Cost vs Quality

So this is what I've got back home, one and only left on the shelve and thought I was lucky. Fuck. It was a broken squeezer. Look at the chipped stand and base.

Stand                             Base                                Full Picture

I don't mind if it was chipped at the stand, it's RM5 worth only anyways, but I cannot accept the fact of broken base, simple reason, it will rocking when you squeeze. FUCK right?

Well, I can always go back to do the exchange right? QUESTION 1. " It's RM5 worth of good, considering the petrol, parking and time you spend, does it worth the effort to go for a change in the first palce? QUESTION 2. You need to change at the stipulated time, does it worth to fork out the time amid your busy schedule? 

Other than the squeezer, I also got another defect good from Daiso, The Curve. It's lever type sucker hook where suppose to be strong hold using air-vacuum technique, it works by pulling the hook upward, press the rubberise plate against the wall. The problem is the lever can't be pulled at all. Do I want to go all the way to Daiso to have this exchanged? Fuck.

Anyways, this entry is not mere defects but overall Cost vs Quality experience we faced day-to-day. 

Low cost goods retailer should understand COST is insignificant for consumer but TIME, Quality Control should be first and foremost priority in their business conduct. Essentially, this is a lucrative business per se, how much do you spend each time? Phychologically, you tend to spend more as you already 'invested' time and resources to be there. So looking the at the rate of spending instead of cost per item,

'SHOULD I BE COMPROMISING THE QUALITY COMMENSURATE WITH THE COST?'

 

Yes to certain extend, we pay a premium cost for quality services and goods. No debates. BUT,  definitely not DAISO. It's cost averaging business, what we get is basically more or less the value of the goods. PLUS, we pay for a functional goods NOT DEFECT!!! So the answer is:

YES, I SHOULD BE COMPROMISING THE QUALITY COMMENSURATE WITH THE COST BUT NOT DEFECTS.

What are my other experiences? Dental clinic, one of the cheapest braces treatment I can find in town. Lots of students engaged his dental consultation, my experience was awful -

1. He gave minimum-non and misleading consultation for the first time because he was rushing for next appointment. 2. They closed anytime without notification (imagine braces problem like string got detached, broken), I got to endure the uncomfortability till it open. 3. Only one dentist in the clinic resulted shutting down in the event dentist went away. 4. Rush visitation, minimum-non advisory or consultation. 5. Braces treatment got prolonged due to the min planning (braces) yet don't work, however he kept trying than look for other means, resulted procastination.

Is this incident, other than goods quality (technique/technology which I agreed) should we also compromise total service render? To me, this is no longer pure service level but Business Ethical issue, at least item 2 applied which illustrate the business ethical spirit they uphold. Many 'businessman' abuse the low cost business offerings, not only quality BUT unprofessionally conducted.

YES, I SHOULD BE COMPROMISING THE QUALITY COMMENSURATE WITH THE COST BUT NOT WITHOUT BUSINESS ETHIC.

Any other complaints? Yes there are plenty. Essentially, we just have to live with it patiently until national consumer rights tribunal were formed 'ethically'. Again, do you want to sour the relationship especially you're still under their care treatment? Yes, we got to succumb to low Business Ethical services, sometime.