To open the D&T series, PDE tutor Craig Whittet gave a talk titled ‘files to files’ looking at the price of expensive goods compared to their longevity, heritage and design and questioning when they are and aren’t worth the price tag. As a self-professed tight arse I often struggle to justify big purchases and so definitely had some strong opinions surrounding the discussion as to which of these expensive products would be worth the money.

One example I found confusing was Vollebak and their Plant and Algae T-shirt. The main selling point of this shirt is its ability to decompose at the product's end of life, leading to a supposedly sustainable product cycle. My problem with this product wasn’t with the concept but with its marketing and price point. To sell an object promoted as a sustainable alternative to an already established norm the product must be exactly that, an alternative for the consumer. At £85 a pop, Vollebak are instead charging designer prices for this algae T-shirt. Maybe it’s the student in me, but the average price of a T-shirt in my eyes should come in around a fifth of that price, making the Plant and Algae shirt by no means an alternative, but a luxury product.

If you want to market a product as sustainable, then I think accessibility is key. To actually make a difference, multiple thousands of people need to buy into the philosophy of your product, not just the 1% of the 1%. Without this commitment to making your ‘sustainable product’ widespread and accessible, the buzzwords used in its marketing come across as more of a cash grab than a sincere attempt to make a difference.

I decided to take a look at Vollebak’s website at Vollebak.com to get a better idea as to how they presented themselves and I found myself quite amused at their homepage. The “INDESTRUCTIBLE PUFFER” stood loud and proud at the top of the site for a cheeky £1.1k (pocket change). Scrolling through the rest of the homepage the product descriptions seemed closer to clickbait YouTube video titles than selling points for a jacket:

“WE BLAST OUR TITAN PUFFER WITH LIQUID NITROGEN”

“A CARDIGAN SO WARM, WE TESTED IT IN AN INDUSTRIAL CRYOCHAMBER”

“INTELLIGENT, DISEASE RESISTANT CLOTHING”

Following Vollebak, I had similar questions with regards to ‘Gomi’ and the price tag of their product. It seemed within Craig’s presentation that their main focus as a brand was on selling the ‘made from recycled plastic’ tagline. However, looking at their website at gomi.design it seems that this use of recycled materials actually takes a relatively secondary focus when compared to their commitment to longevity in design and work against throwaway culture. This commitment to longevity is something that was reiterated throughout the talk and for me portrays a company’s sincerity far more than charging the consumer a premium because a product has a ‘progressive philosophy’.

For me, I think a product’s longevity is the main factor in deciding whether or not to buy a high end product. Don’t get me wrong, as I mentioned earlier I’m a cheapskate who loves a functional bargain. Utility is usually my first thought in this scenario, so I’ve got no issues buying a plastic kids whiteboard to pin up as a ‘to do’ list in exam season or grabbing a cheeky £15 pair of LIDL own brand trainers to destroy whilst hitchhiking and camping.

Maybe that’s why longevity is so important to me when products do come with a higher price tag. Craig performed a price breakdown for the Tricker’s shoes that showed off their true value per year as potentially comparable to the cheaper alternatives. When you think of products in this way, expensive, quality products can begin to look like bargains and maybe that’s what allows us cheapskates to rationalise breaking the bank every once in a blue moon.

Example content of comment

5th Jan