Please help settle an office grammar dispute!
- Thread starter BigDannyO
- Start date
I don't think I've made up the phrase "cheaper quality"?
No, you've not made it up. But it's a phrase that makes little sense in itself. You've then split that phrase and attached the adjective "cheap" to both price and quality, which distances it further from being clear.
You're also using "quality" as both as a noun, the object of the adjective "cheaper" and as adjective, to describe your product / service.
It's difficult to read.
Last edited:
You have a right to assemble words in any order you wish, just don't necessarily expect them to make sense to anyone else.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You were wrong, cheaper in quality means nothing.
You've started by saying we can't go up against them and win. but you CAN compete with someone offering lower prices if you have better quality, you can even charge a higher price for no increase in quality but a perceived increase in quality. When you quantify a statement by first saying we can't compete, then state they are cheaper in both price and quality you are implying you can't match the cost and you can't match the quality vs price that the product offers.
IE Theirs is 25% cheaper but only 5% less good, so better value for the lower price.
If you hadn't said you can't compete first you could maybe lean towards your interpretation. It's bad grammar either way but with the opening quantifier I think it's very hard to translate the last part as they are worse quality.
If whatever you're selling costs more but is better quality, you can always compete, not for every contract, not for every sale, but you can certainly compete. The statement as a whole comes across as "they are better value, we can't compete on any meaningful metric".
You've started by saying we can't go up against them and win. but you CAN compete with someone offering lower prices if you have better quality, you can even charge a higher price for no increase in quality but a perceived increase in quality. When you quantify a statement by first saying we can't compete, then state they are cheaper in both price and quality you are implying you can't match the cost and you can't match the quality vs price that the product offers.
IE Theirs is 25% cheaper but only 5% less good, so better value for the lower price.
If you hadn't said you can't compete first you could maybe lean towards your interpretation. It's bad grammar either way but with the opening quantifier I think it's very hard to translate the last part as they are worse quality.
If whatever you're selling costs more but is better quality, you can always compete, not for every contract, not for every sale, but you can certainly compete. The statement as a whole comes across as "they are better value, we can't compete on any meaningful metric".
same
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
I would argue that cheap implies poor quality. Something that has a low price is inexpensive. Cheap things are inexpensive and low quality. Good value things are inexpensive and good quality.
I appreciate that, and agree it was a poor choice of wording. But I just can't understand why someone can read it as being the opposite of how I intended. That's the crux. I'm not being facetious, I'd genuinely like to know why!
The explanation is there. But the problem is still clarity. It is very important to focus on clarity when writing emails to clients. You can infer the meaning, sure, but wouldn't it be easier to proof read?
It's because people aren't logical entities. I think scientific studies have shown that saying "don't panic" actually causes people to panic more, they just hear the word "panic" and filter out the "don't" because they're in a state of panic at that moment.
Because it could be read :
"We can't go up against them on [price and win as they are just so much cheaper than us and] quality."
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,836
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Then it should be something like "we can't compete with them on price however the quality of our product is of a higher standard."
When you say you can't compete with them, then put in the words costs and quality. It can be interpret as that your product is not only more expensive but of lower quality.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,860
- Location
- Auckland
It's hilarious that you're more worried about your colleague's understanding of your poor word choice than your customer's.
Exactly.
So it's down to a comma and the word 'both' then.
"we can't compete because they are cheaper than us on price, and quality" means the opposite of what I wrote.
Compared to "we can't compete because they are cheaper than us, in both cost and quality"
I have no hope of winning against them. They sell products cheaper than our product costs us. We didn't pitch ourselves against the other company, my customer did and wants a price from me to beat theirs. I'm not a fan of sugar-coating the possibility of us beating them on price because we absolutely can't.[FnG]magnolia;26450073 said:
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Already been said, but the wording is poor. You can't be "cheaper in quality", so the mind rearranges the sentence to read "We can't compete with them on cost or quality", which infers that a) their product is cheaper and b) their product is higher quality.
Upon explanation, your intention is understandable but it's also easy to see why someone would take what your colleague did from it on a quick read.
Upon explanation, your intention is understandable but it's also easy to see why someone would take what your colleague did from it on a quick read.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,836
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
You need to put in an but or however to redirect it.
What you said its like 1 direction about can't compete with them and then you put costs and quality after it.
