What makes a thing seem pricey might have little to do with the actual thing.

I write a lot about value on this site (I almost said channel then). What has the most value, how can it scale, how to charge for it, etc. While it's something I'm growing increasingly more familiar with in the design and consulting space, the value of products is something I still can't fully wrap my head around.

I should say up front, however, that I have zero marketing know-how.

That said, a strong sense of marketing is something all Industrial Designers should have. That's a topic I want to dive deeper into another time. I'm certainly starting to wrap my head around it, given how it applies to my work, but I accept that I'll never be a marketing savant (though, never say never?).

This matters because as well as my design work, my other hobby has been designing and producing a small MTB multitool for sale. It's close; I have a first batch ready to go, but now I'm up to the bit where I need to start marketing and selling them.

Part of that is figuring out how much I can charge for it.

Which is why when Seth from the Berm Peak YouTube channel puts out a new 'cool gadgets' video, I usually watch with interest what enterprising inventor-cyclists have dreamed up, what they do, and how much they charge.

But Seth's video on weird and unique products a couple of weeks ago made me question whatever I thought I knew.

In one breath he talks about the Amphibian, an adaptor to convert a single bottle cage mount into a double cage mount. It's a 3D printed part, and costs $30 ($28 on the website without zip ties). All good so far.

Then in the next breath Seth shows off the Park Tool stubby bit driver and complains $27 is steep for a "lump of metal".

Lump Things

I have nothing against Seth, I've enjoyed his content since he was Seth's Bike Hacks. I'm just using his video as a point of observation.

With my design hat on I consider the little bit driver to have a lot more inherent value. Getting things machined from solid lumps of aluminium isn't that cheap. It's knurled, broached, very nicely finished (likely straight off the machine), anodized, and laser marked. It has a magnet assembled into it, and is likely available through a wide distributer network. And as Seth says, it'll probably last forever.

Conversely, the Amphibian is 3D printed in someone's home (Luke's specifically) with [likely] consumer filament on a consumer printer.

Why is $30 for a lump of plastic ok, but $27 for a lump of metal not ok?

To be clear, I'm not saying either is good or bad value. They are what they are, and the perceived value will be different from person to person. I've learnt that the value of things has little to do with how it's made, and what it's made from.

Intangible Things

I'm under no illusions that beyond a certain point the value of things continues to remain connected to what the product does, or how it's made. After all, Rose Anvil eviscerates (literally) the Golden Goose sneakers for being the closest thing to junk (and not because they look worn), and yet they're nearly AU$900 a pair.

While fashion footwear is a poor yardstick for value, the Golden Goose example feels to me like the ultimate disconnect between what you're buying from an ideological perspective, and what you're physically buying.

Going back to the Park Tool vs Amphibian example, this still doesn't help me make sense of the value dysphoria. Park Tool does have a reputation as a reliable brand that produces quality products. Though the premium attached to their prices is in a get-what-you-pay-for kind of way, as opposed to an Abbey Tools very-expensive-and-not-everyone kind of way. Surely the branding should make up the perceived value gap?

Reading between the lines, Seth goes on to compare the Park Tool tool to the equivalent 3D printed units that he's used previously. Parts that can be printed at home for a few cents, or are relatively cheap to buy as a set. It's quite possible the little printed plastic knobs work perfectly fine for their intended use*, which perhaps makes the Park Tool unit look like even more of an extravagance.

* As an aside, on a mountain bike I've literally only ever seen these stubby tools used for bottle cages. And bottle cages are usually set-and-forget.

So if the bit driver doesn't seem like good value, from where does the Amphibian derive it's value? It's certainly not in it's branding, materials, or durability. Is it because it is more novel? Because it has taken 3 years to develop? Or because it is made locally?

Some time ago I wrote about how, if we want to bring manufacturing back on-shore we need to be clever about how we manufacture goods locally, but more importantly we need to "retrain" society to pay more for things in general. If the video is any measure at all (unlikely), it at least gives me hope that there is a market for small-batch, cottage industry products that can be produced and sold in a way that is financially sustainable.

What Is The Value Of Things?

I'm not going to go down the branding philosophy rabbit-hole. I've already stated how little I know on the subject, and I do enough design philosophy rabbit-holing as it is. I'm curious how two specific products within a specific niche, both purchased with a heavy bias towards functionality, are perceived so differently.

It is, nonetheless, a good reminder that no matter how extraordinary your product design is, you're not guaranteed any kind of success in the market. As much as the product must be designed to your exacting standards, so too must the image, story, and ethos be designed to match. If you want to see how this is done, look at Golden Goose.

The value of things is what you make it.