January 13, 2006

as soon as you start cutting corners, you start cutting into your own narrative

yyyyyyy765125.jpg
It was funny wal­king down Savile Row yes­ter­day. There were a lot of “SALE” signs in the win­dows. It’s January, post-Christmas etc, so it wasn’t exactly sur­pri­sing. But this month we’ve been tur­ning down busi­ness. And thin­king about rai­sing our pri­ces. When others zig, zag. Exactly.
Tho­mas and I were down in Lon­don this week visi­ting shirt­ma­kers, to make for us who­le­sale.
We’ve found some­body. And they’re bloody good. And we like them. And they also supply my favo­rite Jermyn Street shirt­ma­ker. And the shirts are all made in England, unlike SOME name­less Jermyn Street com­pa­nies that manu­fa­cure in India, Por­tu­gal, Pakis­tan and China.
[NB: Jermyn Street is to hand-made shirts what Savile Row is to hand-made suits. They’re a few minu­tes’ walk from each other.]
I was hol­ding a competitor’s shirt in my hands yesterday.

1. The company’s illus­trious name was proudly embla­ze­ned on the collar label.
2. “Jermyn Street” was proudly embla­zo­ned on the collar label.
3. The “Made In China” bit was not-so-proudly embla­zo­ned on a tiny, hard-to-find label nowhere near the collar.

Not that there’s anything wrong with having a Chi­nese shirt. The qua­lity in this case was high, and the cost was very com­pe­ti­tive.
But we think our cus­to­mers want the “Made In England” story. So do we. Sure, it’s going to cost more, but we think it makes the “English Cut” story more authen­tic. And “Authen­ti­city” is what peo­ple are ulti­ma­tely buying into, not the actual mole­cu­les.
As soon as you start cut­ting cor­ners, you start cut­ting into your own narra­tive. Some­ti­mes the cost savings jus­tify it, but not always. The world is already awash with com­pro­mi­sed sto­ries and dilu­ted brands. Sure, the accoun­tants love it, but they’re just loo­king at the num­bers. They’re not the ones who have to go out into the big, wide world and find the actual paying customers.

10 Responses to “as soon as you start cutting corners, you start cutting into your own narrative”

  1. Dragos says:

    Hey Hugh, doesn’t the China ver­sus England story mean that besi­des being rich your tar­get cus­to­mers are snu­bish as well? :)

  2. hugh macleod says:

    Dra­gos, it has nothing to do with snob­bery. The brand is called “English Cut”, not “Chi­nese Cut”.
    Sure, you could argue that where something is made doesn’t mat­ter, but I would disa­gree.
    Having stuff made in China is well and good, but it les­sens the “English­ness” of the brand.
    Again, you could argue that “English­ness” doesn’t mat­ter, but it mat­ters to me and Tho­mas.
    Also, not all our cus­to­mers are rich. We just made a tweed jac­ket to a school­teacher, who just wan­ted one good Savile Row gar­ment to call his own.

  3. What this is really poin­ting towards (and everything that’s hap­pe­ning in Ame­ri­can poli­tics bears this out as well) is that the end does not jus­tify the means. That is, in fact, the very defi­ni­tion of chea­ting. There is no worthy story in that. “Win­ning” is anything but.
    Rather, the means jus­tify the ends, and there is poetry and beauty and the story worth telling. That’s when “win­ning” actually means what it’s sup­po­sed to. This is what “the con­ver­sa­tion etc.” is doing to the world. Love it.

  4. hugh macleod says:

    Agreed, Michael. Like I wrote in The Hugh­train, “It’s not enough for them to love your pro­duct, they have to love the proc­cess as well”.
    Ref: http://www.hughtrain.com

  5. dragos says:

    I cer­tainly see your bran­ding con­sis­tency pers­pec­tive, I was thin­king by con­si­de­ring an eco­no­mics point of view — it most likely boils down to dif­fe­rent busi­ness metrics. The com­pe­ti­tion having pro­ducts manu­fac­tu­red in China simply implies that scale and costs are of impor­tance to those gys and hence are loo­king to exploit the cost dif­fe­ren­ces (which may be sig­ni­fi­cant).
    The more your busi­ness grows the more you and your part­ner will be loo­king for ways to sca­ling it. Pla­ying the “made in English” card may cer­tainly seem smart and appea­ling to some indi­vi­duals, but make sure it will not be(come) just a proxy for not being able to handle the demand side. Because there will be a time when you will have to think about tra­deoffs (i.e growth ver­sus sta­ying small).
    Of course, you can turn busi­ness down or adjust demand from the price (inc­rease it) but I don’t think this could be sus­tai­na­ble a la long. Pro­bably it all depends on the busi­ness plans objec­ti­ves 2 – 3 years down the road.
    Just my 2 cents, good luck with it! :)
    ps. You can howe­ver use Chi­nese (lower costs country name) sup­pliers without having a “made in …” label. A friend of mine is doing it.

  6. hugh macleod says:

    Good points, Drago. Having wor­ked in the hand-made, $3000 suit busi­ness I know all about sca­ling issues ;-)
    I sup­pose even­tually the com­mer­cial deci­sion will have to be made as to which is more valua­ble long term,- the “sca­la­bi­lity” of China or the “English­ness” of the brand.
    I don’t mind “Made in China” per se. But what would bother me would be if my cus­to­mers had the com­mon and mis­ta­ken per­cep­tion that the shirts were made in England, when in fact they were made somewhere else.

  7. j03 says:

    Authen­ti­city is what Ame­rica cra­ves most but can­not pro­duce itself.

  8. Just pic­ked up on this. Hugh — bit harsh but unsur­pri­sing  — Us num­ber crunchers have got a lot of image stuff to sort out. And hey — why not pro­vide a bit of enter­tain­ment value along the way?
    The job of the ‘real’ accoun­tant is to assist the busi­ness per­son maxi­mise wealth poten­tial. That’s not the same as run­ning the num­bers although num­bers ine­vi­tably come into play. Espe­cially if there’s some fun­ding invol­ved.
    Res­pon­si­ble advice comes from attemp­ting to test the like­lihood of suc­cess in rela­tion to a course of action with a view to balan­cing wealth crea­tion against the client’s atti­tude towards risk. What the res­pon­si­ble accoun­tant doesn’t do is poo-poo an idea simply because they don’t unders­tand. Believe me, that hap­pens a LOT I’m asha­med to say.
    Equally they will dis­cou­rage a client exe­cu­ting against ideas that will break them cash wise. We’ve already tal­ked pri­va­tely about stock and other issues and I don’t recall you telling me to piss off as tal­king non­sense so I hope you’[d agree that busi­ness ideas aside, there is some value in doing a bit of chec­king and balan­cing.
    The dif­fi­culty both ‘sides’ face is exem­pli­fied in your rib­bing me. IMHO it under­pins a more serious pro­blem of com­mu­ni­ca­tion and per­cep­tion. Hence I was glad to meet and dis­cuss F2F in Paris.

  9. hugh macleod says:

    Heh. Den­nis, I would never desc­ribe you as a typi­cal “num­ber cruncher”.
    But I thought us rib­bing the other was stan­dard prac­tice, now ;-)

  10. That sounds omi­nous. Swords mostly have two edges.