 'limited' becomes a matter of choice. But once the choice has been made, going outside of that constitutes fraud and if the buyer has purchased a 'limited' edition in good faith for whatever reason, then they would have a legal right to feel cheated.
My 2 cents.
Mike.