 |
| Image courtesy of http://www.linkwheeler.com |
Businesses looking to get ahead by cutting corners, shaving off quality to save money, using short cuts to get ahead, are in the same boat as those being penalized by these recent updates. For instance, it's fair to say that people who bought back links were less interested in quality, they wanted searchers to find their site through the easiest and quickest way possible. They would spend (less overall) time buying links, to get out of doing the hard work of creating them through real relationships and good content. This is the same thing as trying to save money by buying the cheapest option available and "hoping" it won't catch up with you. Well as Google has proven (like Karma) it always catches up with you. So why buy cheap? Why not just buy quality first, and not have any other problems?
Well that's a good question. Another one is what if a customer doesn't have the budget to afford quality? Depending on their application, and necessary end result, the failure to purchase quality material could end in much worse results than spending the little extra money to A) get a better quality product and B) more importantly, set up a strong, long lasting relationship w/a solid (quality minded) supplier who will always supply that necessary quality product in a timely fashion. Here's a great example that typifies a buyers behavior that is only interested in saving money: Buyer gets pricing on a products from 3 separate sources, the buyer buys from the cheapest source based only on price. Regardless of previous supplier performance, the buyer has an application that needs this material to enter a production line setting where timing of material delivery is critical. Material arrives late b/c the quality of the suppliers word doesn't equate to material delivered on time, it's late. The production line goes down, all employees on the line are sent home for the day, now costing you your entire production staffs salary for the down time, an extra $1000, $5000, or $10000. In addition, there is the lost revenue from the product not able to be sold and the material has still yet to arrive. In a situation like this, doesn't it seem like the people responsible for making buying decisions should err on the side of caution, spend a little bit more money to obtain the quality they need to get the job done right?
Seems logical, but not everyone always looks at the big picture, employees and bosses included. Today everyone is so hyper-focused on right now, they don't know if they will even have a job tomorrow, so what does it matter to them if they don't get quality, as long as they do whatever little is necessary to get their job handled as quickly as possible so they can leave when the clock strikes 5pm. This quality lacking attitude that Google penalized should be penalized in every other market, unfortunately for commerce there is no regulating "private" body that is capable of exacting such precise reform. Imagine a world where in order to participate in business you HAD to produce quality. Talk about literally making America a better place.
What could possibly be wrong w/quality? Fine, it costs too much. Well we all know the saying. You pay for what you get. Buy cheap or take short cuts and expect there to be problems w/the material, eventually. It might not happen on the first purchase or the tenth but it will happen. Here's another example, we all buy clothes from different department stores or retailers. I am sure most of us have heard of Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic. Well, they don't have 3 brands for no reason, Old Navy is based on the lowest price, Gap is second, followed by their top tier Banana Republic. Buy something at old Navy and it will last 1 season, maybe 2. Gap is better for sure, the clothing might last for 3 - 4 seasons but Banana carries the torch here. Their clothing, obviously the most expensive, lasts the longest. I still own a pair of cords that have to be over 10 years old and you know what, they fit great and have lasted forever. I am not saying everyone should look to buy 1 pair of pants every decade...that's just plain silly. What I am saying is that opposed to buying a pair of pants every year for $40 and getting 2 years out of them b/c they are of less quality, why not buy a pair for $70 and have them last for 5 - 6 years. Your 3 pairs at $40 costs almost 2x as much as if quality had been purchased in the first place. So the cost savings incurred is mis-guided only by the lack of the buyers foresight.
This is the flawed thinking of buying on price, or trying to take short cuts. If you are in business to make money it's not recommended to buy cheap. It will only make the pain that much worse when it doesn't work out and you have to make another purchase to compensate for the poor quality of the previous purchase. We should all take a page from Google here regarding quality. Produce it, sell it, market it, be quality, embrace quality, if you do this, business is sure to follow. There are reasons why there are different stores for different people and not everyone CAN buy the best all the time but if your goal is to create a sound business it is advised to create one through a quality offering of products and services, not a short cut to make money quick. America is a great place where if you work hard you have the opportunity to succeed and move up the ladder, but the opposite holds true as well. What do you prefer? How do you run your business? Do you find justification for less quality? Let us know below and please comment.
Michlin Metals is a Woman Owned Small Business Aerospace Metal and Stainless Steel Distributor. Follow Michlin on Twitter @MichlinMetals, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+ or on the Web atwww.michlinmetals.com. More on the author on Google+.
No comments:
Post a Comment