The Craftsman versus the Industrial Complex

[Chirs]

Have you seen the movie Kinky Boots? There is one scene that addresses the question of quality in shoes that you raise. The main character manufactures high-quality brogues but the factory is in trouble. He goes to a seller and asks if they would take a quantity of the shoes. The seller shows him the shoes they're selling now and he complains "The bloke who buys these will be back in 3 months!" "Exactly" is the reply.

[tripleblessed]

What is that other than your "feelings" about "factory" goods. And I'm not looking to "make a connection" with my shoes, kilt or skivvies, nor am I looking for some level of "authenticity", whatever that means to you.

While he is talking about how he actually feels about something important, and this is important, but difficult to talk about, he's also talking about a very real sense of connection that people once had to the world about them. The fact that you say it how you say it shows for you that connection is lost. 100, 500, 1000 years ago people didn't look to "make a connection" with their shoes, kilt, or whatever, it was there. Already. You had it, you knew it, and you relied on that perception or you probably didn't survive. That awareness has been shown in the lab to still be in place, just beyond awareness in most people. The unwillingness of people in modern society to acknowledge what Einstein called relativity (relatedness, connectedness) is what allows the rise of Walmart. I used to buy sheet rock screws and plywood from Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank from a new idea store in Decatur, Georgia. From them. They were in the store, you could talk to them. Once they passed 25 stores, the fun was gone. By 100, it had become painful to go in their stores. I hope to be able to say Home Depot ceased to be a source for me in 1990, like MacDonald's and Coca-Cola did in 1974.

I'm not attempting to beat anyone up here, or accusing anyone of anything. In addition to a working life in the trades spanning from the early '60s til now, I also have done private work and taught classes in awareness, perception, healing, and other down-to-earth weirdness from the '70s forward. There's a whole lot of science most people don't know about, and it's used against one every day by the people who make decisions for us. The price of freedom is very high, and few are willing to pay it, even if they knew how and where.

I don't claim to be much freer than most, and the freight on what little I have has been frightful. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers. I'm just asking that we be a little more open, and to know there's more possible. My goal is educational.

[English Bloke]

Good thread this. Thanks to the Mods for giving it breathing room. And DWFII? No bother, you're welcome.

[Jock Scot]

Good thread this. Thanks to the Mods for giving it breathing room. And DWFII? No bother, you're welcome.

Hear hear EB! Good thoughts. No! Exellent thoughts all round, on ALL three points.

[DWFII]

Well, I wasn't going to post to this discussion any more...if only because it was so off topic in its previous incarnation and also because it seemed to be generating an inordinate amount of acrimony. Some of which, thankfully, seems to have mysteriously disappeared. Interesting and thought-provoking discussions always seem to bring out the worst in some folks.

But I have to thank blessed³ and EB for the support and for "getting it."

I would observe, in passing that "quality" is not about how long an item lasts in ordinary usage, although that's certainly part of it. Paper shoes will last years and years if never worn more than once a month and never off the carpet.

But again, that's not really the issue. The issue is "intent". Did the maker intend that the shoes last 20 years? Or is there an advantage to be gained by selling a new pair every 3 years? Did the maker intend that they would retain their fit and appearance throughout that 20 years...despite being handled/repaired by people who are not makers?

Because intent becomes focus--"Job One."

If Job One is to make money, there is a decision tree that flows from that focus. Every material, every technique will be examined and altered to suit that objective of making money.

Materials will be bought and cut regardless of quality. Regardless of surface flaws.

Techniques and procedures will be implemented that eliminate a skilled worker when a minimum wage, unskilled worker can be substituted. And/or workers laid off when a mindless machine can take their place.

The goal is profit and that means the lowest possible cost of production that will still capture the market.

When making shoes is Job One, the decisions are radically different and serve radically different ends. Best quality leather will be chosen. Warble holes and blems will be cut around and that section of the leather will be discarded or used where such flaws are not visible or critical. Under such a regimen technique is everything. Techniques that will provide the most secure, most long lasting results are de rigueur.

The goal is the best fitting, best looking, best wearing shoes that can be made.

And sometimes, and on some feet, and in some conditions, with the best intents, such shoes will not live up to the maker's expectations. Regular applications of barnyard acids in the face of lack of maintenance, or just outright neglect or even abuse, are not part of any maker's intent.

Quality is about intent. To be realized, it must be implemented with skill...and intent. Ourouboros.

And by comparison....everything is by comparison. You (a generic, universal "you") might have a pair of shoes that are of what I call poor quality. I call them poor quality because I know the intent. I know, intimately, what goes into each pair and what materials and techniques really are quality. And I make my comparisons based on real knowledge and experience, not just supposition. I have a privileged perspective in that regard.

My intent...in posting these remarks...is educational. And with no sense of self-congratulation, I would suggest that such is always a gift. That's certainly the way I regarded it when it was passed on to me.

PS (and on edit)...anyone who thinks that all this does not apply to kilts has not, I suspect, thought it through or thought very deeply about it.

[tripleblessed]

But I have to thank blessed³ and EB for the support and for "getting it."

But again, that's not really the issue. The issue is "intent". Did the maker intend that the shoes last 20 years? Or is there an advantage to be gained by selling a new pair every 3 years? Did the maker intend that they would retain their fit and appearance throughout that 20 years...despite being handled/repaired by people who are not makers?

Because intent becomes focus--"Job One.

"The issue is intent" is such a profound statement it should have its' own site. This is core of your existence, and the basis for becoming a human being. When one begins to understand this statement, joy begins to have a greater place at the table. Not that every moment will be a laugh riot, but joy will be present. Deep, primal, a foundation for examining self and the world, and what sustains you through hard times. Not food, certainly not TV or commercial entertainment. Joy.

DWFII, this is a conversation I've been having since the Nixon administration. Few get it. Fewer still will pursue it. The fortunate thing is that it doesn't require huge numbers to keep it alive. The reality is that struggle increases as the number of those understanding the concept decreases. The fewer the number, the greater the struggle for all on the planet. I keep mentioning the great amount of science related to this area of understanding, and some will note I offer no citation. Intent to find it will bring it to you as you can understand it. Intent is a major ingredient in the soup of relativity, and people and information will just begin crossing your path when you seek it.

[RockyR]

I understand your points in the above post, DWII, but I think you miss the mark a bit. You paint a very black and white picture. EITHER the product's manufacturer has 'the highest quality' in mind OR they have the 'lowest price' in mind and their product will ultimately (most likely) be faulty. That model ignores the MAJORITY of manufacturers out there... those of us in the middle. Those who want the highest quality possible FOR the price offered.

MOST manufacturers I know who offer 'a fair product at a fair price' (middle of the market), would not use materials with a blemish. They would not lay off an elderly kilt maker (with years experience) b/c someone with little to no experience will work for $2 / hour less. Most would only use equipment to replace a worker if that equipment does a BETTER job than the worker can by him/herself.

There's a balance to be struck, which is what most manufacturers try to do. Sure, there will always be those who have ABSOLUTELY NO compromise on quality. I'm sure that they are constantly fighting with their material suppliers to send 'perfect' items and there are probably MANY more administrative costs than we can discuss here to ensure everything is perfect. There are also firms who I am sure just put everything through, with little to no 'quality checking' done on their finished products.

The majority of retailers are in the middle. We want a quality product for a fair price. We will check materials for flaws before starting. We will inspect goods carefully before they head out the door. After all... once you get a poor reputation for quality, it's difficult to come back from that (and since it's OUR name on the line, not the supplier of material, we have to make sure it passes OUR quality standards).

A perfect example... while USA Kilts got heavily into (exclusive) sporran designs a few years ago, we did not speak to the highest priced sporran company with sterling silver cantles and super exotic skins and whatnot. We found 2 companies who were well established in the marketplace and had them design exclusive sporrans for us. ONE of those 2 manufacturers has a 'moderate' reputation for quality checking his sporrans before shipping them to us. Upon opening shipments EVERY sporran is checked against certain benchmarks of quality. I've probably returned a few dozen sporrans that did not meet MY standards (regardless of whether other highland wear shops would have accepted them... which was his excuse). The supplier's standards have now been raised to meet mine and now 99% of his sporrans (I still get the errant one here and there that don't) meet my standards right out of the box. It's MY name on the product going out the door and if there's a problem, the customer bought it from ME, so they'll come back to ME if there's an issue, so I correct things before they BECOME an issue.

My point... there's a balance of quality / care VS. price. With a keen eye and a high standard (and enough buying power behind you to make suppliers do what you want them to), you can get a quality product at a reasonable price. In any type of product market, the balance is the important thing as that's where businesses are made and lost.

[DWFII]

Rocky,

Two things...first, I think you paint too optimistic a picture and one that is too focused on your own particular perspectives.

On the face of it there's nothing wrong with that.

But I suspect your business is still somewhere between workshop and factory. You, the owner and founder, are still involved. Business practices still flow from your original vision and ideals. Good on you.

If I decided to hire folks and go from bespoke to RTW workshop much the same scenario would play out. All my involvement, all my notions about quality, all my intensity would force conformation to some standard well short of the factory model.

Until I retired or died.

And when that happened, if the business survived at all, the chances are great...almost approaching certainty...that the new owners would not have the knowledge, depth, or commitment to continue on in the same way.

I have seen this over and over again in the shoe industry. And many other artisanal industries--watchmaking, gunsmithing, cabinetry, tailors, the list goes on and on. And more to the point, once that commitment to highest quality regardless of price point or cost of production goes by the way, the company never goes back to making quality job one.

Once that machine comes in the door that makes Goodyear welted construction possible; once handwelting is abandoned, the workers trained in Traditional methods, who do it, who know it, are lost through layoffs or death and it becomes simply impossible to go back.

More, once a firm commits to Goodyear construction, it is no longer profitable or logical to buy firm, pit tanned insoles especially in the heavier weights required for handwelting. Of course, this represents a substantial savings for the company.

At one point fiberboard or leatherboard will be considered in lieu of leather insoles entirely. and from there fiberboard heel stacks are no big leap of logic.

And so the makers/tanners of high quality leather insoles and outsoles will face a decreasing demand and eventually the work will be moved overseas or the businesses closed down.

And no awls will be needed, no inseaming threads, no wax, no pegs, no knives, etc.. and then the grinderies will be closed down or sold to some business in a foreign country that doesn't have any cultural or emotional ties to the founders of the business.

A small digression.--more for wonder and amazement that anything else, although there is a lesson here as well.

Towards the middle and end of the 19th century, when many Trades were being industrialized (and workers were known as "wage slaves"), shoemakers...in nearly open revolt (along with spinners, weavers, and others fiber Trades)...began to do work that was almost beyond comprehension.

Prizework entered into competition at International Trade Exhibitions (also known as World's Fairs) was sometimes sewn at "64 stitches to the inch" Such work has been documented in work exhibited both in Philadelphia and in Britain by Dame June Swann, who was the Curator of the shoe collection at the Museum in Northampton, England. Ms. Swann is widely considered the foremost authority on shoes and shoe history in the world.

But think about this...64 to the inch! One cannot stitch at much smaller than 18 to the inch on a modern sewing machine with the finest point needles without postage-stamping or tearing the lather.

Yet this was all done by hand...to prove that machines could never equal the skill that a master shoemaker to bring to the game. Devlin (?), 1830(?) claims that when he did this he used a hair from his daughters head as a needle/bristle and an awl so fine that when he slipped and punctured the base of his thumb, it neither hurt nor bled.

Today there are no such masters. But even if there were, June Swann asserts that there is no leather being produced today that can equal the quality or the firmness that made this kind of work possible.

What does that tell us? Not that we need to go back to 64 to the inch...if it were even possible to go back. But that reasons we cannot even contemplate going back or appreciate the quality that once was the hallmarks of such Trades...of human enterprise...is that the weaknesses are systemic. They are in our obsession with quantity and efficiency and cheap. Our obsession--the consumer, the end user...society.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

[tripleblessed]

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Any man who can say the issue is intent and quote Pogo in the same day is a man to be reckoned with.

[RockyR]

Rocky,

Two things...first, I think you paint too optimistic a picture and one that is too focused on your own particular perspectives.

On the face of it there's nothing wrong with that.

But I suspect your business is still somewhere between workshop and factory. You, the owner and founder, are still involved. Business practices still flow from your original vision and ideals. Good on you.

If I decided to hire folks and go from bespoke to RTW workshop much the same scenario would play out. All my involvement, all my notions about quality, all my intensity would force conformation to some standard well short of the factory model.

Until I retired or died.

And when that happened, if the business survived at all, the chances are great...almost approaching certainty...that the new owners would not have the knowledge, depth, or commitment to continue on in the same way.

I disagree (surprise) with that premise as well. Not every owner / company (ceo, president, etc) is strictly concerned with the bottom line. There are companies that will solely compete on price. They are who you refer to.

Other companies (I like to think mine included) focus more on the quality produced for a certain price point. The CEO / President / Owner / 'head honcho' of these companies will recognize that there has to be 'value for the money' in the product. Does that mean it won't be the cheapest? Most likely. Will that stop SOME people from buying? Yes, but those are the people who will only shop on price. Are there those who ONLY shop on quality, prices be damned? Yes, but they are few and far between. Where most companies live is in the middle.

Companys tend to carve out a niche in certain quality benchmarks. Some set that bar very LOW and the price low as well. Others set the quality benchmarks very high and charge high prices accordingly. Most companies set their quality benchmarks somewhere in the middle and charge according to their quality standards / costs / etc.

Point is, once a quality level is established, MOST companies do their very best to maintain that level of quality. If they drop too low (consistently), it is VERY hard to come back (in the consumer's mind) to justify the price. Look at Jaguar... the joke about them USED to be "spends more time in the shop than the driveway". Look how long it took them to climb back from that stigma (have they altogether yet?).

As much as this next example is NOT what you're looking for, look at McDonalds. The reason they ARE successful is CONSISTENCY. It may not be quality food in your estimation (or most people), BUT, if you buy a cheeseburger in California, it will taste the same as one bought in Scotland at the local McDonalds. That's the key... setting expectations in the consumer's mind and consistently MEETING those expectations.

Also, good businesses aren't always looking to cut costs. They're also looking to improve quality either with the same cost (or less) or at most for a MINOR increase in cost, should the increase in quality justify the cost increase. This is done if for no other reason to keep up with others in the industry.

Recently, we figured out a way to line our 5 yard wool kilts relatively inexpensively, which we had not done up until now. It takes an extra 15 - 20 minutes or so of production and a few dollars in material, BUT we are not raising retail prices. We are raising the quality level, making slightly lower marjins and are happy to do so b/c we think that it's a better product than anyone else in that price point. Our view is that in the long run, we will gain reputation for the best quality at that price point. It's this type of longview that your argument neglects.

Any company 'head honcho' needs to recognize that fact, whether he started the company, is the heir to the family company or bought it outright. That's how businesses succeed... meeting and beating expectations set by the price.