Please help settle an office grammar dispute!

I would read it as you intended, they are cheaper on cost, and the quality is not as good as your product.

But it's a dicey word to be using in business, I've seen people get hauled over hot coals for inferring a competitor product was better. Just hope your colleague doesn't hate you. :p
 
BigDannyO said:
The back story was I was sending a quote that would have been more expensive than a competitor.

Has no one else heard of describing things as cheap quality before?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it still makes little sense.

Something like this would be better:

""We can't go up against them on price and win as their products are so much cheaper than ours (although lower in quality)."
 
Skidder said:
it's not about grammar, it's about poor word choice
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I agree it could be worded better.

But I can't see how it can read that I meant the cost was cheaper but the quality is better. I'm not being facetious, I just can't see it! :p

Please can someone breakdown the sentence to show why? I'm lost here. :confused:
 
BigDannyO said:
The back story was I was sending a quote that would have been more expensive than a competitor.

Has no one else heard of describing things as cheap quality before?
Click to expand...

It's not always about price, what else do you bring to the table that the cheaper quote wouldn't.

I've won numerous sales contracts in my old job that were more expensive than a competitor because we bought more to the table.

Have faith in your product, and if you've pitched it properly and explained all the benefits it's up to the client to pick the supplier that will offer the best package. Don't be afraid of being higher.
 
Jono8 said:
Yes, but it still makes little sense.

Something like this would be better:

""We can't go up against them on price and win as their products are so much cheaper than ours (although lower in quality)."
Click to expand...

That doesn't read well at all, it seems like you are saying your products are overpriced, and then you are trying to justify it by claiming their products are lower quality. The focus of the sentence is on the fact that the products are cheaper, it should be all encompassing.
 
Haggisman said:
Also, what on earth is "MAX FONT"? I've had a look in Outlook, and it doesn't appear to exist...
Click to expand...

Our emails are hosted through Google Apps, so use their front end. My mistake it's actually called "Huge". :p

anticonscience said:
It's not always about price, what else do you bring to the table that the cheaper quote wouldn't.

I've won numerous sales contracts in my old job that were more expensive than a competitor because we bought more to the table.

Have faith in your product, and if you've pitched it properly and explained all the benefits it's up to the client to pick the supplier that will offer the best package. Don't be afraid of being higher.
Click to expand...

I had already sent them a previous quote, they were comparing it to a competitor and asking for more money off to compete. I was explaining why we couldn't compete on price alone.
 
Acme said:
That doesn't read well at all, it seems like you are saying your products are overpriced, and then you are trying to justify it by claiming their products are lower quality. The focus of the sentence is on the fact that the products are cheaper, it should be all encompassing.
Click to expand...

I know, but I was just trying to modify his original sentence so it at least made some sort of sense.
 
B but cheaper in quality is tenuous and only really acceptable in a jokey context, imho work emails should be instantly understandable by all readers and not jokey unless the recipient is likely to get the humour.
 
Maccy said:
It's not very clear tbh, it states that your competition is cheaper than you in cost and quality. How can you be 'cheaper in quality'?
Click to expand...

In response to this, I'd say you can be cheaper in quality in the sense of the materials and feel of the product, as in (this will not go down well) Samsung Mobile phones vs Apple Mobile Phones (you lot decide which one is which).

BigDannyO said:
I had already sent them a previous quote, they were comparing it to a competitor and asking for more money off to compete. I was explaining why we couldn't compete on price alone.
Click to expand...

I just realised something, I can't believe you sent:

"We can't go up against them on price and win as they are just so much cheaper than us, in both cost and quality."

to a client in response to price negotiations..
 
Last edited:
Well, you did say quality….

I read it as you can't compete with them on price and quality. So I would interpret it as your product is more costly and of a lower quality.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Well, you did say quality….

I read it as you can't compete with them on price and quality. So I would interpret it as your product is more costly and of a lower quality.
Click to expand...

But this is what I don't understand. If I say they are "cheaper, in both cost and quality", why does that mean that their quality is better?
 
While it makes sense, it is ambiguous. As a salesperson I would have avoided the opening statement being "we cant go up against them and win" though, and would have prefaced it with " because their products are of a cheaper build, we can't offer a similar price, but we can offer you better value".
 
OP, are you basically just trying to say that you can't beat your competitor on price because their product is of a lower quality? If so, just say that...
 
Aye, language is about communication. Business emails of this nature should be clear and unless intentional, not ambiguous.

"Cheap quality" is a phrase clumsy at best. Quality is subjective, price is objective. To attempt to use an adjective more suited to the objective "price" simply by listing the subjective term "quality" directly afterwards isn't really clear.

Would be better to split the list and use two different adjectives, or just the terms on their own. Either; "We can't go up against them on price and win as they are just so much cheaper than us. Whilst we are better quality.", or better "Whilst we offer better quality, we can't compete on price due to the cost delivering that quality involves.".

The second sentence uses the subjective "quality" to assert the reason for the higher price, both explaining why it's more expensive and lending credence to the subjective.

Anyway. I had to re-read your sentence 3 or 4 times before I properly understood what you were trying to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom