Evolution in Product Quality

I'm still stewing on the notion of price and quality, in the classes of product and the decision of a producer to manufacture a product that is lacking in quality as a choice that is made and perpetually reaffirmed by the continued manufacturing of that same product. I still have the sense it's a matter of ethics, but that it can waiver over time - and that there can be no generalization about the choices companies make in the aggregate, but I do have the sense there are two distinct tendencies in the evaluation of product quality:

A healthy company gets sick

My sense is that most companies start out with the best of intentions and may at times go astray. It is not always thus, as there is a second section below to address the exact opposite, but I tend to be optimistic in this regard. A company starts off small, with a single idea: they recognize a need that is not being met, or notice that the predicts to serve the need are not particularly effective, and recognize that here is a better, cheaper means of serving the needs of consumers.

I maintain that this is a "healthy" state of commerce that is mutually beneficial to both producer and consumer, and a state that any producer should strive to achieve and perpetuate. But a healthy company can become sickened in one of two ways:

The first, which is likely more rare, is in earnest pursuit of the original goals. It's a general observation that the greatest flaws of a man are an excess of his virtues - one who is too honest is indiscreet, one who is too trusting is gullible, etc. - and that an organization such as a company can suffer from the same flaws: in an effort to make a product "better," it becomes too expensive for those who need it to be able to afford it; or in an effort to make a product more affordable, compromises are made that make it less useful.

The second, which is likely more common and more sinister, is the pursuit of profit for its own sake: the producer seeks to increase the price of a product without increasing its quality, or maintain the price while decreasing the quality. I have a sense this is a widespread practice, and lauded as being "good business" - but it is the acceptance of an ethical flaw for the sake of a short-term profit, at the long-term consequence of degrading the perception of the product and the reputation of the firm that produces it.

Of particular importance to the notion of evolution is that this can occur at any time: a company may step from the right path of producing a serviceable product at a fair price to the misguided practice of producing an inferior product or charging a price that is disjointed from the value it provides.

I also have the sense that this is likely to occur as a company experiences growth - which gives some support to the otherwise irrational fear of "big" in business. The founder of a company is more likely to be focused on the goal of producing a first-class or second-class product, and as a business grows, it loses its way, and places profits before the mission.

A sick company heals itself

I would prefer to think it rare, but do not discount the fact that it may be more widespread, that the initial decision to produce a given product is based on a desire to reap a profit. In pondering "how can I make money?" an idea arises for a product that people will buy, or can be convinced to buy, at a price that will produce profit to the producer.

In such an instance, the producer seeks to deliver as little quality as he can while charging as high a price as he can, and if he can deliver very little quality at a very high price, so much the better for him. Even firms that do not start with that motive often fall to it, by the process described above, and end up in a state of sickness, for the love of money.

But this may also be regarded as a phase of evolution: even the stingiest and greediest of companies will, in pursuit of market share, be compelled to improve the level of quality of their product, reduce the price they charge for it, or both. Except in a monopoly situation, customers will turn to other providers for a better value - and while deception can sucker in some number of buyers, you can't fool all of the people all of the time, and it's not economically sustainable.

Even so, my sense is that an unethical company seeks to heal itself in a slow manner, begrudgingly "giving away" more value to the consumer and constantly seeking a rationale to do less and charge more. I don't expect many companies that fall into the third or fourth class can rise to become first-class providers, though I suppose that anything is possible however unlikely it may seem.

Constant Fluctuation

My sense is that if a company survives long enough, its history will reflect it has fluctuated between the two tendencies over time, likely with changes of top-level leadership that values one approach or the other. A healthy company becomes sick, then tries to heal itself, then recidivates to profit seeing, then back to a concern for delivering value.

It's further my sense that this is highly affected by market forces. The competition of other firms causes companies to re-evaluate heir choice in terms of quality (how much quality the customer requires, and even the very things that the customer considers to constitute quality) and price. The overall economy may lead more consumers to make smarter buying decisions given more limited resources, seeking to obtain genuine value for dollar, and likely compromising on value for the sake of stretching their budgets.

And over the long term, the companies that survive are those that come closest to getting the balance right, and the newcomers that come to dominate various industries, pushing aside more established firms, are seizing upon an opportunity to embrace the values that older firms have forgotten ... and continue to dominate until they become neglectful and abandon the righteous path to those who would seek it - or even stumble upon it.

The State of Things

As to the present state of things, no generalization would be accurate. Some choose a pessimistic view, that the majority of companies are "sick" and dysfunctional, others choose a more optimistic view that most companies seek to take the right path.

Ultimately, any given person's perspective is based on their individual experience: those who make poor decisions and find themselves surrounded by inferior products for which they paid too high a price are likely wracked with regret over the decisions they have made likely seek a source outside themselves to lay the blame. Their cries of woe are heard more loudly than the quiet contentment of those who are satisfied with the decisions they have made.

But on the other hand, there is a certain level of smug self-satisfaction in the consumer who publicly proclaim their satisfaction with past purchases, such that the reported level of customer satisfaction is likely to be exaggerated.

In the end, the assessment is likely subjective, and the opinions of the majority, while of greater interest to those who would seek to increase their market base, mean very little to the individual consumer.