How do we establish a cost-benefit analysis for clothes?

[holymadness]

Or any items, for that matter. This is a theoretical discussion that came up in a conversation I was having with someone else about cigars, but it's applicable to MC.

When we say, for example, that Cheney or Tricker's offers a good product for the price, what do we mean exactly?

It's implied that the object is inferior to a more expensive one, but that the level of quality is acceptable given what you paid for it. It's also superior to a lower-quality product which is as or even more expensive. How is this judged? Is it:

1) Relative to the price/quality ratio of the products to which we're implicitly comparing it? For example, if I can get EG shoes for $500, does a $250 pair of shoes have to be at least half as well-made to compare favourably? Does it have to be more than half as well-made to be a good deal as opposed to just a fair deal?

2) Relative to objective standards of construction, aesthetics, etc? For instance, is there a basic checklist of features a certain product must have before it can be considered a quality product, thus the product which fulfills the greatest number of these conditions for the least amount of money represents the best value? To reuse the shoe example, such a checklist might include goodyear welting, calf leather, non-crooked stitching, etc.

3) Purely subjective, based at once on the needs/wants of the buyer and his financial means? Is a 'good deal' different for each individual?

 

[arc]

It's too hard to perform any kind of proper cost/benefit analysis on shoes or clothing, because a great deal of the benefit of owning nice clothes is intangible. There are too many subtle benefits. Did the ever so slight confidence or appearance boost lead toward your new job or promotion? That perhaps has quantifiable financial benefits. What about if it helped you seduce the woman you would later marry, then not so much. Or even more nebulous, how do you quantify the subtle joy of dressing well, or enjoying a beautiful item? These intangibles are likely a small part of the value of an item -- or a very small factor when comparing the difference between two similar items -- but at what point are you willing to compromise on these fringe benefits? This is hard to decide, because it is nearly impossible to measure. More simply, I think that when people say something is "good for the price" they are saying that by their standards (whatever they may be) there are few other options that they would prefer within the scope of that price bracket. On MC those standards are usually some hash of longevity/durability, form, function, and (let's be honest) SF groupthink and confirmation bias or justification of past purchases. Each of us weights these quite differently.

 

[deveandepot1]

Originally Posted by arc

It's too hard to perform any kind of proper cost/benefit analysis on shoes or clothing, because a great deal of the benefit of owning nice clothes is intangible. There are too many subtle benefits.

+1

 

[celery]

There is only one value which needs to be measured . . . what do people on styleforvm think?

 

[Blackhood]

Cost per Wear. Estimate the amount of wear you'll get, divide that by price and you're sorted.

EG:
Suits
twice a week for 40 weeks for 2 years = 160 wears. £500 = £3.12 per wear. Would I rent my suit for £3.12 a day? If so the cost is worth it.

Denims
3 times a week for 48 weeks for 2 years = 288 wears. £250 = £0.86 per wear. Would I rent my jeans for 86p a day? Damn straight I would.

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by arc

It's too hard to perform any kind of proper cost/benefit analysis on shoes or clothing, because a great deal of the benefit of owning nice clothes is intangible. There are too many subtle benefits.

Did the ever so slight confidence or appearance boost lead toward your new job or promotion? That perhaps has quantifiable financial benefits. What about if it helped you seduce the woman you would later marry, then not so much. Or even more nebulous, how do you quantify the subtle joy of dressing well, or enjoying a beautiful item? These intangibles are likely a small part of the value of an item -- or a very small factor when comparing the difference between two similar items -- but at what point are you willing to compromise on these fringe benefits? This is hard to decide, because it is nearly impossible to measure.

More simply, I think that when people say something is "good for the price" they are saying that by their standards (whatever they may be) there are few other options that they would prefer within the scope of that price bracket.

On MC those standards are usually some hash of longevity/durability, form, function, and (let's be honest) SF groupthink and confirmation bias or justification of past purchases. Each of us weights these quite differently.
Hmm I wasn't thinking of 'returns' in the sense that your clothes might help you get a job or get laid, but I suppose that's a factor.

However, I agree with the commentary about intangible, "psychic" benefits. That being said, I'm inclined to believe these are reducible to things like the originality/uniqueness of the garment, the quality of craftsmanship, whether it flatters my physique, etc. In a sense, these are all objective criteria, if difficult to measure.

Originally Posted by Blackhood

Cost per Wear. Estimate the amount of wear you'll get, divide that by price and you're sorted.

EG:
Suits
twice a week for 40 weeks for 2 years = 160 wears. £500 = £3.12 per wear. Would I rent my suit for £3.12 a day? If so the cost is worth it.

Denims
3 times a week for 48 weeks for 2 years = 288 wears. £250 = £0.86 per wear. Would I rent my jeans for 86p a day? Damn straight I would.
This is sort of brilliant.

Doesn't really work for comestibles, though.

How do I know if my wine is a good buy?

 

[MetroStyles]

The cost is the price.

The benefit is how owning the suit makes you feel.

There is generally minimal "real" benefit to having any nice clothing, with certain exceptions (like having the minimum number of decent suits for work, etc.).

It's like asking for a cost-benefit analysis of a girlfriend. Are you really gonna break it down by how many times you get laid and how close you get emotionally vs. how much you spend? It's too qualitative to quantify.

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

The cost is the price.

The benefit is how owning the suit makes you feel.

There is generally minimal "real" benefit to having any nice clothing, with certain exceptions (like having the minimum number of decent suits for work, etc.).

It's like asking for a cost-benefit analysis of a girlfriend. Are you really gonna break it down by how many times you get laid and how close you get emotionally vs. how much you spend? It's too qualitative to quantify.
To parse this a bit, you're more or less saying that RoI is relative to criteria you set yourself. If pattern-matching on checked jackets is essential to you, you won't be happy unless your checked jackets have pattern matching. If you don't even know what pattern matching is, it becomes immaterial and there's no point paying extra for it.

So basically, a way to maximize wardrobe value is to know as little as possible about clothing, which would allow you to buy the cheapest Zara/H&M suits that look good on you and make you feel cool. In fact, we see people like this on the street every day.

While I can see the ways in which this could be true, I have ethical problems with basing my satisfaction on ignorance. Let's say you love your wife and are very happy with her, but she cheats on you behind your back. Knowing that would affect how you feel about her. Is it "right" that this person is happy in his relationship? Another example: the line cook at McDonald's spits in your burger, which you find delicious anyway. Don't we feel like something's wrong in both of these situations which needs to be rectified?

Or maybe you meant that satisfaction is based on the importance we attach to things. If you're fully aware that for $50 more you can get a jacket with pattern matching but just don't care, then I can see where you're coming from.

However, the subjective side of things ignores the qualitative side that Blackhood brought up: durability, longevity, etc.

 

[MetroStyles]

Yeah but honestly the markups are not worth it just for the durability. It would be cheaper to buy a new suit every 3 years that costs 1/4 of the price. Also, it would be less risky.

IMHO, splurging on clothing is just that - splurging. It almost always has a negative economic return. I have no problem with splurging because I don't really view everything in my life through an economic lens. I care more about how I feel than if I am making the right economic decision. In the end that's all that matters.

But I definitely do not have pretenses that my nice suits are benefiting me in any real way except that I feel great about myself when I wear them.

 

[Nicola]

The last 5% of quality is always going to cost you the most.

If you are worried about value then buying the best rarely makes sense.

OTOH value is often not simple. People here like to discount the value of a label. But for many the right label has value.

Durabilty is a non issue if you can afford it. If you can afford 2K shoes you can afford enough pairs that even if they don't last longer then $500 shoes you won't care.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Originally Posted by holymadness

To parse this a bit, you're more or less saying that RoI is relative to criteria you set yourself. If pattern-matching on checked jackets is essential to you, you won't be happy unless your checked jackets have pattern matching. If you don't even know what pattern matching is, it becomes immaterial and there's no point paying extra for it.

So basically, a way to maximize wardrobe value is to know as little as possible about clothing, which would allow you to buy the cheapest Zara/H&M suits that look good on you and make you feel cool. In fact, we see people like this on the street every day.

While I can see the ways in which this could be true, I have ethical problems with basing my satisfaction on ignorance.

Or maybe you meant that satisfaction is based on the importance we attach to things. If you're fully aware that for $50 more you can get a jacket with pattern matching but just don't care, then I can see where you're coming from.

However, the subjective side of things ignores the qualitative side that Blackhood brought up: durability, longevity, etc.

I have often thought about this myself. The more I learn about clothes the more neurotic I become and I confuse quality with things that are just plain more desireable because of labor and such.

There are a lot of things out there that you may desire in garments that don't say anything about the quality so they won't provide you with additional "longevity", however the "benefit" could just be in simple utility, or "happiness" that it gives you. Everybody's utility is different and ultimately we all have our own equalibrium between price and utility ("happiness"). So is the discussion on tangible quality, or longevity, or is it on satisfaction? Obviously the more you have the longer each item will last if rotated, however there will be a point of diminshing marginal "quality", or "longevity" as n approaches infinity, where you are spending more than you will get out of each item because, well you will eventually die.

 

[koolhistorian]

A. Social convention says that you cannot go outside of your house naked - so you need clothes! On the other hand, if you are not living on a Pacific tropical island, you will need a form of clothing to protect you from the elements, sun included!
B. Quality wise I think that after a certain price you are paying the label, rather than quality, or the amount of exotic materials (or labor) included in that product - e.g. I do not think that a pair of Edward Green are 2 times better than a pair of C&J or Tricker's, or a pair of St. Crispin's 4 times more. The same goes with some of the high-end RTW - MTM brands like Kiton, Isaia, Brioni, etc. - you pay some exotic options - cachemere, suoer 3000, special order for, Russian calf from a XVIII century sunken ship, etc. Can you live without that, probably you can, so you go into the good quality, good price!
C. With bespoke tailoring it is another cup of tea. You pay the fact that is a unique product, designed and executed for you only, plus the trade secrets of the house (in fact ultra specialized workforce training)! Apply that model in any other business, and you will see that you have a better position to impose a higher price, if you have the market.
You will look better and feel better in a bespoke garment, period. Price wise (I am blessed to live in a country that still has very affordable master - tailors, one of the few advantages in Romania) it is a matter of choice and option - you can go W.W. Chan, you can go Rubinacci, Sciamat, or Anderson and Sheppard. Every option will be a compromise, including in price! Would that put you outside the "usual pack", yes! Would have immediate financial return, don't think! It is very up to you to consider that!
My to euro cents.

 

[redzapper]

Jeez gents.

Perhaps you'd like to see if we can properly specify and run an econometric model here using all SF members as data points.

 

[gdl203]

3)

 

[Flieger]

We need a Normalien to chime in.