4 ms·
There might not be any trade-off in your example. You're assuming that a solid wood piece of furniture is superior to the flatpack alternative and you can't rea
by criddell 18d ago
There might not be any trade-off in your example. You're assuming that a solid wood piece of furniture is superior to the flatpack alternative and you can't really say that without knowing what the consumer needs.
I have a little Ikea Lack table that holds my printer. I paid less than $10 for the table and I don't even think it's wood (cardboard maybe?). It's getting close to 20 years old and is in great shape.
- tonymet 18d ago"there's no aesthetic difference between this beautiful portrait and the contemporary pile of trash in the corner"
- criddell 18d agoNot sure who you are quoting... Of course there's an aesthetic difference.
- tonymet 18d agoThat’s one of the tradeoffs. And an undervalued one.
- criddell 18d agoAbsolutely. And it’s a trade off that doesn’t necessarily go against Ikea. Frankly, I think it’s one of the top reasons people choose Ikea furniture. One of the genius things Ikea did was have little staged rooms in their store. They do a great job of these and lots of them look like rooms I’d want to spend time in. You see how that various pieces can be combined into something very inviting.
- tonymet 18d agoThe subject was “you should buy quality items with longevity”. My point is that’s not a reasonable demand on consumers, or even producers, until the restrictions on creating accessible , quality items have been resolved.
- criddell 18d agoIt is an unreasonable demand. Consumers need to find items of sufficient quality and longevity that have desirable aesthetics and appropriate maintenance costs and meet all the other relevant factors. 200 years ago, you could buy a table from that guy or the other guy or make one. Today there are endless choices (including local craftspeople and DIY) and sometimes the right choice is a $10 table made from cardboard and glue.
- tonymet 17d agook